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 12:28:14 PM

adeist69: So, how are those strict gun laws and high capacity magazine bans working out for you California?


When all it takes to get around them is a 30 min drive to Arizona? Not as well as they could, but a heck of a lot better than the lax gun laws in Red states.
 
2013-01-01 12:28:32 PM

syrynxx: Dammit!  When will our lawmakers finally make it illegal to kill people?  Because that would definitely stop it.  Nothing illegal ever happens.


So you're an anarchist?
 
2013-01-01 12:32:07 PM

Infernalist: Lunatics like Lanza won't be making their own bullets.


I will be making/selling bullets for about $15 a pop.  There will be plenty of ammo available even before the Colombians begin importing them by the tons.
 
2013-01-01 12:32:25 PM

letrole: 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.


I have proposed no additional infringements to the right to bear arms, which is why I find this proposal so compelling. There is no constitutional right to avoid paperwork.

/ and your handle isn't fooling anyone who speaks French
 
2013-01-01 12:34:54 PM
Alonjar: Gun violence is lower in UK.... but assaults are much higher.

There's something exceedingly rare in the US, that's very common in the UK.

Instead of waiting for the occupants to leave, they kick their way in when they know someone is home. That way, they get the car keys, the ATM card *plus PIN*, the wallets, you name it. Much more efficient that wasting all that time riffling through drawers and finally settling for a TV.

Plus, they get to rough up the witnesses.
 
2013-01-01 12:36:24 PM

WippitGuud: JSam21:
Ok so you don't have anything against people killing each other, just the method of how it is done?

You feel like murders need to be a little more boot strappy?

It's like downloading pirated software. If it wasn't so bloody easy, not as many people would do it.


You sound off the cuff, but the point is incredibly salient. Humans are lazy and stupid. This is the only way the cops ever catch murderers.
 
2013-01-01 12:38:53 PM
Damn that was inconsiderate. If you are going to shoot multiple people inside a bar, you should use a silencer so as not to annoy the other patrons.
 
2013-01-01 12:39:53 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.


Actually, I agree with you on that.

i.imgur.com

But the pic is symbolic. It symbolizes, I think, the clueless behavior of some people when thinking about gun control. They think emotionally about the issue of gun availability and compartmentalize it with it's own set of assumptions, which often focus around the concept of getting rid of them. No guns = no people being killed with guns. Simple and direct. And - superficially - is appears to make a lot of sense.

Alternatively, gun control might consist in banning high-load magazines. No high-load magazines = less people being killed in shootings.

The assumption, of course, is that banning something means that people that WANT that something will obey the law and not try to obtain and use it.

i.imgur.com

The young, self-satisfied lady in the pic symbolizes this. Banning guns = no guns. But, at the same time, she smokes pot, and probably considers it her God-given right to do so. But she has emotionally compartmentalized the gun issue and apparently has not considered that there are laws which ban pot... and that (OH WOW!) she can still, without a great deal of bother, find pot to smoke.

The same applies to other people who want to ban guns yet continue with their own activities that are banned in one form or another.

Be honest now, Farkers.....
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but smoke pot?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but are under 18 and also drink alcohol?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but will have a few drinks at the bar after work and then drive home?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but are gay and practice sodomy with their SO's in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but in states where sodomy is illegal?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but occasionally cheat on their taxes?

In general: How many Farkers want to ban guns, but at the same time engage in behavior that is banned by law?

The point is that banning something does not necessarily get rid of it.

These are all good examples of Broken Context. In the context of gun control, the naive view is that banning something means that is is not available to people. That context, however, needs to be evaluated in terms of the wider context of the "world of banning things and do bans actually work?" The answer, of course, is no. But some/many liberals do not move to that wider context.

Finally, the pic also speaks to the possible hypocrisy of the young lady. If she DOES recognize the above disconnect, and still smokes pot, then she is being a hypocrite: *You* can't have your banned guns, but *I* can have my banned weed."
 
2013-01-01 12:40:07 PM

trappedspirit: 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


The Constitution doesn't mention firearms - just "arms".

Seriously, I'm not trolling. Asking a question for the different opinions. If I think a group of thugs might enter my home to harm me and my family, why am I restricted in the type of weapon I want to use? Why are people here telling me how I need to defend myself (shoot each intruder individually, it's my responsibility to be able to shoot accurately under attack), etc? If my right to bear arms relates to insurrection, why can't I use a grenade? I am not talking about the slippery slope weapons of mass destruction (nukes, missiles, etc). I am talking about weaponry that supports my individual right to bear these arms.

So, I'd like to hear a compelling argument on the restrictions on hand grenades while maintaining a consistent 2nd amendment stance. As a reminder for those too lazy to look it up:

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

It says nothing about the type of arms. US v. Miller kicked out the sawed off shotgun due to it's irrelevance to a militia (collective right). Since then, the second has been ruled to be an individual right. With this, how is a hand grenade out of reasonable bounds?
 
2013-01-01 12:43:05 PM

Doom MD: 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.


The way to reduce the cost of elections is to ban funded marketing and PACs. Voting is a right. Owning guns is a right. Avoiding paperwork is not a right.

I could agree with you on the IQ thing, but then the GOP would never get elected again.

/ do keep trying, my Ne'erday roast is in the oven for another hour yet ....
 
2013-01-01 12:45:37 PM

Molavian: There is no deal to be made, no compromise. The answer is no, you will not take my rights away.


Not if we don't have to, and most of us don't want to, but if it becomes necessary we will. Remember the War of Northern Aggression?
 
2013-01-01 12:47:34 PM

JSam21: 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 t ...


Yep...and it allows you to use deadly force for no other reason other than someone who should not be in your home is in your home.
 
2013-01-01 12:51:19 PM

Heron: adeist69: So, how are those strict gun laws and high capacity magazine bans working out for you California?

When all it takes to get around them is a 30 min drive to Arizona? Not as well as they could, but a heck of a lot better than the lax gun laws in Red states.


This is like the argument that DC criminals get their weapons from surrounding states with lax gun laws.

Shouldn't crime in those states with lax gun laws be on par with crime in DC?
 
2013-01-01 12:55:37 PM
Farkomatic: It says nothing about the type of arms. US v. Miller kicked out the sawed off shotgun due to it's irrelevance to a militia (collective right).

Groups don't have rights. Only individual men have rights. I'm not nit-picking. You've based an argument on a faulty assumption.
 
2013-01-01 12:58:51 PM

Bucky Katt: They need more good guys with guns.


Soon enough...

www.welovemoviesmorethanyou.com
 
2013-01-01 01:00:08 PM

Farkomatic: It says nothing about the type of arms. US v. Miller kicked out the sawed off shotgun due to it's irrelevance to a militia (collective right).


Actually Miller died before SCOTUS heard the case. Arguments in Millers favor were lackluster as noone was getting paid so there was no need to point out that short barelled shotguns were being used in WWI to clear the trenches of the Huns.
 
2013-01-01 01:00:43 PM

Giltric: 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.


"Gun show loophole" is the colloquial term, even if we both know that most illegal sales take place out-with guns show. I have a looney right acquaintance who gets wrapped around the axle every time the term "Bush Tax cuts" is used, because they were renewed after Bush. I don't mind calling them the "Boehner tax cuts" because it was his actions (or lack of control over the Teahadis) that extended them for the rich. But the term "Bush Tax cuts" is understood by everyone. You clearly knew what I was referring to, which is the goal of communication. Why does the right get so hung up on labels?

I personally find the right-wing term "death panels" incredibly perjorative and biased, but I will use it because I know people know what I am referring to. I'd rather have an NHS doctor (the UK's "death panel") making care decisions based on quality of life delivered, than a private for-profit company (current US "death panels"). The former has a limited budget, the latter has a direct financial incentive to limit it even more - 100% of what they manage to deny paying for becomes extra profit (or at least it did until ObamaCare set a cap).

The statement you made in bold is key - Shaquan's mother Latrina can go buy a gun (even a Glock 21) and leave it on her nightstand, and have plausible deniability when Shaquan "steals" it. He can carry out an unlimited number of armed robberies, murders, etc. and only if the police get hold of the gun AND he's forgotten to file serials will Latrina even get so much as a phone call.

This, in a nutshell is what I would like to prevent.
 
2013-01-01 01:01:11 PM

relcec: mgshamster: relcec: Notabunny: mgshamster: cuzsis: Sacramento...armpit of California.

/what the locals told me anyway.
//wasn't very impressed with the place myself.

Armpit? Naw. There are much better places in California for that title. Like Stockton. Sacramento Is probably more like the navel.

Sacramento is a good solid B-level city, but it loses some of its shine because of the neighbors; San Francisco, San Jose, Lake Tahoe, Yosemite, etc. Stockton on the other hand...

I'll give it a c
being between san fransisco and tahoe is the most charming thing about it. when the most redeeming part of your city is the ability to get the f*ck out of it to somewhere nice you don't get a b.

Depending on how much of the surrounding area you want to classify with the Capitol, there are a lot of other good things. Lots of rivers to fish, or go rafting, or water ski. A good amount of lakes, too. Wine country just to the south and east (apple hill is fantastic). Gold country as well. Napa valley (and all their wineries) is an hour away to the northwest. I guess that still qualifies as "leaving cap city to visit other places," but I like to think of it more as a central hub.

I know whats around sacramento. folsom lake is ugly. sacramento river is boring. the best weather you get is when it rains every day for 3 months. that old sacramento is ridiculous.
you don't get to say oakland is a great city because san fransisco is a subway ride away. doesn't work that way. napa valley is a nice place. tahoe is lovely. san fransisco is great. davis is even cool. Stockton and Sacramento aren't magically made great cities to wake up in everyday by their proximity to them.
you know why the california supreme court isn't in sacramento? it got flooded out a long time ago and they temporarily moved to san fransisco and then refused to go back. we're gonna have to disagree. your surrounded by great places. just move. but you get the last word.


Fair enough.  It's not for everyone.  We used to live in Davis, but my wife doesn't like it there anymore. We also want to own a house someday, and Davis is very expensive.  I've seen 1 bed 1 bath houses go up for over $300k there. Checking zillow, there's a 2 bed 1 bath house, 950 sq ft up for sale for $350k, and that's about right for Davis.  My wife likes to snowboard, so living in the bay area means that it would be a 3-4 hour drive to get to the mountains.  We both like to visit the city, so living near Tahoe means a trip to the bay would be a 3-4 hour drive. Living in Sac means both are 1.5-2 hours; that's much more reasonable for a day trip.  Folsom Lake is pretty shiatty, but there are a lot of smaller lakes up in the foothills, and those are the ones we usually go to.  The Sacramento River and the American River both can be pretty shiatty if you're near the delta, but if you go up river, there's some great white water rafting, and according to my brother (who is a fly fishing guide), there's lots of great fishing throughout the northern California rivers.  The central valley is one of the major migratory paths for birds, and there are some great bird watching locations, and quite a bit of protected land that you can hike or backpack in.  Downtown Sac has gotten a lot better over the past decade (especially the night life), and old town is something I like (maybe it's just nostalgia from visiting it as a kid).  I'm not saying it's a great city, but it ain't all that bad, either. And like I said, it's a good central hub. And I prefer the Mediterranean climate here, as compared to the mountains or the bay.

/And who knows, but maybe I just like it because it's where I grew up. You know, it's home to me.
//You're probably still right about rating it a C.
///California capitol used to be Monterey (under the Spanish, then Mexico), Sonoma (during the revolt), Monterey (again, under Mexico, sliding over to American rule after the Mexican-American war), San Jose, Vallejo, Benicia, and then finally settled in Sacramento.
 
2013-01-01 01:01:47 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 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.

Actually, I agree with you on that.

[i.imgur.com image 100x145]

But the pic is symbolic. It symbolizes, I think, the clueless behavior of some people when thinking about gun control. They think emotionally about the issue of gun availability and compartmentalize it with it's own set of assumptions, which often focus around the concept of getting rid of them. No guns = no people being killed with guns. Simple and direct. And - superficially - is appears to make a lot of sense.

Alternatively, gun control might consist in banning high-load magazines. No high-load magazines = less people being killed in shootings.

The assumption, of course, is that banning something means that people that WANT that something will obey the law and not try to obtain and use it.

[i.imgur.com image 100x145]

The young, self-satisfied lady in the pic symbolizes this. Banning guns = no guns. But, at the same time, she smokes pot, and probably considers it her God-given right to do so. But she has emotionally compartmentalized the gun issue and apparently has not considered that there are laws which ban pot... and that (OH WOW!) she can still, without a great deal of bother, find pot to smoke.

The same applies to other people who want to ban guns yet continue with their own activities that are banned in one form or another.

Be honest now, Farkers.....
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but smoke pot?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but are under 18 and also drink alcohol?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but will have a few drinks at the bar after work and then ...


Speaking of hypocrites
 
2013-01-01 01:03:09 PM

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


It's amazing how little you know about guns.  Most of what I need to make bullets I can get from Lowe's and Walgreen's.  The only thing the government could even try to restrict would be primers.  That's why it's always a good idea to keep a few flintlocks or matchlocks in the old gun collection.  A quick trip to the mall parking lot will score you enough lead tire weights to make a crapload of bullets.

I have a few buddies that are machinists and have machines in their garages.  They will become millionaires if guns are outlawed.

The Taurus factory in Brazil will make a killing.
 
2013-01-01 01:09:44 PM

ParaHandy: Giltric: 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.

"Gun show loophole" is the colloquial term, even if we both know that most illegal sales take place out-with guns show. I have a looney right acquaintance who gets wrapped around the axle every time the term "Bush Tax cuts" is used, because they were renewed after Bush. I don't mind calling them the "Boehner tax cuts" because it was his actions (or lack of control over the Teahadis) that extended them for the rich. But the term "Bush Tax cuts" is understood by everyone. You clearly knew what I was referring to, which is the goal of communication. Why does the right get so hung up on labels?

I personally find the right-wing term "death panels" incredibly perjorative and biased, but I will use it because I know people know what I am referring to. I'd rather have an NHS doctor (the UK's "death panel") making care decisions based on quality of life delivered, than a private for-profit company (current US "death panel ...


I must have missed the part related to firearms. Is it buried in all that drivel and scree?

Can you give me the cliff notes?
 
2013-01-01 01:15:18 PM
As we glide into the driver's seat of the third millennium, we still haven't seemed to follow the one basic rule that will free us from the bondage of ignorance and give us the quality of life we were assured we would achieve by now. Don't be a dickhead. Until we sort that, the world will be a maze of portable ghettos that rear their ugly heads once in a while. The ghetto, like soylent green, is people. And if we've built a world where we need to shut our brains off with drugs and alcohol to deal with it, and need to kill and maim others to find a place in it or we need to let some starve so that others may have opulence to survive it, maybe it's time to shake the etch a sketch and start over. Because the sunk costs of maintaining this one are getting a little to high. Civilization isn't hunkering down in coffee shops and killing people instead of hunkering in trees and doing it. Civilization is a catechism of personal behavior and comportment. It works anywhere. And when it's not used, this sh*t happens.
 
2013-01-01 01:16:12 PM
Old Sac shooting notwithstanding, I do like living in Sacramento, and I feel pretty safe here.  You can walk around downtown at night and not feel particularly threatened.
 
2013-01-01 01:19:27 PM

3StratMan: "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.


He didn't put a stop to it.

They traded bullets, each winged the other, and the shooter escaped with weapon in hand.

If anything "stopped" it, it was the shooter running out of bullets and/or not wanting to get caught.

The shooter shot the 3 people he wanted to plus the guard. There's no reason to believe the shooter intended to shoot anyone else.
 
2013-01-01 01:21:16 PM
1) Ban assault weapons
2) Ban high-capacity clips/magazines/whatever
3) Price ammo into the stratosphere
4) Kill you are self

It's that simple.

Now call me lonely and bitter just because I think the phrase "responsible gun owner" is an oxymoron.
 
2013-01-01 01:21:28 PM

Infernalist: 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.


Christ, you're ignorant of facts.  I make my own ammo, and make my own hooch.  Ammo is easier.
 
2013-01-01 01:25:35 PM
DeaH: Subby, please let us know you're safe.

way south I'm sorry to tell you this but... He's in Sacramento.

Sacramento has them now...
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-01 01:29:21 PM
i852.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-01 01:30:55 PM
SundaesChild Old Sac shooting notwithstanding, I do like living in Sacramento, and I feel pretty safe here. You can walk around downtown at night and not feel particularly threatened.

i262.photobucket.com
"Oh, hai guise!"
 
2013-01-01 01:32:55 PM

JudgeItoBox: 1) Ban assault weapons
2) Ban high-capacity clips/magazines/whatever
3) Price ammo into the stratosphere

It's that simple.

Now call me lonely and bitter just because I think the phrase "responsible gun owner" is an oxymoron.


Let's see...
Assualt Weapons ARE banned in CA.
Hi-Cap mags are DEFINITELY banned in CA
Ammo is outrageously expensive there already too.

That leaves you with nothing. If you like the government babysitting you and no guns, move to the UK. Hope you don't get stabbed, you piece of shiat.
 
2013-01-01 01:34:08 PM
Hearing the shots, a security guard confronted the suspect, and the two exchanged gunfire. Both were hit.

The suspect ran from the bar toward the crowded street where he literally ran into a police officer in uniform.


So, this shooting was stopped by someone with a gun?
 
2013-01-01 01:37:24 PM
ZOMG, oh subby plese stay safe! Please stay safe! Bwhahahaha. Ooh what a feel good moment for me!
 
2013-01-01 01:39:16 PM

JSam21: And lethal force can't be used to defend property... so Mr. Nozzle would be going to prison anyway.


Why do you folks assume that your state's laws apply in every state?  In Texas, if it is after dark, I can chase you down the street to your house and shoot you in the back on your own front porch to retrieve my property.
 
2013-01-01 01:40:57 PM

JudgeItoBox: 1) Ban assault weapons
2) Ban high-capacity clips/magazines/whatever
3) Price ammo into the stratosphere
4) Kill you are self

It's that simple.

Now call me lonely and bitter just because I think the phrase "responsible gun owner" is an oxymoron.


so them all soldiers and police are what?
 
2013-01-01 01:45:18 PM
Ye know. If we made it harder for people to gather into large collections like this, it would harder to kill many in one incident. Nobody really has a need to be in a group of 15, 20 or more. I think if we start curbing back all these rights that people don't really need, we can prevent a great deal of death. We need to understand that the solution can't be found by curbing just the 2nd Amendment rights. It's not just people on the right that are the evil doers, people on the left also are. A well balanced approach by going after rights on both sides is going to be more successful. We need to start curbing some of the others like the 1st as well with the freedom to assemble. Just like the 2nd where it gets curbed back and that isn't seen as being draconian, the 1st can be curbed back as well. The other part of the 1st also can be curbed some. Our brothers across the pond have the right idea where people aren't allowed to say mean things to other people or they get fines and such. Forget the fire in a theatre argument, we need to make being nasty to people a crime. No more fights then. The 4th amendment needs knocking down too. Anybody in a public place should be able to be searched for weapons. Nobody really needs privacy in a public placr. They can still retain the right from searches in their own property.
 
2013-01-01 01:49:05 PM

letrole: 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.


You don't know that.
 
2013-01-01 01:50:49 PM

Sid_6.7: This is why we can't have nice things guns.

 
2013-01-01 01:57:22 PM

stirfrybry: JudgeItoBox: 1) Ban assault weapons
2) Ban high-capacity clips/magazines/whatever
3) Price ammo into the stratosphere
4) Kill you are self

It's that simple.

Now call me lonely and bitter just because I think the phrase "responsible gun owner" is an oxymoron.

so them all soldiers and police are what?


Well, THEY don't own 'em, they merely USE them. It's the Holy God Gubmint that owns 'em.
 
2013-01-01 02:00:05 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: How many Farkers want to ban guns, but smoke pot?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but are under 18 and also drink alcohol?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but will have a few drinks at the bar after work and then drive home?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but are gay and practice sodomy with their SO's in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but in states where sodomy is illegal?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but occasionally cheat on their taxes?


You've made some bad assumptions there, but I'll go with this.

How many would do these things if they were legal?

If guns were more difficult to get and keep legally then there would be fewer of them. This would result in fewer gun related incidents.
 
2013-01-01 02:07:30 PM

Benjimin_Dover: Ye know. If we made it harder for people to gather into large collections like this, it would harder to kill many in one incident. Nobody really has a need to be in a group of 15, 20 or more. I think if we start curbing back all these rights that people don't really need, we can prevent a great deal of death. We need to understand that the solution can't be found by curbing just the 2nd Amendment rights. It's not just people on the right that are the evil doers, people on the left also are. A well balanced approach by going after rights on both sides is going to be more successful. We need to start curbing some of the others like the 1st as well with the freedom to assemble. Just like the 2nd where it gets curbed back and that isn't seen as being draconian, the 1st can be curbed back as well. The other part of the 1st also can be curbed some. Our brothers across the pond have the right idea where people aren't allowed to say mean things to other people or they get fines and such. Forget the fire in a theatre argument, we need to make being nasty to people a crime. No more fights then. The 4th amendment needs knocking down too. Anybody in a public place should be able to be searched for weapons. Nobody really needs privacy in a public placr. They can still retain the right from searches in their own property.


Hmmmmmm..... you may be on to something here. Please, continue.
 
2013-01-01 02:10:26 PM

jcooli09: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: How many Farkers want to ban guns, but smoke pot?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but are under 18 and also drink alcohol?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but will have a few drinks at the bar after work and then drive home?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but are gay and practice sodomy with their SO's in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but in states where sodomy is illegal?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but occasionally cheat on their taxes?

You've made some bad assumptions there, but I'll go with this.

How many would do these things if they were legal?

If guns were more difficult to get and keep legally then there would be fewer of them. This would result in fewer gun related incidents.


What are the bad assumptions?

>>>>If guns were more difficult to get and keep legally then there would be fewer of them. This would result in fewer gun related incidents

Assuming that was correct, would that not also mean that there would be more people without guns when a gun was needed to defend oneself? Law-abiding citizens would refrain from buying guns. Would criminals?
 
2013-01-01 02:13:04 PM

badgerb: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 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.

Actually, I agree with you on that.

[i.imgur.com image 100x145]

But the pic is symbolic. It symbolizes, I think, the clueless behavior of some people when thinking about gun control. They think emotionally about the issue of gun availability and compartmentalize it with it's own set of assumptions, which often focus around the concept of getting rid of them. No guns = no people being killed with guns. Simple and direct. And - superficially - is appears to make a lot of sense.

Alternatively, gun control might consist in banning high-load magazines. No high-load magazines = less people being killed in shootings.

The assumption, of course, is that banning something means that people that WANT that something will obey the law and not try to obtain and use it.

[i.imgur.com image 100x145]

The young, self-satisfied lady in the pic symbolizes this. Banning guns = no guns. But, at the same time, she smokes pot, and probably considers it her God-given right to do so. But she has emotionally compartmentalized the gun issue and apparently has not considered that there are laws which ban pot... and that (OH WOW!) she can still, without a great deal of bother, find pot to smoke.

The same applies to other people who want to ban guns yet continue with their own activities that are banned in one form or another.

Be honest now, Farkers.....
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but smoke pot?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but are under 18 and also drink alcohol?
How many Farkers want to ban guns, but will have a few drinks at the bar after work and then ...

Speaking of hypocrites


Beautiful. Simply beautiful.
 
2013-01-01 02:15:31 PM

jcooli09: letrole: 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.

You don't know that.


That's true. But inclusion of what the person is or is not doing has nothing to do with the validity of the argument, It's an logically invalid emotional rhetorical argument.
 
2013-01-01 02:17:54 PM

DeathCipris: Let's see...
Assualt Weapons ARE banned in CA.
Hi-Cap mags are DEFINITELY banned in CA
Ammo is outrageously expensive there already too.

That leaves you with nothing. If you like the government babysitting you and no guns, move to the UK. Hope you don't get stabbed, you piece of shiat.


i.imgur.com

From zero to an implicit threat in one post.

Clearly the term "oxymoron" has three extra letters.
 
2013-01-01 02:19:11 PM

ronaprhys:
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.

No, I've come to this conclusion based on talking to a number of pro-gun people and reading their stuff on Fark. The USA has a big gun problem. There are practical solutions which will be very inexpensive and a minimal imposition on the minority of current gun owners. I listen to feedback and adjust my suggestions. Your response is to metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears like a toddler and yell "NO! NO! NO!". You are not helping the discussion or your own cause. If gun advocates do not collaborate in establishing effective and reasonable gun control, it's going to end up being forced on you after the 2014 election.

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.

Was it effective in reducing the gun crime and murder rate? Not much. Shaquan can rob your gas station and kill you just as easily with a completely unlicensed semi-auto assault rifle as its heavily restricted fully-auto cousin. This is why I have changed my position on banning gun TYPES. We've done it in the UK, but only having started from a point of having had effective controls over WHO has guns for a long time. The first priority in the USA is to keep guns away from Shaquan (and Geroge, Nancy and Tyrirk) by fixing the WHO part. In this, I am advoacting for your right to continue owning a Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle, provided you are prepared to demonstrate that you are a responsible gun owner. What a novel concept.

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.

With the current private sale loophole, I can sell an illegal immigrant gang banger an AR15 without any checks. When he shoots up the poor family living across the street from his crack corner, and the police seize the gun, run the SN and come to me, I can say "shucks, shoulda asked for a green card and looked him up on badguys.com I guess" and shrug my shoulders and give them the stupid private sale form mouldering underneath my car titles in the kitchen drawer. That would be an irresponsible thing for me to do, and I want to make it illegal.

If guns were registered and inspected like cars, then at most 11.9 months later, I'd be getting an email, letter or phone call from Uncle Sam saying "where is that Bushmaster AR15 serial number 1313666 that you had last year?" and suddenly I'm facing an illegal gun sale charge.

The gun is registered to me, and I'm accountable for what happens to it. If I sell it to my responsible gun owner friend James, we both log on to gunregistry.gov and put in our license numbers, and it's now in his little gun portfolio on the system. He'll get an email reminding him when it is due to be inspected. He goes to the range most weekends, so he can just leave at the desk to be inspected while he practices target with his Luger .22


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.

It's not watertight, but from every kid I talk to, weed is easier for them to get than booze, at least here in Texas. Yes, gang bangers will still want guns. But by closing off the Niagran flood of

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.

No, but people in that thread were arguing that dangerous behaviour should be legal, which is the same thing.

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.

I have no objection to the taxes on motor vehicles. I have not suggested taxing guns. I'd be happy to repeal the NFA $200 tax. Money is not a very good discriminator between responsible and irresponsible people.

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.

If firearms aren't important, then surely you don't mind a total gun ban? :) More seriously, this is a non-sequitur and I don't get it. Corn is critical to our economy and survival but there is no license needed to possess it. The purpose of licensing is to regulate and control dangerous things which cause public harm when misused - you know, like cars and guns.

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.

It won't prevent many suicides, but it will a few ... a suicidal individual can now buy a gun from CraigsList in an hour; they might be able to maintain that mood long enough to pass a wait period to buy via a FFL; I can't see them working their way through gun safety training and licensing. Most with serious suicidal intent will find another method. However, there are a minority of impulse suicides, and as with murder, to quote Eddie Izzard: "The NRA tells us that guns don't kill people, people kill people. However, I'll think you'll find the gun helps". Making suicide less easy is a happy side effect, but I'm much more interested in making murder and other violent crimes less easy.

By cutting off the current Niagran flow of guns from legal to illegal owners via the completely unregulated private market, we can dry up the supply of guns to gang-bangers. Yes, they will still have guns stashed. Yes, they will have other sources such as theft and importing. But it will cut down the supply, and that will cut down the violence. Drug dealers in Scotland do as much illegal importing as they do anywhere else, our drug laws are not significantly more permissive than yours, but they have few guns.


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.

Being required to take my car for an annual inspection is not a violation of my 4th amendment rights. No-one is proposing a door-to-door search. It's just as enforceable as the requirement to get a car safety inspected. The key element is that if a legally bought gun disappears off the radar, we know who had it last and we can ask them to account for it, and prosecute their irresponsible asses when we find out they sold it to Shaquan. We can barter immunity from this for flipping Shaquan. Again, it won't get every illegal gun off the streets, but it will get some, and eventually many. This is progress.

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.

Some people might have the goal of progressing to a completely disarmed society, but that is not my goal in this time and place. My goal is to establish effective gun control WITHOUT infringing on your rights. I don't personally want a gun, but equally I have no issue with you having one if you are safe and responsible with it. I'm sure you see no need for a car that's faster than a Lamborghini, but I love mine. This is the essence of a free society. We each get to pursue our hobbies, and we each are reasonably accountable to our fellow citizens (with the ATF acting as proxy) to do so without putting them at risk.

The current law is ineffective because it doesn't stop them actually getting a gun. My goal is not to prosecute the Lanzas' dead bodies, my goal is to shut down both legal AND illegal access to guns by such people. You can get away with driving around in an illegal car for a long time, but there are still relatively few cars on the road that are not legally registered.

You have a constitutional right to bear arms. You do not have a constitutional right to bear them in secret, nor to avoid 15 minutes per year of paperwork (I'm assuming you can actually handle a gun competently and would breeze through my hypothetical gun license test ... at least I hope so)


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.

The expense would be minimal. If you have a friend who knows gun safety well, she can teach you all you need to know to pass you gun license test. The test fee would be about $30-$40, as for a driving license. If you want to take classes with a professional CCW instructor, more power to you. Chainsaws, nail guns and axes don't present a significant safety problem in the USA; if 30,000 people a year died from chainsaw wounds we'd propose better safety controls for those. Cars are regulated already; one might argue for tougher driving tests and better DUI enforcement, and indeed I would. However (a) guns, including legally owned ones, are more than 100x more deadly per hour of use than cars, and (b) this is a gun control thread.

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.

They could go down to their local gun store, or in rural areas, pawn shops are typically FFLs as well. I would make it mandatory that all FFLs offer this service (all you need is an internet browser) for a low but viable fee. Where do they get their cars pickups inspected? If it's totally rural Texas, then the corner store that sells milk, eggs and beer is also an FFL :) I'd be happy to exempt anyone living more than 20 miles from an FFL from this requirement, as we do for cars on Scottish islands where there is no MoT station. Country folks are not the problem.

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.

It is perfectly constitutional. I propose no (additional) limits on the right to bear arms. There is no right to avoid paperwork. The liberty to travel and reside throughout the fifty states is constitutionally protected, and the only practical way to do so is by motor vehicle or by air. Cars require licenses, air travel requires security checks. SCOTUS has ruled that these regulations are an appropriate balance to ensure potentially competing freedoms are both available (your right to travel, my right not to get killed by you). I find the TSA nudie scanners to be much more invasive of my privacy and consume more of my time per year than being required to pass Texas' joke driving test or to show my car to the guy at Midas once a year and let him poke at it, YMMV of course.

The solution is incredibly effective, considering that it involves no gun bans at all, and I'm pleased with it. If you don't understand how things like this influence large numbers of events in a statistical way, you just don't understand things that aren't binary black and white. The world is full of shades of gray, and things take time to shift.

In the 1600s, parts of the UK had gun violence rates that would make the modern US look relatively tame. Things don't have to be like this forever. Either be part of the solution, or stand aside and letter those of us with critical thinking skills parent you.


 
2013-01-01 02:20:41 PM
EV-er-y-bo-dy POL-ka!
 
2013-01-01 02:20:58 PM

letrole: This is the problem with so many leftish arguments. It's all emotion and faulty reasoning.


No, that's the Christians. Y'know, sky wizard, zombie resurrection and a seething hatred of all things sane and reasonable. (like healthcare and not shooting things)
 
2013-01-01 02:22:22 PM
Another day, another article that wouldn't be even be major news if not for unrelated mass shootings.

On a semi-related note, got my wife a sig p938 for christmas. Going to take it out in a couple hours. Really hope this tool made only for killing doesn't slay both of us while we're destroying tin cans.
 
2013-01-01 02:24:36 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
Assuming that was correct, would that not also mean that there would be more people without guns when a gun was needed to defend oneself? Law-abiding citizens would refrain from buying guns. Would criminals?


That's such a lame-ass reason to not have gun control.
 
2013-01-01 02:30:52 PM
We need to outlaw freedom entirely, then we can be safe. Let our guiding motto be "Everything that's not obligatory is forbidden."

Of course we'll need to raise taxes to do this. and because we'll need so many cops to keep anybody from doing anything they're not supposed to do we'll have to give up on bombing & occupying foreign countries full of brown people. Oh well. We're not the world's police: we should police ourselves instead.

One arrest for jaywalking should get you locked up on bread & water at hard labor for six months, and you should be saddled with a permanent criminal record. We simply can't have people thinking they can cross the street anywhere they please. Studies have shown that every mass murderer and pedophile has jaywalked at least once: it's time we cracked down on dangerous deviants.

Better safe than sorry!
 
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