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
    More: NewsFlash, nye, Old Town Sacramento, shots  
•       •       •

33165 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?

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-01 02:21:21 AM  
15 votes:
If you absolutely, positively need to shoot someone, make it yourself and leave others the hell alone.
2013-01-01 02:25:38 AM  
11 votes:
So, how are those strict gun laws and high capacity magazine bans working out for you California?
2013-01-01 02:36:36 AM  
5 votes:

eraser8: At least we can come together on one thing:  capital punishment is murder and should be abolished.


In principle, I actually support capital punishment. I certainly see no reason that murderers and rapists should not be put to death. But as a practical matter, the death penalty is applied in racist ways and without a high enough standard of evidence, and I really have no hope that will ever change, and for this reason I can't support the death penalty.
2013-01-01 02:26:30 AM  
5 votes:
Maybe it is time to make gun ownership illegal, and give the death penalty to those who refuse to give them up/continue to own them. That way the gun nuts can live out their masturbatory fantasy of going down in a fight with the government and the rest of us can be a little safer knowing that there are less guns on the street/available to be stolen for the purpose of mass murder. Sounds like a win/win situation to me, and everyone can be happy.
2013-01-01 02:21:54 AM  
5 votes:
This is what happens when you take God out of fireworks displays.
2013-01-01 02:10:45 AM  
5 votes:
This is why we can't have nice things.

marius2: Stay safe, Subs.


THIS.
2013-01-01 03:35:38 AM  
4 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-01-01 02:59:54 AM  
4 votes:
Horrible way to spend New Years. Be safe.

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

FWIW I am not "pro gun" or a political righty. I just don't see the logic in banning one thing after another to address the real issue that America is doing a piss poor job with mantal illness. Sane gun owners, like sane drivers of cars and sane pilots are not causing mass murders. Crazy people are and its about time we start dealing with crazy instead of dealing with the implements they pick up.

/$.02
//off my soapbox now
///A very happy, safe and bountiful 2013 to you all
2013-01-01 02:34:02 AM  
4 votes:
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7511939/81607565#c81607565" target="_blank">cybrwzrd</a>:</b> <i>Maybe it is time to make gun ownership illegal, and give the death penalty to those who refuse to give them up/continue to own them. That way the gun nuts can live out their masturbatory fantasy of going down in a fight with the government and the rest of us can be a little safer knowing that there are less guns on the street/available to be stolen for the purpose of mass murder. Sounds like a win/win situation to me, and everyone can be happy.</i>

this wasn't a mass shooting - a fight with guns involved. and this in one of the most gun-restrictive states.
criminals don't follow laws. period, end of story.
2013-01-01 02:27:42 AM  
4 votes:
If people weren't allowed to gather together in one place, this wouldn't have happened. We should ban gatherings.
2013-01-01 10:05:01 AM  
3 votes:
Can I attempt to sum up the gun debate?

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

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

Do I have it right?
2013-01-01 06:31:15 AM  
3 votes:

gh0strid3r: All you lowlife jackasses that keep purposely misspelling "AMERICA" can die in a fire. Slowly.

/American Vet
//Not what I fought for


Well, what DID you fight for? Obviously it wasn't for Freedom of Speech.
2013-01-01 03:52:08 AM  
3 votes:

BadReligion: Most gun crimes in this country happen with illegally obtained guns.


Illegally obtained...from whom?
2013-01-01 03:01:49 AM  
3 votes:
Another responsible gun owner heard from.

/well, he was yesterday.
2013-01-01 02:38:15 AM  
3 votes:
Holy shiat. The only reason my wife and I weren't there tonight is because we cancelled our party plans on account that she is pregnant.

/just found out two weeks ago
//our first
2013-01-01 02:36:02 AM  
3 votes:

JSam21: Not a mass shooting... the article says it was a fight and a male Hispanic suspect was seen running. Ban Hispanics?


A fight at a sports bar. Ban sports bars.
2013-01-01 02:32:48 AM  
3 votes:

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

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

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


At least we can come together on one thing:  capital punishment is murder and should be abolished.
2013-01-01 02:30:00 AM  
3 votes:

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


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

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

/Sorry you and the others had to go through this subby. I hope no one you know was involved.
2013-01-01 02:29:27 AM  
3 votes:

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


Here's how.

2=26÷13
2013-01-01 02:28:35 AM  
3 votes:

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


Considering your profile says you are libertarian, that is awful big government of you.
2013-01-01 02:17:08 AM  
3 votes:
This is why we can't have nice things.
2013-01-01 02:16:36 AM  
3 votes:
Farking hell I've had enough of this. Be safe, subby,
KIA
2013-01-01 09:14:29 PM  
2 votes:

ParaHandy: if kooks like Zimmerman are rare, then who is doing all of this killing, with what, and why?


I'm so glad you asked!

First, how big is the problem? The government's most recent figures published by the CDC here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm indicate that 11,493 people were victims of firearm homicides in 2009. The US has about 313 million people, so the firearm homicide number above constitute a three one-thousandths of a percent (0.003%) of the overall population. Of all of the deaths in the US about 2.44 million a year, only about one-half of one percent (0.5%) are due to firearm homicides. Homicide rates have been steadily dropping. In the last five years, annual firearms homicides have dropped by about 1500, see FBI statistics here http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-th e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

The first data points show that there is no "epidemic" of firearms murders going on and, in fact, firearm homicides are already shrinking. In fact, firearms homicides aren't even in the top ten causes of death. The CDC reports above indicate that the flu regularly kills three times as many people as are murdered by firearms.

The foregoing numbers and some objective perspective on the problem contradict the unspoken assumptions in the media that there is a gigantic problem which needs draconian solutions.

Next, one must look at who is involved in murders. According to DOJ statistics compiled here http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt "An estimated 70% of violent felons in the 75 largest counties had been arrested previously. Seventy-three percent of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record, as did 67% of murderers, and 53% of rapists... Fifty-nine percent of those convicted of assault and 58% of those convicted of murder had at least one prior felony arrest."

Data point 2: More than two-thirds of murders are committed by people with prior criminal records and over half by those who had prior felony arrests. If they were taken out of the equation, one could expect firearms homicides to plunge by two-thirds. In fact, the existing background checks appear to be working by denying criminals the ability to purchase firearms. However, to the extent that criminals are obtaining firearms anyway, they are only demonstrating that they are not law-abiding citizens and would not follow additional laws. New law would therefore address an extremely narrow subset of firearms homicides and have an extremely limited impact.

The natural question to ask next is: what firearms are being used for murders? Delving into the FBI gun homicide data at the link above, one can see that rifles are used at very low rates in homicides, only about 300 to 400 per year which, using the FBI number of 8,775 firearm victims in 2010 would show rifle use at about four and a half percent (4.5%).

The third data point shows that rifles aren't generally used in firearms homicides. If there was a compelling need for expenditures and legislation, directing it at rifles would narrow the impact so severely it would seem unlikely to create a meaningful reduction in homicide victims.

In fact, the proposed legislation would appear to have little practical impact upon anyone other than law-abiding citizens who are only using firearms in self-defense. FBI statistics here http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-th e-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidem ain indicate that there were 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Law enforcement killed 387 felons and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people in the commission of a crime.

The fourth data point shows that private citizens have properly deployed firearms and been responsible for 42% of the justifiable usages while the police carried the other 58%. The political leadership is being asked to effectively strip away civilian rights which will have the unintended consequence of making the police's job harder and the crime rate higher as criminals are unopposed.
2013-01-01 05:50:01 PM  
2 votes:

ParaHandy: I hope y'all remembered to make your New Year's Eve donation to a suitable cause ....

[dcc.vu image 822x629]


Yup, I donated to the NRA and Gun Owners of America after they responded to the gun ban proposals.

The Brady Group, like the politicians who support them, is nice in that they didn't wait until even half the kids were buried before trotting out their decade old wishlist of things that have repeatedly proven to be ineffective.

I'll continue to donate to groups that advocate preservation and/or expansion of freedom, including NRA, GOA, ACLU, EFF, ARRL, NYRA etc.
2013-01-01 05:37:06 PM  
2 votes:
2013-01-01 01:15:18 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:37:33 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-01 09:05:48 AM  
2 votes:

JSam21: Infernalist: Is this enough, people?

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

Have seen enough dead people yet?

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

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

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

How does that end anything?


Finally, a sensible question.

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

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

This is what would happen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, no it wouldn't be quick, but it would work. It's the only thing that would work. Shut off the supply at the source.
2013-01-01 07:10:26 AM  
2 votes:

Haliburton Cummings: JSam21: Another thing that urks me is the prohibitively high cost to get good training for anything other than bullets go here, point this way, pull this, repeat type training. Advanced hand gun classes are $200 for 8 hours in my area. You have to supply your own ammunition, minimum 300 rounds per class which easily adds another $90 to the class cost. $300 for an 8 hour class? No wonder no one gets proper training.

oh the high price of learning to kill people LOL.

/poor you
//as long as you got your generator oiled up and the big teevee goin, with lots of ammo you can just laugh...


Not a gun nut. Not a prepper. I have to carry a gun on my hip everyday at work. It is part of my job. God forbid I would like to have the best training so in the unfortunate chance that I have to use my firearm in the line of duty, I will only ventilate my intended target and not innocent bystanders that happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Not everyone that lives in America that owns a gun is a "doomsday prepper gun nut". It would like me saying that everyone from Spain runs with bulls, enjoys exploring the ocean via sailboat, and makes a mean paella.
2013-01-01 06:32:32 AM  
2 votes:

Real Women Drink Akvavit: JSam21:The people that have shot all their lives are lazy and lack discipline. I use proper mechanics when training at all times, including blue gun (plastic gun) drills. If you don't practice use of the Universal Cover Mode, i.e. indexing your trigger finger, treat every firearm as it is loaded, even the fake training weapons, and shoot or train at least once a month... then don't carry or handle a firearm please.

It shocked me when I realized how many people who own firearms don't know what "indexing your trigger finger" even means. Holy crapola! Are they serious? The last thing I would want to do is "accidentally" shoot someone, so I always index. It would devastate me to harm another human without a very good cause, and I'm still not sure I could do that. I'd probably try and get away as fast as I could. I'm also of the opinion there is no such thing as an accidental shooting, just a very stupid one. That just shouldn't be.

I'm stupid about a lot of things. We can't all know everything. However, I am not stupid with my firearms or any other weapon I own. The biggest problem is that the stupid people don't know they're stupid or they deny they are stupid, even when it is pointed out to them. That is highly disturbing.


You only know what you know. That's why I'm in favor of mandatory classes for all firearms purchases. You pick up your gun on a set day at a firing range and take the class before you leave. If you can show you've taken a class within 2 years of your purchase of that type of weapon, handgun, rifle, shotgun, then you're good to go. If not, you have take the class again. It will keep firearms safety fresh in the minds of all those that purchase firearms without adding further restrictions on purchasing them.
2013-01-01 05:17:05 AM  
2 votes:
All you lowlife jackasses that keep purposely misspelling "AMERICA" can die in a fire. Slowly.

/American Vet
//Not what I fought for
2013-01-01 05:08:32 AM  
2 votes:

hinten: Guns = 2nd amendment
bullets = free speech

What you are feeling, subby, is American freedom.


With all the intendant limits.

Illegal to yell fire in theater=illegal to discharge firearm in public place
Illegal to utter threatening words=Illegal to brandish firearm or use it in threatening manner

Yelling fire in theater without fire in order to cause panic=shooting in city limits except self defense, firing range, etc.
Neither are protected acts.

That was simple.
2013-01-01 04:06:15 AM  
2 votes:
Better a mass shooting everyday killing a handful of people than throwing undesirables into ovens, starving millions through bad policy and neglect, or outright mass extermination through labor camps or ethnic cleansing. Yeah I wish these shootings didn't happen, but the alternative is infinitely worse. Let people be shot daily, I won't change my factually based, historically sound opinion one millimeter.

when unchecked tyranny comes, the gun control advocates will give up the arms their leaders will use to execute them with.
2013-01-01 03:32:09 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-01 03:28:03 AM  
2 votes:

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

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

/loves California
//weirdness has its own special charm

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


I like target  shooting and think guns are nifty, that's why. Just like some  people collect comic books, I collect weapons. I have taken training in how to use them safely and retrain every couple years. Still not sure if I could actually shoot someone, even if my life was on the line, though. I'm hazardous only to pepsi cans. Do I  need them? No. But I also do not need all that nail polish, all those shoes and handbags or multiple translations of the Eddas. I just happen to have them because I like them. I think most people are that way to a certain extent, just not usually with weaponry.

I also have an array of medieval  weapons (mostly swords) proudly displayed on  the walls of my lair. Most are reproductions and are blunts, but they are still very cool.

/got my New Year's kiss! Huzzah!
//waiting for the pool tournament to be over so we can head out
2013-01-01 02:46:24 AM  
2 votes:
2013-01-01 02:42:44 AM  
2 votes:
Subby;
Stop jerking off with social media sites and RUN, biatch, RUN!
2013-01-01 02:42:02 AM  
2 votes:

Moriel: I certainly see no reason that murderers and rapists should not be put to death.


If rapists get the death penalty, there's less reason to not kill the victims.  There's probably more incentive to kill them, actually: one fewer witness.
2013-01-01 02:41:06 AM  
2 votes:

mgshamster: Holy shiat. The only reason my wife and I weren't there tonight is because we cancelled our party plans on account that she is pregnant.

/just found out two weeks ago
//our first


Congrats man!!! You're in for one hell of a year!!! (sleep now while you still can - advice from a father of 2)
2013-01-01 02:40:52 AM  
2 votes:

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


kunochan.com

What does God need with fireworks displays?

/Stay safe, subby.
2013-01-01 02:40:16 AM  
2 votes:
Duh, it's Sacramento. The "Old Town" part especially. That area has been a mess for as long as I can remember. Why would you go to such a place for NYE? Getting drunk at home would be more entertaining and obviously safer.

/lived in Davis for a long time, and currently living in Woodland ("boring, but a safe and cheap boring, so meh")
//often drive to SF or elsewhere rather than over the causeway into Sac, and it's always worth the extra gas/time
2013-01-01 02:39:21 AM  
2 votes:

Moriel: In principle, I actually support capital punishment.


Yet, you claimed that another Farker's support of capital punishment made him, "no better than a murderer."  Also, it's insane to put rapists to death for that crime.  All that does is provide a powerful incentive for rapists to kill their victims.
2013-01-01 02:32:41 AM  
2 votes:
Jesus Christ.  We can't go a f*cking month without some motherf*cker going on a murder spree in a public place.  How the fark did we keep it together long enough to survive World War II?  And the Cold War?
2013-01-01 02:31:46 AM  
2 votes:
Damnit, I was looking forward to finally having that discussion about guns but now that someone else has died from gun violence, I guess we have to put it off again.
2013-01-01 02:29:52 AM  
2 votes:
Not this again.
2013-01-01 02:27:21 AM  
2 votes:
a lesson i learned in my teens:

if you're out on the town and gunfire can be heard, it's time to go home.

so, if you're around when gunfire erupts...don't start a thread. just leave.
2013-01-01 02:25:52 AM  
2 votes:
Fark safe.
Get out there and report!
Geraldo would!!
2013-01-01 02:25:46 AM  
2 votes:
In before the Outraged RightTM blame the fireworks manufacturer.....

/Be safe, subs.
2013-01-01 02:24:49 AM  
2 votes:
Goddam stupid motherfarkers...
2013-01-02 12:38:22 AM  
1 vote:

ParaHandy: pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: That's right, everything = everything else.

No, guns=guns. Taking a large of group of guns, redefining them and then 'only' going after 'those' guns is simply an incremental step towards, and relies on the same violation of rights as, going after 'hunting' firearms.

The vast majority of Americans, including responsible gun owners, will see mandatory licensing and training for gun owners as a good thing.

About half of Americans would be in favour of an AWB, even though we all know it's not going to be very effective if anything like the last one. If I had to choose one gun type to ban it would be handguns, not the AR15.

If we do both, and gun crime and murder rates go in to a steady and substantial decline, I think it will be a hard sell to say "well, now you can't have a hunting gun either" ... I have no interest in shooting at furry things, so it wouldn't affect me, but on principle people should have the maximum freedoms compatible with public safety, and I'd be pretty suspicious of the justification.

If we do implement some sensible weapons controls, and there are still the same number of murders with shotguns as there used to be with handguns (I find that implausible, but it has been suggested up thread more than once) then we're going to have to figure out how 11,000 people a year are getting blown away by shotguns. But I don't think it will be an issue. For one thing, it's pretty hard to hold a shotgun sideways in one hand and get decent aim.


RE: banning handguns

You cannot collectively punish millions of gun owners at the expense of our Constitution because a handful of ghetto animals shoot at each other over turf.
2013-01-01 09:17:26 PM  
1 vote:
Governments kill more people with guns than civilians. Even starting the clock at our bloodiest period, the Civil War, America has fewer deaths in quantity and per capita than Europe. Britain probably has a distorted view because they are, I admit, more civilized than most of the rest of the world. Taking Americans' guns won't make us more civilized. We're a few steps above Turkey ffs. In Africa they use machetes. A civilized demeanor is the only true and consistent factor in national violence rates. We're a little barbaric over here. Let's work on that.
2013-01-01 09:11:09 PM  
1 vote:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: way south: all guns are equally dangerous

Can you see how silly you look?


Nope. I just see you trolling.

Since you dont understand that any gun can cause a tragedy, you don't know where the danger is coming from. You don't get why the world will continue to be a violent place even of you have your way.
You fear plastic shapes and scary sounding words while ignoring dangerous people and disastrous policy.

Take your hatchet and have a good whack at the rum cask if it suits you, but be ready to also take the blame when things get worse.
2013-01-01 08:43:29 PM  
1 vote:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: That's right, everything = everything else.

No, guns=guns. Taking a large of group of guns, redefining them and then 'only' going after 'those' guns is simply an incremental step towards, and relies on the same violation of rights as, going after 'hunting' firearms.

And a Bushmaster with a thirty round magazine is no more dangerous than a revolver with speed loaders or a Chinaman with a butter knife blah blah blah...


If you don't understand that all guns are equally dangerous then you are on shaky ground to dictate which weapons you feel deserve special attention.

A lot of bad things happened before the ar-15 came around to take the blame. If we don't focus on dealing with the roots of crime, bad things will continue to happen.
Thinking that you can make tragedy less tragic by changing the tools is useless speculation. Worse, it will be a waste of law enforcement resources.
KIA
2013-01-01 08:40:03 PM  
1 vote:
Let's be clear what is being argued here. We have a bunch of folks who think there is one class of people who can be trusted with guns and one class of people who cannot be trusted with guns. Both sides take this position. The difference is this:

One group thinks only police, TSA, Social Security Administration, IRS, FBI, Treasury / Secret Service, and the dozens of other government and military agencies can be trusted enough to have firearms. Friends, family, neighbors, hunters, target shooters, hobbyists and the general people of the United States cannot be trusted. There is historic evidence that occasional nuts and kooks in the citizenry cause harm and that tens of thousands of deaths occur on an annual basis - even if most of those deaths are criminals and gang-bangers (68% of firearm homicides were committed by people with prior criminal records and an even higher percentage of "victims" had criminal records as well).

The other group thinks that police, TSA, Social Security Administration, IRS, FBI, Treasury / Secret Service, and the dozens of other government and military agencies cannot be trusted with sole custody of all force in a society and must be counterbalanced by an armed citizenry. There is historic evidence that, in addition to damage and abuse caused by criminal action or nuts or kooks who get into the allegedly trustworthy group, entire sections of government are responsible for pograms, exterminations, and genocide across entire societies on a periodic basis and that these tend to result in tens of millions of deaths each time they occur.

So, that is the basic philosophical difference. Why is a government official located hundreds or thousands of miles away from you more trustworthy than your bridge club members? Your golfing friends? Your book club?

What in the world makes you think that a bureaucrat in Washington D.C. would ever care one fig for the personal safety of a domestic abuse victim in Des Moines or someone who is being pursued by a stalker in Tampa? They don't. Not even a little.

Here is something people don't want to talk about: you have no right to personal protection, see Warren v. District of Columbia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

or Castle Rock here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

or DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)).

Those cases hold that constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.

It's nice to know that the police have an obligation to protect prisoners, but not citizens under assault. The police can stand by while the most horrific crimes occur against civilians and there is absolutely zero recourse against them. We saw this happen in the California riots in

Moreover, there is a near-universal belief that if a victim can get to a phone and dial 911, the crime is over, the police will be there in moments and all will be well. Studies have shown, however, that police resdponse times to 911 calls made a difference in the outcome of the crime in fewer than 5% of calls, see Gordon Witkin, Monika Guttman, and Tracy Lenzy, "This is 911 . . . Please Hold," U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 1996, p. 30 quoting Northeastern University Professor George Kelling and lawyer Catherine Coles.

The U.S. Dept of Justice National Criminal Victimization Survey, 2007 shows that police achieved a response time of under five minutes on just 25% of calls. They made it all the way up to 50% reponse rate within ten minutes. There are still situations like Warren, however, where a 911 three women were being beaten and raped for the better part of a day until the attackers got bored and left. About 37% of the calls took between 11 minutes and an hour, while some 5% of calls involving violent crimes didn't get a response for a day or more.

And there is absolutely nothing a private citizen can do about that - other than plan to defend themselves.
2013-01-01 08:33:01 PM  
1 vote:

ParaHandy: This is why I want all trucks licensed, registered and to have a safety inspection, and have drivers licensed, because the real problem is Shaquan in his falling apart, uninsured 1988 Cutlass Supreme flooring it at crosswalks to run over a guy who poached a crack customer from him, inadvertently hitting 6 year old Layla and killing her too.


You undermined your own point-Shaquan flooring it a crosswalk will not be stopped by inspections, licensing nor does the mechanical condition of his car matter. You also said trucks, then used the misuse of a car as an example-I'll assume you mean vehicles. If he tossed Molotov cocktails at the dealer's house and killed innocent people next door, we wouldn't be talking about regulating fuel or needing background checks to buy glass bottles.

In either case, the whole licensing, inspecting, registering regime does nothing to stop the misuse of the regulated product.

Not every state inspects vehicles. The state-to-state variation on traffic crashes doesn't seem to show inspection doing anything but providing a revenue stream and probable cause to pull someone over.
Cars do not have be registered to be purchased, nor does one need a drivers license to buy a car.
There's no federal license necessary to sell cars, no federal background check to buy cars from a dealer (new or secondhand), no permit to purchase required in any state, no law that requires they be locked in a garage like some states.

The unlicensed nature of gun owners in most states (some states do require a permit to purchase) doesn't seem to be a factor in murder. DC and Chicago being good examples of that
2013-01-01 08:24:34 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Dispute details and change the subject.

If my AR can be taken, so can Grandpa's shotgun.


In theory, but even in the UK Grandpa still enjoys bunny blatting with his trusty 12 gauge. He grumbled incessantly when they made him take it off the back seat of his car and put in a gun safe, but we told him it was good for keeping the gun away from the kids and he reluctantly agreed.

Cars are far more essential to practical liberty than guns for most people in the USA, yet we allow the federal goverment to require us to register them. I am quite concerned that when the Republicans get in power, they will come and seize my car and tell me it's too fast.
2013-01-01 08:24:01 PM  
1 vote:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: That's right, everything = everything else.


No, guns=guns. Taking a large of group of guns, redefining them and then 'only' going after 'those' guns is simply an incremental step towards, and relies on the same violation of rights as, going after 'hunting' firearms.
2013-01-01 08:19:53 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: In keeping with car analogies, I'll try another broader version.

Imagine that heavy duty diesel trucks, that is trucks like the Chevy HD, Ford F-350, Dodge RAM diesels like the 2500, etc. are involved in a small number of incidents, let's say no more than 30, where the driver drove over a bunch of people in a crosswalk-let's 5 or more, OR plowed his truck into cars at an intersection and pushed them into cross traffic.

A group of politicians who have always been opposed to trucks in private hands OR all vehicles in private hands (one or the other for this example), coin the term 'tractor truck' which sounds a lot like tractor trailer.

They go on TV talking about these "tractor trucks" and the menacing they cause. They hold press conferences talking about "Cummins killers" and "Duramax Death machines" and they show pictures of or point at the large trucks behind them and say things like "You don't need something like this to go to the grocery store" or "You don't need this to get your kids to school", "You don't need a 50 gallon fuel tank to commute to work", etc.

They introduce a ban on 'tractor trucks' in private hands. 'tractor truck' includes any truck with a diesel engine as well as any engine with a fuel injector in the cylinder head AND two or more of the following features:dual tires mounted side-by-side on an axle (dualie tires),locking front and/or rear axles, automatically shifting transmissions, sport seats, or automatic locking 4wd hubs. Separately, the bill bans diesel engines over 6.0L , fuel tanks over 20 gallons, etc.

Cue the outrage-neither gasoline engines with direct injection nor diesel can't be used in automatic transmission trucks, dualies aren't allowed with 4wd diesel trucks, etc.

Truck companies immediately comply and begin removing dualie tires from 4wd diesels with auto trans and only putting dualies on manual trans 4wd diesels. They begin equipping all trucks with dual and triple 19 gallon fuel tanks, 5.9L engines, manual locki ...


This is awesome, did you get a few beers in or something?

I agree that banning specific trucks is ineffective, and that it's hard to stop a determined ram raider [1] who will simply just steal something.

This is why I want all trucks licensed, registered and to have a safety inspection, and have drivers licensed, because the real problem is Shaquan in his falling apart, uninsured 1988 Cutlass Supreme flooring it at crosswalks to run over a guy who poached a crack customer from him, inadvertently hitting 6 year old Layla and killing her too.

I would also ban cops crashing down the gates of Shaquan's drug storage yard with a huge 7.5 tonner in the dark with no headlights and then driving around like maniacs running over everyone in sight, but that's another story.
2013-01-01 08:17:27 PM  
1 vote:

ParaHandy: / maybe the original NFA wasn't so silly after all


The NFA's tax provision is to guns what poll taxes are to voting.
Maybe we should also adopt the NFA's laborious paperwork background check, waiting period, fingerprints and ID check each time a person wants to vote.
2013-01-01 08:14:49 PM  
1 vote:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Dispute details and change the subject.

[42fordgpw.files.wordpress.com image 610x472]

Nobody wants to take grandpa's shotgun but "responsible gun owners" are just a day away from tomorrow's headlines.

Enjoy your hobby while it lasts.


blah blah blah.

We're talking about the importance of definitions. Surely you don't have a problem with a discussion that's honest where everyone is on similar terms, right?

I always love the talk about taking guns, or things like "they're not going to take your duck gun". It's funny that that's the only kind of infringement they can think of. Apparently everything else up to outright confiscation is OK.

It's worth pointing out the whole "they're not going to take your shotgun or deer rifle away" canard was being put forward by the same gun control groups that claimed there was no individual right to own guns. The response to their comments should have been "Why not? If there is no right to own a gun, than all guns can be taken."

If my AR can be taken, so can Grandpa's shotgun.
2013-01-01 08:07:41 PM  
1 vote:
In keeping with car analogies, I'll try another broader version.

Imagine that heavy duty diesel trucks, that is trucks like the Chevy HD, Ford F-350, Dodge RAM diesels like the 2500, etc. are involved in a small number of incidents, let's say no more than 30, where the driver drove over a bunch of people in a crosswalk-let's 5 or more, OR plowed his truck into cars at an intersection and pushed them into cross traffic.

A group of politicians who have always been opposed to trucks in private hands OR all vehicles in private hands (one or the other for this example), coin the term 'tractor truck' which sounds a lot like tractor trailer.

They go on TV talking about these "tractor trucks" and the menacing they cause. They hold press conferences talking about "Cummins killers" and "Duramax Death machines" and they show pictures of or point at the large trucks behind them and say things like "You don't need something like this to go to the grocery store" or "You don't need this to get your kids to school", "You don't need a 50 gallon fuel tank to commute to work", etc.

They introduce a ban on 'tractor trucks' in private hands. 'tractor truck' includes any truck with a diesel engine as well as any engine with a fuel injector in the cylinder head AND two or more of the following features:dual tires mounted side-by-side on an axle (dualie tires),locking front and/or rear axles, automatically shifting transmissions, sport seats, or automatic locking 4wd hubs. Separately, the bill bans diesel engines over 6.0L , fuel tanks over 20 gallons, etc.

Cue the outrage-neither gasoline engines with direct injection nor diesel can't be used in automatic transmission trucks, dualies aren't allowed with 4wd diesel trucks, etc.

Truck companies immediately comply and begin removing dualie tires from 4wd diesels with auto trans and only putting dualies on manual trans 4wd diesels. They begin equipping all trucks with dual and triple 19 gallon fuel tanks, 5.9L engines, manual locking hubs, etc.

These compliance measures are called 'skirting' or exploiting 'loopholes' and immediately the truck control groups go to work on a stronger ban that languishes for 15+ years.

in the meantime, a very small number of people engage in mass street slaughter with cars, small trucks, and post-ban 'tractor trucks' without any noticeable decline in mass slaughter or overall day-to-day traffic death.

10 years after implementation, the ban sunsets and 'tractor trucks' are available again. For 8 years, they're widely available, and there's no increase in mass street slaughter or overall traffic deaths. in fact, the latter declines.

That year, a guy using a truck that would have been compliant with the now sunset 'tractor truck' ban kills his own mother, steals her truck and runs over a bunch of kindergartners with it. We hadn't seen anyone kill large number of children like this before, so everyone's quick to say things like "it feels different this time".

The same people who've been pushing a revised/renewed 'tractor truck' ban are right on time to push their proposal before those kids are all buried.

So now car owners, truck owners, vehicle rights enthusiasts are dealing with people saying things like "that much torque capacity makes it easy to run people over" in response to points that far more people are killed with far less capable vehicles. Anti-vehicle or uninformed people talk about how a ford escort never killed 20 people at once while ignoring that much less capable vehicles kill tens of thousands while all trucks (rifle comparison) are only responsible for about 3% of vehicle deaths. They outright dismiss the idea that a small 4-cylinder truck could run over as many people if the driver made some small changes (at best) to their plans. They talk about how cars could get high centered running over that many people or driving on the sidewalk, etc.

In discussions about 'tractor truck' bans, they put forward statistics for all vehicle deaths to make their case about narrow vehicle type bans.

They talk about how large fuel tanks encourage long distance massacres and that forcing people to refuel will give the police a chance to stop them; to make that case, they talk about one of the few times a killer was stopped by someone other himself after his cheap aftermarket fuel tank partially dissolved and clogged the fuel lines. In this case, had he stuck with some 10 (or 19) gallon tanks, he wouldn't have been stopped so easily. [As I recall, the Aurora shooter had some crappy aftermarket mag that jammed his gun forcing him to spend time trying to unjam it rather then reload] (Back to 'tractor trucks')In nearly all other cases, the driver stopped when he encountered resistance or apparently decided to end and ran himself over (comical to think about). To make it worse, nearly every single mass vehicle slaughter, with a slim handful of exceptions has happened in an area already closed to vehicles.

This is pretty much how gun control, especially as it relates to semi-auto firearms, sounds to us.
Ban large numbers of scary looking and "normal" looking semi-auto guns because of a very small number of incidents with those guns (and others unrelated to them) in places where guns were already banned. Ignore that the scary looking guns are a subset of a class of firearm (rifles in this case) in which the whole class (all rifles) is involved in about 3% of murders. Pretend that determined mass killers will give up if they can't find a semi-auto rifle or will be deterred at all if limited to 10 round magazines.
2013-01-01 07:38:04 PM  
1 vote:
I come from a country with next to no civilian access to firearms. Gun licenses are issued by the police department at the sole discretion of the police commissioner's office. They even regulate the ammunition. There's no such thing as a gun store here.

Only 3% of the population has a gun license here and a minimum of 1/3rd of those are held by present and retired police officers as well as competition shooters. We have almost no gun hunting and you can't even legally use a gun in self defense (though the one case we have on record was ultimately dismissed since it was a retired cop who did the shooting in his own home). You can't carry them in public, concealed or otherwise. And like Britain, only a small percentage of our police force is armed.

Now we have had a spike in gun crime in the last several years, but that's been restricted to drug dealers killing eachother (american and latin american gangs are trying to turn our island into a transshipment point) and a number of bank / convenience store robberies. No domestic gun crime and even the criminals have extremely limited access to firearms to the point that the cops say of the shootings we did have, a large number of them was done by the same one or two guns.

Now, my country has no historical or cultural love for guns and it's a very, very small country on top of that so I won't pretend our situation is the same as the United States. But I'd just like to point out that the vast majority of the world is like mine with very limited access to guns and coincidentally manage to have very little gun crime. It's hard to argue there's not something to that.
2013-01-01 07:10:16 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: ronaprhys: How does it feel having to correct people about the "proper" terms? Arrogance - that describes your view on firearms and terminology quite well.

Ahhh - to see the proud humbled in their own arrogance is amusing.

You'll also notice we're actively engaging him and making a legitimate effort to explain our understanding of the terms and related technology and understand his terms/technology usage.

When he says that the GTR does not have a center differential, we don't respond with childish stupidity by asking something like "Then how does power get to the front wheels? pixies?" the way he (and many, many others) does when we explain the difference between "machine gun", "assault rifle", and "assault weapon".


It's definitely an interesting turn of events. I'm betting if we could have a similar discussion with anyone who's intellectually honest, we could solve the terminology issues rather quickly.

Of course, by intellectually honest, that removes most of Fark as well as any politician from the equation.
2013-01-01 05:47:24 PM  
1 vote:

ParaHandy: I hope y'all remembered to make your New Year's Eve donation to a suitable cause ....

[dcc.vu image 822x629]


Fools and their money.....
2013-01-01 05:45:03 PM  
1 vote:

ParaHandy: pedrop357: Good luck operating that part time 4wd system without a center diff on asphalt.

Curiously enough, it seems to work quite well .... could it be that peedrop doesn't know everything about everything?


No it doesn't. One of my hobbies is off-roading and I own a 4wd vehicle. True 4wd,. If you're permanently in 4wd, you put significant extra stresses on the driveline components and they will fail. The faster you go, the higher the level of stresses. If you have open differentials, that'll help compensate for some of the problems, but not all.
2013-01-01 05:43:44 PM  
1 vote:
I hope y'all remembered to make your New Year's Eve donation to a suitable cause ....

dcc.vu
2013-01-01 05:39:53 PM  
1 vote:

dropdfun: 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.


Ah, the fuzz arrives .... what do you think about requiring gun registration for civilians, and having mechanisms to prevent straw buyer sales?

/ paging Cruiser Twelve
2013-01-01 04:43:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:28:24 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:05:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:51:46 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:43:26 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:35:55 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:45:18 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:39:16 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:34:08 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:03:09 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:43:05 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:39:53 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:28:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:19:11 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

In computer security, we have a term for setting up SSL encryption on a website and leaving the server it's running on insecure - we call it putting a safe door on a tent (Bruce Schneier-ism IIRC) and it describes the gun situation in the USA admirably.
2013-01-01 12:03:51 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


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

/Or make a joke about Caturday or Madagascar shutting down everything?
//Something?
2013-01-01 11:58:42 AM  
1 vote:

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


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

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

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

However, based on some of the more derpy non-trolling comments here, and the relative intransigence of some highly intelligent and otherwise very sensible Americans I know IRL (such as Fark user Phil McCracken who IIRC doesn't even own a gun) about this topic, it would be more effective to treat Americans' relationship with firearms as an addiction issue.
2013-01-01 11:56:35 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

/loves California
//weirdness has its own special charm

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

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


Like a trampled flag on a city street.
2013-01-01 11:53:06 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


You're both wrong.  It's more like "Chk-chk-BOOM!"
2013-01-01 11:49:28 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
"Our dedicated boys keep the peace in newly annexed Canada."
2013-01-01 11:42:09 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


Ok, sure.  If you say so.
2013-01-01 11:40:13 AM  
1 vote:

BadReligion: some_beer_drinker: is dick clark ok?

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


He's just having his fluids replaced and a few bolts tightened.  He'll be back next year as a "hologram."
2013-01-01 11:36:49 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


No, there are not, and it's a large part of the problem.
2013-01-01 11:34:45 AM  
1 vote:

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

[kunochan.com image 450x338]

What does God need with fireworks displays?

/Stay safe, subby.

Genesis 19:24


I thought God used Predator drones for that now.
2013-01-01 11:32:31 AM  
1 vote:
ParaHandy It's pretty hard for the gun nuts to argue that their rights are being infringed without looking as stupid as the people arguing for the right to DUI.

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

And this is why you people fail to advance your argument so spectacularly.
2013-01-01 11:22:58 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.


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

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

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

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

You want to get rid of guns? Get rid of the factors that drive violence first.
If you don't know how to do that then don't tamper with the existing system, because I don't see a benefit to not being shot if it improves my chances of being robbed and stabbed.
2013-01-01 11:22:49 AM  
1 vote:
Seriously? We couldn't wait a goddamned week? This is why we need regulations on guns. And cars. And just about anything more deadly than a spoon. And I don't trust half of you with the spoon, either.
2013-01-01 11:21:04 AM  
1 vote:

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


And we all know that women never say anything worth listening to. Too bad you can't just shoot 'em, hey? You macho world would just work so much better without people like them.
2013-01-01 11:19:53 AM  
1 vote:
You can't argue with a gun nut any more than you can argue with a Southern Baptist about his sky fairy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. If the processes are designed correctly and with 21st century convenience, e.g. a federal website where two license holders can report a private gun sale, any FFL or licensed range is automatically licensed to do your annual inspections and record it, should take less than 2 minutes per gun and for a fee capped at $5 per gun or less. I would expect gun enthusiasts to receive the service free from a local range where they are regular customers.
2013-01-01 10:56:00 AM  
1 vote:
I'm just glad that this bar patron/NYE reveler had a semiautomatic pistol on him for self-defense.

Otherwise, that one guy in the bar might have kicked his ass! He could have been killed, assuming that 20-year old employee couldn't hold him back! And that woman was probably trying to kill him too!

Sure, it's unfortunate that the employee died, and then the woman got shot, and that the Armed Security Guard who was on hand to keep order and protect everyone mistakenly thought this man, just because he had a gun on him, was a threat, got shot as well, but... that's the price of liberty.

Self Defense, people!

/the guy was probably carrying the pistol in case some whack job came along with an assault rifle and wanted to spray the crowd, he could have stopped him, obviously his aim is very good, 4/4 targets hit, 2/4 killed...
2013-01-01 10:46:36 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

So what about the 100-120lb young ladies out there? How are they going to reliably defend themselves against the much larger and stronger guys? Tasers don't always work (if they attacker is wearing a thick shirt the electrodes might not penetrate, the first shot might miss, etc). Mace can backfire, if there's wind or something, and it doesn't always work. One cannot hide behind bars all the time. The simple fact is that firearms are great equilizers to help offset natural imbalances in strength.

There is no good nor moral reason to put the potential victim on a lesser footing than their attacker. None whatsoever.

If tasers don't work, then they need to be improved.


Can't be improved anymore and many people want them to go away because in a fraction of Taser deployments a suspect has died.
2013-01-01 10:46:02 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

So what about the 100-120lb young ladies out there? How are they going to reliably defend themselves against the much larger and stronger guys? Tasers don't always work (if they attacker is wearing a thick shirt the electrodes might not penetrate, the first shot might miss, etc). Mace can backfire, if there's wind or something, and it doesn't always work. One cannot hide behind bars all the time. The simple fact is that firearms are great equilizers to help offset natural imbalances in strength.

There is no good nor moral reason to put the potential victim on a lesser footing than their attacker. None whatsoever.

If tasers don't work, then they need to be improved.


Hell - sometimes they do work, but a person needs to be tased twice. One shot or two shot defense mechanisms are unreliable. Again, no moral nor good reason to put a victim at a disadvantage vs their attacker.

Unless you personally happen to like young ladies getting raped.
2013-01-01 10:44:19 AM  
1 vote:
And while I'm having fun punching holes in ideas and playing theoretical games with people, I need to get back to the serious business of finding something to eat before company gets here.

Try not to kill anyone, you lovable gun nuts.
2013-01-01 10:42:54 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

So what about the 100-120lb young ladies out there? How are they going to reliably defend themselves against the much larger and stronger guys? Tasers don't always work (if they attacker is wearing a thick shirt the electrodes might not penetrate, the first shot might miss, etc). Mace can backfire, if there's wind or something, and it doesn't always work. One cannot hide behind bars all the time. The simple fact is that firearms are great equilizers to help offset natural imbalances in strength.

There is no good nor moral reason to put the potential victim on a lesser footing than their attacker. None whatsoever.


If tasers don't work, then they need to be improved.
2013-01-01 10:40:47 AM  
1 vote:

JSam21: Infernalist: letrole: letrole: You don't have a fooken clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for proving my point.

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?


If it was harder to do, fewer incidents would happen. It's easy to pull a trigger from 100 feet than it is to put a knife in someone's throat face to face.
2013-01-01 10:39:10 AM  
1 vote:

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

This has to be recent history? Why? What is the time range allowable for this line of argument? It wouldn't just so happen to be less than the number of years since the last tyrannical government was in place, would it? You have a strangely warped sense of humanity. If you think people are somehow less greedy or power hungry than they were in "ancient history" then you need to get out more.


Because we're not living in the Middle Ages anymore, son. We've evolved, society has evolved. How many wars of conquest have there been in the last 50 years? Tibet? An attempt on Kuwait? What else? When was the last open act of ethnic cleansing? Some half-assed incompetent attempt in Yugoslavia that never really got off the ground?

I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to be terrified of a government that is more concerned with selling us stuff than trying to enslave us.
2013-01-01 10:35:47 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.

What are your views on self defense?

Does a person have a right to defend themself or does a person have to let the assault/rape/robbery happen to them because they have no right to self defense?


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

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they don't use it as an excuse to murder someone.
2013-01-01 10:32:45 AM  
1 vote:

JSam21: Infernalist: JSam21: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

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

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

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

Not one child died.

My solution is one of damage-control and long ...


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

The ban on narcotics doesn't remove drugs from society, but it does reduce the amount immeasurably and properly punishes those who would profit from those drugs. A gun ban would work the same way.
2013-01-01 10:29:50 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Thank you for proving my point.
2013-01-01 10:25:15 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


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

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

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.
2013-01-01 10:22:24 AM  
1 vote:

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

And never could again. amirite?

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

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


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


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

No civilized nation that had given up their guns has descended back into anarchy and/or tyranny. Not one. It hasn't happened. It doesn't happen. It's identical to claiming that guns are meteor repellents.
2013-01-01 10:20:01 AM  
1 vote:
Someone here doesn't know that most guns are made overseas. It varies by model but many companies import parts for final assembly in the US (to skirt import bans).
Izhmash is Russia, Glock is Austria, FN is Belgium, Springfield is Croatia. Other makers like Utas don't even export to the US. Other nations buy plenty of weapons to keep the factories open.

The domestic gun ban plan doesn't stay on our side of the line. Which is why its about as realistic as a memo from the UN politely asking people to stop killing each other.
It's an ivory tower ideal that sounds like a great idea until you actually try implementing it. Then a bunch to other nations statesmen, crooks, and arms dealers are going to rub your nose in its impracticalities.
2013-01-01 10:16:05 AM  
1 vote:

JSam21: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

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

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

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

Not one child died.

My solution is one of damage-control and long term planning to remo ...


I was wondering if anyone would catch that. I was tongue-in-cheek about that 'mental' part. I do think that a vast overhaul in the nation's mental health system is needed, however.
2013-01-01 10:11:28 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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

Not one child died.

My solution is one of damage-control and long term planning to remo ...


No actually, I'd be okay with the police getting outfitted with non-lethal weaponry. Tasers, batons, industrial strength pepper spray. The way the civilized world works.
2013-01-01 10:09:54 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

Have seen enough dead people yet?

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

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

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

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

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

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

This is what would happen:

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

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

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


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

I would gladly trade this world for that one. I would gladly allow you to sit in your basement and let you churn out your 300 rounds per day, knowing that you'll never do anything with them but sit around and masturbate to the sight of your 'self-reliance'.
2013-01-01 10:07:13 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

Have seen enough dead people yet?

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

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

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

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

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

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

This is what would happen:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

If I had the equipment and want to, I could make 300 rounds of ammo a day easy. If it became a full time job I could make 10x that and charge 10x the price of ammo today because I'd be the only guy doing it by your logic.
2013-01-01 10:05:45 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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

Not one child died.

My solution is one of damage-control and long term planning to remove the source of easy ...


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

Guns are.
2013-01-01 10:03:53 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

You don't have a fooken clue.


I'm saying, and still am saying, that the only way to stop the gun violence problem is to remove the guns from society. You've yet to offer up anything that proves otherwise.
2013-01-01 10:01:51 AM  
1 vote:
Imagine how many people would be shiatting their pants when the news reports every instance of rape...

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

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

You dont really know how many red cars are on the road until you start counting them....
2013-01-01 09:58:00 AM  
1 vote:

letrole: Infernalist: Not going to get drawn into a Civil War debate/tangent/derailing. Your 'historical freedom' to guns is as relevant as the 'historical freedom' to buy slaves.


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


That would be...some retards cling to the past for no other reason than stupidity and tradition?
2013-01-01 09:55:05 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

Have seen enough dead people yet?

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

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

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

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

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

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

This is what would happen:

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

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

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


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

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

So, even if people make their own guns and/or buy black market guns...we're still dealing with a society with dramatically reduced guns and resultant gun violence, and the problem will only decrease as time passes.
2013-01-01 09:48:50 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

Have seen enough dead people yet?

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

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

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

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

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

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

This is what would happen:

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

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

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

Nope, not saying world-wide at all.


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

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

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

If guns are available anywhere they will get into the wrong hands. If you can't use firearms, people will develop a new weapon because weapons ARE needed for defense.
2013-01-01 09:47:48 AM  
1 vote:

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


Not going to get drawn into a Civil War debate/tangent/derailing. Your 'historical freedom' to guns is as relevant as the 'historical freedom' to buy slaves.
2013-01-01 09:45:20 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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

Not one child died.

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


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

We never see schools terrorized with knives.

We, as a society, have 'failed' in our responsibilities. And we don't deserve these guns anymore. We've shown ourselves to be selfish, unthinking, wanting only to keep these lethal toys to ourselves, completely uncaring of what those same guns do to our society. It's a childish attitude and when children misbehave, you take away their farking toys.
2013-01-01 09:42:04 AM  
1 vote:

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


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

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

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


All the more reason to emphasize that removing handguns from the population will not be easy or quick, but should be done all the same. They've had a hundred fifty years to flood our society, I don't see why people expect an easy and quick solution.
2013-01-01 09:39:51 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

And I vaguely remember millions of Americans dying over it.


yes, millions of redneck retards went to war to protect the rights of a handful of rich white farks to buy and sell black people. The stupidity of the average redneck should never be underestimated.
2013-01-01 09:38:33 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

Have seen enough dead people yet?

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

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

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

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

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

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

This is what would happen:

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

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

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


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

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

We can do the same with handgun technology and ammunition technology
2013-01-01 09:30:50 AM  
1 vote:

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


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

And again, fyi, 'historical freedoms' are not sacred. Slavery was once a 'historical freedom'.
2013-01-01 09:30:43 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

Have seen enough dead people yet?

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

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

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

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

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

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

This is what would happen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


So why exactly is it more tragic when multiple people are killed in a single incident instead of just a single person? Does the level of tragedy increase by a factor of 2 or something with every additional death? As in, 1 death is tragic, 2 deaths is twice as tragic, 3 deaths are four times as tragic? I am not trying to make light of any of those mass shootings, but they really are no more tragic than any other shooting. Trying to stop mass shootings is like putting a splint on someone's broken finger while they are bleeding from several gun shot wounds to the chest. Mass shootings are relatively rare events that have a negligible impact on firearm homicide rates in this country. The solution is NOT banning guns. That will not stop people from killing other people. And should we not be focused more on trying to stop that than cut down on the number of people that they kill? And that is what your basic argument boils down to. You are in essence saying, "Hey, go ahead and kill each other, just do it one at a time."
2013-01-01 09:29:12 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

Have seen enough dead people yet?

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

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

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

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

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

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

This is what would happen:

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

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

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


Nope, not saying world-wide at all.
2013-01-01 09:28:15 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

Kill the supply and within a few decades, the problem will be gone.
2013-01-01 09:21:32 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

Have seen enough dead people yet?

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

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

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

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

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

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

This is what would happen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Ok... hold on a second. So you are calling for a worldwide ban of all semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons? What about military use?
2013-01-01 09:18:58 AM  
1 vote:
It amazes me that you think I advocate bloody revolution. You're assuming a docile populous in your theory. If the recent event have proven anything we have a destabilizing populous. I've just been wondering how close we are to organized action, and that organized action will not happen without drastic action by the government to violate historical freedoms, which an action like banning hand guns would be.
2013-01-01 09:16:33 AM  
1 vote:
It never fails to amaze me how quick some retards are to threaten revolution...Especially retards who proclaim themselves to be law-abiding gun owners.

If my solution was actually implemented, you'd do nothing more than hide your guns(If you actually have any), and complain loudly on Fark. Nothing more.
2013-01-01 09:14:23 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

Have seen enough dead people yet?

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

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

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

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

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

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

This is what would happen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You know I've been trying to think of how revolution could actually break out in this country. That would do it.
2013-01-01 08:45:09 AM  
1 vote:

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


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

Clarify your derp, please.
2013-01-01 08:43:53 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


You people are either woefully ignorant, or willfully delusional, to use Nazi Germany as an example. The unarmed German populace didn't want to be armed, they were perfectly happy having the Nazis run things, as long as all hostility was focused on the Jews, Communists, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, labor advocates, and others who didn't fit into the Aryan ideal. Gun control was a non-issue in Nazi Germany. Labor camps and ethnic cleansing were accomplished using propaganda and hatred of specific groups (similar to the way Fox News works).
2013-01-01 08:30:33 AM  
1 vote:
Is this enough, people?

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

Have seen enough dead people yet?

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

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

How many people are we going to bury before we finally ban these things? Do you all need someone close to you shot and killed at one of these events before you'll see how destructive they are? Do you need to lose a wife? A child? A mother? A father? What's it going to take for you to abandon your gun fantasies?
2013-01-01 06:57:04 AM  
1 vote:
Another thing that urks me is the prohibitively high cost to get good training for anything other than bullets go here, point this way, pull this, repeat type training. Advanced hand gun classes are $200 for 8 hours in my area. You have to supply your own ammunition, minimum 300 rounds per class which easily adds another $90 to the class cost. $300 for an 8 hour class? No wonder no one gets proper training.
2013-01-01 06:54:50 AM  
1 vote:

JSam21: ghare: gh0strid3r: All you lowlife jackasses that keep purposely misspelling "AMERICA" can die in a fire. Slowly.

/American Vet
//Not what I fought for

Well, what DID you fight for? Obviously it wasn't for Freedom of Speech.

That's the thing that gets me. That is exactly what he fought for.


maybe he fought the cold war so he could buy commie jeans?from CHINA?
no?
maybe he fought to keep weapons of mass destruction from getting into Dumberica? SO HE COULD LIBERATE THE MIDDLE EAST?
nope...?
maybe he fought to keep the Nazi guys from building Nasa or enriching the CIA?
nope...?
maybe he smuggled heroin out of 'Nam in the corpse of a friend?
nope...?


"And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die. "

etc...

/the guys that fight the hardest, talk the least.
//go put yer shoes on...
2013-01-01 06:47:48 AM  
1 vote:
I'll sadly leave this here.

again....

and I don't want to collect.

there is something seriously wrong with Gunmerica...and Guntards.


i.imgur.com
2013-01-01 06:37:12 AM  
1 vote:

ghare: gh0strid3r: All you lowlife jackasses that keep purposely misspelling "AMERICA" can die in a fire. Slowly.

/American Vet
//Not what I fought for

Well, what DID you fight for? Obviously it wasn't for Freedom of Speech.


That's the thing that gets me. That is exactly what he fought for.
2013-01-01 05:40:57 AM  
1 vote:

Real Women Drink Akvavit: mikaloyd: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Granola? WTF is wrong with you? Don't you know how much fat there is in most granola? Sure, it makes a great exfoliant, but it's hell on the plumbing when you have to rinse it off and you'd certainly never want to eat it unless you're a Fatty McFatterson or want to be one.

/chubby, but still not eating granola
//why add fuel to the fire?

//"Accidentally" drops a box of organic granola by RWDA just to see if it gets picked up.
///Resistance is futile to ex granola junkies.

Are there chocolate chips in it? Dark chocolate is good for you! (the chubby chick tells herself)
*carefully picks up granola, wipes off any cat hair*

dropdfun: Lived in Germany off and on for 8 years growing up and got to check out many a cool things in that time. Once I visited a crypt for an old Bavarian noble family and they had a couple of racks of real swords from back in the day. Myself now being 5'11" and weighing a healthy 210lbs in pretty good shape I can honestly say I'm not sure I could wield most of the swords I saw there. Men back then were beasts!

As for the shooting, just another criminal doing criminal things, don't see why I should be punished for the actions of those that break our laws. Honestly any new laws probably wouldn't effect me due to my current career choice but its the principle of it all that irks me.

I couldn't wield that Zweihander, either. No way. I've got scrawny girlie arms. I have a few swords and an axe I could never use in a million years. I am pretty good with my  blunt long axe though, cuz I'm shifty that way. (Duck down, hook it behind their knees and pull.  They'll tumble right over, and then you can slaughter 'em. When playing with your SCA geek friends only. Cuz I don't do actual slaughter.)

The thing that bothers me the most is what I consider a very misguided abhorrence to safety training and testing as a requirement to buy a firearm. Sure, most of us who own firearms learned to shoot at an early age. Still, when I became an adult and bought my own first handguns, first thing I did was take classes so I could use them safely. I was uncomfortable buying ammo until I took that class. You can do more than put someone's eye out with any  firearm, so I think classes are common sense.

Instead of bans, I think we need more strict licensing requirements for all firearms, including hunting rifles. If you do not take the class or do not pass the test, then no gun for you. I've seen people up at the range who claim to have been shooting "their entire life" that are such idiots, I've ratted 'em out to the range master and had them thrown out. Classes and testing, not to mention strict licensing so that if you're an idiot you'll have to bring a teaspoon to a gun fight (which hopefully won't happen) will definitely cut down on the "accidental" shootings (read: irresponsible gun owner caused it) we have every year.

I swear on my beloved Nordic deities, the idiots and assholes make the rest of us gun owners look bad, and most of us are not bad at all. it sucks we all have to suffer for another person's stupid, but that's where we're headed eventually, just because people are indeed stupid. Classes, tests and personal accountability, biatches. (Can you tell I was getting riled up? LOL!)

/I'm stupid behind the wheel of a car, so I don't drive, because I'm not that much of a biatch
//how hard is that?


The people that have shot all their lives are lazy and lack discipline. I use proper mechanics when training at all times, including blue gun (plastic gun) drills. If you don't practice use of the Universal Cover Mode, i.e. indexing your trigger finger, treat every firearm as it is loaded, even the fake training weapons, and shoot or train at least once a month... then don't carry or handle a firearm please.
2013-01-01 05:27:13 AM  
1 vote:

mikaloyd: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Granola? WTF is wrong with you? Don't you know how much fat there is in most granola? Sure, it makes a great exfoliant, but it's hell on the plumbing when you have to rinse it off and you'd certainly never want to eat it unless you're a Fatty McFatterson or want to be one.

/chubby, but still not eating granola
//why add fuel to the fire?

//"Accidentally" drops a box of organic granola by RWDA just to see if it gets picked up.
///Resistance is futile to ex granola junkies.


Are there chocolate chips in it? Dark chocolate is good for you! (the chubby chick tells herself)
*carefully picks up granola, wipes off any cat hair*

dropdfun: Lived in Germany off and on for 8 years growing up and got to check out many a cool things in that time. Once I visited a crypt for an old Bavarian noble family and they had a couple of racks of real swords from back in the day. Myself now being 5'11" and weighing a healthy 210lbs in pretty good shape I can honestly say I'm not sure I could wield most of the swords I saw there. Men back then were beasts!

As for the shooting, just another criminal doing criminal things, don't see why I should be punished for the actions of those that break our laws. Honestly any new laws probably wouldn't effect me due to my current career choice but its the principle of it all that irks me.


I couldn't wield that Zweihander, either. No way. I've got scrawny girlie arms. I have a few swords and an axe I could never use in a million years. I am pretty good with my  blunt long axe though, cuz I'm shifty that way. (Duck down, hook it behind their knees and pull.  They'll tumble right over, and then you can slaughter 'em. When playing with your SCA geek friends only. Cuz I don't do actual slaughter.)

The thing that bothers me the most is what I consider a very misguided abhorrence to safety training and testing as a requirement to buy a firearm. Sure, most of us who own firearms learned to shoot at an early age. Still, when I became an adult and bought my own first handguns, first thing I did was take classes so I could use them safely. I was uncomfortable buying ammo until I took that class. You can do more than put someone's eye out with any  firearm, so I think classes are common sense.

Instead of bans, I think we need more strict licensing requirements for all firearms, including hunting rifles. If you do not take the class or do not pass the test, then no gun for you. I've seen people up at the range who claim to have been shooting "their entire life" that are such idiots, I've ratted 'em out to the range master and had them thrown out. Classes and testing, not to mention strict licensing so that if you're an idiot you'll have to bring a teaspoon to a gun fight (which hopefully won't happen) will definitely cut down on the "accidental" shootings (read: irresponsible gun owner caused it) we have every year.

I swear on my beloved Nordic deities, the idiots and assholes make the rest of us gun owners look bad, and most of us are not bad at all. it sucks we all have to suffer for another person's stupid, but that's where we're headed eventually, just because people are indeed stupid. Classes, tests and personal accountability, biatches. (Can you tell I was getting riled up? LOL!)

/I'm stupid behind the wheel of a car, so I don't drive, because I'm not that much of a biatch
//how hard is that?
2013-01-01 05:07:47 AM  
1 vote:

log_jammin: well, I guess we'll never know from whom illegal guns are obtained from.


Mara Salvatrucha,  aka MS13. The OGs were El Salvadorean child soldiers in Reagan's not so secret wars that were given amnesty in the US. We've got a lot of them in Cali, especially in SoCal, but they're all over the US now. You can get an old Soviet era RPG launcher from those bastids in SoCal. You just need to know which corner they hang out near and hope they don't murderlate ya.

/they're the guys with the facial tats
//and they're super scary
///I don't need anything that bad
*hides*
2013-01-01 05:00:57 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


If it comes to that, absolutely. If the government and the military no longer represented the constitution, what other recourse would we have? That should go without saying. As fast as I see, you make a pledge to defend the constitution, and the people. If your leaders break that vow, and you follow them, you are guilty and should be eliminated. nuremberg defense; you put that uniform on, you berret know what it means.
2013-01-01 04:49:37 AM  
1 vote:

mikaloyd: So did any of y'all know the victims?


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

tinfoil-hat maggie: Wow, CSS : )

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

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


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

/still consider myself a Cali chick, though
//I was an anchor baby! Yay?
2013-01-01 04:49:29 AM  
1 vote:
Note: this occured in a state with strict gun control and an assault weapons ban
2013-01-01 04:37:36 AM  
1 vote:

blueswoman: it's kind of sad when the killing of two people and the injuring of 3 (taken to hospital) prompts one of you geniuses to say "this isn't a mass shooting".

it's a mass shooting, moron. too bad you're so inured to them that you don't realize the difference. it doesn't have to be 20 kids killed to qualify as "mass".

well, i hope 2012 got that out of its system. can we have less anger and violence and more peace and getting-along-ness in 2013? thanks, i'd really appreciate that.


Technically this would be a mass shooting since 4 or more were shot. If we are going by the media standard then no this wasn't a mass shooting since 4 or more weren't killed.
2013-01-01 04:30:56 AM  
1 vote:

mikaloyd: Real Women Drink Akvavit: /OK, Bakersfield and Fresno are not that bad
//they're more like a stinky crotch rather than a diseased crotch
///dudes. take care of that shiat. and hand over your oil. please.

Just keep eating granola getting plastic implants to fill bikinis. "finding" yourselves and buying cheesy healing crystals from Arizona hucksters and being weird in packs. The rest of the State would hate to lose its national identity if you guys ever changed


Granola? WTF is wrong with you? Don't you know how much fat there is in most granola? Sure, it makes a great exfoliant, but it's hell on the plumbing when you have to rinse it off and you'd certainly never want to eat it unless you're a Fatty McFatterson or want to be one.

/chubby, but still not eating granola
//why add fuel to the fire?
2013-01-01 04:28:55 AM  
1 vote:
img.photobucket.com
2013-01-01 04:23:45 AM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: You could just say, "We need these things to shoot American soldiers."

We need these weapons to shoot American soldiers...IF it comes to that. Let's all hope it doesn't.


and Marines, airmen and sailors. police and school resource officers. ATF, FBI, Federal Marshalls, Secret Service and CIA.

except the armed guards hired by the NRA to protect us from lunatics.

/if soldiers have machine guns, tanks and attack helicopters shouldn't individual citizens have them too?
2013-01-01 04:18:29 AM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: retarded: Now is not the time to have a discussion about gun control. Again.

Not when it involves a shooting in the state capital in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws around. Been there, done that. What other gun control laws would you like to try? Chicago and DC showed the futility and ineffectiveness of shiatting all over the 2nd amendment and banning handguns.

If CA really likes gun control, it should realize that concepts like state sovereignty are what enable these (misguided, IMO) policies. NV doesn't force gambling, prostitution, 24 hour liquor sales, 'loose' gun laws, or other polices on CA; OR doesn't force zero sales tax, so perhaps CA could do us all favor and keep their gun control confined to their state borders.


Maybe someone should amend the US constitution so it says something about interstate commerce. The 50 states aren't sovereign, btw. In the US sovereignty rests with the people. The states are delegated certain powers as is the federal government.
2013-01-01 04:16:53 AM  
1 vote:

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.


In Sacramento you have access to all those things -and- can afford to raise a family on a single income. Try that in San Francisco.
2013-01-01 04:13:07 AM  
1 vote:

Real Women Drink Akvavit: /OK, Bakersfield and Fresno are not that bad
//they're more like a stinky crotch rather than a diseased crotch
///dudes. take care of that shiat. and hand over your oil. please.


Just keep eating granola getting plastic implants to fill bikinis. "finding" yourselves and buying cheesy healing crystals from Arizona hucksters and being weird in packs. The rest of the State would hate to lose its national identity if you guys ever changed
2013-01-01 04:12:59 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


and police
2013-01-01 04:11:30 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


so zero regulation of guns or mass murder and genocide. how does Somalia fit into your Manichaean world?
2013-01-01 04:11:25 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


You could just say, "We need these things to shoot American soldiers."
2013-01-01 04:09:46 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


Also, zombie apocalypse
2013-01-01 04:06:14 AM  
1 vote:

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


Bring it on. If they somehow manage to remove all of us 'gun nuts', what makes you think that something you like won't be next? I suppose pacifying all of you will be much simpler.
2013-01-01 04:03:14 AM  
1 vote:

Fade2black: Quite frankly I'm shocked, SHOCKED...that the armpit of California has violence associated with it.

Personally I'm getting a kick out of everyone who thinks this is a surprise.


No one is surprised by this, armpit or otherwise.
That's kinda the problem.
2013-01-01 03:54:50 AM  
1 vote:

millifoo: > I want it. I like it. It's as simple as that.

The below question back to you is as old ad dirt, but I'm always interested in hearing people's answers...

Ok, so you like collecting handguns and assault rifles because they're nifty. I get that. But I'm curious where you draw the line? Bazookas? Grenades? Land mines in your back yard (it's YOUR back yard, after all). Small tactical nukes? Anthrax?

Where does a weapon cross over in your mind from being "fun to collect" to "too harmful to the general population's welfare to be in private hands"?


The line in my mind is when it crosses from requiring intentional interaction to harm people, to the thing is harmful just sitting there. Nukes, chemical weapons, biologicals, some of the high explosives. Maybe if it can do damage on its own, with no interaction required. Kind of like a pit bull.

I think I should be able to buy grenades, grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons, etc., with the controls we already have in place. And honestly, if not for a bit of sneaky politics, I'd be able to. I still can, it's just really damn expensive. I already have things that most people think are illegal, but they're not when you pay the right tax.
2013-01-01 03:53:58 AM  
1 vote:

BadReligion: And you seem to forget that well over 99.9% of legal gun owners never commit any kind of violent crimes with their guns. Most gun crimes in this country happen with illegally obtained guns.


See Sid 6.7 up at the top of the thread. As far as I am more and more concerned by the day, the 0.1% that do have officially ruined it for everybody. The 0.1% is why you can't have liquids on airplanes anymore.
2013-01-01 03:46:14 AM  
1 vote:

BadReligion: I understand what you are saying, but you are proposing enacting new rules because people broke the rules that are already in place, to the detriment of no one but law abiding citizens. More rules doesn't make a society more decent, it makes it more draconian. We can only try so hard to protect ourselves from each other before we cross that line.


You forget that a lot of these people qualified as 'law-abiding citizens' right up until the moment they opened fire. Funny how the pro-gun side never seems to bring that up. To hear the pro-gun side tell it, each and every shooter has been a criminal right out of the womb.
2013-01-01 03:39:22 AM  
1 vote:

BadReligion: Gosling: BadReligion: My point is some people don't follow rules, so extra rules that only hinder law abiding citizens and don't actually affect the criminal are stupid and redundant.

That's the most chickenshiat goddamned thing I've ever heard.

Why, just because you don't agree with it?


No. Because disparaging rules- you know, the agreements we make as a society so that we can be a society- just out of a fear that some people don't feel like following those rules is a really good way to tear said society to shreds. Dammit, you're supposed to be better than those people. You're not supposed to just cast aside basic farking human decency in the name of monsters at your front door. Just because some people don't follow rules doesn't mean you don't have to either.
2013-01-01 03:27:33 AM  
1 vote:

Summoner101: BadReligion: Summoner101: sadbad: Gyrfalcon: Bit'O'Gristle: Sighs..what a way to start the new year..not even one farking day, and some asshole has to go bugshiat. farking Christ.

Well, don't freak out yet. It wasn't a "mass shooting" despite the media overreaction insta-frenzy. Five people were shot and two are dead, which is way too many of course, but it was apparently in a restaurant according to the updated report; so it could just as easily be a drunken family argument or idiots arguing over a beer tab. It doesn't sound like anyone going bugf*ck with an "assault rifle" so far.

That's not a particularly reassuring way to assess the situation.

Why did we think allowing firearms in public places that serve alcohol was a good idea again?

You think this guy would have turned around if there was a "no guns allowed" sign? He was willing to kill people, he doesn't care about rules.

No, but the bartender would at least have had cause not to serve someone carrying.


To expand on this, I couldn't give two shiats about someone with a CCW in a restaurant. It's legally serving that person a mood altering drug while armed that's the issue.
2013-01-01 03:24:17 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


Fark what it sounds like. Magazine size, rate of fire and reload time are what I'm worried about.

And honestly, if you're like my cousin and try to seriously make an argument that people who have not been in an active gunfight (he's home from a tour in Afghanistan, which as you know is TOTALLY the same situation as a town hall meeting in Tuscon or a Sikh temple in Wisconsin or an elementary school in Connecticut or a New Year's celebration in Sacramento) have no right to an opinion regarding magazine size, the arms that come out of your screen and strangle you to death will be mine.
2013-01-01 03:22:54 AM  
1 vote:

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


Don Martin's gun goes "PLAM PLAM" and sometimes "FLOON".
2013-01-01 03:22:22 AM  
1 vote:

Gosling: BadReligion: You think this guy would have turned around if there was a "no guns allowed" sign? He was willing to kill people, he doesn't care about rules.

Then why the hell do we bother with rules? Why don't we make murder legal if people are just going to keep ignoring all the rules against it?

This is not the Old West, no matter how much you wish it was. We're trying to civilize shiat around here these days.


My point is some people don't follow rules, so extra rules that only hinder law abiding citizens and don't actually affect the criminal are stupid and redundant. That said, in most states it is illegal to carry in a bar if you are consuming alcohol(or even to enter the bar in others) but that did not stop this guy from shooting up the place. I doubt the extra charge for that on top of the murders and assaults will do anything to him.
2013-01-01 03:21:04 AM  
1 vote:

Gosling: BadReligion: You think this guy would have turned around if there was a "no guns allowed" sign? He was willing to kill people, he doesn't care about rules.

Then why the hell do we bother with rules? Why don't we make murder legal if people are just going to keep ignoring all the rules against it?

This is not the Old West, no matter how much you wish it was. We're trying to civilize shiat around here these days.


Actually he's a 21st century digital boy.
2013-01-01 03:20:56 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

FWIW I am not "pro gun" or a political righty. I just don't see the logic in banning one thing after another to address the real issue that America is doing a piss poor job with mantal illness. Sane gun owners, like sane drivers of cars and sane pilots are not causing mass murders. Crazy people are and its about time we start dealing with crazy instead of dealing with the implements they pick up.


/$.02
//off my soapbox now
///A very happy, safe and bountiful 2013 to you all



FTFY. Seems to me it's the part where we rely on them to take their meds while unsupervised that keeps screwing us. They can say what they like, but I'm with you--institutionalization has it's perks-- like keeping society safe.
2013-01-01 03:19:06 AM  
1 vote:
Is this subby on site like Flynavy coming from the scene of Somali Pirates?
2013-01-01 03:18:38 AM  
1 vote:

BadReligion: You think this guy would have turned around if there was a "no guns allowed" sign? He was willing to kill people, he doesn't care about rules.


Then why the hell do we bother with rules? Why don't we make murder legal if people are just going to keep ignoring all the rules against it?

This is not the Old West, no matter how much you wish it was. We're trying to civilize shiat around here these days.
2013-01-01 03:17:04 AM  
1 vote:

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


We don't want to go to war with Canada.
2013-01-01 03:15:44 AM  
1 vote:
"Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop," one witness said. "It sounded like a Glock."

Waiting for the gun experts to come in and argue over what a Glock really sounds like.
2013-01-01 03:14:26 AM  
1 vote:

Summoner101: sadbad: Gyrfalcon: Bit'O'Gristle: Sighs..what a way to start the new year..not even one farking day, and some asshole has to go bugshiat. farking Christ.

Well, don't freak out yet. It wasn't a "mass shooting" despite the media overreaction insta-frenzy. Five people were shot and two are dead, which is way too many of course, but it was apparently in a restaurant according to the updated report; so it could just as easily be a drunken family argument or idiots arguing over a beer tab. It doesn't sound like anyone going bugf*ck with an "assault rifle" so far.

That's not a particularly reassuring way to assess the situation.

Why did we think allowing firearms in public places that serve alcohol was a good idea again?


You think this guy would have turned around if there was a "no guns allowed" sign? He was willing to kill people, he doesn't care about rules.
2013-01-01 03:12:18 AM  
1 vote:

sadbad: Gyrfalcon: Bit'O'Gristle: Sighs..what a way to start the new year..not even one farking day, and some asshole has to go bugshiat. farking Christ.

Well, don't freak out yet. It wasn't a "mass shooting" despite the media overreaction insta-frenzy. Five people were shot and two are dead, which is way too many of course, but it was apparently in a restaurant according to the updated report; so it could just as easily be a drunken family argument or idiots arguing over a beer tab. It doesn't sound like anyone going bugf*ck with an "assault rifle" so far.

That's not a particularly reassuring way to assess the situation.


Why did we think allowing firearms in public places that serve alcohol was a good idea again?
2013-01-01 03:10:03 AM  
1 vote:
Live scanner feed here (which interestingly seems to have the most info out of the multiple Sacramento-area scanner feeds on Broadcastify.
2013-01-01 03:09:11 AM  
1 vote:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BadReligion: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Another responsible gun owner heard from.

/well, he was yesterday.

Yes, something tells me the Hispanic guy who started a gunfight in a bar was the legal owner of that handgun.

Pretty sure Hispanics can still own guns and go to bars.

/well, not in az but this was ca


I am aware, but statistically gunfights like this are started by people, specifically gang bangers or drug dealers, that do not legally own their guns.
2013-01-01 03:08:45 AM  
1 vote:

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


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

cdn.ammoland.com
2013-01-01 03:08:44 AM  
1 vote:
We need more Good Guys armed against the Bad Guys so that these things don't happen ...

(Or some other bullshiat reasoning from the perpetually pants-pissingly scared, infantile right wing, second amendment fundamentalist nutjobs).
2013-01-01 03:07:04 AM  
1 vote:

Gyrfalcon: Bit'O'Gristle: Sighs..what a way to start the new year..not even one farking day, and some asshole has to go bugshiat. farking Christ.

Well, don't freak out yet. It wasn't a "mass shooting" despite the media overreaction insta-frenzy. Five people were shot and two are dead, which is way too many of course, but it was apparently in a restaurant according to the updated report; so it could just as easily be a drunken family argument or idiots arguing over a beer tab. It doesn't sound like anyone going bugf*ck with an "assault rifle" so far.


Opa gangland style
2013-01-01 03:04:15 AM  
1 vote:

BadReligion: And really, who wants to carry a Taurus?


Tow truck drivers?
2013-01-01 03:01:56 AM  
1 vote:
Sighs..what a way to start the new year..not even one farking day, and some asshole has to go bugshiat. farking Christ.
2013-01-01 02:55:02 AM  
1 vote:

BadReligion: There are already background checks required to buy a gun.


Those background checks are laughably easy to clear, it appears.
2013-01-01 02:54:12 AM  
1 vote:

belhade: Real Women Drink Akvavit: So glad I opted out of that this year. Went to my friend's NYE party instead. I can't picture myself in a fight in Old Sac, though. I'm more of the "Run away! Run away! and if  you can't, then, and only then, do you fight" type. Damn. I wonder what the back story on this is?

Sounds to me like a good old-fashioned bar fight gone bad, probably a 9mm pistol.


I've been caught in a couple of those, just without the gunfire. Like I said, "Run away! Run away!"

I've never had a problem in Old Sac, though. It's a straight shot from the Salvation Army and Friendship Park on the light rail to get within very easy walking distance, plus it's a tourist trap, so you get a lot of homeless in the area for panhandling purposes. They're not usually a problem, though. It always surprises me when I hear about things like this out there, even though I lived in  that area for years before moving to the 'burbs with my family. It's such a cool area, so it really does give me a sad to hear about things like this.

Heh. 7 minutes til the New Year here. Gotta put  some lip balm on and get ready to pucker up.

Stay safe, subs! Check in with us later, please!
2013-01-01 02:50:34 AM  
1 vote:
Why oh why... I am getting so sick of this. And the bad thing is they could ban all the guns and this would STILL happen.
2013-01-01 02:50:20 AM  
1 vote:

ArcadianRefugee: DogLee: Per police radio traffic, the suspect is a male hispanic headed toward the river from the shooting scene.

So illegal or gang member?

Don't be stupid.

There's no reason he can't be both.


If he's headed toward the river he's a dumbass. Easy to get caught there.

Not that he wasn't a farking piece of shiat to begin with. farkload of people with kids in Old Sac tonight, and where that bar is is across from the crossing and tunnel to most of the parking down there. He pretty much couldn't have picked a more crowded place to do that. :-(
2013-01-01 02:47:05 AM  
1 vote:

Luminiferous Aether: I see that this thread is full of reasonable individuals who certainly have a reasonable excuse to post.



10/10

9 / 11
2013-01-01 02:46:12 AM  
1 vote:

pdkl95: Duh, it's Sacramento. The "Old Town" part especially. That area has been a mess for as long as I can remember. Why would you go to such a place for NYE? Getting drunk at home would be more entertaining and obviously safer.

/lived in Davis for a long time, and currently living in Woodland ("boring, but a safe and cheap boring, so meh")
//often drive to SF or elsewhere rather than over the causeway into Sac, and it's always worth the extra gas/time


I actually quite love this town, bullshiat like this notwithstanding. I'd rather live here than either Woodland or Davis. And I live downtown. Been listening to choppers for two hours now.
2013-01-01 02:43:30 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2013-01-01 02:41:08 AM  
1 vote:

Real Women Drink Akvavit: So glad I opted out of that this year. Went to my friend's NYE party instead. I can't picture myself in a fight in Old Sac, though. I'm more of the "Run away! Run away! and if  you can't, then, and only then, do you fight" type. Damn. I wonder what the back story on this is?


Sounds to me like a good old-fashioned bar fight gone bad, probably a 9mm pistol.
2013-01-01 02:38:39 AM  
1 vote:

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


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

/loves California
//weirdness has its own special charm
2013-01-01 02:38:35 AM  
1 vote:

John Dewey: JSam21: Not a mass shooting... the article says it was a fight and a male Hispanic suspect was seen running. Ban Hispanics?

No, running.  Running kills people, not guns.


Ok... so no Hispanics, sports bars, and running. What else?

/can we have sports sallons?
2013-01-01 02:38:29 AM  
1 vote:
Haven't read through the comments - stay safe, subs. Farking awful:(
2013-01-01 02:38:16 AM  
1 vote:
I see that this thread is full of reasonable individuals who certainly have a reasonable excuse to post.
2013-01-01 02:36:56 AM  
1 vote:
What the fark is wrong with this world? Take cover, subby.
2013-01-01 02:36:11 AM  
1 vote:

JSam21: Not a mass shooting... the article says it was a fight and a male Hispanic suspect was seen running. Ban Hispanics?


No, running.  Running kills people, not guns.
2013-01-01 02:35:24 AM  
1 vote:
Per police radio traffic, the suspect is a male hispanic headed toward the river from the shooting scene.

So illegal or gang member?
2013-01-01 02:35:03 AM  
1 vote:
Was this a Psycho Mass Murder or just a gang beef?
2013-01-01 02:34:09 AM  
1 vote:
Not a mass shooting... the article says it was a fight and a male Hispanic suspect was seen running. Ban Hispanics?
2013-01-01 02:34:05 AM  
1 vote:

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

Less lines at Disneyland and think of empty the lanes would be on the Freeway.


So many fewer Trucks and SUVs as well, would make my commute much easier as I drive a sports car and they are always in my way, hogging the left lane going the speed limit.
2013-01-01 02:33:43 AM  
1 vote:
Wow we can't even go one farking day with out someone unloading a gun into a crowd. Good job America.
2013-01-01 02:33:07 AM  
1 vote:
As someone who is not there but is pretty much sick if this kinda crap, let me just say


farkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfa​rkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfarkfark

/be safe, subster
2013-01-01 02:33:05 AM  
1 vote:
Are you sure this isn't just "normal" gunshots?
2013-01-01 02:31:50 AM  
1 vote:
So glad I opted out of that this year. Went to my friend's NYE party instead. I can't picture myself in a fight in Old Sac, though. I'm more of the "Run away! Run away! and if  you can't, then, and only then, do you fight" type. Damn. I wonder what the back story on this is?

Everyone in SacTown stay safe. We're so boring the rest of the year it always amazes  me when stuff like this happens anywhere but South Sac, the DPH or Alkalai Flats. Even then, it's not too terribly common here. I moved up here from SoCal to get away from stuff like this, ya know...

/heads back to the party for more spiked eggnog
//haz a sad this even happened :'-(
2013-01-01 02:30:43 AM  
1 vote:
Hope you're safe, subby.
2013-01-01 02:30:19 AM  
1 vote:
because a constitution could never be wrong
2013-01-01 02:29:56 AM  
1 vote:
Goddammit, why can't people just act right?
2013-01-01 02:29:33 AM  
1 vote:

make me some tea: This is why we can't have nice things.


i3.kym-cdn.com
2013-01-01 02:29:29 AM  
1 vote:

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

marius2: Stay safe, Subs.

THIS.


dingdingding
2013-01-01 02:29:23 AM  
1 vote:
I am getting really sick and tired of this. Stay safe subby.
2013-01-01 02:28:43 AM  
1 vote:
This is what happens when you take God out of New Years.

We could easily prevent this kind of thing by arming our drunk revelers.
2013-01-01 02:25:18 AM  
1 vote:
Stay safe subby
2013-01-01 02:24:29 AM  
1 vote:
If we only had more guns, this wouldn't have happened..There would have been an even bigger
gunfight and more people killed while shooting drunkenly at each other...
2013-01-01 02:23:35 AM  
1 vote:
some people just want to watch the world burn....

be safe subs
2013-01-01 02:23:00 AM  
1 vote:

Russ Feingold's Brass Balls: Guns are easy, gatherings are easy.

tomtomorrowguncartoon.jpg


Oh, and definitely keep your head down, subby.
2013-01-01 02:22:41 AM  
1 vote:
You know what would have prevented this? More guns!

/sarcasm
//sigh
2013-01-01 02:22:13 AM  
1 vote:
Subby:  Get to safe ground, then get back to this thread.  We want you back in one piece!
2013-01-01 02:22:07 AM  
1 vote:
Be careful Subby!
2013-01-01 02:21:40 AM  
1 vote:
Stay safe, submitter.

Helluva way to start the New Year.
2013-01-01 02:21:26 AM  
1 vote:
Holy crap! Stay safe subby!! :(
2013-01-01 02:17:50 AM  
1 vote:
Keep your head down, subs.

That sucks.
2013-01-01 02:07:05 AM  
1 vote:
Murrika!

Stay safe, Subs.
 
Displayed 221 of 221 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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