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  
•       •       •

33143 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 11:11:49 AM

Farkomatic: Just out of curiosity - America is flooded with guns. And people have their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness revoked by some douchebag shooting them. But it's pretty tough to get a hand grenade and the general public isn't being terrorized with hand grenades.

Taking the second amendment into account, why don't I have access to hand grenades the same as almost any gun I want? Almost every argument that can be made for the individual right to bear arms can be made for hand grenades. Should we be allowed more access to hand grenades? Would more hand grenades make us safer?

Just asking the question...seems the restriction on hand grenades works better than more guns.


A hand grenade is not a firearm under any definition. It also has little to no individual defensive use. Nor would it's legality lend itself to popular use for defense. So if you want grenades, gonna need to change the laws.
 
2013-01-01 11:12:27 AM
I guess two people getting killed is technically "multiple people killed".

So why is this newsworthy again?
 
2013-01-01 11:14:10 AM
"Multiple people?" The article said two. Nice hyperbole trying for sensationalism.
 
2013-01-01 11:14:30 AM

zcat: I guess two people getting killed is technically "multiple people killed".

So why is this newsworthy again?


Mass shooting paranoia = ratings.
 
2013-01-01 11:15:37 AM

unfarkingbelievable: "Multiple people?" The article said two. Nice hyperbole trying for sensationalism.


In subby's defense, he said he was on-site. Might be hard to tell just how many in a situation like that.
 
2013-01-01 11:16:30 AM
So subby was in the bar or in the same town?
 
2013-01-01 11:18:22 AM

Popcorn Johnny: So subby was in the bar or in the same town?


He had a view of the airport.
 
2013-01-01 11:18:29 AM

Popcorn Johnny: So subby was in the bar or in the same town?


Subby probably sold him a bag with a bad count and started this whole thing.
 
2013-01-01 11:19:53 AM
You can't argue with a gun nut any more than you can argue with a Southern Baptist about his sky fairy.

Restrictions on gun types are going to get bargained away to ineffectiveness like the previous AWB

After much thinking and debate over the last week, I am certain that licensing and training gun owners and registering guns like we do with cars is the right way forward. It would prevent at least half of the gun murders and accidents in the USA, by keeping guns out of the hands of a lot of idiots like George Zimmerman, Tyrirk Harris and Nancy Lanza who should not have them.

There is a lot of subtlety to the above ...

1. If we were to simply ban guns, we fuel an illegal market like the proverbial War on Drugs(tm). If we have a regulated legal market, we take the financial energy out of the black market and can keep guns away from a meaningful number of irresponsible and dangerous people. Most middle and high school children in the USA can readily obtain marijuana and often hard drugs, but not tobacco or alcohol.

2. It's pretty hard for the gun nuts to argue that their rights are being infringed without looking as stupid as the people arguing for the right to DUI. I have to register, tax, insure and annually present for inspection my motor vehicles. It's not an infringement on my constitutional right to travel; like taxes, it's a cost of having an orderly and pleasant society, and one that I actively encourage, as it ensures that other car owners are required to be at least partially as responsible as I am.

3. It's a "genius of the and" solution that establishes meaningful and effective gun control that will save thousands of lives per year, while not obstructing anyone who wants to own firearms for lawful purposes and use them responsibly. Politics is the art of the possible, and any solution has to be palatable to the saner folks on the right.

4. Registering and tracking guns by serial number, and having their possession regularly confirmed, is the ONLY way to close the so-called "gun show loophole" and make it stick. A number of gun owners have argued that they would voluntarily use NCIS if they had access to it, and that alone should be sufficient. No, it won't work ... responsible gun owners are NOT the problem in the first place. I'm sure every straw buyer in the USA will jump at the chance to background check their customers (rolls eyes)

5. Setting a barrier to entry for owning a gun (mandatory written and handling proficiency test in gun safety, c.f. driving tests) will discourage someone who might otherwise casually have a Sat night special in the nightstand drawer. These are the people who have no hope of using a gun defensively if woken at 3am by an intruder, and who are actually safer without one. Less casual guns, less murders of passion, less accidents.

6. Forcing Dale Gribbles to get some proper gun safety training will actually be a positive thing. Some of them will become less gun nutty, some of them will learn things that will save their kids' or neighbours' lives one day.

7. If the processes are designed correctly and with 21st century convenience, e.g. a federal website where two license holders can report a private gun sale, any FFL or licensed range is automatically licensed to do your annual inspections and record it, should take less than 2 minutes per gun and for a fee capped at $5 per gun or less. I would expect gun enthusiasts to receive the service free from a local range where they are regular customers.
 
2013-01-01 11:20:56 AM

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

Waiting for the gun experts to come in and argue over what a Glock really sounds like.

sounds exactly how its spelled. Any other questions?


Gotta dig the assonance.
 
2013-01-01 11:21:04 AM

OregonVet: Infernalist: And while I'm having fun punching holes in ideas and playing theoretical games with people, I need to get back to the serious business of finding something to eat before company gets here.
Try not to kill anyone, you lovable gun nuts.
In other words your girlfriend is tired of telling you what to type.


And we all know that women never say anything worth listening to. Too bad you can't just shoot 'em, hey? You macho world would just work so much better without people like them.
 
2013-01-01 11:22:49 AM
Seriously? We couldn't wait a goddamned week? This is why we need regulations on guns. And cars. And just about anything more deadly than a spoon. And I don't trust half of you with the spoon, either.
 
2013-01-01 11:22:58 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.


Actually, I am in favor of legalized drugs (all) because I believe in the taxation of luxuries. We make money from guns.
When you legalize and tax things, You destroy the black market and add money to the governments coffers. Money which can be used to fight against an unwanted behavior and treat the worst offenders. Money is needed to fix the ills of society.

Where you have a black market you must still spend to do the above, but it also costs money to fight the market. You make nothing from its operations but criminals make plenty. This leads to violence, organized crime, and wars. Wars lead to orphans and broken homes, which beget more violence. The money must come from somewhere to fight the war, and this leads to failing infrastructure and poverty and unrest and yet more violence.
It's a spiraling loop of fail.
But you already know this if you've ever sipped alcohol. Prohibition never worked before.

Things don't create or prevent bad behavior. People do. The US government is, historically, very bad about how it treats people.
You look at the current balance of power and wonder why it is so violent. I look at and realize the balance is why things haven't gotten far worse.

We've got more gun law than we need. What we need is a plan to address the problem of violence which is driven by an existing black market, not a new eleven billion dollar black market to fight.

You want to get rid of guns? Get rid of the factors that drive violence first.
If you don't know how to do that then don't tamper with the existing system, because I don't see a benefit to not being shot if it improves my chances of being robbed and stabbed.
 
2013-01-01 11:24:49 AM
"Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop," one witness said. "It sounded like a Glock."

HA ha ha. Dumbass.

Gun free zone?

Good thing there was an armed security guard there to put a stop to it or it might have been worse. Too bad they can't do something like that in schools to try to stop the crazy farks.

Oh wait, this is Fark...

Seriously though, those damned inanimate objects called guns need to stop killing people. They are giving criminals and the mentally ill a bad name.
 
2013-01-01 11:28:19 AM

Farkomatic: Just out of curiosity - America is flooded with guns. And people have their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness revoked by some douchebag shooting them. But it's pretty tough to get a hand grenade and the general public isn't being terrorized with hand grenades.

Taking the second amendment into account, why don't I have access to hand grenades the same as almost any gun I want? Almost every argument that can be made for the individual right to bear arms can be made for hand grenades. Should we be allowed more access to hand grenades? Would more hand grenades make us safer?

Just asking the question...seems the restriction on hand grenades works better than more guns.


Grenades aren't firearms
 
2013-01-01 11:28:21 AM

ParaHandy: You can't argue with a gun nut any more than you can argue with a Southern Baptist about his sky fairy.

Restrictions on gun types are going to get bargained away to ineffectiveness like the previous AWB

After much thinking and debate over the last week, I am certain that licensing and training gun owners and registering guns like we do with cars is the right way forward. It would prevent at least half of the gun murders and accidents in the USA, by keeping guns out of the hands of a lot of idiots like George Zimmerman, Tyrirk Harris and Nancy Lanza who should not have them.

There is a lot of subtlety to the above ...

1. If we were to simply ban guns, we fuel an illegal market like the proverbial War on Drugs(tm). If we have a regulated legal market, we take the financial energy out of the black market and can keep guns away from a meaningful number of irresponsible and dangerous people. Most middle and high school children in the USA can readily obtain marijuana and often hard drugs, but not tobacco or alcohol.

2. It's pretty hard for the gun nuts to argue that their rights are being infringed without looking as stupid as the people arguing for the right to DUI. I have to register, tax, insure and annually present for inspection my motor vehicles. It's not an infringement on my constitutional right to travel; like taxes, it's a cost of having an orderly and pleasant society, and one that I actively encourage, as it ensures that other car owners are required to be at least partially as responsible as I am.

3. It's a "genius of the and" solution that establishes meaningful and effective gun control that will save thousands of lives per year, while not obstructing anyone who wants to own firearms for lawful purposes and use them responsibly. Politics is the art of the possible, and any solution has to be palatable to the saner folks on the right.

4. Registering and tracking guns by serial number, and having their possession regularly confirmed, is the ONLY way to close the so-called "gun show loophole" and make it stick. A number of gun owners have argued that they would voluntarily use NCIS if they had access to it, and that alone should be sufficient. No, it won't work ... responsible gun owners are NOT the problem in the first place. I'm sure every straw buyer in the USA will jump at the chance to background check their customers (rolls eyes)

5. Setting a barrier to entry for owning a gun (mandatory written and handling proficiency test in gun safety, c.f. driving tests) will discourage someone who might otherwise casually have a Sat night special in the nightstand drawer. These are the people who have no hope of using a gun defensively if woken at 3am by an intruder, and who are actually safer without one. Less casual guns, less murders of passion, less accidents.

6. Forcing Dale Gribbles to get some proper gun safety training will actually be a positive thing. Some of them will become less gun nutty, some of them will learn things that will save their kids' or neighbours' lives one day.

7. If the processes are designed correctly and with 21st century convenience, e.g. a federal website where two license holders can report a private gun sale, any FFL or licensed range is automatically licensed to do your annual inspections and record it, should take less than 2 minutes per gun and for a fee capped at $5 per gun or less. I would expect gun enthusiasts to receive the service free from a local range where they are regular customers.


Elections are expensive, let's tax voting. Let's also require an intelligence test before doing that, since ignorant voting causes a lot of harm.
 
2013-01-01 11:32:31 AM
ParaHandy It's pretty hard for the gun nuts to argue that their rights are being infringed without looking as stupid as the people arguing for the right to DUI.

False Equivalence. There is no Right to Drive Drunk in the bill of rights. Nobody except hard-core leftish hoplophobes has any sort of moral indignation about gun ownership per se.

And this is why you people fail to advance your argument so spectacularly.
 
2013-01-01 11:33:48 AM
Since they had to cancel the midnight fireworks show here in Sacramento, we got a 'sound show' around 8 AM this morning when, for apparent safety reasons, they launched the already loaded fireworks.

/ Reminded me of the Roseville rail yard bomb explosions in the 70's.
 
2013-01-01 11:34:45 AM

Aeonite: ciberido: Aeonite: This is what happens when you take God out of fireworks displays.

[kunochan.com image 450x338]

What does God need with fireworks displays?

/Stay safe, subby.

Genesis 19:24


I thought God used Predator drones for that now.
 
2013-01-01 11:35:09 AM

ParaHandy: It's not an infringement on my constitutional right to travel;


Uh, what you talking 'bout, Willis?
 
2013-01-01 11:36:20 AM

ParaHandy: You can't argue with a gun nut any more than you can argue with a Southern Baptist about his sky fairy.


There's a Venn diagram just waiting to be drawn here....
 
2013-01-01 11:36:49 AM

BadReligion: Gosling: And this is the anti-gun argument in a nutshell. The law-abiding gun owners may vastly outnumber the nuts, but there are enough nuts out there to ruin it for everyone.

And those nuts will still get guns, no matter what laws are put into place. The only people hampered by banning guns are law abiding citizens. There are 300 million+ guns in the US right now, there will be no way to get them all off the streets. There are already background checks required to buy a gun. Trying to outright ban guns will not work, especially in this country which owes its existence to citizens owning guns.


No, there are not, and it's a large part of the problem.
 
2013-01-01 11:40:13 AM

BadReligion: some_beer_drinker: is dick clark ok?

I'm afraid...I have some bad news. You may want to sit down.


He's just having his fluids replaced and a few bolts tightened.  He'll be back next year as a "hologram."
 
2013-01-01 11:40:57 AM
How 'bout convict the wrongdoer, let him sit in a cell 24/7 and think of nothing but what he did wrong, feed him a subsistence diet and see how he behaves if and when he gets out. Or, give him all the comforts of home - give them to him - including things hard-working law-abiding citizens can't afford for themselves - treat him better than many Americans can afford to treat themselves, and do it by redistributing wealth - spend a ton of money and risk lives to let him interact with others and plot and wreak havoc such as he can, and see which way is better. I say let these people rot until they are willing to behave and see if you still need to take away everybody's privileges because of the actions of the relatively few. Dammit America, get your head out of your ass.
 
2013-01-01 11:41:03 AM

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.


tucsoncitizen.com
 
2013-01-01 11:42:09 AM

echo5juliet: Horrible way to spend New Years. Be safe.

Ban guns.. Ban guns.. RAH Polly want a cracker? So when we ban all of the guns and the criminals that already ignore every other law banning theft, drugs, etc continue to have them then what? Or say we confiscate them all and then crazy spouses or unhinged people on psych meds start driving cars through pedestrian zones and into crowded restaurants, then what? When do we ban banning stuff and realize this is due to our allowing crazy people to roam the streets while medicated rather than locking them up in Happy Farms Sanitarium?

FWIW I am not "pro gun" or a political righty.


Ok, sure.  If you say so.
 
2013-01-01 11:42:12 AM
Well, there goes my wish that there be no mass shootings in 2013.
 
2013-01-01 11:43:31 AM

Fark It: Gyrfalcon: It doesn't sound like anyone going bugf*ck with an "assault rifle" so far.

Just wait. Tomorrow it will be a high-capacity assault pistol with extended clips, like this one:


cdn.ammoland.com

Wait.... I thought that was an AK-47.
 
2013-01-01 11:44:33 AM
Dammit!  When will our lawmakers finally make it illegal to kill people?  Because that would definitely stop it.  Nothing illegal ever happens.
 
2013-01-01 11:48:14 AM

Bith Set Me Up: Well, there goes my wish that there be no mass shootings in 2013.


It was still before midnight in CA.
 
2013-01-01 11:49:28 AM

clear_prop: mikaloyd: So much random violence killing all the innocents in America and yet Justin Beiber is still alive. Why God Why? Where is the sense in all of this?

We don't want to go to war with Canada.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
"Our dedicated boys keep the peace in newly annexed Canada."
 
2013-01-01 11:52:30 AM
You know you're a farked up country when people in the middle east look at you and go "America, you so crazy!"
 
2013-01-01 11:53:06 AM

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

Waiting for the gun experts to come in and argue over what a Glock really sounds like.

I know my revolvers are all "ka-POW" while my rifles are all "Boom!" and my Sig Sauers go "Ka Chow" like the car in Cars. I don't own any Glocks, but "pop" sounds wrong, I think they go "kaboom!"


You're both wrong.  It's more like "Chk-chk-BOOM!"
 
2013-01-01 11:54:22 AM

ParaHandy: BadReligion: Gosling: And this is the anti-gun argument in a nutshell. The law-abiding gun owners may vastly outnumber the nuts, but there are enough nuts out there to ruin it for everyone.

And those nuts will still get guns, no matter what laws are put into place. The only people hampered by banning guns are law abiding citizens. There are 300 million+ guns in the US right now, there will be no way to get them all off the streets. There are already background checks required to buy a gun. Trying to outright ban guns will not work, especially in this country which owes its existence to citizens owning guns.

No, there are not, and it's a large part of the problem.


A DOJ survey of inmates showed that less than .8% of firearms were aquired through "gun show loopholes" with no background check...the majority were through straw purchases (40%) via friends or family members....ie when someone else went through a background check....straw purchases are a crime by itself..

you can wiki gun show loophole and pick your own source for a cite.
 
2013-01-01 11:56:35 AM

you are a puppet: Phins: Real Women Drink Akvavit: adeist69: So, how are those strict gun laws and high capacity magazine bans working out for you California?

Our gun laws aren't as strict as people seem to think  they are. I have enough firepower to take out a small European country. Also, high capacity magazines are very much a part of gun ownership here. When those things were banned, along with "assault weapons", if you already had one,  you got to keep it. You were grandfathered in. There was lag between when the law was passed and when it took effect, so a lot of people went out and stocked up or made purchases before the  law into effect. We' probably just as heavily armed, if not more so because of the bans, than your average Texan here in Cali. Plus, we have tofu and wheat grass. YAY!

/loves California
//weirdness has its own special charm

So why do you have enough firepower to take out a small European country? This is a serious question. Why do you think you need that?

Don't know how to live but he's got a lot of toys?


Like a trampled flag on a city street.
 
2013-01-01 11:57:13 AM
Quite late to this party but wanted to let y'all know that those bastards set the fireworks off at 8:00 a.m. this morning so those of us that live near Old Sac didn't get to sleep through our NYE hangovers.
 
2013-01-01 11:57:23 AM

Giltric: JSam21: JSam21: Infernalist: Giltric: 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?

I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they don't use it as an excuse to murder someone.

Correct... because the use of force has to be proportional. Thats why I preach training for gun owners and even possible mandatory military service for all citizens.

Not only would it get people training on use of firearms thus limiting irresponsible use of them it would also weed out some of those with mental health issues. If you're washed out of the process due to mental illness, you can't privately own a gun.

And lethal force can't be used to defend property... so Mr. Nozzle would be going to prison anyway.

Yes it can....castle doctrine.


Wrong... castle doctrine states you don't have to retreat in your home.
 
2013-01-01 11:57:33 AM
ParaHandy:

This ought to be amusing. Let's see what you've come up with.

You can't argue with a gun nut any more than you can argue with a Southern Baptist about his sky fairy.

Nicely done. You already set up a failure statement in the beginning. This way if someone shows the error of your position, you've got an out. It's a lame way to do it, but at least you're trying to protect your ignorance.

Restrictions on gun types are going to get bargained away to ineffectiveness like the previous AWB

The last AWB was one of the lamest pieces of legislation ever. It didn't even try to do anything to ban assault rifles and focused on "black and scary". Fact - assault weapons are difficult and expensive to get. It takes special licensing and all sorts of hoops - and this existed prior to the AWB. Using it as a comparison only shows that you're not particularly educated on firearms and their capabilities.

After much thinking and debate over the last week, I am certain that licensing and training gun owners and registering guns like we do with cars is the right way forward. It would prevent at least half of the gun murders and accidents in the USA, by keeping guns out of the hands of a lot of idiots like George Zimmerman, Tyrirk Harris and Nancy Lanza who should not have them.

How, specifically, would it do that? You do realize that criminals get firearms all of the time, don't you? How, specifically, would your method keep the firearms out of the hands of these people? Be very specific, as it's kind of a salient point.

There is a lot of subtlety to the above ...

Not really, but let's delve deeper

1. If we were to simply ban guns, we fuel an illegal market like the proverbial War on Drugs(tm). If we have a regulated legal market, we take the financial energy out of the black market and can keep guns away from a meaningful number of irresponsible and dangerous people. Most middle and high school children in the USA can readily obtain marijuana and often hard drugs, but not tobacco or alcohol.

This is demonstrably false. Most HS children obtain alcohol very easily. Same with tobacco. While banning something does create a black market and has been shown, time and time again, to fail (prohibition, the war on drugs, etc), that doesn't mean it makes it harder for certain groups to obtain the products they want.

2. It's pretty hard for the gun nuts to argue that their rights are being infringed without looking as stupid as the people arguing for the right to DUI. I have to register, tax, insure and annually present for inspection my motor vehicles. It's not an infringement on my constitutional right to travel; like taxes, it's a cost of having an orderly and pleasant society, and one that I actively encourage, as it ensures that other car owners are required to be at least partially as responsible as I am.

Completely false statement and a false comparison. Not surprising, given your history of posting in threads like this. No one is arguing for the right to engage in illegal behavior. Additionally, motor vehicles are licensed for use on publicly-provided motorways. Their taxes are (theoretically) used to provide for the maintenance of said motorways. If all motorways were private, then one might be able to argue against the taxes. A second argument for the licensing is due to the overwhelming importance of the automobile to our economic system. Firearms fit none of those criteria.

3. It's a "genius of the and" solution that establishes meaningful and effective gun control that will save thousands of lives per year, while not obstructing anyone who wants to own firearms for lawful purposes and use them responsibly. Politics is the art of the possible, and any solution has to be palatable to the saner folks on the right.

Considering the vast majority of firearm deaths are due to suicides or gang/drug related crime, how exactly would this save thousands of lives? Again, be very specific.

4. Registering and tracking guns by serial number, and having their possession regularly confirmed, is the ONLY way to close the so-called "gun show loophole" and make it stick. A number of gun owners have argued that they would voluntarily use NCIS if they had access to it, and that alone should be sufficient. No, it won't work ... responsible gun owners are NOT the problem in the first place. I'm sure every straw buyer in the USA will jump at the chance to background check their customers (rolls eyes)

Something something right to be protected against unreasonable searches comes to mind. 4A. What you've effectively introduced is the beginning of a police state. You've also introduced a not particularly enforceable law.

5. Setting a barrier to entry for owning a gun (mandatory written and handling proficiency test in gun safety, c.f. driving tests) will discourage someone who might otherwise casually have a Sat night special in the nightstand drawer. These are the people who have no hope of using a gun defensively if woken at 3am by an intruder, and who are actually safer without one. Less casual guns, less murders of passion, less accidents.

Setting a barrier to voting will help eliminate stupid voting for [insert your hated political party here], which would be a great benefit to the country.

No. Fail. Complete fail. Laws already exist to prevent those who should not have firearms from possessing them. Those clearly shown to be mentally defective and felons are the two biggest categories. All you're trying to do is lay the groundwork for banning firearms. Additionally, your measure is unconstitutional.

6. Forcing Dale Gribbles to get some proper gun safety training will actually be a positive thing. Some of them will become less gun nutty, some of them will learn things that will save their kids' or neighbours' lives one day.

At what expense? Firearm training is clearly available and most of it is basic common sense. Folks may elect to ignore the safety rules (just like they do with all sorts of other tools, including chainsaws, power nailers, axes, cars, etc). Nothing you've stated would stop that.

7. If the processes are designed correctly and with 21st century convenience, e.g. a federal website where two license holders can report a private gun sale, any FFL or licensed range is automatically licensed to do your annual inspections and record it, should take less than 2 minutes per gun and for a fee capped at $5 per gun or less. I would expect gun enthusiasts to receive the service free from a local range where they are regular customers.

Assuming they use a range. Many rural areas allow you to use your land, if you've got enough. Assuming they choose to register all of their weapons. Lots of assumptions in your position.

So, on the overall, you've provided an unconstitutional solution that you've not demonstrated would actually do anything to reduce the homicide rate. Nor have you put any restrictions in the proposal to sunset the laws if they're clearly ineffective.

fail.
 
2013-01-01 11:58:16 AM
Gun Ownership is protected by the US Constitution

The vast majority of Americans support Gun Rights

There are so many guns in circulation that even with a total ban of all firearms, is impossible to confiscate more than a token number of them

Within 3 to 5 years, 3D Printing is expected to become so common, so affordable, so ubiquitous, so damned easy for anyone to do, that guns will be produced at the push of a button on demand.

If the level of discourse and quality of thought displayed here by typical fark-brigade anti-gun hoplophobes is any measure of what actual adult anti-gun lobbyists in the real world can muster, then the whole gun-grab movement is basically fuct anyway.
 
2013-01-01 11:58:42 AM

Infernalist: 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.


You're definitely wrong on the first point. An outright ban on something people are addicted to simply drives the market underground, and by funnelling enormous amount of money towards gangs operating outside the law, fuels all kinds of secondary issues, including of course gun violence. Anyone in the USA who wants drugs obtains them, period.

The US federal government was kind enough to run a large scale experiment on banning drugs in the early 20th century. You may have heard of chaps called Al Capone, Arnold Rothstein and Nucky Thompson who built their gang empires on the back of dealing the then-illegal drug ethanol.

A ban on guns is not directly comparable. Guns are not chemically addictive, and unless you live at a range, there is no way to use them daily. Gun bans can work. They have been very effective in the UK - our gun crime rate in Scotland is now down to one fiftieth (2%) in the last 20 years, and is still falling.

However, based on some of the more derpy non-trolling comments here, and the relative intransigence of some highly intelligent and otherwise very sensible Americans I know IRL (such as Fark user Phil McCracken who IIRC doesn't even own a gun) about this topic, it would be more effective to treat Americans' relationship with firearms as an addiction issue.
 
2013-01-01 12:02:12 PM

ParaHandy: BadReligion: Gosling: And this is the anti-gun argument in a nutshell. The law-abiding gun owners may vastly outnumber the nuts, but there are enough nuts out there to ruin it for everyone.

And those nuts will still get guns, no matter what laws are put into place. The only people hampered by banning guns are law abiding citizens. There are 300 million+ guns in the US right now, there will be no way to get them all off the streets. There are already background checks required to buy a gun. Trying to outright ban guns will not work, especially in this country which owes its existence to citizens owning guns.

No, there are not, and it's a large part of the problem.


I've had a background check for every gun I've bought. What is a background check to you?
 
2013-01-01 12:03:51 PM

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.


Wow.  Out of nowhere and straight for the Godwin.  How about next time you try buying us dinner first?

/Or make a joke about Caturday or Madagascar shutting down everything?
//Something?
 
2013-01-01 12:07:05 PM

ParaHandy: No, there are not, and it's a large part of the problem.


It's the firearms themselves that you don't like, isn't it? That's why you can't be reasonable nor precise in your statements, right? How difficult would it be to state that firearm purchases from dealers require a background check, regardless of whether or not they're at a gun show or in their store while firearm purchases from private individuals require no checks. However, it's worth noting that it's illegal for anyone, private or not, to knowingly sell a firearm to someone they no to be prohibited from owning one.

It might take a tad bit longer to type that, but at least you'd be honest and correct instead of making implications that are clearly false.
 
2013-01-01 12:07:22 PM

Frederick: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Frederick: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: [i.imgur.com image 391x585]

I dont think those demographics actually overlap that much.

Ummm... your point?

My point is; the point of your picture is kinda worthless because it doesnt represent a significant portion of the population making it a strawman argument.

\based on my experience pot smokers are not significantly pro gun control.


Clearly, all your friends are red necks who smoke pot. How many CCWs were at Woodstock, do you think?

/ peace out dude
 
2013-01-01 12:12:14 PM
ParaHandy: They have been very effective in the UK - our gun crime rate in Scotland is now down to one fiftieth (2%) in the last 20 years, and is still falling.

I think I see the problem now. You're trying to compare the US and Scotland. You see, America is like this whole other country. They do things different over there.

Scotland had no real problem with banning guns, since most of the time, you have to get a steady job to have enough money to buy one anyway. Kind of cuts the Scotch out of the loop like a natural filter.

Now, let's work from the opposite direction. If there ever was a need, I'm pretty sure that all the American states would enact no-sheep-shagging legislation as a matter of course without much debate. But how how that go down in Scotland?

Think about it.
 
2013-01-01 12:19:09 PM

ciberido: you are a puppet: Phins: Real Women Drink Akvavit: adeist69: So, how are those strict gun laws and high capacity magazine bans working out for you California?

Our gun laws aren't as strict as people seem to think  they are. I have enough firepower to take out a small European country. Also, high capacity magazines are very much a part of gun ownership here. When those things were banned, along with "assault weapons", if you already had one,  you got to keep it. You were grandfathered in. There was lag between when the law was passed and when it took effect, so a lot of people went out and stocked up or made purchases before the  law into effect. We' probably just as heavily armed, if not more so because of the bans, than your average Texan here in Cali. Plus, we have tofu and wheat grass. YAY!

/loves California
//weirdness has its own special charm

So why do you have enough firepower to take out a small European country? This is a serious question. Why do you think you need that?

Don't know how to live but he's got a lot of toys?

Like a trampled flag on a city street.


Oh... yeah?
 
2013-01-01 12:19:11 PM

ronaprhys: ParaHandy: No, there are not, and it's a large part of the problem.

It's the firearms themselves that you don't like, isn't it? That's why you can't be reasonable nor precise in your statements, right? How difficult would it be to state that firearm purchases from dealers require a background check, regardless of whether or not they're at a gun show or in their store while firearm purchases from private individuals require no checks. However, it's worth noting that it's illegal for anyone, private or not, to knowingly sell a firearm to someone they no to be prohibited from owning one.

It might take a tad bit longer to type that, but at least you'd be honest and correct instead of making implications that are clearly false.


It's the body count I don't like, actually.

My statement was intentionally bald and economical. Yes, it's illegal to KNOWINGLY sell to someone who is banned from having a gun, but you are not REQUIRED to check. Straw buyers have a financial incentive to NOT check. Thus background checks are reduced to "don't ask, don't tell" and I'll be a monkey's uncle if the NRA didn't get that set up that way knowing that the gun industry gets half its revenue from arms that are sold on to illegal buyers.

Guns are widely available in the USA with no background check whatsoever ... is that better?

Consider a hypothetical situation where TSA at the airport had a second lane that was wide open with no security checks whatsoever. You are allowed to use this lane if you bought your ticket 2nd hand off of Craigslist, but if you bought your ticket from the airline you must show ID, finish your bottle of water and go through the nudie scanner. Would you then argue that American airports have security checks? Effective security checks?

The entire NCIS and background check process is a waste of space and might as well be shut down if we don't rectify this loophole which you can literally drive an 18-wheeler full of AR15s through.

In computer security, we have a term for setting up SSL encryption on a website and leaving the server it's running on insecure - we call it putting a safe door on a tent (Bruce Schneier-ism IIRC) and it describes the gun situation in the USA admirably.
 
2013-01-01 12:19:32 PM

Moriel: cybrwzrd: Maybe it is time to make gun ownership illegal, and give the death penalty to those who refuse to give them up/continue to own them. That way the gun nuts can live out their masturbatory fantasy of going down in a fight with the government and the rest of us can be a little safer knowing that there are less guns on the street/available to be stolen for the purpose of mass murder. Sounds like a win/win situation to me, and everyone can be happy.

So how many people are you willing to kill in order to get rid of guns? 1 million? 10 million? All 90 million gun owning Americans?

You just declared yourself to be no better than a murderer.

/Sorry you and the others had to go through this subby. I hope no one you know was involved.


How many more innocents and children are you willing to kill in order to keep your guns? 20? 100? 1 million? You just declared yourself to be no better than a murderer.
 
2013-01-01 12:24:22 PM

letrole: ParaHandy: They have been very effective in the UK - our gun crime rate in Scotland is now down to one fiftieth (2%) in the last 20 years, and is still falling.

I think I see the problem now. You're trying to compare the US and Scotland. You see, America is like this whole other country. They do things different over there.

Scotland had no real problem with banning guns, since most of the time, you have to get a steady job to have enough money to buy one anyway. Kind of cuts the Scotch out of the loop like a natural filter.

Now, let's work from the opposite direction. If there ever was a need, I'm pretty sure that all the American states would enact no-sheep-shagging legislation as a matter of course without much debate. But how how that go down in Scotland?

Think about it.


Gun violence is lower in UK.... but assaults are much higher. So.... whatever. Yes, I'd rather own a gun and be able to shoot someone than let a 300 lb man beat me with a bat being completely unable to defend myself.

Also, do we really need a newsflash every time some young and successful black man decides to go gangster in some shiat bar?
 
2013-01-01 12:27:41 PM
Princess Ryans Knickers:
How many more innocents and children are you willing to kill in order to keep your guns? 20? 100? 1 million? You just declared yourself to be no better than a murderer.

This is the problem with so many leftish arguments. It's all emotion and faulty reasoning. The fellow to whom you're responding isn't killing anyone. Not literally, not figuratively. Not explicitly, not by omission.
 
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