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

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

33164 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jan 2013 at 2:18 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-01 02:37:40 PM  

ParaHandy: Voting is a right. Owning guns is a right. Avoiding paperwork is not a right.


Great.  We need to start literacy tests and background checks for voting.  Along with a government issued picture ID (mere paperwork.)
 
2013-01-01 02:45:48 PM  

JudgeItoBox: 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 image 409x352]

From zero to an implicit threat in one post.

Clearly the term "oxymoron" has three extra letters.


It's not an implicit threat. It's hoping you don't get hurt because of your own idiocy.

Damn you're dumb.
 
2013-01-01 02:52:34 PM  

Alonjar: 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.

No shiat. Check the location on my profile.

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.

Nice ad hominem, but poverty in Scotland is far less than in the USA. Try again

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?

Fnarr. FYI, the top countries in sheep ownership are New Zealand, Wales and Australia. Sheep are tasty when roasted but they aren't a very good shag.

Think about it.

Gun violence is lower in UK.... but assaults are much higher.


And here comes that myth yet again.

When quoting statistics, the NRA uses the standard religious method - start with a presupposed and incorrect conclusion (they claim gun control doesn't improve public safety, when it obviously does) and then leap on any apparently anomalous data that superficially supports their false premise. When people point to the UK as a model example of a country that has strict gun control, very low gun crime rates AND (the and is important) a thriving leisure shooting industry, the NRA's favourite chestnut to drag out is that UK violence statistics have risen since Dunblane, without explaining the reason behind the change, which is in fact that the scope of things which qualify to be recorded as a violent crime was massively increased at that time.

The per capita rate of recorded violent crimes in the UK is higher than the USA, because of much wider reporting requirements. No-one needs to be arrested, cautioned[1], charged or convicted for an event to be recorded as a violent crime in the UK; any report by a self-perceived victim suffices.

I did pull the UKDoJ official report of actual criminal case stats, looking for a number that would be more comparable to Uncle Sam's reporting methods, but annoyingly it does not break down the absolute numbers into violent and non-violent crime.

Here's a link or two which may help:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/falling-murder-rate-domesti c- violence

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics -e ngland-wales

All the graphs are going down, albeit per the data there is still a 30-40% public perception that crime is on the rise, but those are our equivalent of the scared American WASPs who aren't rich but still vote Republican because they are scared of blacks, gays, hispanics and Jews.

[1] a UK process where the police yell at someone for being a dumbass, record the fact and let them go immediately. A pragmatic solution for very minor offences that doesn't waste court time.
 
2013-01-01 02:59:30 PM  

Giltric: 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 " ...


tl;dr - quit biatching about terminology that you understand, and debate the substance. All parties like to use their favourite terms, c.f. "pro-life / anti-choice and pro-choice / ZOMG babykillers"
 
2013-01-01 03:10:18 PM  

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


So, a huge infringement on rights, an across-the-board increase in violent crime (as seen in the UK and Australia), not to mention an actual increase in crime with guns (UK and Australia again) all to stop 200 or so deaths perpetrated by 15-30 or so people out of around 300 million?

Just how many extra deaths, rapes, robberies, home invasion, and brutal beatings are acceptable in order to stop an extraordinarily rare event like mass killings?
 
2013-01-01 03:12:48 PM  

DeathCipris: 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, but can be untraceably purchased a 5 hour drive away in Nevada
Hi-Cap mags are DEFINITELY banned in CA but there are millions of them already in gang bangers' hands
Ammo is outrageously expensive there already too but you can order it online from WalMart.com

That leaves you with nothing but the realisation that banning anything isn't going to work when you have an open border with someone who doesn't regulate it at all, kind of like Hays County TX still being nominally "dry". If you like the government tracking gun ownership and keeping guns away from crazy and deluded people like DethCipris, letrole etc. and don't find it outrageous that you have to have a license to own items specifically designed to kill things, and you aren't such a crappy shot as Kit Fister that you need a semi-automatic machine gun to kill a farking pig, move to the UK like ParaHandy's friend Pat from Chicago did, and your kids are less likely to die in a hail of bullets or when their 5 year old pal gets his dad's "home defence" gun out of the sock drawer. Hope you don't get stabbed


You needed a little help framing that. We know you right wingers aren't very edumacated, so we're happy to FTFY.
 
2013-01-01 03:13:03 PM  

lordjupiter: lordjupiter: Oh please. Just shut the fark up.


That was directed at the 2nd Amendment obsessed farkturds who keep bleating these paranoid apocalypse theories, distorted stats and bullshiat analogies.

Shut up. You're a liar. Guns aren't cars or bats or knives or anything else. We're not listening to your bullshiat anymore.


Too bad, so sad! We'll keep our guns, and there's NOTHING you can do about it, except whine. And we're not listening to your whining anymore!!Eleventy!1!
 
2013-01-01 03:15:41 PM  

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


You're actually interested in gun control as an end unto itself. You don't concern yourself with violence as a whole. You just want people to stop using guns in crimes. Apparently knives, blunt objects, fists, feet, cars, fire, etc. are OK BTW, most of those things are attributed to more murders than all rifles.

16000 people a year are killed with something other then firearms, so it's pretty obvious that our country has a violence problem. Of the 10000 or so people killed with firearms, only about 200 or so are killed in these mass killings.

So how many of the 10,000 do you really think will be saved? Do you really think that the 9800 or day-to-day killings with guns will simply vanish and not be replaced with other weapons, thus joining the 16000 statistic?
 
2013-01-01 03:24:35 PM  

ParaHandy: I did pull the UKDoJ official report of actual criminal case stats, looking for a number that would be more comparable to Uncle Sam's reporting methods, but annoyingly it does not break down the absolute numbers into violent and non-violent crime.


"I can't prove my point so let's assume I'm correct."

Yea, you're right. If we assume the official numbers are wrong and what you suppose is correct is the actual case... then things are as you say.
 
2013-01-01 03:29:30 PM  

clevernamehere: 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.


In that case, then fark it, definitely take everyone's guns away. Armed guards and citizens cannot and should not try to stop a poor innocent, misunderstood soul who is under the destructive influence of an evil inanimate object like a gun.
 
2013-01-01 03:35:55 PM  

pedrop357: Infernalist: In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

So, a huge infringement on rights, an across-the-board increase in violent crime (as seen in the UK and Australia), not to mention an actual increase in crime with guns (UK and Australia again) all to stop 200 or so deaths perpetrated by 15-30 or so people out of around 300 million?

Just how many extra deaths, rapes, robberies, home invasion, and brutal beatings are acceptable in order to stop an extraordinarily rare event like mass killings?


Fark gun thread rule: the NRA's lie that violence is going up in the UK must be posted and re-posted at least 10 times per gun thread. Data and facts are not relevant when the derp card is in play. When contradicted with facts, yell louder, resort to ad hominems about the purely theoretical difference between a Republic and a democratic Monarchy, etc. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Violent crime in the UK is going down steadily and has been since the 1977 miner's riots. Reporting baselines have changed a lot since then. I can't speak for Australia in detail, but IIRC violence is flat to slightly down since the Port Arthur massacre, but their gun buyback clearly wasn't worth it.

Preventing mass killings is not easy. The reason that is the popular focus is because it's horrifying, and (in other countries) very rare. People tend to overestimate the importance of low probability risks with dramatically negative outcomes. From 2001 to date, i.e. including 9/11, eighty times (8,000%) as many Americans have been killed by privately owned guns as by Islamic terrorists, a number which is getting steadily bigger as 9/11 fades into the past, and yet you're all still wetting your pants about brown people with funny names.

I'm not even focusing on mass shootings, they kill 100-200 people a year. I'd prefer to tackle the much easier problem of keeping guns away from the bulk of idiots, who kill 11,000 people per year. The licensing controls I proposed likely would not have stopped Nancy Lanza from buying guns, unless she was too lazy to take the safety classes; UK-style gun controls definitely would have prevented the Newton massacre, but the USA is a long way from being ready to be as safe as the UK. Gun violence, like healthcare costs, needs to be reduced over a long period; if we can get down to Swiss levels in either case, (ObamaCare is taking us to a Swiss-like healthcare system by 2016) then it's still material progress.

Romas in diane aedificavit
 
2013-01-01 03:36:37 PM  

CanuckInCA: 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.


Please tell us why you believe that. Please be specific.
 
2013-01-01 03:36:46 PM  

Farkomatic: 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?


It's not. If a soldier on a battlefield or a cop on the streets can possess it, so can we. Hand grenades, flash bangs, machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, you name it.

US v Miller is an interesting case, and it's amusing that that gun control groups actually refer to it.

In terms of gun control, it's an extraordinarily weak case. You pointed out that they focused on the shotgun in question. The government itself claimed that the 2nd amendment was an individual right, but that a short barreled shotgun was not used in the preservation of a militia. The court didn't even make a true decision, they remanded it back to the lower court on the grounds that they could find no evidence that an SB shotgun was useful in preserving a militia.

What's fascinating and why I can't understand where people get the idea that US v Miller states that the 2nd is a collective right is that the court never addressed Miller's status on anything, they didn't question his militia status or eligibility to own guns. They talked about the gun itself, which is unnecessary if a person doesn't have an individual right to own a gun.

The court framed their position as one where they had no information that such a gun was useful in a militia because no such information was given to them. The government wasn't going to say that, and Miller's lawyer didn't bother showing up as Miller was dead.

So, the best gun control case is the one where the government was unopposed and just happens to barely muster anything resembling a pro-gun control case. That this is the case they hang, or at least hung, their hats on shows how weak the gun control case is from a constitutional perspective.
 
2013-01-01 03:40:16 PM  

Mrbogey: ParaHandy: I did pull the UKDoJ official report of actual criminal case stats, looking for a number that would be more comparable to Uncle Sam's reporting methods, but annoyingly it does not break down the absolute numbers into violent and non-violent crime.

"I can't prove my point so let's assume I'm correct."

Yea, you're right. If we assume the official numbers are wrong and what you suppose is correct is the actual case... then things are as you say.


Click on the second Guardian link, there is buckets of data conveniently arranged in graphs that slope down and to the right over time. Oh, data that proves my point? Guess you should ignore it then, and instead focus on my biatching that Mrs Queen's employees didn't provide it in an easy to parse format.
 
2013-01-01 03:43:26 PM  

ParaHandy: Violent crime in the UK is going down steadily and has been since the 1977 miner's riots. Reporting baselines have changed a lot since then. I can't speak for Australia in detail, but IIRC violence is flat to slightly down since the Port Arthur massacre, but their gun buyback clearly wasn't worth it.


So the reporting methodology just happened to change after their 1997 ban on firearms and just happened to show regular increases in violence with and without guns? What an amazing coincidence.

We saw something similar in the 1970s when DC banned handuns, an increase in violent crime with and without guns despite nothing of the sort happening in all the nearby neighboring cities. I suppose the DC police just happened to redo their reporting methodology at the same time and that explains why violent crime in DC went from high to HOLY fark after they banned guns.
 
2013-01-01 03:46:23 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.


according to the census bureau, arizona has less crime than california.
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
 
2013-01-01 03:48:30 PM  
?

ParaHandy: The per capita rate of recorded violent crimes in the UK is higher than the USA, because of much wider reporting requirements. No-one needs to be arrested, cautioned[1], charged or convicted for an event to be recorded as a violent crime in the UK; any report by a self-perceived victim suffices.


The US DOJ does something very similar with surveys on victims of crime.
 
2013-01-01 03:50:39 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: according to the census bureau, arizona has less crime than california.
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html


Yup. We heard the same border arguments for Washington DC, claiming that the gun ban didn't work because people bought them (illegallly if they were DC residents) in VA, yet the cities all around DC had crime rates that made them crime free utopias compared to DC.
 
2013-01-01 03:51:46 PM  

pedrop357: Infernalist: I'm saying, and still am saying, that the only way to stop the gun violence problem is to remove the guns from society. You've yet to offer up anything that proves otherwise.

You're actually interested in gun control as an end unto itself. You don't concern yourself with violence as a whole. You just want people to stop using guns in crimes. Apparently knives, blunt objects, fists, feet, cars, fire, etc. are OK BTW, most of those things are attributed to more murders than all rifles.

16000 people a year are killed with something other then firearms, so it's pretty obvious that our country has a violence problem. Of the 10000 or so people killed with firearms, only about 200 or so are killed in these mass killings.

So how many of the 10,000 do you really think will be saved? Do you really think that the 9800 or day-to-day killings with guns will simply vanish and not be replaced with other weapons, thus joining the 16000 statistic?


I once again quote the philosopher Izzard: "The NRA tells us that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but I think you'll find the gun helps. If I yell 'bang', that won't kill many people, well maybe if they have a dodgy ticker, ...."

Humans are lazy, and like stuff to be easy. Especially in America, where you can go through the McDonald's drive through for a super size Big Mac meal and then drive through at Walgreens and pick up your diabetes meds without ever leaving the car.

Guns are specifcally designed for killing things, and in the case of the most common guns in the USA, those things intended to be killed are humans. It may seem surprising to you, but a tool expressly designed for killing humans makes it easier to kill humans than with pretty much anything else. You can undo a 13mm bolt with a hammer, screwdriver and pliers with some time and effort, but I can undo it in a couple of seconds with a 13mm socket and a ratchet.

Guns make killing easy. Without guns, killing is less easy. Therefore, lazy humans without guns will kill less people.

Consider the famous drive by shooting. You can drive up and down my street waving a baseball bat or a knife out your car window and I might not even notice if you don't have a fart can exhaust, as I have double glazing. The lack of a gun really rules out this mode of interaction by gang bangers. Of course, wanting to reduce drive-bys is probably a bit racially insensitive of me, since it will impede Shaquan's 2nd amendment rights, and since many of the lives saved will be people who are ethnically challenged.
 
2013-01-01 03:53:42 PM  

ParaHandy: Mrbogey: ParaHandy: I did pull the UKDoJ official report of actual criminal case stats, looking for a number that would be more comparable to Uncle Sam's reporting methods, but annoyingly it does not break down the absolute numbers into violent and non-violent crime.

"I can't prove my point so let's assume I'm correct."

Yea, you're right. If we assume the official numbers are wrong and what you suppose is correct is the actual case... then things are as you say.

Click on the second Guardian link, there is buckets of data conveniently arranged in graphs that slope down and to the right over time. Oh, data that proves my point? Guess you should ignore it then, and instead focus on my biatching that Mrs Queen's employees didn't provide it in an easy to parse format.


The world was formed on January 1, 2002. All data from before then does not exist and can not be used in an argument.

Anyone who says crime rose after the gun bans and only in the past few years has trended down to below ban levels is just making up "facts" as there is simply no data kept from before 2002. The last thing anyone should look at is crime stats that are more than a couple years old. They should only look at the carefully framed and narrowed stats that prove ParaHandy's point.Because it's not a lie when ParaHandy does it.
 
2013-01-01 04:01:46 PM  

ParaHandy: Guns are specifcally designed for killing things, and in the case of the most common guns in the USA, those things intended to be killed are humans. It may seem surprising to you, but a tool expressly designed for killing humans makes it easier to kill humans than with pretty much anything else. You can undo a 13mm bolt with a hammer, screwdriver and pliers with some time and effort, but I can undo it in a couple of seconds with a 13mm socket and a ratchet.

Guns make killing easy. Without guns, killing is less easy. Therefore, lazy humans without guns will kill less people.

Consider the famous drive by shooting. You can drive up and down my street waving a baseball bat or a knife out your car window and I might not even notice if you don't have a fart can exhaust, as I have double glazing. The lack of a gun really rules out this mode of interaction by gang bangers. Of course, wanting to reduce drive-bys is probably a bit racially insensitive of me, since it will impede Shaquan's 2nd amendment rights, and since many of the lives saved will be people who are ethnically challenged.


Aside from the anti-American derp tossed in and the implied racism in the name Shaquan, the rest of your post is supposition at best.

Laziness and difficulty using other things to kill didn't seem to matter with the 16000 or so people murdered last year by something other then guns.

There are more then 300 million guns in this country, all of which (in your words) are 'designed to kill', yet those guns are implicated in around 10,000 homicides. Sounds like the guns are defective.
 
2013-01-01 04:05:19 PM  

pedrop357: ParaHandy: Violent crime in the UK is going down steadily and has been since the 1977 miner's riots. Reporting baselines have changed a lot since then. I can't speak for Australia in detail, but IIRC violence is flat to slightly down since the Port Arthur massacre, but their gun buyback clearly wasn't worth it.

So the reporting methodology just happened to change after their 1997 ban on firearms and just happened to show regular increases in violence with and without guns? What an amazing coincidence.

We saw something similar in the 1970s when DC banned handuns, an increase in violent crime with and without guns despite nothing of the sort happening in all the nearby neighboring cities. I suppose the DC police just happened to redo their reporting methodology at the same time and that explains why violent crime in DC went from high to HOLY fark after they banned guns.


You can lead a derp to data, but you can't make him think .... the interactive version is on the link I mentioned .....

dcc.vu
 
2013-01-01 04:09:24 PM  

Mrbogey: ParaHandy: Mrbogey: ParaHandy: I did pull the UKDoJ official report of actual criminal case stats, looking for a number that would be more comparable to Uncle Sam's reporting methods, but annoyingly it does not break down the absolute numbers into violent and non-violent crime.

"I can't prove my point so let's assume I'm correct."

Yea, you're right. If we assume the official numbers are wrong and what you suppose is correct is the actual case... then things are as you say.

Click on the second Guardian link, there is buckets of data conveniently arranged in graphs that slope down and to the right over time. Oh, data that proves my point? Guess you should ignore it then, and instead focus on my biatching that Mrs Queen's employees didn't provide it in an easy to parse format.

The world was formed on January 1, 2002. All data from before then does not exist and can not be used in an argument.

Anyone who says crime rose after the gun bans and only in the past few years has trended down to below ban levels is just making up "facts" as there is simply no data kept from before 2002. The last thing anyone should look at is crime stats that are more than a couple years old. They should only look at the carefully framed and narrowed stats that prove ParaHandy's point.Because it's not a lie when ParaHandy does it.


So post it already. Or are we supposed to simply believe you because Wayne LaPierre said so?
 
2013-01-01 04:10:39 PM  

ParaHandy: pedrop357: ParaHandy: Violent crime in the UK is going down steadily and has been since the 1977 miner's riots. Reporting baselines have changed a lot since then. I can't speak for Australia in detail, but IIRC violence is flat to slightly down since the Port Arthur massacre, but their gun buyback clearly wasn't worth it.

So the reporting methodology just happened to change after their 1997 ban on firearms and just happened to show regular increases in violence with and without guns? What an amazing coincidence.

We saw something similar in the 1970s when DC banned handuns, an increase in violent crime with and without guns despite nothing of the sort happening in all the nearby neighboring cities. I suppose the DC police just happened to redo their reporting methodology at the same time and that explains why violent crime in DC went from high to HOLY fark after they banned guns.

You can lead a derp to data, but you can't make him think .... the interactive version is on the link I mentioned .....

[dcc.vu image 585x354]


Oooh. 2002 to present. The US has seen a similar drop in crime without banning guns.
 
2013-01-01 04:10:49 PM  
Gun thread, ParaHandy here to rage his battle against gun rights. Meh.
 
2013-01-01 04:13:17 PM  

ParaHandy: DeathCipris: 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, but can be untraceably purchased a 5 hour drive away in Nevada
Hi-Cap mags are DEFINITELY banned in CA but there are millions of them already in gang bangers' hands
Ammo is outrageously expensive there already too but you can order it online from WalMart.com

That leaves you with nothing but the realisation that banning anything isn't going to work when you have an open border with someone who doesn't regulate it at all, kind of like Hays County TX still being nominally "dry". If you like the government tracking gun ownership and keeping guns away from crazy and deluded people like DethCipris, letrole etc. and don't find it outrageous that you have to have a license to own items specifically designed to kill things, and you aren't such a crappy shot as Kit Fister that you need a semi-automatic machine gun to kill a farking pig, move to the UK like ParaHandy's friend Pat from Chicago did, and your kids are less likely to die in a hail of bullets or when their 5 year old pal gets his dad's "home defence" gun out of the sock drawer. Hope you don't get stabbed

You needed a little help framing that. We know you right wingers aren't very edumacated, so we're happy to FTFY.


Kill one pig? No, I don't need an AR to kill one pig. To kill 8-12 pigs or coyotes at a time? Yes, I do.
 
2013-01-01 04:16:15 PM  
So, ParaHandy, what are you going to do if no bans are passed, and nothing happens? Cry?
 
2013-01-01 04:17:13 PM  

Clutch2013: Tickle Mittens: Fark It: Tickle Mittens: TheGhostofFarkPast: Wow we can't even go one farking day with out someone unloading a gun into a crowd. Good job America.

It's cause subtard is a milk siping pantywaist. If he was a real American he would have gone armed with his Baretta 93R with extended magazine an incendiary ammunition, and run towards the gunfire eger to stop a bad man with a gun.

There aren't any transferable 93Rs (aside from maybe some SOT dealer samples) in the U.S., only a couple of parts kits assembled on Taurus receivers, and they cost tens of thousands of dollars. Not something you'd carry concealed.

Terrible, just terrible. It's getting so you can't even take a movie like Face/Off seriously.

Actually, it was Broken Arrow where Travolta had a 93R.


Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?
 
2013-01-01 04:19:39 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: /loves California
//weirdness has its own special charm


I concur...
 
2013-01-01 04:24:19 PM  
all these comments? It's Sacto.

White trash and latin gangs.

who cares
 
2013-01-01 04:25:31 PM  

RidersOfLohan: all these comments? It's Sacto.

White trash and latin gangs.

who cares


ParaHandy does, apparently.
 
2013-01-01 04:28:24 PM  

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


Heh heh! My crazy, sub-100 IQ tea-bagging fundie aunt got on Facebook right after Newtown, CT and said she really believed the government was behind it. So they could use it as an excuse to take away our guns. No regular person is capable of acting that way, she said.

It makes for some rich entertainment sometimes, and other times it just gets irritating and old. Like her dozen posts on election night...
 
2013-01-01 04:29:25 PM  

pedrop357:
Aside from the anti-American derp tossed in

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/diabetes_prevalence_country_ranks. ht ml

I admit to a bit of gentle trolling, but I'm trolling with facts (I know, they have a liberal bias. I blame scientists)

and the implied racism in the name Shaquan,

my dealer's name is Shaquan :) I was looking for a way to say "some kind of shady person who can't legally own guns but has one anyway because they are so easy to get, and does naughty things with it" that would be readily accessible to white racist god fearing gun nuts. It's only midly tongue in cheek. You're awfully sensitive for someone who thinks 30,000 lives a year isn't a big deal

Laziness and difficulty using other things to kill didn't seem to matter with the 16000 or so people murdered last year by something other then guns.

There are more then 300 million guns in this country, all of which (in your words) are 'designed to kill', yet those guns are implicated in around 10,000 homicides. Sounds like the guns are defective.


Handguns and machine guns [1] are designed to kill human beings. They can also be used to plink old bean tins and milk bottles, for competitive target shooting, and a number of other non-violent purposes. Law abiding citizens, who are in the majority, use them properly. That does not detract from their design. The guns are not defective - if you like, stand in front of one while I pull the trigger and we can see if its human killing feature is still functional. It seems to me that there are 300m guns and 250,000 defective people [2]. My proposal will result in 200m guns and far fewer of them in the hands of that 250,000.


[1] in the civilized world where the NRA does not get to dictate terminology, this is a colloquial term which covers both an AR15 and an M16 and all similar weapons. People who are not gun nerds see no distinction, just like you would not care about the distinction between the 4wd systems in my two cars. You may substitute whatever nomenclature lowers your blood pressure enough to see straight.

[2] multiplied the annual rate by a nominal 25 as the average age of a gun murderer. Pick a number.
 
2013-01-01 04:31:33 PM  

Kit Fister: Gun thread, ParaHandy here to rage his battle against gun rights deaths. Meh.


FTFY
 
2013-01-01 04:32:38 PM  

Kit Fister: RidersOfLohan: all these comments? It's Sacto.

White trash and latin gangs.

who cares

ParaHandy does, apparently.


I AM white trash, if you don't mind.
 
2013-01-01 04:36:23 PM  

Kit Fister: So, ParaHandy, what are you going to do if no bans are passed, and nothing happens? Cry?


Gun control seems to originate from many of the very same people on the left left who complains about Patriot Act abuses which stem from a bill passed in the wake of a tragedy by craven opportunists.
But I digress.

I don't think the gun control people have thought this through. The case history and overall movement has been in favor of less gun control. The gun control groups and their supporters refused to 'compromise' when it came to handguns in DC and in return we got DC v Heller. They foolishly did the same in Chicago and we got Chicago v McDonald. I really wish I had sent a nice cake to the gun control groups after those two cases.

The proposed ban on 'assault weapons' seems destined to be overturned as well, with the result that not only will infringing,idiotic "assault weapon" bans finally be off the table at the federal level, but those state level bans will die too. Why? Because there's nothing special or unique about weapons labeled "assault weapons" that would justify banning them, and nothing that would pass the various scrutiny tests the court likes to apply.

If for some reason the court doesn't overturn such a ban (assuming it actually passes), it will mobilize the gun rights movement even more then it did in 1994 due to the new proposed ban's much larger scope. It's in that aftermath that we got a lot of shall-issue CCW laws, elimination of some state laws requiring permits to purchase, etc. not to mention that the Democrats lost Congress (not taking a position right now about who is better, just that the Dems and their overall movement lost because of the 1994 ban.)

If the NFA portion stays in place, there will be widespread noncompliance with all the resulting consequences that occur when people realize the law is a joke. You can count on open noncompliance in many areas. I will consider converting my ARs to full auto (probably 3rd burst) as the penalties for not registering them as "assault weapons" is the same as not registering them as machine guns.

Any confiscation/compliance enforcement measures will be met with an unprecedented, but well deserved on the part of the recipients, level of violent resistance with all the things that happen when people in significant numbers begin using force against government officials.

If any ban passes, the aftermath will be much worse for the gun control movement than it will be for the gun rights movement.
 
2013-01-01 04:40:37 PM  

ParaHandy: So post it already. Or are we supposed to simply believe you because Wayne LaPierre said so?


www.publications.parliament.uk
www.publications.parliament.uk
Link

www.statistics.gov.uk
www.bbc.co.uk

Gee... why did your charts only go back to 2002?
 
2013-01-01 04:43:28 PM  

Kit Fister: So, ParaHandy, what are you going to do if no bans are passed, and nothing happens? Cry?


No, I will continue to advocate for sensible gun controls.

While I still think you're a butcher, and that a 30-06 bolt action is the correct and humane weapon to use for hog hunting, and that there is no civilian purpose which requires a machine gun, when it comes to saving lives, banning Bushmasters is going to be about as effective as banning water from airports was. As I detailed above, I think it might even cause more harm than good.

I think Dianne Feinstein is barking up the wrong tree and she will be getting a letter telling her such in detail once I return to somewhere I can mail it with a USPS stamp.

I stand bemused at the continued refusal of pro-gun people to have even the simplest regulations to keep guns out of the hands of the stupid and irresponsible. There are only a few possibilites:

1. Paid shills for the NRA and Bushmaster - not likely
2. So incompetent and dangerous they could not pass a gun safety test as trivial as US driving tests - some of them, I'm guessing not you
3. Deluded - lots of them, including you
4. Obsessed with guns and the associated machismo and narcissism - definitely
5. Uncaring about the thousands of non-gang-bangers murdered with guns - not as such, but you don't get it
6. Unthinking about the consequences of their demands - you in spades
7. Susceptible to fantasies where the good guys always win shoot outs - all of them
8. Misled into believe that more guns means less gun violence - most of them
 
2013-01-01 04:44:50 PM  

ParaHandy: Handguns and machine guns [1] are designed to kill human beings. They can also be used to plink old bean tins and milk bottles, for competitive target shooting, and a number of other non-violent purposes. Law abiding citizens, who are in the majority, use them properly. That does not detract from their design. The guns are not defective - if you like, stand in front of one while I pull the trigger and we can see if its human killing feature is still functional. It seems to me that there are 300m guns and 250,000 defective people [2]. My proposal will result in 200m guns and far fewer of them in the hands of that 250,000.


[1] in the civilized world where the NRA does not get to dictate terminology, this is a colloquial term which covers both an AR15 and an M16 and all similar weapons. People who are not gun nerds see no distinction, just like you would not care about the distinction between the 4wd systems in my two cars. You may substitute whatever nomenclature lowers your blood pressure enough to see straight.

[2] multiplied the annual rate by a nominal 25 as the average age of a gun murderer. Pick a number.


#1 is funny because it's the gun control groups that simply invented the term "assault weapon", most likely because it sounds close to "assault rifle", and that definition has unfortunately stuck. The NRA decided nothing on terminology; the makers of the guns, the military, the people using them, etc. did.

The 4wd drive system type does mater in a vehicle. Part time, 4wd is unsuited for use on pavement. Calling a part time 4wd drive system 'all wheel drive' or 'full time 4 wheel drive' would be deliberately misleading as 'all wheel drive', like 'full time 4 wheel drive' has been defined by the makes, users, operators, etc. to mean a drive system that can operate over all terrain types and is typically assumed to mean that there is a center differential that allows speed differences between axles.

When the gun control groups can't make their case properly and in a straightforward fashion, they have resorted to redefining things and coming up with misleading terms.

They seek to control the debate by controlling the terms.
 
2013-01-01 04:53:52 PM  

ParaHandy:
1. Paid shills for the NRA and Bushmaster - not likely
2. So incompetent and dangerous they could not pass a gun safety test as trivial as US driving tests - some of them, I'm guessing not you
3. Deluded - lots of them, including you
4. Obsessed with guns and the associated machismo and narcissism - definitely
5. Uncaring about the thousands of non-gang-bangers murdered with guns - not as such, but you don't get it
6. Unthinking about the consequences of their demands - you in spades
7. Susceptible to fantasies where the good guys always win shoot outs - all of them
8. Misled into believe that more guns means less gun violence - most of them


1. What about Gun Owners of America and DPMS?
2. the low rate of gun accidents relative to the number of guns and their owners compared to the number of accidents relative to the number of cars and their owners does not support the idea that training would make a difference in accidental injury/death.
3.You in spades.
4.Ad hominem. but points for not using the word 'penis' like so many other 'mature' gun control supporters.
5. as opposed to your high level of concern with the thousands of people killed by things other guns.
6.Gun control has cost the political supporters again and again. It's cost a lot of lives in areas like DC and Chicago.
7.Susceptible to thinking that the majority of people who murder with guns will decide not to in the absence of a gun
8.Misled into thinking gun violence is the only kind that matters, as well as not looking at the facts in the US that point to far more firearms being sold, yet crime going down. if they're connected, well... If they're not connected, it just proves that more guns!=more crime.
 
2013-01-01 04:55:51 PM  

ParaHandy: Kit Fister: So, ParaHandy, what are you going to do if no bans are passed, and nothing happens? Cry?

No, I will continue to advocate for sensible gun controls.

While I still think you're a butcher, and that a 30-06 bolt action is the correct and humane weapon to use for hog hunting, and that there is no civilian purpose which requires a machine gun, when it comes to saving lives, banning Bushmasters is going to be about as effective as banning water from airports was. As I detailed above, I think it might even cause more harm than good.

I think Dianne Feinstein is barking up the wrong tree and she will be getting a letter telling her such in detail once I return to somewhere I can mail it with a USPS stamp.

I stand bemused at the continued refusal of pro-gun people to have even the simplest regulations to keep guns out of the hands of the stupid and irresponsible. There are only a few possibilites:

1. Paid shills for the NRA and Bushmaster - not likely
2. So incompetent and dangerous they could not pass a gun safety test as trivial as US driving tests - some of them, I'm guessing not you
3. Deluded - lots of them, including you
4. Obsessed with guns and the associated machismo and narcissism - definitely
5. Uncaring about the thousands of non-gang-bangers murdered with guns - not as such, but you don't get it
6. Unthinking about the consequences of their demands - you in spades
7. Susceptible to fantasies where the good guys always win shoot outs - all of them
8. Misled into believe that more guns means less gun violence - most of them


I am a butcher when it comes to feral hogs, coyotes, ground hogs, etc that are all vermin, and massively destructive to the natural landscape they are not native to. The kudzu of the animal world. I take pride in it, and will slaughter as many of them as I can to protect habitat and crops, game animals, and pets/farm animals.

I am well aware of the consequences of my actions: exactly nothing that common sense controls and training, and enforcement of existing laws more completely won't prevent, as they're supposed to.

So, belittle me all you like, I stand firm on what I've said over and over again that you refuse to listen to.

Also, having been in violent situations where weapons are involved, nothing is cool, fun, or glorified about the acts, the violence, or the risk. But at the same time, I will continue to train, keep up with certifications, and use my firearms for fun and, if needed, for defense because I choose to avail myself of that option.

Obsessed? Not hardly. Obsessed with a few farkettes maybe, but not guns.
 
2013-01-01 05:05:58 PM  

Mrbogey: ParaHandy: So post it already. Or are we supposed to simply believe you because Wayne LaPierre said so?

[www.publications.parliament.uk image 425x350]
[www.publications.parliament.uk image 411x266]

So, total violence was down 23% from 1997 until 10 years later (I'm ignoring the 1995 line which is clearly wrong), and (using the chart I posted) has since dropped a further 15%. Does this mean that the NRA claim that violence is higher in the UK than it was before Dunblane might be in error?

[www.statistics.gov.uk image 300x250]
[www.bbc.co.uk image 595x388]

Burglaries are down 40% as well ... that sounds terrible to me. Guess all those people kicking doors in at every random moment because they know there aren't any guns in the house are getting lazier all the time

Gee... why did your charts only go back to 2002?


Because the Guardian data was cut off at 10 years. Wasn't trying anything disingenuous.

Also, note that while some of these levels are fluctuating, they are still trending down, and we're talking about far lower rates of violence and murder than there are in the United States. Also, we already had effective gun control before 1997 ... trying to make it MORE effective and go from low to zero gun violence is tricky. I'd like to see the USA go from the (civilian) violence levels of 19th century Europe which it currently has to at least somewhere in the 20th century.

/ I know "progress" and "progressive" are dirty words
 
2013-01-01 05:13:37 PM  

pedrop357:
#1 is funny because it's the gun control groups that simply invented the term "assault weapon", most likely because it sounds close to "assault rifle", and that definition has unfortunately stuck. The NRA decided nothing on terminology; the makers of the guns, the military, the people using them, etc. did.

how do you distinguish between modern military rifle that is designed to have a high capacity and fire lots of rounds to disable and kill enemy soliders, and a bolt action rifle that (nowadays) is used for potting bambi?

The 4wd drive system type does mater in a vehicle. Part time, 4wd is unsuited for use on pavement. Calling a part time 4wd drive system 'all wheel drive' or 'full time 4 wheel drive' would be deliberately misleading as 'all wheel drive', like 'full time 4 wheel drive' has been defined by the makes, users, operators, etc. to mean a drive system that can operate over all terrain types and is typically assumed to mean that there is a center differential that allows speed differences between axles.

both are full time 4wd, or in the American vernacular, AWD. One has a center diff, one does not. Both are designed to operate on asphalt and other improved surfaces, they are 4wd for performance not for offroading

When the gun control groups can't make their ...


So what is the correct term for an AR-15 ... is it a "pink fluffy cuddly super safe semi-auto could never possibly be dangerous" rifle?

/ inquiring minds want to know
 
2013-01-01 05:16:29 PM  

Kit Fister: But at the same time, I will continue to train, keep up with certifications, and use my firearms for fun and, if needed, for defense because I choose to avail myself of that option.


So, you voluntarily engage in training and certification. Why are you so vehemently against making that mandatory for people like Nancy Lanza and George Zimmerman?
 
2013-01-01 05:17:30 PM  
Raise your hand if your a sweet Jewish person making comments for gun control in this thread.
 
2013-01-01 05:18:02 PM  

ParaHandy: I'd like to see the USA go from the (civilian) violence levels of 19th century Europe which it currently has to at least somewhere in the 20th century.


Neat use of the qualifier civilian. We have to exclude all the European government driven violence in the 19th and 20th centuries, otherwise the numbers make the US look like a crime paradise.

We've yet to have a government led massacre on anything that might come close to thinking about approaching those in Europe over the last couple hundred years. Maybe our 'gun culture' has something to do with that. It's A LOT harder to round people up for mass execution or concentration into camps when even 1 or 2% are well armed.

I think we've got a few centuries at our rate before we can approach the 6 million+ Jews killed by the German government in the 1930s.
 
2013-01-01 05:23:39 PM  
I SAID RAISE YOUR HANDS!!!!
 
2013-01-01 05:28:42 PM  

ParaHandy: [1] in the civilized world where the NRA does not get to dictate terminology, this is a colloquial term which covers both an AR15 and an M16 and all similar weapons.


The term "machine gun" is defined both technically and legally. By neither technical nor legal definition is an AR-15 pattern rifle a "machine gun". Describing an AR-15 as a "machine gun" is therefore dishonest and is done with deliberate intent to deceive.
 
2013-01-01 05:28:58 PM  

ParaHandy: both are full time 4wd, or in the American vernacular, AWD. One has a center diff, one does not. Both are designed to operate on asphalt and other improved surfaces, they are 4wd for performance not for offroading


Good luck operating that part time 4wd system without a center diff on asphalt. They are most certainly not both considered all wheel drive to the public and differ considerably in their capability. Fulltime 4wd has distinctions from AWD, but both are considerably distinctly different from part time 4wd.

Both are technically 4wd, but it's highly deceptive to call a 4wd system that has an open or limited slip and non locking/non lockable center differential "Four wheel drive" as that term has been used almost exclusively for systems that lock the front and rear axles together. The unqualified term 'four wheel drive' refers to the part time version, which is why the fulltime version is ALWAYS qualified as "Fulltime four wheel drive". The nonlocking type with a center diff is nearly always referred to as 'all wheel drive'

Terms matter a lot if you're trying to determine capability.

So what is the correct term for an AR-15 ... is it a "pink fluffy cuddly super safe semi-auto could never possibly be dangerous" rifle?

So you're a all-or-nothing binary liberal douchebag?

It's a semi-automatic rifle. That's all. Not an 'assault rifle' which is defined as a select fire rifle chambered with an intermediate caliber, nor is it is a machine gun, which is a firearm that fires more then one round with a single pull of the trigger.
 
2013-01-01 05:32:04 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 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.


Um I haven't carried or had an issued firearms for year's, what I carry on duty I own outright.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report