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.

(Breitbart.com)   FBI: more people get killed with hammers than guns. Still unknown: whether more houses are built with firearms or carpentry tools, how many people seduced by false equivalencies   (breitbart.com) divider line 431
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

8347 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 11:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-03 10:28:19 AM  
cdn103.iofferphoto.com
 
2013-01-03 10:31:22 AM  
That's just a shiatty comparison, not a false equivalence.
 
2013-01-03 10:33:41 AM  
this is more a critique of the FBI's data than anything else, but what is the value of breaking out gun murders by handgun/rifle/shotgun if a full 20% of the total falls in "unspecified gun type?"
 
2013-01-03 10:38:53 AM  
is it freeper friday already?
 
2013-01-03 10:41:21 AM  

LRA61380: That's just a shiatty comparison, not a false equivalence.


Its also a strawman because he's actually selectively comparing deaths with rifles, and I don't think I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.
 
2013-01-03 10:47:03 AM  

gilgigamesh: I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.


It's a vary specific point/argument to counter any proposed "assault rifle" ban.
 
2013-01-03 10:48:50 AM  

Rustico: gilgigamesh: I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.

It's a vary specific point/argument to counter any proposed "assault rifle" ban.


i don't think the argument has ever been that "all murders are committed with assault rifles" though. it's addressing an argument that doesn't exist.
 
2013-01-03 10:50:14 AM  
More people die of old age than nuclear weapons.
 
2013-01-03 10:50:34 AM  

thomps: it's addressing an argument that doesn't exist.


a hallmark of the rabid right.
 
2013-01-03 10:53:49 AM  

thomps: Rustico: gilgigamesh: I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.

It's a vary specific point/argument to counter any proposed "assault rifle" ban.

i don't think the argument has ever been that "all murders are committed with assault rifles" though. it's addressing an argument that doesn't exist.


Nor has the argument ever been "all murders are committed with guns."  In a similar vein, not a single person was saying that armed guards in schools would stop school shootings before Wayne LaPierre dropped that deuce.
 
2013-01-03 11:01:14 AM  
Was it just me, or did the author have some serious subject-verb-tense agreement issues? Maybe a sign of the cognitive dissonance that resonated throughout that "op-ed"?

I appreciate their wholehearted support for instead banning handguns...
 
2013-01-03 11:03:38 AM  

FlashHarry: is it freeper friday already?


There does appear to have been an uptick in the whine industry today
 
2013-01-03 11:15:40 AM  
Just like a hammer, the primary use and function of an assault rifle is to kill people.
 
2013-01-03 11:16:13 AM  

gilgigamesh: LRA61380: That's just a shiatty comparison, not a false equivalence.

Its also a strawman because he's actually selectively comparing deaths with rifles, and I don't think I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.


Talk to the Illinois legislature.
 
hej [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 11:16:17 AM  

St_Francis_P: [cdn103.iofferphoto.com image 582x817]


Pack it up boys, this thread is done.
 
2013-01-03 11:17:15 AM  
In other news, rape is more responsible for suicides than low test scores.

Ban women.
 
2013-01-03 11:17:41 AM  
Houses are built with guns all the time.

www.1976ad.com
 
2013-01-03 11:18:14 AM  
Well that solved it. We should arm our troops and law enforcement officers with hammers instead of guns.
 
2013-01-03 11:18:49 AM  
"Whaaaaaa! The brilliant logic I use in my own clever posts has been used against my position this time! No fair! It's stuuupid!"
 
2013-01-03 11:19:15 AM  

Chummer45: Just like a hammer, the primary use and function of an assault rifle is to kill people.


I guess thats why the police call their ar-15s "patrol rifles"

I call mine a chalkboard because its really gonna fark with the CDC and FBI stats if I ever use it to defend my air jordans.
 
2013-01-03 11:19:25 AM  
I have a hammer that uses .22 caliber ammunition.

www.pacoa.com

/Blanks, but still...
 
2013-01-03 11:19:41 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 11:19:46 AM  

genner: Houses are built with guns all the time.

[www.1976ad.com image 692x764]


"Man, fark a charge, this here's a gun powder activated, 27 caliber, full auto, no kickback, nail-throwing mayhem man. shiat right here's tight."
 
2013-01-03 11:20:19 AM  
"Hammer" has put to death many people.

images.wikia.com
 
2013-01-03 11:20:52 AM  
I'm not clicking that link. Someone wanna summarize the nonsense contained?
 
2013-01-03 11:21:30 AM  
banhammer
 
2013-01-03 11:21:41 AM  
Rifles? Okay gun-strokers, keep you rifles. They'll come in handy during the Red Dawn.

About those handguns...
 
2013-01-03 11:21:48 AM  
Notice how rifles became guns in subbys title?
 
2013-01-03 11:21:52 AM  
nobody tell North Korea about this. they'll trade their rifles for hammers and then their army will then be unstoppable!
 
2013-01-03 11:22:31 AM  

Fart_Machine: Well that solved it. We should arm our troops and law enforcement officers with hammers instead of guns.


I think we're done here.
 
2013-01-03 11:22:32 AM  
The US has a higher murder rate with knives than the UK, too.  We just like murder.
 
2013-01-03 11:22:34 AM  

FlashHarry: thomps: it's addressing an argument that doesn't exist.

a hallmark of the rabid right.


Unlike real liberals there's roughly a 50/50 chance a righty will win an argument with a strawman. They're just playing the odds.
 
2013-01-03 11:22:35 AM  

bartink: I'm not clicking that link. Someone wanna summarize the nonsense contained?


Rather than a well-reasoned article, they went with Dana Loesch nude ascii art, and somehow managed to slip in some derp into the narrative right around her pubic area.
 
2013-01-03 11:22:54 AM  
Tecnically guns have hammers and its what makes them work.
 
2013-01-03 11:23:05 AM  
More people die of bad teeth than public masturbation.
 
2013-01-03 11:23:38 AM  

thomps: Rustico: gilgigamesh: I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.

It's a vary specific point/argument to counter any proposed "assault rifle" ban.

i don't think the argument has ever been that "all murders are committed with assault rifles" though. it's addressing an argument that doesn't exist.


Could we stop with the defining of terms and just get down to name-calling and other insults.
 
2013-01-03 11:24:06 AM  
And here we go again with a bunch of anti-gun crap.
 
2013-01-03 11:24:26 AM  
Goddammit, subby, learn the difference between a rifle and a gun. Also, seriously, a greenlit Breitbart link?

i.ytimg.com
 
2013-01-03 11:24:27 AM  
Ban Assault Hammers!
 
2013-01-03 11:25:12 AM  
Nail guns? Framing hammers? Silver hammers? Sledge hammers? I need specifics before I can get my outrage on.
 
2013-01-03 11:25:59 AM  
99.6 of "Poor" Household have refrigerators. A lot of poor people murder other people because they are desperate and poor.

Has anyone seen statistics on how many refrigerators have been used to murder someone? I mean, we all know they can save a life in the event of a nuclear blast, but how many times have they been commissioned in a homicide? I bet those poors are killing up a storm with frigs.
 
2013-01-03 11:25:59 AM  

Bloody Templar: I have a hammer that uses .22 caliber ammunition.



/Blanks, but still...


Yeah, I've got one of those, too. Lots of fun, and just the thing if you need to affix wood to concrete, but as I was using it I was terrified that someone would call the cops on me.
 
2013-01-03 11:25:59 AM  
But the UK's gun crime went up 100% in some select years after they banned guns.

The US' is only 4000% higher than that.
 
2013-01-03 11:26:20 AM  
Also, more people in the US died in meat processing accidents than with fully automatic M-16s. Thererfore, canned ham and hot dogs should be banned and confiscated and the M-16 should be made availabe to all patriotic American patriots.
 
2013-01-03 11:26:29 AM  

drewsclues: genner: Houses are built with guns all the time.

[www.1976ad.com image 692x764]

"Man, fark a charge, this here's a gun powder activated, 27 caliber, full auto, no kickback, nail-throwing mayhem man. shiat right here's tight."


You earned that bump like a motherfarker.
 
2013-01-03 11:26:39 AM  

coeyagi: 99.6 percent of "Poor" Household have refrigerators. A lot of poor people murder other people because they are desperate and poor.

Has anyone seen statistics on how many refrigerators have been used to murder someone? I mean, we all know they can save a life in the event of a nuclear blast, but how many times have they been commissioned in a homicide? I bet those poors are killing up a storm with frigs.


FTFM
 
2013-01-03 11:26:51 AM  
Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?
 
2013-01-03 11:26:52 AM  
Banned:

cache.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-01-03 11:26:52 AM  

St_Francis_P: [cdn103.iofferphoto.com image 582x817]


STOP! RIFLE TIME!!!
 
2013-01-03 11:27:22 AM  

gilgigamesh: LRA61380: That's just a shiatty comparison, not a false equivalence.

Its also a strawman because he's actually selectively comparing deaths with rifles, and I don't think I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.


Umm, not paying attention are we? AR-15's are rifles, as are semi-auto AK-47's, and both would be banned under any assault weapons ban that had any teeth at all.
 
2013-01-03 11:27:59 AM  

Ring of Fire: Tecnically guns have hammers and its what makes them work.


Technically most of my guns don't have hammers.

/firing pins
 
2013-01-03 11:28:23 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon:
Could we stop with the defining of terms and just get down to name-calling and other insults.


there is the possibility that this could turn into an all out hammer porn thread. people could list all the hammers they own, what they've built with them, post pictures of their hammers and accessories and have lively discussions on the merits of framing-vs-sledge.
 
2013-01-03 11:29:16 AM  
Also, more people were killed by cars than by assault rifles. Given Fartbunger's stimulus money for mass transit, it's pretty obvious.... HE'S TRYING TO GRAB YOUR CAR!

Stop that usurping Car Grabber! Contact (insert soulless lobbying group for the auto industry that is the equivalent of the NRA) right now!
 
2013-01-03 11:29:31 AM  
How many people are seduced by misleading vividness?
 
2013-01-03 11:29:35 AM  

LRA61380: That's just a shiatty comparison, not a false equivalence.


and cherry picking to boot.
 
2013-01-03 11:29:36 AM  

bartink: I'm not clicking that link. Someone wanna summarize the nonsense contained?


According to the FBI more people are killed by "blunt weapons" (not just hammers and clubs) than "rifles" therefore banning rifles is unconstitutional.

I'm not kidding about the last part either. The article straight up says The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.
 
2013-01-03 11:30:09 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Also, more people in the US died in meat processing accidents than with fully automatic M-16s. Thererfore, canned ham and hot dogs should be banned and confiscated and the M-16 should be made availabe to all patriotic American patriots.


static02.mediaite.comstatic02.mediaite.com

static02.mediaite.comstatic02.mediaite.com
 
2013-01-03 11:30:11 AM  
Oh my - I can hardly believe my good fortune! It's YET ANOTHER gun thread!
i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 11:30:41 AM  
headline is correct, we don't have an ennumerated right to hammers
 
2013-01-03 11:30:51 AM  
...Seriously?

"OMG rifles aren't a problem! They only kill 2/3 of the people that blunt objects do every year!"
 
2013-01-03 11:30:54 AM  
So what's the highest body count from a hammer attack?
 
2013-01-03 11:30:58 AM  

drewsclues: "Man, fark a charge, this here's a gun powder activated, 27 caliber, full auto, no kickback, nail-throwing mayhem man. shiat right here's tight."


How my hair look, Mike?
 
2013-01-03 11:31:02 AM  

gilgigamesh: LRA61380: That's just a shiatty comparison, not a false equivalence.

Its also a strawman because he's actually selectively comparing deaths with rifles, and I don't think I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.


Sadly, that's only evidence that you haven't paid close enough attention to the news. The Illinois legislature now has two bills submitted that effectively ban any firearms more recent than flintlocks, including rifles.
 
2013-01-03 11:31:12 AM  

Cdr.Murdock: St_Francis_P: [cdn103.iofferphoto.com image 582x817]

STOP! RIFLE TIME!!!


Hahahahaha
 
2013-01-03 11:31:18 AM  
gilgigamesh


Its also a strawman because he's actually selectively comparing deaths with rifles, and I don't think I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.


Guess you've missed the last 20 years of Dianne Feinstein's legislative career. Granted most of her proposals don't get very far.
 
2013-01-03 11:31:35 AM  
That . You go out and hammer nails with it all day...come back and it'll cut dead center on target every time. It's got a really nice action to it and a heck of a wallop.

files.myopera.com
 
2013-01-03 11:31:37 AM  

bartink: I'm not clicking that link. Someone wanna summarize the nonsense contained?


Here is the link he includes to the source fbi data. Here is some BJS data with a longer time frame, but it doesn't break guns into as many categories.
 
2013-01-03 11:32:11 AM  

Brick-House: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 655x294]


Oh look.  A pretend Dewalt nail gun.

/Snopes is your friend
 
2013-01-03 11:32:37 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?


Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....
 
2013-01-03 11:33:23 AM  

bartink: I'm not clicking that link. Someone wanna summarize the nonsense contained?


You do not need someone to summarize an article from Breitbart, American Thinker, Townhall, WND, or the Blaze. Mainly because I've never seen a green where the entire article wasn't contained in the headline.

In this case: some FBI report said that more people are killed with hammers than assault rifles. You can fill in the rest of the article (libby libs, Obama's a gungrabbing debil, MORE JEBUS) yourself, and probably much more eloquently than the author did.
 
2013-01-03 11:33:35 AM  
That's why I lock up all my hammers in my hammer safe. And I always store the hammer ammo seperately and keep my hammers unloaded.
 
2013-01-03 11:33:48 AM  

the_geek: Ring of Fire: Tecnically guns have hammers and its what makes them work.

Technically most of my guns don't have hammers.

/firing pins


Mine has a cock:

img134.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-03 11:35:11 AM  
I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.
 
2013-01-03 11:35:27 AM  
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a hammer, is a good guy with a hammer.
 
2013-01-03 11:35:58 AM  

you have pee hands: The US has a higher murder rate with knives than the UK, too.  We just like murder.



It's almost like there's some *other* factor in society which makes us more violent per capita. Something which creates more people on the margins of society for various reasons. Something which might impact the access to care that folks who are mentally unbalanced might need, or might keep milions of people more desperate and struggling to get by. What ever could it be...
 
2013-01-03 11:36:44 AM  

Saners: I'm not kidding about the last part either. The article straight up says The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.


The reality is that some jackass made the news for killing a bunch of kids and people are acting as if low powered semi-automatic rifles are some new plague that is bringing about the end of times. The fact of the matter is that day is a statistical anomaly. A horrible, terrifying statistical anomaly, but one nonetheless. Your kids are not more or less safe at school than they were six months ago or six years ago. Actually, they're more safe today than they were six years ago since all forms of violent crimes, including gun crimes, have been on the decline for decades. 20 kids die of preventable accidents every day. It's sad, but it happens. We don't suddenly live in a world where we need armed guards at every school or peoples' constitutional rights need to be diminished. It happened, it's horrible, let's make sure we have a plan in place at your local school, perhaps enact policies such as auto-locking internal doors or something.

After 9/11 we did some smart things like reinforced cockpit doors. We also did some stupid things like warrantless wiretaps and feeling up grandmas at the airport. Let's all take a deep breath, take a moment to grieve, and make a sensible response to this tragedy.
 
2013-01-03 11:37:27 AM  
I heard there are 40,000 Warhammers.
 
2013-01-03 11:37:37 AM  

dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....


Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.
 
2013-01-03 11:37:41 AM  
I use a Plumb 160z for home defense.
 
2013-01-03 11:37:49 AM  

from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.


I see only 1 retard here, the one who thinks he sees retards advocating for gun bans.

I just scanned the thread - it's mainly snark.

But try again, trisomy 21.
 
2013-01-03 11:38:02 AM  

gerrymander: gilgigamesh: LRA61380: That's just a shiatty comparison, not a false equivalence.

Its also a strawman because he's actually selectively comparing deaths with rifles, and I don't think I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.

Sadly, that's only evidence that you haven't paid close enough attention to the news. The Illinois legislature now has two bills submitted that effectively ban any firearms more recent than flintlocks, including rifles.


Wow, Illinois has gone full retard. Classy to twist Heller as the justification for this. Not a snowball's chance in hell this doesnt get struck down by the supreme court.
 
2013-01-03 11:38:32 AM  
Hammers have other uses; guns don't (except practicing to murder scores).
 
2013-01-03 11:38:33 AM  

from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.


from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.


Checks (2 month old) profile. Temporarily blinded by staring straight into derp supernova.

Laughs nervously.
 
2013-01-03 11:38:46 AM  

dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....


As a matter of pedantry, none of those attacked meet the requirements of the original poster.
 
2013-01-03 11:39:14 AM  
Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu
 
2013-01-03 11:39:25 AM  

from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.


You're right, we should ban bombings, poisoning the water supply, driving through a playground, and chopping people up with machetes too.

And hammers, obviously.
 
2013-01-03 11:40:19 AM  

from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china


Hmmm, no. If you're talking about the newest NRA hero Lanza, he was quite intent on using a gun. Even went to buy one then balked at the two week waiting list. Easier to just grab his retarded prepper mom's guns. Good thing she trained him to be responsible with firearms.
 
2013-01-03 11:40:22 AM  

DeathCipris: Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu


Is it wrong that I want to see a grown man stroll into a school and try to kung-fu everybody to death?

No. It's not wrong. Because it would be comical as all hell, I'm certain.
 
2013-01-03 11:41:50 AM  

from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.


1. Gonna teach himself how to make a bomb without killing himself?
2. Then why has it never happened? (quantity)
3. Better dodge the playground equipment!
4. How many people did it kill?

Fact remains, if those things were just as easy, the killers would use them. By logical extension, removing the easiest to use killing devices lowers the about of killings.
 
2013-01-03 11:42:23 AM  

Saners: bartink: I'm not clicking that link. Someone wanna summarize the nonsense contained?

According to the FBI more people are killed by "blunt weapons" (not just hammers and clubs) than "rifles" therefore banning rifles is unconstitutional.

I'm not kidding about the last part either. The article straight up says The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.


Actually, a ban on rifles *IS* unconstitutional, just like a ban on handguns is:

The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster. DC v. Heller.

Any attempt to ban even some subclass of rifles is likely to fail simply because if they are useful for lawful purposes and if they are commonly used, then a ban on them is unconstitutional. Using production and import figures, you can put a lower bound on the number of "assault weapons" in use today, and you can show that they are commonly used for self-defense purposes, for target shooting, and increasingly (especially guns chambered in 7.62x39mm) for hunting.
 
2013-01-03 11:42:42 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DeathCipris: Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu

Is it wrong that I want to see a grown man stroll into a school and try to kung-fu everybody to death?

No. It's not wrong. Because it would be comical as all hell, I'm certain.


I am also certain it would be. I see it like...
cdn1.screenrant.com

However, the point still remains that people will continue to invent ways to kill one another even if everything is gone.
 
2013-01-03 11:42:56 AM  

from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.


Gun control is logical. Not allowing the general public to purchase say rocket launchers or automatic weapons is logical. Banning "guns" in general is stupid. There is no solution to stopping violence. It isn't possible. How do you stop someone who does not fear death or any other consequences?
 
2013-01-03 11:42:56 AM  
AWB isn't going to pass. Sorry you got your hopes up, gun grabbers.
 
2013-01-03 11:43:34 AM  
Thanks for the irrelevant data and incorrect conclusions drawn thereon.

While it is tragic I honestly just don't care that much when some arsehole beats his wife or kid to death because it has no chance of affecting me. This kind of event happens much more often but presents as a whole zero danger to the rest of us.

Once he's done hammering her skull in he's DONE killing. Plus it's impossible to go on a hammering spree - people can run away from you and 2 or more can stop you with their bare hands.

I do care about individuals having weapons capable of wiping out whole crowds of people in a short period of time and with high effectiveness. While folks don't go crazy and shoot up crowds very often, when they DO, the only limiting factor on how many they can kill is the tools they have at their disposal. So controlling those tools that serve ZERO purpose other than to allow mass murder to be performed more easily is not a bad idea.
 
2013-01-03 11:43:47 AM  

DeathCipris: Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu


Right, but as always, how many people can you kung fu to death in two minutes vs. using a gun? Difficulty: You are not Bruce Lee fighting extras in Enter the Dragon.
 
2013-01-03 11:43:56 AM  
www.w0ipl.net
 
2013-01-03 11:44:22 AM  

DeathCipris:

However, the point still remains that people will continue to invent ways to kill one another even if everything is gone.


Then we should at least force them to get creative.
 
2013-01-03 11:44:34 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DeathCipris: Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu

Is it wrong that I want to see a grown man stroll into a school and try to kung-fu everybody to death?

No. It's not wrong. Because it would be comical as all hell, I'm certain.


How many five year olds could you take in a fight?
 
2013-01-03 11:44:36 AM  

mongbiohazard: you have pee hands: The US has a higher murder rate with knives than the UK, too.  We just like murder.


It's almost like there's some *other* factor in society which makes us more violent per capita. Something which creates more people on the margins of society for various reasons. Something which might impact the access to care that folks who are mentally unbalanced might need, or might keep milions of people more desperate and struggling to get by. What ever could it be...


We have way more stupid people...
 
2013-01-03 11:44:57 AM  
I do like how people insist on including suicides in gun deaths.

Because when you say "just over 12,000" it just doesn't sound as good as "just over 30,000". Far more than half of all gun deaths are self inflicted. To paraphrase a famous quote, would you feel any better if they had jumped out of windows?

"But... but... OTHER countries..."

Yes, we have more shootings than countries without guns. We also have more strangling, stabbing, and beating deaths too. You're free to speculate why the violent crime rate is so high here.
 
2013-01-03 11:44:58 AM  

Chummer45: Just like a hammer, the primary use and function of an assault rifle is to kill people.


The primary use of a semi automatic sporting rifle is hunting and target practice.

Assualt weapons are fully automatic and designed for killing brown people from oil rich nations.

Civilian Jeeps are made for the everyday street and offroad sports.

Military Use Jeeps are made for war and armed to kill brown people in oil rich nations.

All of them kill. Regardless of design.

Do you know you can kill someone without tools? Better turn yourself in Bro.
 
2013-01-03 11:45:08 AM  

Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.


Actually, guns are among the least efficient means. Arson and explosives are the most efficient. See: Bath School Disaster and Happy Land Fire
 
2013-01-03 11:45:31 AM  
Gun crime is getting worse every year.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-03 11:46:17 AM  
Since no one has gotten it yet either...

HAMMERSMASHED FACE
exclaim.ca
 
2013-01-03 11:46:35 AM  

artifishy: More people die of old age than nuclear weapons.


Time to ban old age.
moonwolves.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-03 11:46:56 AM  

netcentric: I use a Plumb 160z for home defense.


I used to have a the sweetest Vaughn 26 ounce. I would wade into my enemies. Spill their blood. Hammer their stomachs.

Then my stupid brother borrowed it.

I sit by my fire some nights and think to myself "Well, at least I didn't tack shingles in Louisiana."
 
2013-01-03 11:47:09 AM  

dittybopper: the_geek: Ring of Fire: Tecnically guns have hammers and its what makes them work.

Technically most of my guns don't have hammers.

/firing pins

Mine has a cock:

[img134.imageshack.us image 640x480]


Made me think of this:
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-03 11:47:50 AM  

randomjsa: I do like how people insist on including suicides in gun deaths.


You should show us how it's done. Have your mom upload the video to youtube. Thanks.
 
2013-01-03 11:48:29 AM  
Look, I'm sick of having this argument. It's not about lives, wait a min now, it's about how you perceive guns. You give no credence to those that believe we need weapons in defense of tyranny (blah blah drone strikes vs military history...I get it). You, reluctantly, try to spin the 2nd amendment to refer to hunting because of it. Many things kill more people than firearms every year, but because you see no need for weapons you single them out and treat gun owners as lepers. You base your arguments on emotion so it's just going to boil down to who has the most votes and your willingness to allow bloodshed to have your way.


/Basically, you're starting to bore me... either light the fuse on this powder keg or shut the fark up
//I'd prefer the former
///Blame the iPad for any typos
 
2013-01-03 11:48:34 AM  
Since I actually do keep a hammer by the bed to deal with intruders, I'm getting a kick out of this thread.

Once had a property management company mistakenly come walking in to a condo I was renting, no knock, key just hit the lock and two idiots came walking in. If they hadn't looked so harmless (female real estate agent and old guy looking to buy a place) I could have easily shot them, and I really don't want that on my conscience. So, a hammer and a baseball bat are the first lines of defense.
 
2013-01-03 11:48:43 AM  

dittybopper: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.

Actually, guns are among the least efficient means. Arson and explosives are the most efficient. See: Bath School Disaster and Happy Land Fire


As long as your efficiency calculation does not involve the difficulty of performing the action effectively.
 
2013-01-03 11:48:48 AM  
Question: Is an AR-15 designed to kill as many people as possible (as far as rifles go)? Im looking for an anti-gun farker to answer this one
 
2013-01-03 11:48:54 AM  

ArkPanda: DeathCipris: Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu

Right, but as always, how many people can you kung fu to death in two minutes vs. using a gun? Difficulty: You are not Bruce Lee fighting extras in Enter the Dragon.


I am not Bruce Lee. But there was a Bruce Lee, proving it is possible for someone to do it.
Also these are kids, to borrow the words of Louis CK.
"You think I did that? Look at my fist! I would destroy that kid. She has no defenses. She would just stand there smiling."
 
2013-01-03 11:49:14 AM  

Carn: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DeathCipris: Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu

Is it wrong that I want to see a grown man stroll into a school and try to kung-fu everybody to death?

No. It's not wrong. Because it would be comical as all hell, I'm certain.

How many five year olds could you take in a fight?


28. Not bad.
 
2013-01-03 11:49:16 AM  

the_geek: Saners: I'm not kidding about the last part either. The article straight up says The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.

The reality is that some jackass made the news for killing a bunch of kids and people are acting as if low powered semi-automatic rifles are some new plague that is bringing about the end of times. The fact of the matter is that day is a statistical anomaly. A horrible, terrifying statistical anomaly, but one nonetheless. Your kids are not more or less safe at school than they were six months ago or six years ago. Actually, they're more safe today than they were six years ago since all forms of violent crimes, including gun crimes, have been on the decline for decades. 20 kids die of preventable accidents every day. It's sad, but it happens. We don't suddenly live in a world where we need armed guards at every school or peoples' constitutional rights need to be diminished. It happened, it's horrible, let's make sure we have a plan in place at your local school, perhaps enact policies such as auto-locking internal doors or something.

After 9/11 we did some smart things like reinforced cockpit doors. We also did some stupid things like warrantless wiretaps and feeling up grandmas at the airport. Let's all take a deep breath, take a moment to grieve, and make a sensible response to this tragedy.


Okay. Tax increases on all new sales, registration requirement on all guns, mandatory insurance for all firearms, and required training courses.

What's that? You're not actually interested in banless solutions? You just want to keep the status quo under the guise of "sensible response" when in reality you want "no response." I see.
 
2013-01-03 11:50:00 AM  
So many FARKERs' have no idea why we have the 2nd amendment, i wonder whe they stopped teaching the constitution and history in High Schools. YEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!!

/psss....t ITS NOT FOR farkING HUNTING ASSHATS!!!!
 
2013-01-03 11:50:41 AM  
www.prlog.org
 
2013-01-03 11:51:21 AM  

Frank N Stein: Question: Is an AR-15 designed to kill as many people as possible (as far as rifles go)? Im looking for an anti-gun farker to answer this one


No. The AR-15 was designed as a crutch for people that need many bullets to hit what they're aiming at. Those of us that can aim don't need them. The AR-15 is the wheelchair of guns.
 
2013-01-03 11:51:30 AM  

Thats No Moose: I heard there are 40,000 Warhammers.


Yup...

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-03 11:51:55 AM  

Granny_Panties: randomjsa: I do like how people insist on including suicides in gun deaths.

You should show us how it's done. Have your mom upload the video to youtube. Thanks.


Why does that person deserve that reaction? Putting suicides in gun deaths is probably technically correct, but it misses the point most people discuss when they are dealing with gun deaths, and it makes the argument weaker. It is quite likely someone committing suicide can do so through another means, just as easily, as with a gun -- the gun is, in general, not related to whether the end result is successful.

It is unlikely, IMO, someone can kill a school full of children as easily without a gun. The gun is directly related to the successful end result, there.

If you quote gun deaths as a means of arguing about gun violence against others and don't remove suicides, you are intentionally conflating two unrelated things and committing the same sins that the NRA, et. al., do when presenting data.

/not saying that isn't politically wise, but it is somewhat hypocritical
 
2013-01-03 11:52:00 AM  
Keep pulling those stats out of your ass and falsely claiming that your source is the FBI! It's really helping your case, gun advocates!
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov
/sources: Link,Link,Link
 
2013-01-03 11:52:03 AM  

the_geek: The fact of the matter is that day is a statistical anomaly


Um, no.

On average a multiple-victim shooting every 5.9 days since 2005. There are 87 gun DEATHS each day in the U.S. That's insane.

We can argue about what an appropriate solution might be but putting your head in the sand isn't realistic.
 
2013-01-03 11:52:06 AM  

netcentric: I use a Plumb 160z for home defense.


I'm a dead blow ball peen man myself....

In black of course, so you KNOW it LOOKS evil. I hope they don't ban the ball peen. I know it looks militaristic but it's great for rounding off metal & smashing skulls....
 
2013-01-03 11:52:14 AM  
Hammers have other users than killing things. Firearms are made soley for killing things.
 
2013-01-03 11:52:39 AM  

Joe Blowme: So many FARKERs' have no idea why we have the 2nd amendment, i wonder whe they stopped teaching the constitution and history in High Schools. YEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!!

/psss....t ITS NOT FOR farkING HUNTING ASSHATS!!!!


I thought it was for dueling

ushistoryimages.com
 
2013-01-03 11:52:57 AM  
Err I'd prefer the LATTER, Freudian slip or typo... the world may never know.
 
2013-01-03 11:53:36 AM  

Frank N Stein: AWB isn't going to pass. Sorry you got your hopes up, gun grabbers.


Another dipshiat who didn't read the thread. Paranoid hicks, all of ya.
 
2013-01-03 11:53:36 AM  

cefm: Plus it's impossible to go on a hammering spree - people can run away from you and 2 or more can stop you with their bare hands.


That's not necessarily true. There have been a number of spree killers who have used "melee weapons" meaning things like axes, knives, hammers, clubs, etc. It's actually a relatively common method of spree killing in countries where firearms access is completely banned, like China.
 
2013-01-03 11:54:38 AM  

GAT_00: thomps: Rustico: gilgigamesh: I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.

It's a vary specific point/argument to counter any proposed "assault rifle" ban.

i don't think the argument has ever been that "all murders are committed with assault rifles" though. it's addressing an argument that doesn't exist.

Nor has the argument ever been "all murders are committed with guns."  In a similar vein, not a single person was saying that armed guards in schools would stop school shootings before Wayne LaPierre dropped that deuce.


False.
 
2013-01-03 11:54:55 AM  

Carn: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DeathCipris: Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu

Is it wrong that I want to see a grown man stroll into a school and try to kung-fu everybody to death?

No. It's not wrong. Because it would be comical as all hell, I'm certain.

How many five year olds could you take in a fight?


31
 
2013-01-03 11:55:01 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Many things kill more people than firearms every year, but because you see no need for weapons you single them out and treat gun owners as lepers.


Why is that people think body count is the only thing being considered?

And I like that you're saying gun control people are the ones that pivot to hunting when pressed for some rationale for owning these things. That's what gun owners do when they realize everyone thinks they're farking nuts for engaging in conspiracy theories about how their going to need to fight "the government" (translation: their friends and neighbors, first responders and troops) because they disagree with their gun politics.
 
2013-01-03 11:55:06 AM  

the_geek: Ring of Fire: Tecnically guns have hammers and its what makes them work.

Technically most of my guns don't have hammers.

/firing pins


Oddly my Beretta PX4 does...but its double action only and the hammer doesnt extend past the slide...so its kinda like, why?
 
2013-01-03 11:55:27 AM  

FitzShivering: dittybopper: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.

Actually, guns are among the least efficient means. Arson and explosives are the most efficient. See: Bath School Disaster and Happy Land Fire

As long as your efficiency calculation does not involve the difficulty of performing the action effectively.


How hard is it to block the exits of a building and set it on fire with a couple gallons of gasoline?
 
2013-01-03 11:55:29 AM  

coeyagi: "Hammer" has put to death many people.

[images.wikia.com image 554x434]



He looks like my college rugby coach.
 
2013-01-03 11:55:47 AM  

dittybopper: cefm: Plus it's impossible to go on a hammering spree - people can run away from you and 2 or more can stop you with their bare hands.

That's not necessarily true. There have been a number of spree killers who have used "melee weapons" meaning things like axes, knives, hammers, clubs, etc. It's actually a relatively common method of spree killing in countries where firearms access is completely banned, like China.


Yeah that year long "rampage" is certainly comparable to spree killings that take out more people in a few minutes before the person can be stopped.
 
2013-01-03 11:55:53 AM  

topcon: Gun crime is getting worse every year.

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]


Are you really going to post this in EVERY gun thread? Can't you just add a link?
 
2013-01-03 11:55:57 AM  
On my workbench - right this very minute - I have a partially disassembled 1941 Mosin and a...hammer. (Mosin's are not particularly fragile)

It would seem my workshop is a veritable engine of death right now.
 
2013-01-03 11:56:43 AM  
You guys really crack me up.

I could categorically come up with an argument over something you "don't need" to remove every single of of your civil rights in the name of "security" and "what if" and "just in case on person might want to do something evil with blah, blah, blah".
Your position is all too easy to take and feel all warm and fuzzy and safe.

You can't have it both ways.
Just because you're absolutey terrified of evil menacing black guns does not give you the right to take away my civil rights to not be afraid of an inanimate object.

Go hide in your little gun free hole and pretend that the world has ever been or ever will be free of evil, bad people, and tyrranical controlling governments, because your twisted little minds are only place it's ever going to happen.

When one single person or organization and their stooges want to be the only people with guns, my bullshiat detector goes completely bezerk.

Get out my life, leave my rights alone. Take your ivory towers and shove them up your collective self righteous you know whats.
 
2013-01-03 11:56:57 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Carn: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DeathCipris: Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu

Is it wrong that I want to see a grown man stroll into a school and try to kung-fu everybody to death?

No. It's not wrong. Because it would be comical as all hell, I'm certain.

How many five year olds could you take in a fight?

28. Not bad.


I only got 25. I can do better I swear!
 
2013-01-03 11:57:01 AM  

the_geek: After 9/11 we did some smart things like reinforced cockpit doors. We also did some stupid things like warrantless wiretaps and feeling up grandmas at the airport.


That's like, just your opinion, man
 
2013-01-03 11:57:56 AM  

justtray: the_geek: Saners: I'm not kidding about the last part either. The article straight up says The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.

The reality is that some jackass made the news for killing a bunch of kids and people are acting as if low powered semi-automatic rifles are some new plague that is bringing about the end of times. The fact of the matter is that day is a statistical anomaly. A horrible, terrifying statistical anomaly, but one nonetheless. Your kids are not more or less safe at school than they were six months ago or six years ago. Actually, they're more safe today than they were six years ago since all forms of violent crimes, including gun crimes, have been on the decline for decades. 20 kids die of preventable accidents every day. It's sad, but it happens. We don't suddenly live in a world where we need armed guards at every school or peoples' constitutional rights need to be diminished. It happened, it's horrible, let's make sure we have a plan in place at your local school, perhaps enact policies such as auto-locking internal doors or something.

After 9/11 we did some smart things like reinforced cockpit doors. We also did some stupid things like warrantless wiretaps and feeling up grandmas at the airport. Let's all take a deep breath, take a moment to grieve, and make a sensible response to this tragedy.

Okay. Tax increases on all new sales, registration requirement on all guns, mandatory insurance for all firearms, and required training courses.

What's that? You're not actually interested in banless solutions? You just want to keep the status quo under the guise of "sensible response" when in reality you want "no response." I see.


So they buy it from the black market...where you don't have to register, insure, train, etc...or steal it from a law-abiding citizen that did register and insure it. What you are recommending will not stop people from shooting each other. It is another fake layer of security, just like the TSA.
 
2013-01-03 11:58:20 AM  

computerguyUT: You guys really crack me up.

I could categorically come up with an argument over something you "don't need" to remove every single of of your civil rights in the name of "security" and "what if" and "just in case on person might want to do something evil with blah, blah, blah".
Your position is all too easy to take and feel all warm and fuzzy and safe.

You can't have it both ways.
Just because you're absolutey terrified of evil menacing black guns does not give you the right to take away my civil rights to not be afraid of an inanimate object.

Go hide in your little gun free hole and pretend that the world has ever been or ever will be free of evil, bad people, and tyrranical controlling governments, because your twisted little minds are only place it's ever going to happen.

When one single person or organization and their stooges want to be the only people with guns, my bullshiat detector goes completely bezerk.

Get out my life, leave my rights alone. Take your ivory towers and shove them up your collective self righteous you know whats.


This is why gun ownership shouldn't be considered a right in the first place.
 
2013-01-03 11:59:13 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Fail in Human Form: Many things kill more people than firearms every year, but because you see no need for weapons you single them out and treat gun owners as lepers.

Why is that people think body count is the only thing being considered?

And I like that you're saying gun control people are the ones that pivot to hunting when pressed for some rationale for owning these things. That's what gun owners do when they realize everyone thinks they're farking nuts for engaging in conspiracy theories about how their going to need to fight "the government" (translation: their friends and neighbors, first responders and troops) because they disagree with their gun politics.


Because I never hear people like the former speaker of the house forming her outline for new gun laws based off of hunting.

/Look it up on YouTube
//Some gun owners do that... We call them Fudds
///I've never backed down from my stance
 
2013-01-03 11:59:27 AM  

dittybopper: FitzShivering: dittybopper: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.

Actually, guns are among the least efficient means. Arson and explosives are the most efficient. See: Bath School Disaster and Happy Land Fire

As long as your efficiency calculation does not involve the difficulty of performing the action effectively.

How hard is it to block the exits of a building and set it on fire with a couple gallons of gasoline?


Sounds more time consuming than just shooting everyone.
 
2013-01-03 11:59:40 AM  

12monkeys: Keep pulling those stats out of your ass and falsely claiming that your source is the FBI! It's really helping your case, gun advocates!
[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 290x226]
/sources: Link,Link,Link


i.imgur.com

This is more recent than yours, and it does indeed show that rifles are used fewer times than blunt objects (323 vs 496)

The data you quote lumps rifles, shotguns, and every gun not specifically classified as a "handgun" in one category. That's why it looks the way it does, and btw, it's old data, ending 7 years ago.
 
2013-01-03 12:00:03 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a hammer, is a good guy with a hammer.


You fantastic bastard. I almost had a cheezy jalapeo come out my nose.
 
KIA
2013-01-03 12:00:12 PM  
Way to read, non-reader. The article said "rifles" not "guns."

And yes, those are real statistics. Rifles are used in very few murders compared to other means.
 
2013-01-03 12:00:14 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: topcon: Gun crime is getting worse every year.

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]

Are you really going to post this in EVERY gun thread? Can't you just add a link?


Like this one?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Link

12monkeys: Keep pulling those stats out of your ass and falsely claiming that your source is the FBI! It's really helping your case, gun advocates!
[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 290x226]
/sources: Link,Link,Link


Oh, are those stats fake?

Weird, they're right on the FBI's website.

Link
 
2013-01-03 12:01:00 PM  
Wasn't there an amendment to the Constitution about this? "A well regulated carpentry, being necessary to the building of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed."

/card-carrying member of the National Hammer Association
 
2013-01-03 12:01:06 PM  
Submitter, the false equivalency you and all gun control advocates make is in assuming that taking away or restricing my right to own any type of gun will reduce mass murders committed by madmen using guns. It will not.
 
2013-01-03 12:01:13 PM  
report findings:
normal object used in more murders than (specific) gun

Fark:
strawman, report means nothing
guns are still evil blah blah

no gnus is good gnus with gary farking gnu
 
2013-01-03 12:01:20 PM  

computerguyUT: You guys really crack me up.

I could categorically come up with an argument over something you "don't need" to remove every single of of your civil rights in the name of "security" and "what if" and "just in case on person might want to do something evil with blah, blah, blah".
Your position is all too easy to take and feel all warm and fuzzy and safe.

You can't have it both ways.
Just because you're absolutey terrified of evil menacing black guns does not give you the right to take away my civil rights to not be afraid of an inanimate object.

Go hide in your little gun free hole and pretend that the world has ever been or ever will be free of evil, bad people, and tyrranical controlling governments, because your twisted little minds are only place it's ever going to happen.

When one single person or organization and their stooges want to be the only people with guns, my bullshiat detector goes completely bezerk.

Get out my life, leave my rights alone. Take your ivory towers and shove them up your collective self righteous you know whats.


It's not the guns that scare me. They're inanimate. It's the folks that write things like this that also own, usually, many guns that worry me.

I'm so afraid that I've never in my life felt the need to carry a gun for protection.
 
2013-01-03 12:01:23 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: drewsclues: "Man, fark a charge, this here's a gun powder activated, 27 caliber, full auto, no kickback, nail-throwing mayhem man. shiat right here's tight."

How my hair look, Mike?


Came for the Hardware Barn scene, leaving happy.

/it was her time.
 
2013-01-03 12:01:41 PM  

gilgigamesh: I don't think I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.


This would be banned

www.huntingnet.com

As would this:
www.survival-gear-guide.com
 
2013-01-03 12:02:36 PM  
It's strange how an article that explicitly states "The bottom line:" could still be misunderstood so completely, but I'm guessing that's intentional.

The point is not to ban hammers. The point is to focus our efforts on more important matters. Got it?

There's no movement to stop murder-by-blunt-object, even though it's clearly a bigger threat (at least, based on bodycount). Obviously nobody gives a shiat because the people who die to blunt objects don't do so all at once - as if the act of dying in unison somehow makes it more tragic.
 
2013-01-03 12:02:42 PM  

wambu: Submitter, the false equivalency you and all gun control advocates make is in assuming that taking away or restricing my right to own any type of gun will reduce mass murders committed by madmen using guns. It will not.


Yes it will.
 
2013-01-03 12:03:03 PM  

dittybopper: FitzShivering: dittybopper: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.

Actually, guns are among the least efficient means. Arson and explosives are the most efficient. See: Bath School Disaster and Happy Land Fire

As long as your efficiency calculation does not involve the difficulty of performing the action effectively.

How hard is it to block the exits of a building and set it on fire with a couple gallons of gasoline?


With people inside of it? Without being interrupted? And easily carrying the gasoline around? And then lightning it and hoping it does what you want? Well, no, it doesn't require a super genius. On the other hand, it's far more time consuming, complicated, and likely to fail than hiding a gun on you and shooting everyone.

Please understand, I'm not entirely opposed to guns, nor do I want them all confiscated. I own more than one, and I used to target shoot a lot. But, that said, I think some of the arguments made on both sides of this debate are just horribly stupid.

We do have a problem that we need to address as a country. This is one of those issues that if we all chose to debate intelligently and with actual facts, we could probably come to a reasonable consensus. Would it make everyone happy? No. But that's what a consensus normally is.
 
2013-01-03 12:03:15 PM  

mbillips: Goddammit, subby, learn the difference between a rifle and a gun.


What's the difference?

/not subby
//just curious
 
2013-01-03 12:03:35 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.

Gun control is logical. Not allowing the general public to purchase say rocket launchers or automatic weapons is logical. Banning "guns" in general is stupid. There is no solution to stopping violence. It isn't possible. How do you stop someone who does not fear death or any other consequences?


Why can't I have my M-79 grenade launcher?
Grenades don't kill people, people kill people.

Thing how much safer we'd all be if we all had a grenade launcher.
 
2013-01-03 12:04:12 PM  

DeathCipris: justtray: the_geek: Saners: I'm not kidding about the last part either. The article straight up says The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.

The reality is that some jackass made the news for killing a bunch of kids and people are acting as if low powered semi-automatic rifles are some new plague that is bringing about the end of times. The fact of the matter is that day is a statistical anomaly. A horrible, terrifying statistical anomaly, but one nonetheless. Your kids are not more or less safe at school than they were six months ago or six years ago. Actually, they're more safe today than they were six years ago since all forms of violent crimes, including gun crimes, have been on the decline for decades. 20 kids die of preventable accidents every day. It's sad, but it happens. We don't suddenly live in a world where we need armed guards at every school or peoples' constitutional rights need to be diminished. It happened, it's horrible, let's make sure we have a plan in place at your local school, perhaps enact policies such as auto-locking internal doors or something.

After 9/11 we did some smart things like reinforced cockpit doors. We also did some stupid things like warrantless wiretaps and feeling up grandmas at the airport. Let's all take a deep breath, take a moment to grieve, and make a sensible response to this tragedy.

Okay. Tax increases on all new sales, registration requirement on all guns, mandatory insurance for all firearms, and required training courses.

What's that? You're not actually interested in banless solutions? You just want to keep the status quo under the guise of "sensible response" when in reality you want "no response." I see.

So they buy it from the black market...where you don't have to register, insure, train, etc...or steal it from a law-abiding citizen that did register and insure it. What you are recommending will not stop people from shooting each other. It is another fake layer of security, ...


So magically a solution where firearms are banned will stop illegal firearm sales? It is already illegal yet it continues to happen, what makes you think anything will fix that? You stop legal sales, but illegal sales continue.
 
2013-01-03 12:04:14 PM  

topcon: Like this one?


Yes. That makes posting the image of the chart in every thread unnecessary. Or you could, I don't know, come up with a new thought on the subject.
 
2013-01-03 12:04:16 PM  

justtray: Okay. Tax increases on all new sales, registration requirement on all guns, mandatory insurance for all firearms, and required training courses.

What's that? You're not actually interested in banless solutions? You just want to keep the status quo under the guise of "sensible response" when in reality you want "no response." I see.


Are you a Republican? You seem to be arguing against an empty seat because you're certainly not arguing against me.

While I don't support registration I do support the current background checks. I would also support more strenuous background checks that included things like mental health, though I'm not sure how to make that fair/workable. As an example of this.. I was listening to NPR interview some Ivy League professor that does work related to these mass shootings. He basically said there's definitely a "profile" for the people that do these kinds of shootings. The problem is that millions of people fit the profile and almost none of them ever become violent in any way. If the psych community can come up with some reasonable litmus test I'm happy to hear it and would support enacting it.

There's already taxes on ammunition. The money goes into a fund that teaches gun safety courses and pays for public firing ranges across the country. I'm okay with this. I assume you mean an *additional* tax of some sort. I would withhold judgement on such a new tax until I knew the details but I'm not categorically opposed to it.

I'm generally not okay with any form of registration, as that's the first step towards confiscation. That includes but is not limited to the requirement for insurance since that would obviously be traceable. It's also generally shown to have no real impact on gun crimes. All it does is track the innocent. With regards to mandatory training I'd be okay with requiring all public high schools to offer a fire-arms course using rifles. The rifles could all be single shot .22s which are incredibly unlikely to do serious damage to anyone and would offer no chance of a 'mass shooting' using any of the school's weapons. This would create generations of people trained in firearm safety and shooting skills. I'd be less okay with having some sort of tracking/registration course required for gun purchases.
 
2013-01-03 12:05:12 PM  

computerguyUT: Get out my life, leave my rights alone. Take your ivory towers and shove them up your collective self righteous you know whats.


I think you should start a fight with the local representatives of your tyrannical government immediately. It's the only way. Go do it. Do it now.

Faster. Get up and do it. You're the BEST! AROUND! Nothing's gonna ever keep you down! They drew first blood. C'mon! Welcome to the party, pal! Make my day! Say hello to your little friend! You don't have time to bleed! Fill your hands, you son of a b*tch! You're too old for this sh*t! Yipee Kai Yai, motherf*cker!
 
2013-01-03 12:06:20 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: topcon: Like this one?

Yes. That makes posting the image of the chart in every thread unnecessary. Or you could, I don't know, come up with a new thought on the subject.


Or, you know, everyone who keeps saying gun crime keeps getting worse and that rifles need to be banned should come up with a new thought on the subject.

The penultimate argument against these lies is to, you know, point out the truth that crime AND gun crime is dropping, sharply.
 
2013-01-03 12:06:24 PM  

Blathering Idjut: On average a multiple-victim shooting every 5.9 days since 2005. There are 87 gun DEATHS each day in the U.S. That's insane.

We can argue about what an appropriate solution might be but putting your head in the sand isn't realistic.


If you remove gang and drug related shootings, what do you have left that civilized people need to be concerned with?

And yes, 20 elementary school kids getting shot in a single day is a statistical anomaly.
 
2013-01-03 12:06:25 PM  
The lesson here is clear: don't bring a gun to a hammer fight.
 
2013-01-03 12:06:59 PM  
Maybe gun control advocates would be taken more seriously when they complain about false equivalence if they didn't make such a habit of using it constantly.

/"all gun owners are potential mass shooters"
 
2013-01-03 12:08:15 PM  

genner: Houses are built with guns all the time.

[www.1976ad.com image 692x764]


Why do  you need so many nails in that clip/magazine?
 
2013-01-03 12:08:45 PM  
Hey, is this the thread where people who don't know anything about the UCR attempt to use it like it was the Word of God?

/criminologist
//UCR is useful much like a screwdriver is good for picking your nails
 
2013-01-03 12:09:01 PM  

the_geek: Blathering Idjut: On average a multiple-victim shooting every 5.9 days since 2005. There are 87 gun DEATHS each day in the U.S. That's insane.

We can argue about what an appropriate solution might be but putting your head in the sand isn't realistic.

If you remove gang and drug related shootings, what do you have left that civilized people need to be concerned with?

And yes, 20 elementary school kids getting shot in a single day is a statistical anomaly.


To be fair, if you remember gang and drug related crimes, a great deal of the "high crimes" we have as a nation drop down sensibly. The problem with doing so is that gangs and drug related crimes are actually part of who we are as a nation. There are solutions to this problem, but they are long term, and no one wants to seriously discuss them, instead focusing on short-term knee-jerk reactions (not even most of which are related to guns) that do nothing but kick the can down the road or hide the problem.
 
2013-01-03 12:09:30 PM  

computerguyUT: You guys really crack me up.

I could categorically come up with an argument over something you "don't need" to remove every single of of your civil rights in the name of "security" and "what if" and "just in case on person might want to do something evil with blah, blah, blah".
Your position is all too easy to take and feel all warm and fuzzy and safe.

You can't have it both ways.
Just because you're absolutey terrified of evil menacing black guns does not give you the right to take away my civil rights to not be afraid of an inanimate object.

Go hide in your little gun free hole and pretend that the world has ever been or ever will be free of evil, bad people, and tyrranical controlling governments, because your twisted little minds are only place it's ever going to happen.

When one single person or organization and their stooges want to be the only people with guns, my bullshiat detector goes completely bezerk.

Get out my life, leave my rights alone. Take your ivory towers and shove them up your collective self righteous you know whats.


This just screams cowardice and fear.
 
2013-01-03 12:10:12 PM  

dittybopper: 12monkeys: Keep pulling those stats out of your ass and falsely claiming that your source is the FBI! It's really helping your case, gun advocates!
[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 290x226]
/sources: Link,Link,Link

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

This is more recent than yours, and it does indeed show that rifles are used fewer times than blunt objects (323 vs 496)

The data you quote lumps rifles, shotguns, and every gun not specifically classified as a "handgun" in one category. That's why it looks the way it does, and btw, it's old data, ending 7 years ago.


Looks to me like we need to ban feet.
 
2013-01-03 12:10:13 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: computerguyUT: Get out my life, leave my rights alone. Take your ivory towers and shove them up your collective self righteous you know whats.

I think you should start a fight with the local representatives of your tyrannical government immediately. It's the only way. Go do it. Do it now.

Faster. Get up and do it. You're the BEST! AROUND! Nothing's gonna ever keep you down! They drew first blood. C'mon! Welcome to the party, pal! Make my day! Say hello to your little friend! You don't have time to bleed! Fill your hands, you son of a b*tch! You're too old for this sh*t! Yipee Kai Yai, motherf*cker!


Awww, somebody trying to upset people. My turn. You want to know how the war would really be fought? We'd use you as shields by blending in with you. Then when you get blown up, along with a few of us, we'd start whispering into your wife/kid's ear about joining up to fight the peole that killed husband/daddy. Still itching for a war? Not as cut and dry as you think it would be is it?
 
2013-01-03 12:10:51 PM  

from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.


The irony here is that suddenly the Right cares about mental health, while the Left thinks it's just being used as an excuse. I've never heard the Left more rabid about ignoring mental health issues before.
 
2013-01-03 12:11:01 PM  

DeathCipris: ArkPanda: DeathCipris: Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu

Right, but as always, how many people can you kung fu to death in two minutes vs. using a gun? Difficulty: You are not Bruce Lee fighting extras in Enter the Dragon.

I am not Bruce Lee. But there was a Bruce Lee, proving it is possible for someone to do it.
Also these are kids, to borrow the words of Louis CK.
"You think I did that? Look at my fist! I would destroy that kid. She has no defenses. She would just stand there smiling."


After years of training and probably some luck with the DNA lottery. If all I have to worry about are Jackie Chan and Jet Li instead of millions of guns in circulation, that's fine with me.
 
2013-01-03 12:12:26 PM  

DesktopHippie: mbillips: Goddammit, subby, learn the difference between a rifle and a gun.

What's the difference?

/not subby
//just curious


Rifle are longarms. Long barrels, designed to be fired from the shoulder, (assumes you aren't stupid enough to go from-the-hip Rambo style). Additionally, their ammunition is usually designed to go further and with more energy than handguns; cartridges usually longer (although 'assault rifles' may be of an intermediate length') and contain more propellant.

'Guns' are typically meant to refure to handguns; pistols, semiautomatic handguns, or revolvers such as Colt M1911's, lugers, standard issue police glocks/berettas, Saturday night specials, or Dirty Harry's.

As a further confusion, the very large weapons such as those on tanks or battleships are also referred to as 'guns'.

In the main though, the rifle/gun terminology is in general restricted to the Full Metal Jacket image shown above, where a M14 is named a rifle, and a recruit's penis is named a gun (one is for war, one is for fun).

Referencing this article, subby probably does know the difference, and just wanted to make someone say 'dammit subby, learn the difference'.
 
2013-01-03 12:12:52 PM  

Mikey1969: from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.

The irony here is that suddenly the Right cares about mental health, while the Left thinks it's just being used as an excuse. I've never heard the Left more rabid about ignoring mental health issues before.


"Guns arent the problem, mental health is" is not expressing concern about mental health issues. It is deflection. Support healthcare reform or posit some tangible measures to address our deficit of proper mental health care in this country if you care about mental health.
 
2013-01-03 12:13:14 PM  

Mikey1969: from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.

The irony here is that suddenly the Right cares about mental health, while the Left thinks it's just being used as an excuse. I've never heard the Left more rabid about ignoring mental health issues before.


I noticed that as well. I'm a pretty big Mental Health advocate, which usually leads to Republicans attacking me as a bleeding heart liberal. After this tragedy, when I pointed out we again had an obvious and horrible failure in our Mental Health structure, I got attacked by my Democratic friends. All I can figure is that gun control is more important to them than mental health, just as gun rights are more important to Republicans than mental health. Or, in other words, that mental health is just a political football for our two largest parties to be kicked whenever they feel it necessary.
 
2013-01-03 12:13:28 PM  

CPennypacker: dittybopper: cefm: Plus it's impossible to go on a hammering spree - people can run away from you and 2 or more can stop you with their bare hands.

That's not necessarily true. There have been a number of spree killers who have used "melee weapons" meaning things like axes, knives, hammers, clubs, etc. It's actually a relatively common method of spree killing in countries where firearms access is completely banned, like China.

Yeah that year long "rampage" is certainly comparable to spree killings that take out more people in a few minutes before the person can be stopped.


How about this one: 9 dead and 11 injured in a single attack, and the guy used a meat cleaver. Or this one where a guy used a spear and a bolo knife to kill 16 and injure 1 in a single killing spree. Or perhaps this person who killed 20 and injured 12 with a knife and an agricultural sickle in a single killing spree. Or this guy (and this one is impressive) who killed 11, including 4 soldiers, and wounded 10 on a train with a pocket knife!

What about this guy who, in his *FIRST* killing spree, killed 21 people with an axe before escaping?

I could go on and on with more examples, but what would be the point? I've proved you wrong.
 
2013-01-03 12:13:43 PM  

thetubameister: Hammers have other uses; guns don't (except practicing to murder scores).


And HERE is why I don't buy the "I don't see anybody here calling for a complete ban on guns" bullshiat response.
 
2013-01-03 12:14:45 PM  

CPennypacker: Mikey1969: from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.
If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.

The irony here is that suddenly the Right cares about mental health, while the Left thinks it's just being used as an excuse. I've never heard the Left more rabid about ignoring mental health issues before.

"Guns arent the problem, mental health is" is not expressing concern about mental health issues. It is deflection. Support healthcare reform or posit some tangible measures to address our deficit of proper mental health care in this country if you care about mental health.


How about we stop making everything binary? It's a sign of a poor intellect.

In reality, mental health issues are the main problem.

Poor laws and poor gun policies are also a very large problem, which in this case mingled with the former main problem.

Everything is not either/or.
 
2013-01-03 12:15:26 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Awww, somebody trying to upset people. My turn. You want to know how the war would really be fought? We'd use you as shields by blending in with you. Then when you get blown up, along with a few of us, we'd start whispering into your wife/kid's ear about joining up to fight the peole that killed husband/daddy. Still itching for a war? Not as cut and dry as you think it would be is it?


Do it! I'm so excited! I just can't hide it! I'm about to lose control and I think I like it!
 
2013-01-03 12:15:37 PM  

bartink: I'm not clicking that link. Someone wanna summarize the nonsense contained?


Sure. The author of the article noted that the FBI reported that more people were murdered in 2011 with hammers than with rifles. That is true. BUT... it is slightly misleading, as people typically tend to group all firearm murders in a group, which includes rifles, shotguns and handguns.

So, the count of all firearm murders in 2011 was 8,583. Murders with handguns were 6,220. However, with the specific subgroup of firearms called "rifles", those murders only totaled 323. All hand-to-hand murders (knives, clubs, hands) in 2011 totaled 2,916.
 
2013-01-03 12:17:10 PM  
Having given this long and serious consideration, I don't think anyone should be allowed to have a gun of any kind, except me.
 
2013-01-03 12:17:16 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: DeathCipris: justtray: the_geek: Saners: I'm not kidding about the last part either. The article straight up says The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.

The reality is that some jackass made the news for killing a bunch of kids and people are acting as if low powered semi-automatic rifles are some new plague that is bringing about the end of times. The fact of the matter is that day is a statistical anomaly. A horrible, terrifying statistical anomaly, but one nonetheless. Your kids are not more or less safe at school than they were six months ago or six years ago. Actually, they're more safe today than they were six years ago since all forms of violent crimes, including gun crimes, have been on the decline for decades. 20 kids die of preventable accidents every day. It's sad, but it happens. We don't suddenly live in a world where we need armed guards at every school or peoples' constitutional rights need to be diminished. It happened, it's horrible, let's make sure we have a plan in place at your local school, perhaps enact policies such as auto-locking internal doors or something.

After 9/11 we did some smart things like reinforced cockpit doors. We also did some stupid things like warrantless wiretaps and feeling up grandmas at the airport. Let's all take a deep breath, take a moment to grieve, and make a sensible response to this tragedy.

Okay. Tax increases on all new sales, registration requirement on all guns, mandatory insurance for all firearms, and required training courses.

What's that? You're not actually interested in banless solutions? You just want to keep the status quo under the guise of "sensible response" when in reality you want "no response." I see.

So they buy it from the black market...where you don't have to register, insure, train, etc...or steal it from a law-abiding citizen that did register and insure it. What you are recommending will not stop people from shooting each other. It is another fake layer ...


I am assuming you are responding to the poster I responded to.
I really don't understand how this "ban the guns" topic keeps coming up. It isn't going to happen. It would literally take an act of Congress with bipartisan support.
Even if it DID happen, it would start another civil war.
So stop it. There is nothing you can do about it and it would rip the country apart if you tried. Everyone wants to bubble wrap the world and live in this fantasy land where nothing bad ever happens.

Evil exists...true evil...and it kills people. People die. Assholes live. It is the way of the universe. Taking away other people's rights, starting civil war 2, and tearing the country a new one is not the right answer to this. Yet, the anti-gun tards won't move on their position. I seriously don't know how you people live. You must be terrified of everything and in a constant state of panic. How do you commute to work? Walk outside? It is almost as if you entire movement is made of a bunch of xenophobes that live in their own reality bubble where people don't die doing ordinary things. shiat, a bus tipped over in Oregon a couple days ago and killed 7 people (frequent readers I am sure saw the article). These things HAPPEN. Just calm the fark down and think logically about this.
 
2013-01-03 12:17:39 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Hammers have other uses; guns don't (except practicing to murder scores).

And HERE is why I don't buy the "I don't see anybody here calling for a complete ban on guns" bullshiat response.


Was this a reply to the above? It doesn't seem to contradict it at all...
 
2013-01-03 12:17:43 PM  
I always found hammers to be scary...

bahbs.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-03 12:18:02 PM  

artifishy: More people die of old age than nuclear weapons.


Sez you.
 
2013-01-03 12:18:28 PM  

DeathCipris: Evil exists...true evil...and it kills people. People die. Assholes live. It is the way of the universe. Taking away other people's rights, starting civil war 2, and tearing the country a new one is not the right answer to this. Yet, the anti-gun tards won't move on their position. I seriously don't know how you people live. You must be terrified of everything and in a constant state of panic. How do you commute to work? Walk outside? It is almost as if you entire movement is made of a bunch of xenophobes that live in their own reality bubble where people don't die doing ordinary things. shiat, a bus tipped over in Oregon a couple days ago and killed 7 people (frequent readers I am sure saw the article). These things HAPPEN. Just calm the fark down and think logically about this.


"So let's all just accept it, arm ourselves, and just kill when we need. There is no hope that humanity could ever, ever be better. Also I believe in Evil because I am retarded."
 
2013-01-03 12:18:29 PM  
The trend of violence, with a gun or feet or a hammer...has been going down bother during and after the assault weapons ban.  So, lets treat this like global warming and not use one day of really bad snow to decide policy.
 
2013-01-03 12:18:51 PM  

CPennypacker: Joe Blowme: So many FARKERs' have no idea why we have the 2nd amendment, i wonder whe they stopped teaching the constitution and history in High Schools. YEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!!

/psss....t ITS NOT FOR farkING HUNTING ASSHATS!!!!

I thought it was for dueling

[ushistoryimages.com image 600x516]


Mainly, it's for putting down insurrections and slave revolts. That's why the Southern constitutional delegates were the main proponents.

bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com
 
2013-01-03 12:19:04 PM  
So why don't we equip our military with hammers instead of rifles?
 
2013-01-03 12:19:07 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: So what's the highest body count from a hammer attack?



http://murderpedia.org/male.C/c/churchill-christopher.htm


5 here in the USA.
 
2013-01-03 12:19:22 PM  

Fart_Machine: Well that solved it. We should arm our troops and law enforcement officers with hammers instead of guns.


I nearly covered my work station in coffee out the nose on that comment.
 
2013-01-03 12:19:32 PM  

artifishy: More people die of old age than nuclear weapons.


At least that statement is true.
 
2013-01-03 12:20:18 PM  

BHShaman: gilgigamesh: I don't think I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.

This would be banned

[www.huntingnet.com image 850x637]

As would this:
[www.survival-gear-guide.com image 400x88]


Under which bill? Not the Feinstein one. It has to have a removable magazine.
 
2013-01-03 12:20:26 PM  

LasersHurt: DeathCipris: Evil exists...true evil...and it kills people. People die. Assholes live. It is the way of the universe. Taking away other people's rights, starting civil war 2, and tearing the country a new one is not the right answer to this. Yet, the anti-gun tards won't move on their position. I seriously don't know how you people live. You must be terrified of everything and in a constant state of panic. How do you commute to work? Walk outside? It is almost as if you entire movement is made of a bunch of xenophobes that live in their own reality bubble where people don't die doing ordinary things. shiat, a bus tipped over in Oregon a couple days ago and killed 7 people (frequent readers I am sure saw the article). These things HAPPEN. Just calm the fark down and think logically about this.

"So let's all just accept it, arm ourselves, and just kill when we need. There is no hope that humanity could ever, ever be better. Also I believe in Evil because I am retarded."


Accept it or leave. No one is forcing you to stay here.
 
2013-01-03 12:21:09 PM  

dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: cefm: Plus it's impossible to go on a hammering spree - people can run away from you and 2 or more can stop you with their bare hands.

That's not necessarily true. There have been a number of spree killers who have used "melee weapons" meaning things like axes, knives, hammers, clubs, etc. It's actually a relatively common method of spree killing in countries where firearms access is completely banned, like China.

Yeah that year long "rampage" is certainly comparable to spree killings that take out more people in a few minutes before the person can be stopped.

How about this one: 9 dead and 11 injured in a single attack, and the guy used a meat cleaver. Or this one where a guy used a spear and a bolo knife to kill 16 and injure 1 in a single killing spree. Or perhaps this person who killed 20 and injured 12 with a knife and an agricultural sickle in a single killing spree. Or this guy (and this one is impressive) who killed 11, including 4 soldiers, and wounded 10 on a train with a pocket knife!

What about this guy who, in his *FIRST* killing spree, killed 21 people with an axe before escaping?

I could go on and on with more examples, but what would be the point? I've proved you wrong.


Keep going, add them all up. Lets keep a tally. Then we can contrast the usefulness of, say, a knife with its death toll, and we can do the same for guns.

Notice how none of them, even the craziest one you could find, has a higher death toll than Newtown. But I guess you're done, though. Because you "proved me wrong." So good job. Strong point.

I suppose you wouldn't really mind if we took all the guns away since you could just as easily defend yourself with a meat cleaver, which you so eloquently point out is just as deadly as a gun. Win-win, right?
 
2013-01-03 12:22:09 PM  

dittybopper: 12monkeys: Keep pulling those stats out of your ass and falsely claiming that your source is the FBI! It's really helping your case, gun advocates!
[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 290x226]
/sources: Link,Link,Link

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

This is more recent than yours, and it does indeed show that rifles are used fewer times than blunt objects (323 vs 496)

The data you quote lumps rifles, shotguns, and every gun not specifically classified as a "handgun" in one category. That's why it looks the way it does, and btw, it's old data, ending 7 years ago.


In my defense, I was responding to the submitter, not the article.
 
2013-01-03 12:22:35 PM  

DeathCipris: I am assuming you are responding to the poster I responded to.
I really don't understand how this "ban the guns" topic keeps coming up. It isn't going to happen. It would literally take an act of Congress with bipartisan support.
Even if it DID happen, it would start another civil war.
So stop it. There is nothing you can do about it and it would rip the country apart if you tried. Everyone wants to bubble wrap the world and live in this fantasy land where nothing bad ever happens.


Banning guns could never happen over a short time frame. Over a longer time frame it could be accomplished, as it has been in other cultures that de-gunned themselves. That said, I agree with your main point: if Congress tried to do something like that, it would be a civil war, and it damned well isn't going to happen, especially with the chickenshiat (in almost every area) Congresspeople we have in office.
 
2013-01-03 12:22:36 PM  
media.comicvine.com

You can't take my hammer when you pry Mjolnir from my cold dead hands.
 
2013-01-03 12:23:40 PM  
Can't or can.  Whichever
 
2013-01-03 12:23:58 PM  

DeathCipris: LasersHurt: DeathCipris: Evil exists...true evil...and it kills people. People die. Assholes live. It is the way of the universe. Taking away other people's rights, starting civil war 2, and tearing the country a new one is not the right answer to this. Yet, the anti-gun tards won't move on their position. I seriously don't know how you people live. You must be terrified of everything and in a constant state of panic. How do you commute to work? Walk outside? It is almost as if you entire movement is made of a bunch of xenophobes that live in their own reality bubble where people don't die doing ordinary things. shiat, a bus tipped over in Oregon a couple days ago and killed 7 people (frequent readers I am sure saw the article). These things HAPPEN. Just calm the fark down and think logically about this.

"So let's all just accept it, arm ourselves, and just kill when we need. There is no hope that humanity could ever, ever be better. Also I believe in Evil because I am retarded."

Accept it or leave. No one is forcing you to stay here.


Accept a Mad Max, armed struggle for life lifestyle, or "leave"? I need to leave America because I don't believe we should all arm ourselves and fight? Make no attempts to become better as people, just leave?
 
2013-01-03 12:25:14 PM  

dittybopper: How about this one: 9 dead and 11 injured in a single attack, and the guy used a meat cleaver. Or this one where a guy used a spear and a bolo knife to kill 16 and injure 1 in a single killing spree. Or perhaps this person who killed 20 and injured 12 with a knife and an agricultural sickle in a single killing spree. Or this guy (and this one is impressive) who killed 11, including 4 soldiers, and wounded 10 on a train with a pocket knife!

What about this guy who, in his *FIRST* killing spree, killed 21 people with an axe before escaping?

I could go on and on with more examples, but what would be the point? I've proved you wrong.


You make a very interesting point. I've been looking for common threads in massacres. In the US, the common threads are:

1) Semiautomatic weapons
2) Homicidal person

But, with the subway-pushing murders, and the murders you listed above... the MOST UNIVERSAL thread is the homicidal person. This means we need a way to fast-track commit or otherwise temporarily hold the homicidal until their cases can be reviewed by a shrink and a judge or some other panel.

Don't get me wrong, more firearms regulation is absolutely necessary, as the absurd number of firearms murders in the US indicates, but it's appearing to me that the most important underlying issue is identifying and holding/detaining the insane and homicidal.

However - that could well be more difficult to do than firearms regulation, which will also be difficult.
 
2013-01-03 12:26:28 PM  

LasersHurt: DeathCipris: LasersHurt: DeathCipris: Evil exists...true evil...and it kills people. People die. Assholes live. It is the way of the universe. Taking away other people's rights, starting civil war 2, and tearing the country a new one is not the right answer to this. Yet, the anti-gun tards won't move on their position. I seriously don't know how you people live. You must be terrified of everything and in a constant state of panic. How do you commute to work? Walk outside? It is almost as if you entire movement is made of a bunch of xenophobes that live in their own reality bubble where people don't die doing ordinary things. shiat, a bus tipped over in Oregon a couple days ago and killed 7 people (frequent readers I am sure saw the article). These things HAPPEN. Just calm the fark down and think logically about this.

"So let's all just accept it, arm ourselves, and just kill when we need. There is no hope that humanity could ever, ever be better. Also I believe in Evil because I am retarded."

Accept it or leave. No one is forcing you to stay here.

Accept a Mad Max, armed struggle for life lifestyle, or "leave"? I need to leave America because I don't believe we should all arm ourselves and fight? Make no attempts to become better as people, just leave?


You sound like one of those LIBERAL arts majors, with silly things like "become better as people." Humanity is permanently degraded and we must be afraid of it and kill it when it encroaches upon us at all costs.

/no, you shouldn't leave
//everyone should try to help us all become better as people, so we don't have to have these idiotic arguments to begin with
 
2013-01-03 12:26:36 PM  

CPennypacker: Notice how none of them, even the craziest one you could find, has a higher death toll than Newtown. But I guess you're done, though. Because you "proved me wrong." So good job. Strong point.


In principle you're right but your argument is stupid. Newton is what, the 2nd highest kill count of a mass shooting ever in this country? Okay so if hammer killings have fewer deaths per incident but happen more frequently so the net number of deaths per year is higher then hammers are worse.

The whole hammer/club argument is stupid, but you made it even more stupider.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:07 PM  
I'm confused - TFA says there were 445 rifle murders in 2005, but does that mean most of the 897 American kids killed fighting over oil in Iraq that year were killed by something else? I mean, I know IED and such, but...

yeah yeah, here, there, whatever. Hammers are made for building. Bare hands can be used to kill. Handguns are made for killing people. Rifles are made for killing people or animals. Intent matters. YMMV. See store for details.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:35 PM  

FitzShivering: With people inside of it? Without being interrupted? And easily carrying the gasoline around? And then lightning it and hoping it does what you want? Well, no, it doesn't require a super genius. On the other hand, it's far more time consuming, complicated, and likely to fail than hiding a gun on you and shooting everyone.


What you don't seem to understand is that the people who do this sort of thing generally plan them out in great detail ahead of time: days, weeks, even months before they actually kill anyone. They recognize the obstacles and plan around them, and come up with contingency plans. Did you know that the Columbine attack was actually a failed bombing? Shooting people was actually Plan B.

Given that, and the multitude of examples I've posted early of mass killings that didn't involve firearms, especially in countries where they are completely banned, you have to wonder whether banning them (or some subset of them) is going to do any good.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:54 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Hammers have other uses; guns don't (except practicing to murder scores).

And HERE is why I don't buy the "I don't see anybody here calling for a complete ban on guns" bullshiat response.


I said the same thing too, and I'm not against banning all firearms. The world isn't always black and white, and we don't all fit into nice and neat categories like your brain would prefer.

It's a simple statement that you have now attached other meanings to. Comparing a tool used exclusively as a weapon to a tool that is used for many purposes (and who's main purpose is not a violent one) is very disingenuous.
 
2013-01-03 12:29:46 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Maybe gun control advocates would be taken more seriously when they complain about false equivalence if they didn't make such a habit of using it constantly.


I don't know what planet you are from but I see the gun folks making the same idiotic comparisons (tools and cars are ever popular) in every Fark gun thread. I don't know why anyone makes this argument, ever. The stupid, it burns.
 
2013-01-03 12:29:46 PM  

the_geek: CPennypacker: Notice how none of them, even the craziest one you could find, has a higher death toll than Newtown. But I guess you're done, though. Because you "proved me wrong." So good job. Strong point.

In principle you're right but your argument is stupid. Newton is what, the 2nd highest kill count of a mass shooting ever in this country? Okay so if hammer killings have fewer deaths per incident but happen more frequently so the net number of deaths per year is higher then hammers are worse.

The whole hammer/club argument is stupid, but you made it even more stupider.


Why is my argument stupid? The whole reason we're talking about this is Newtown, so to make his point he has to go back to a killing spree in 1954. Clearly knife killing sprees are rampant!
 
2013-01-03 12:29:49 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: DeathCipris: justtray: the_geek: Saners: I'm not kidding about the last part either. The article straight up says The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.

The reality is that some jackass made the news for killing a bunch of kids and people are acting as if low powered semi-automatic rifles are some new plague that is bringing about the end of times. The fact of the matter is that day is a statistical anomaly. A horrible, terrifying statistical anomaly, but one nonetheless. Your kids are not more or less safe at school than they were six months ago or six years ago. Actually, they're more safe today than they were six years ago since all forms of violent crimes, including gun crimes, have been on the decline for decades. 20 kids die of preventable accidents every day. It's sad, but it happens. We don't suddenly live in a world where we need armed guards at every school or peoples' constitutional rights need to be diminished. It happened, it's horrible, let's make sure we have a plan in place at your local school, perhaps enact policies such as auto-locking internal doors or something.

After 9/11 we did some smart things like reinforced cockpit doors. We also did some stupid things like warrantless wiretaps and feeling up grandmas at the airport. Let's all take a deep breath, take a moment to grieve, and make a sensible response to this tragedy.

Okay. Tax increases on all new sales, registration requirement on all guns, mandatory insurance for all firearms, and required training courses.

What's that? You're not actually interested in banless solutions? You just want to keep the status quo under the guise of "sensible response" when in reality you want "no response." I see.

So they buy it from the black market...where you don't have to register, insure, train, etc...or steal it from a law-abiding citizen that did register and insure it. What you are recommending will not stop people from shooting each other. It is another fake layer of security, ...

So magically a solution where firearms are banned will stop illegal firearm sales? It is already illegal yet it continues to happen, what makes you think anything will fix that? You stop legal sales, but illegal sales continue.


I didn't realize the nationwide sale of nuclear weapons was so rampant. Oh wait. It's not because we've banned personal use of nuclear weapons.
 
2013-01-03 12:29:59 PM  

JungleBoogie: dittybopper: How about this one: 9 dead and 11 injured in a single attack, and the guy used a meat cleaver. Or this one where a guy used a spear and a bolo knife to kill 16 and injure 1 in a single killing spree. Or perhaps this person who killed 20 and injured 12 with a knife and an agricultural sickle in a single killing spree. Or this guy (and this one is impressive) who killed 11, including 4 soldiers, and wounded 10 on a train with a pocket knife!

What about this guy who, in his *FIRST* killing spree, killed 21 people with an axe before escaping?

I could go on and on with more examples, but what would be the point? I've proved you wrong.

You make a very interesting point. I've been looking for common threads in massacres. In the US, the common threads are:

1) Semiautomatic weapons
2) Homicidal person

But, with the subway-pushing murders, and the murders you listed above... the MOST UNIVERSAL thread is the homicidal person. This means we need a way to fast-track commit or otherwise temporarily hold the homicidal until their cases can be reviewed by a shrink and a judge or some other panel.

Don't get me wrong, more firearms regulation is absolutely necessary, as the absurd number of firearms murders in the US indicates, but it's appearing to me that the most important underlying issue is identifying and holding/detaining the insane and homicidal.

However - that could well be more difficult to do than firearms regulation, which will also be difficult.


Well, guns involves only the 2d Amendment which allows for regulation per current interpretation by the SCOTUS.  However, detaining people for mental health checks involves bot the 4th and 5th Amendments and court time (which is already very limited) and if they are incompetent then appointing representation for these people and then deciding whether post partum depression is thought crime or if it needs to be something more like schizophrenia or PMS.  Then the fact that illnesses, even mental health illnesses, change over time means for more reviews of these cases.

Then again, it would be limited to just the ones who want a gun license right?  Like Mr. Sandy Hook...oh wait...not him.  So, really this would require a mental health check of everyone in the US routinely...or we just assume that we can't get them all and just test those looking for a license...and hope.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:17 PM  

JungleBoogie: Don't get me wrong, more firearms regulation is absolutely necessary, as the absurd number of firearms murders in the US indicates, but it's appearing to me that the most important underlying issue is identifying and holding/detaining the insane and homicidal.


it's such a shame that Reagan shut down all those places which used to treat, or otherwise house, the insane - so that he could free up the money to buy bigger guns. Oh well, nothing we do now has future consequences.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 12:30:34 PM  

FitzShivering: You sound like one of those LIBERAL arts majors, with silly things like "become better as people." Humanity is permanently degraded and we must be afraid of it and kill it when it encroaches upon us at all costs.


Exactly. How does that attitude help your corporation.

Stand for the corporate anthem, Jonathan E!
 
2013-01-03 12:31:31 PM  
Even considering asking me to register my firearms is a treasonous trampling of the 2nd Amendment and my God-given right to freedom.

Making it really easy to involuntarily commit someone to a mental institution? That is just good ole fashion free market democracy at work.
 
2013-01-03 12:31:34 PM  
I think anyone looking to Breitbart (Slogan: For people who hate the goddamn liberal Fox News!) for a measured discussion about gun control is going to find exactly the answers they wanted.
 
2013-01-03 12:34:39 PM  

mbillips: Mainly, it's for putting down insurrections and slave revolts. That's why the Southern constitutional delegates were the main proponents


So *THAT'S* why all the gun control laws were written to exclude blacks, and why to this very day the burden of gun control falls heavier on blacks than on whites. I mean, even the president recognized this when he said "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne". That's because Chicago is 33% black, and Cheyenne is 3% black.

/Gun control: Last vestige of Jim Crow.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 12:35:17 PM  

Lottie: I think anyone looking to Breitbart (Slogan: For people who hate the goddamn liberal Fox News!) for a measured discussion about gun control is going to find exactly the answers they wanted.


www.bartcop.com
 
2013-01-03 12:35:25 PM  
And a hammered gun owner is even more dangerous...
 
2013-01-03 12:36:33 PM  
Three Stooges to be banned due to Ball Pean hammer
 
2013-01-03 12:37:02 PM  

CPennypacker: wambu: Submitter, the false equivalency you and all gun control advocates make is in assuming that taking away or restricing my right to own any type of gun will reduce mass murders committed by madmen using guns. It will not.

Yes it will.


Then please explain how it will.
 
2013-01-03 12:37:19 PM  
Since it would be impossible to identify all of the mentally ill people in this country and prevent them from acquiring guns, we should instead do nothing at all about mental illness and just arm everyone.

/Bizarro World Fark post
 
2013-01-03 12:38:44 PM  

IamAwake: JungleBoogie: Don't get me wrong, more firearms regulation is absolutely necessary, as the absurd number of firearms murders in the US indicates, but it's appearing to me that the most important underlying issue is identifying and holding/detaining the insane and homicidal.

it's such a shame that Reagan shut down all those places which used to treat, or otherwise house, the insane - so that he could free up the money to buy bigger guns. Oh well, nothing we do now has future consequences.


Ummm, that happened before Reagan.
 
2013-01-03 12:39:12 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Since it would be impossible to identify all of the mentally ill people in this country and prevent them from acquiring guns, we should instead do nothing at all about mental illness and just arm everyone.

/Bizarro World Fark post


Both pose constitutional hurdles.  Failing to recognize this is a sign of mental illness.  Perhaps you should report to the local stress center for a screening...for the greater good.
 
2013-01-03 12:40:08 PM  
The biggest problem I see with current gun-control debate is that it's tinkering around the margins, without addressing the main source of gun-related deaths that could be affected by gun control. Namely, fights that escalate into pistol fights. That's most of your gun deaths, right there. Guys, generally with criminal histories, who use handguns to finish an argument, or preemptively shoot someone they think is a threat. Your typical assault leaves the victim bruised up. Your typical handgun assault has a MUCH higher death rate, often with no deadlier intent.

The most effective legislation to respond to that has been full enforcement of bans on carrying guns, as in Virginia's Project Exile. Basically, if you are caught with an illegal gun, you get five years in the federal pen, full stop. And cops are trained to spot concealed carry and make sure you have a permit. The result when they did it in Richmond was that bad guys were less likely to carry guns in their daily life, and less likely to shoot each other up if they had a dispute.

Legislation to ban certain cosmetic features of semi-auto rifles is less than useless. Even the high-cap magazine ban is largely meaningless; a spree killer could just carry twice as many 10-round mags, or multiple guns. Meanwhile, you've done nothing to control what really kills people, which are concealable guns carried by scumbags.
 
2013-01-03 12:40:39 PM  

dittybopper: IamAwake: JungleBoogie: Don't get me wrong, more firearms regulation is absolutely necessary, as the absurd number of firearms murders in the US indicates, but it's appearing to me that the most important underlying issue is identifying and holding/detaining the insane and homicidal.

it's such a shame that Reagan shut down all those places which used to treat, or otherwise house, the insane - so that he could free up the money to buy bigger guns. Oh well, nothing we do now has future consequences.

Ummm, that happened before AND DURING the Reagan administration.

 
2013-01-03 12:41:01 PM  

Karac: DesktopHippie: mbillips: Goddammit, subby, learn the difference between a rifle and a gun.

What's the difference?

/not subby
//just curious

Rifle are longarms. Long barrels, designed to be fired from the shoulder, (assumes you aren't stupid enough to go from-the-hip Rambo style). Additionally, their ammunition is usually designed to go further and with more energy than handguns; cartridges usually longer (although 'assault rifles' may be of an intermediate length') and contain more propellant.

'Guns' are typically meant to refure to handguns; pistols, semiautomatic handguns, or revolvers such as Colt M1911's, lugers, standard issue police glocks/berettas, Saturday night specials, or Dirty Harry's.

As a further confusion, the very large weapons such as those on tanks or battleships are also referred to as 'guns'.

In the main though, the rifle/gun terminology is in general restricted to the Full Metal Jacket image shown above, where a M14 is named a rifle, and a recruit's penis is named a gun (one is for war, one is for fun).

Referencing this article, subby probably does know the difference, and just wanted to make someone say 'dammit subby, learn the difference'.


Gotcha. Thanks!
 
2013-01-03 12:42:33 PM  

FitzShivering: After this tragedy, when I pointed out we again had an obvious and horrible failure in our Mental Health structure, I got attacked by my Democratic friends.


I just got attacked by the farkers who I usually get along with. One of the issues with being an actual Independent, I bump heads hard with one side or the other on occasion, and people who agreed with me the day before are calling me "stupid", "psycho", "retarded", etc., and then go right back to agreeing with me on something the next day.

At this point, they can all go fark themselves. I see through their bullshiat. Both sides.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:51 PM  

I_C_Weener: Uranus Is Huge!: Since it would be impossible to identify all of the mentally ill people in this country and prevent them from acquiring guns, we should instead do nothing at all about mental illness and just arm everyone.

/Bizarro World Fark post

Both pose constitutional hurdles.  Failing to recognize this is a sign of mental illness.  Perhaps you should report to the local stress center for a screening...for the greater good.


What am I failing to recognize, Mr Literal? I was presenting the inverse of a popular counter-argument to additional firearm regulation.

Also, I'm not really posting from Bizarro World.
 
2013-01-03 12:44:03 PM  

the_geek: CPennypacker: Notice how none of them, even the craziest one you could find, has a higher death toll than Newtown. But I guess you're done, though. Because you "proved me wrong." So good job. Strong point.

In principle you're right but your argument is stupid. Newton is what, the 2nd highest kill count of a mass shooting ever in this country? Okay so if hammer killings have fewer deaths per incident but happen more frequently so the net number of deaths per year is higher then hammers are worse.

The whole hammer/club argument is stupid, but you made it even more stupider.


Jesus Tapdancing Christ. You keep making the argument that violence happens. The article, and many in this thread, keep trying to falsely compare hammers/clubs/cleavers with guns as somehow being equal in their ability to commit mass carnage. His point that the shooting death in Newton and others like it have a higher bodycount than similar attacks done with different weapons does in fact prove that if we had a choice, we'd want all psychos to go on their rampages with hammers instead of guns. You are most likely correct that removing some or all guns wouldn't get rid of the violence. The point you and others are repeatedly and purposefully missing in this thread and others is that having a rash of hammer attacks is better than having a rash of mass shootings. This doesn't take away from the fact that, like others have said in this and other threads, we need to address mental health care as lack thereof clearly is part of or the major part of this problem. However, so are our extremely lax laws and regulations, and something needs to be done to address all gun violence, but especially mass shootings.

Short and sweet version: You are a psycho. There is a hammer and an AR-15 with 3 full magazines on the table. There are also plans for making a bomb which would take weeks to build, and it's not clear whether you'd be able to acquire all the ingredients nor successfully assemble the bomb nor carry out the attack. You're about to go postal. You can only pick up one. Which do you take?
 
2013-01-03 12:45:05 PM  

You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: Chummer45: Just like a hammer, the primary use and function of an assault rifle is to kill people.

The primary use of a semi automatic sporting rifle is hunting and target practice.

Assualt weapons are fully automatic and designed for killing brown people from oil rich nations.

Civilian Jeeps are made for the everyday street and offroad sports.

Military Use Jeeps are made for war and armed to kill brown people in oil rich nations.

All of them kill. Regardless of design.

Do you know you can kill someone without tools? Better turn yourself in Bro.



That probably works most of the time when you're talking to someone who doesn't know anything about guns. The only thing you can use a 5.56 assault rifle to hunt is maybe coyotes or other varmints. That doesn't explain why so many people own them.

I love how most of the gun nut arguments are just lies and straw men about the nature of the weapon at issue.

"hey idiot, you know that I can kill someone with my bare hands, right? Therefore, if guns didn't exist, then everyone who has ever used a gun to murder someone would have murdered that person with their bare hands instead. I'm so smart and clever, and just destroyed any conceivable argument for common-sense gun regulations."
 
2013-01-03 12:45:46 PM  

thetubameister: Mikey1969: thetubameister: Hammers have other uses; guns don't (except practicing to murder scores).

And HERE is why I don't buy the "I don't see anybody here calling for a complete ban on guns" bullshiat response.

Was this a reply to the above? It doesn't seem to contradict it at all...


I was stating that I continually hear the "People only use guns to kill each other, there is no other legitimate use for them" claim such as you made side by side with people on the Left saying "Nobody's calling for a "complete" ban on guns" claim. In other words, by implying that you see them only used to slaughter people, or practice for slaughtering people, you are implying that they should all be banned, and are therefore, according to your other buddies, "Nobody".
 
2013-01-03 12:46:42 PM  

dittybopper: IamAwake: JungleBoogie: Don't get me wrong, more firearms regulation is absolutely necessary, as the absurd number of firearms murders in the US indicates, but it's appearing to me that the most important underlying issue is identifying and holding/detaining the insane and homicidal.

it's such a shame that Reagan shut down all those places which used to treat, or otherwise house, the insane - so that he could free up the money to buy bigger guns. Oh well, nothing we do now has future consequences.

Ummm, that happened before Reagan.


The courts did it, but Carter (actually a Rosalynn Carter project) came up with a plan to greatly increase community mental health funding, so that the deinstitutionalized could still get treatment. And one of the first things Reagan did was to end federal support to state community health programs. So, yeah, still fair to blame Reagan for nuts wandering around on the streets everywhere.
 
2013-01-03 12:47:27 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Mikey1969: thetubameister: Hammers have other uses; guns don't (except practicing to murder scores).

And HERE is why I don't buy the "I don't see anybody here calling for a complete ban on guns" bullshiat response.

Was this a reply to the above? It doesn't seem to contradict it at all...

I was stating that I continually hear the "People only use guns to kill each other, there is no other legitimate use for them" claim such as you made side by side with people on the Left saying "Nobody's calling for a "complete" ban on guns" claim. In other words, by implying that you see them only used to slaughter people, or practice for slaughtering people, you are implying that they should all be banned, and are therefore, according to your other buddies, "Nobody".


ZOMG SLIPPERY SLOPE! IT IS AN ALL OR NOTHING PROPOSITION!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 12:48:17 PM  

Carn: Short and sweet version: You are a psycho. There is a hammer and an AR-15 with 3 full magazines on the table. There are also plans for making a bomb which would take weeks to build, and it's not clear whether you'd be able to acquire all the ingredients nor successfully assemble the bomb nor carry out the attack. You're about to go postal. You can only pick up one. Which do you take?


Gentle reminder of the mass knife attack that happened in China on the same day. It had more victims but no one died.

Everyone here in the U.S. wants the 100% answer and they give up the partial answers to get it. Solar energy won't totally fix the oil problem... so fark it. Getting money out of politics won't 100% fix the problem with crooked government... so fark it. Getting assault weapons out of people's hands won't 100% stop the killing... so fark it. For god's sake....
 
2013-01-03 12:49:49 PM  

Chummer45: You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: Chummer45: Just like a hammer, the primary use and function of an assault rifle is to kill people.

The primary use of a semi automatic sporting rifle is hunting and target practice.

Assualt weapons are fully automatic and designed for killing brown people from oil rich nations.

Civilian Jeeps are made for the everyday street and offroad sports.

Military Use Jeeps are made for war and armed to kill brown people in oil rich nations.

All of them kill. Regardless of design.

Do you know you can kill someone without tools? Better turn yourself in Bro.


That probably works most of the time when you're talking to someone who doesn't know anything about guns. The only thing you can use a 5.56 assault rifle to hunt is maybe coyotes or other varmints. That doesn't explain why so many people own them.

I love how most of the gun nut arguments are just lies and straw men about the nature of the weapon at issue.

"hey idiot, you know that I can kill someone with my bare hands, right? Therefore, if guns didn't exist, then everyone who has ever used a gun to murder someone would have murdered that person with their bare hands instead. I'm so smart and clever, and just destroyed any conceivable argument for common-sense gun regulations."


There's a whole subculture of target-range competition with "assault weapons" like semi-auto ARs. Three-gun competitions involve a semi-auto rifle, a pistol and a shotgun. Sure, most people who are into ARs are paranoid anti-government twitches, but they have come up with a legitimate form of entertainment where they actually use their quasi-military guns.
 
2013-01-03 12:51:09 PM  
The Marines should switch all soldiers to hammers with this amazing research you've found subby!!

the terrorists will be quaking in their boots.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 12:52:01 PM  

mbillips: There's a whole subculture of target-range competition with "assault weapons" like semi-auto ARs. Three-gun competitions involve a semi-auto rifle, a pistol and a shotgun. Sure, most people who are into ARs are paranoid anti-government twitches, but they have come up with a legitimate form of entertainment where they actually use their quasi-military guns.


Same group likes to find sticks of dynamite and blow shiat up.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:20 PM  
take away guns and you take away law enforcement jobs...dont hate amurrrica
 
2013-01-03 12:53:16 PM  

topcon: The penultimate argument...


Don' t leave us in suspense, what's the ultimate argument?
 
2013-01-03 12:53:32 PM  
Alcohol.

/thread
 
2013-01-03 12:54:29 PM  

d23: Carn: Short and sweet version: You are a psycho. There is a hammer and an AR-15 with 3 full magazines on the table. There are also plans for making a bomb which would take weeks to build, and it's not clear whether you'd be able to acquire all the ingredients nor successfully assemble the bomb nor carry out the attack. You're about to go postal. You can only pick up one. Which do you take?

Gentle reminder of the mass knife attack that happened in China on the same day. It had more victims but no one died.

Everyone here in the U.S. wants the 100% answer and they give up the partial answers to get it. Solar energy won't totally fix the oil problem... so fark it. Getting money out of politics won't 100% fix the problem with crooked government... so fark it. Getting assault weapons out of people's hands won't 100% stop the killing... so fark it. For god's sake....


I agree, it's baffling. Also, making any suggestions about possible measures that could be taken usually results in either "Unconstitutional", "Wouldn't work", or a combination of both. Or you are called a coward that is afraid of inanimate objects. Which is ironic.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:02 PM  

from my blood:

If he didn't have the gun he would have...
1) Used a bomb.
2) Poisoned the water supply.
3) Used a car to run through the playground.
4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.


Really?

On the same day as the Sandy Hook killings, a man in China also attacked a school, except he did it without a gun. Guess how many he killed?
 
2013-01-03 01:00:36 PM  

mbillips: The biggest problem I see with current gun-control debate is that it's tinkering around the margins, without addressing the main source of gun-related deaths that could be affected by gun control. Namely, fights that escalate into pistol fights. That's most of your gun deaths, right there. Guys, generally with criminal histories, who use handguns to finish an argument, or preemptively shoot someone they think is a threat. Your typical assault leaves the victim bruised up. Your typical handgun assault has a MUCH higher death rate, often with no deadlier intent.

The most effective legislation to respond to that has been full enforcement of bans on carrying guns, as in Virginia's Project Exile. Basically, if you are caught with an illegal gun, you get five years in the federal pen, full stop. And cops are trained to spot concealed carry and make sure you have a permit. The result when they did it in Richmond was that bad guys were less likely to carry guns in their daily life, and less likely to shoot each other up if they had a dispute.

Legislation to ban certain cosmetic features of semi-auto rifles is less than useless. Even the high-cap magazine ban is largely meaningless; a spree killer could just carry twice as many 10-round mags, or multiple guns. Meanwhile, you've done nothing to control what really kills people, which are concealable guns carried by scumbags.


Wait, you mean increase the penalty for violating existing laws? A solution that only affects criminals and in no way impacts law-abiding carriers? That almost sounds like a rational action.

Checking every legal carry for a permit would be obnoxious for the legals, but if you carry right the cops shouldn't be able to tell very often. I wouldn't think cops would want to spend all their time chatting up legals anyway.
 
2013-01-03 01:05:42 PM  

wambu: CPennypacker: wambu: Submitter, the false equivalency you and all gun control advocates make is in assuming that taking away or restricing my right to own any type of gun will reduce mass murders committed by madmen using guns. It will not.

Yes it will.

Then please explain how it will.


Decrease circulation
 
2013-01-03 01:08:29 PM  

Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.



Then you've been misinformed it seems. The deadliest attack in US history on school children was the Bath School Bombings, and three gueses what he used to kill the kids.
 
2013-01-03 01:11:15 PM  

maniacbastard: The Marines should switch all soldiers to hammers with this amazing research you've found subby!!

the terrorists will be quaking in their boots.


The Marines should award a Marksman medal in Dip Spitting. Lethality, high and tight.
 
2013-01-03 01:15:23 PM  
Yes, guns are designed to kill people, and that's their only real function. But homicide is not always wrongful. It's perfectly ethical and right to kill anyone who is trying to kill (or seriously injure) you (or trying to kill or seriously injure a third party).

It's not merely wrong-but-excusable. It's completely right, just and proper.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:03 PM  

mbillips: BHShaman: gilgigamesh: I don't think I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.

This would be banned

[www.huntingnet.com image 850x637]

As would this:
[www.survival-gear-guide.com image 400x88]

Under which bill? Not the Feinstein one. It has to have a removable magazine.


Both of those have removable magazines.
One a .30-.06 and one a .22
 
2013-01-03 01:18:37 PM  

dittybopper: FitzShivering: dittybopper: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.

Actually, guns are among the least efficient means. Arson and explosives are the most efficient. See: Bath School Disaster and Happy Land Fire

As long as your efficiency calculation does not involve the difficulty of performing the action effectively.

How hard is it to block the exits of a building and set it on fire with a couple gallons of gasoline?


The military has been doing it wrong. Instead of being trained in firearms they should have been using gas cans, chains, and padlocks.
 
2013-01-03 01:21:54 PM  
 
2013-01-03 01:23:35 PM  
Ah! I get it now

it isn't about the guns
it's about wanting more government to regulate the things we do, places we go, what we buy
so YOU feel safe.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place!

you coulda saved dittybopper and others a whole lotta internet breath
 
2013-01-03 01:25:28 PM  

natas6.0: Ah! I get it now

it isn't about the guns
it's about wanting more government to regulate the things we do, places we go, what we buy
so YOU feel safe.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place!

you coulda saved dittybopper and others a whole lotta internet breath


I take it your knew to the English language. Or maybe you have some sort of reading comprehension problem that is normally addressed in elementary school.
 
2013-01-03 01:29:26 PM  

BHShaman: The only thing you can use a 5.56 assault rifle to hunt is maybe coyotes or other varmints. That doesn't explain why so many people own them.

Amazingly some people use firearms for target shooting, not activities that actually kill anything.
For those people the 5.56 is a good medium round. Not quite so light as the .22 but not so expensive as the .30cal rounds.

I know it escapes some people, but not all firearms are used for hunting/killing...
as not all vehicles are used for commuting back and forth to work.


How many rounds does one put on target at one time? One at a time. Unless one owns an automatic firing weapon, one puts one round on the target at a time.

What many people are defending is the right to repeat that process of putting one round on target at a time with less time in between rounds and less time spent removing a spent magazine and replacing it with a full magazine.

It does seem a little selfish to think that innocent people get killed in greater numbers simply because target shooters want to plink faster with fewer interruptions.

The idiot that murdered all those people in Tucson--I won't post the victims' names here because I would be accused of supporting a GUN BAN--was stopped because he ran out of bullets in his magazine and was jumped while he tried to reload. A smaller magazine, less dead people. But let's not inconvenience any target shooters.
 
2013-01-03 01:30:42 PM  

Chummer45: 5.56


You don't use 5.56 ASSAULT (anything) to hunt. Assault = full auto.

The use of the word ASSAULT is a slight of hand marketing term used to attach thoughts of military and terrorist activities to otherwise non-descript semi-auto firearms.

Instead of saying things like; detachable magazine, folding stock, high capacity magazines that people would hear about and say... "well, my little .22 has a detachable high capacity magazine".... they say ASSAULT RIFLE.

My little .22. Remington Nylon 66 from the 70s will be negated.

Amazingly some people use firearms for target shooting, not activities that actually kill anything.
For those people the 5.56 is a good medium round. Not quite so light as the .22 but not so expensive as the .30cal rounds.

I know it escapes some people, but not all firearms are used for hunting/killing...
as not all vehicles are used for commuting back and forth to work.
 
2013-01-03 01:31:26 PM  
Of course they aren't equivalent. Guns are scary. Hammers aren't.
 
2013-01-03 01:31:27 PM  
How is this not posted yet? (NSFW)
 
2013-01-03 01:32:50 PM  
I'm pro-gun, but that's an awesome headline.
 
2013-01-03 01:33:52 PM  

Boudica's War Tampon:
How many rounds does one put on target at one time? One at a time. Unless one owns an automatic firing weapon, one puts one round on the target at a time.


Holy Shiat. You want me to reload my .22 manually every single time I want to shoot?
I assume that included an onboard 5 rounds only.
So, even in bolt action I would have to fire 5 shots, reload, and 5 more?

I assume to get from work to your home in your vehicle, you drive to one street. Get out, walk around your car, get back in, drive another street, rinse and repeat?

Somethings are about convenience.
Bullshiat that I should have to go through all the extra time of doing what you are proposing because you don't respect my hobby or my time as valuable as you do your own.
 
2013-01-03 01:34:44 PM  

Millennium: Of course they aren't equivalent. Gun fetishists are scary. Carpenters aren't.


Fixed
 
2013-01-03 01:35:43 PM  
I don't understand why rabid right-wingers continue to put forward such obviously moronic arguments. Does it not occur to these nutbags that at some point, if they want to actually accomplish anything other than yelling and screaming at clouds, they're going to have to try and convince people people outside their 23% base or their opinions? You know... people whose reasoning skills didn't stop developing at age 3?
 
2013-01-03 01:39:35 PM  

dittybopper: mbillips: Mainly, it's for putting down insurrections and slave revolts. That's why the Southern constitutional delegates were the main proponents

So *THAT'S* why all the gun control laws were written to exclude blacks, and why to this very day the burden of gun control falls heavier on blacks than on whites. I mean, even the president recognized this when he said "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne". That's because Chicago is 33% black, and Cheyenne is 3% black.

/Gun control: Last vestige of Jim Crow.


Yup gun laws are keepin the black man down.
 
2013-01-03 01:41:06 PM  

justtray: . Gonna teach himself how to make a bomb without killing himself?
2. Then why has it never happened? (quantity)
3. Better dodge the playground equipment!
4. How many people did it kill?

Fact remains, if those things were just as easy, the killers would use them. By logical extension, removing the easiest to use killing devices lowers the about of killings.


38 from dynamite
 
2013-01-03 01:41:20 PM  

mongbiohazard: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.


Then you've been misinformed it seems. The deadliest attack in US history on school children was the Bath School Bombings, and three gueses what he used to kill the kids.


Well obviously the outlier must prove the rule then.
 
2013-01-03 01:42:16 PM  

DeathCipris: Yet, the anti-gun tards won't move on their position. I seriously don't know how you people live. You must be terrified of everything and in a constant state of panic.


This is the definition of projection. Then again, self awareness is not a strong trait in gun nuts.
 
2013-01-03 01:42:34 PM  
No pic of Cho with his hammer?

Disappointed!
 
2013-01-03 01:42:49 PM  

natas6.0: Ah! I get it now

it isn't about the guns
it's about wanting more government to regulate the things we do, places we go, what we buy
so YOU feel safe.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place!

you coulda saved dittybopper and others a whole lotta internet breath


Or you could build a straw man to save us time in not taking you seriously.
 
2013-01-03 01:44:26 PM  

Fart_Machine: dittybopper: FitzShivering: dittybopper: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.

Actually, guns are among the least efficient means. Arson and explosives are the most efficient. See: Bath School Disaster and Happy Land Fire

As long as your efficiency calculation does not involve the difficulty of performing the action effectively.

How hard is it to block the exits of a building and set it on fire with a couple gallons of gasoline?

The military has been doing it wrong. Instead of being trained in firearms they should have been using gas cans, chains, and padlocks.


The military uses explosives to kill more people than guns since WWI.
So there's that.

d23: Carn: Short and sweet version: You are a psycho. There is a hammer and an AR-15 with 3 full magazines on the table. There are also plans for making a bomb which would take weeks to build, and it's not clear whether you'd be able to acquire all the ingredients nor successfully assemble the bomb nor carry out the attack. You're about to go postal. You can only pick up one. Which do you take?

Gentle reminder of the mass knife attack that happened in China on the same day. It had more victims but no one died.

Everyone here in the U.S. wants the 100% answer and they give up the partial answers to get it. Solar energy won't totally fix the oil problem... so fark it. Getting money out of politics won't 100% fix the problem with crooked government... so fark it. Getting assault weapons out of people's hands won't 100% stop the killing... so fark it. For god's sake....


That wasn't the only knife attack, china has had a string of bad luck and its been coming up with more security and a media blackout as the solution.
Basically what you would do now if you didn't have the aay arr fifteen to blame for people coming unhinged.

You've got a wistful notion that some strong guy will never take a machete to do the deed.
That doesn't assure anyone it can't happen.
 
2013-01-03 01:44:40 PM  

BHShaman: Boudica's War Tampon:
How many rounds does one put on target at one time? One at a time. Unless one owns an automatic firing weapon, one puts one round on the target at a time.


Holy Shiat. You want me to reload my .22 manually every single time I want to shoot?
I assume that included an onboard 5 rounds only.
So, even in bolt action I would have to fire 5 shots, reload, and 5 more?

I assume to get from work to your home in your vehicle, you drive to one street. Get out, walk around your car, get back in, drive another street, rinse and repeat?

Somethings are about convenience.
Bullshiat that I should have to go through all the extra time of doing what you are proposing because you don't respect my hobby or my time as valuable as you do your own.


It's just not fair. I can't mow down targets with my car.
 
2013-01-03 01:47:20 PM  

FitzShivering: dittybopper: FitzShivering: dittybopper: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.

Actually, guns are among the least efficient means. Arson and explosives are the most efficient. See: Bath School Disaster and Happy Land Fire

As long as your efficiency calculation does not involve the difficulty of performing the action effectively.

How hard is it to block the exits of a building and set it on fire with a couple gallons of gasoline?

With people inside of it? Without being interrupted? And easily carrying the gasoline around? And then lightning it and hoping it does what you want? Well, no, it doesn't require a super genius. On the other hand, it's far more time consuming, complicated, and likely to fail than hiding a gun on you and shooting everyone.



Not really. Once you start shooting you announce your presence and everyone will start to try and take self-preservative measures like fleeing out the other exits, finding makeshift weapons to try and defend themselves, hiding or blocking access to parts of the building with more victims. Things may seem simple if you don't think about it too much, but once the plan is set in to motion things get extremely complicated within moments.

By contrast to attack a school or office building with fire you need about 60 - 90 seconds, a few bike locks and a couple gas cans with rags stuck in them. Once you start the attack people will not immediately be alerted to what's going on by the sound of gunfire. Many buildings just have two or three exits. Just go around to the exits in the back of the building and secure them with the bike locks. Then go to the front of the building, toss a lit gasoline bomb in and then secure that door as well. Toss a few more at the ground floor and try and get one up on top of the roof for good measure. Your only overtly aggressive action will be the first fire you set, and once the doors are locked and the fire started it's already too late. For good measure you could drive around the building running down anyone who manages to escape through a window or something. You wouldn't get every single person, but you'd get a heck of a lot more than someone with a gun would.

And if I was one of the victims I'd rather face the gunman then a fire. You can coordinate with others and rush a gunman or barricade the room you're in. Can't do that when facing a fire. I'm sure some psycho who is actually interested in attacking people could come up with an even better plan if they think about it for a while. The human species has proven to be EXTREMELY creative in finding new ways to kill each other over the millenia.
 
2013-01-03 01:47:58 PM  
Simple people think complex problems are solved with simple shanding of those with mental health issues a re a part of the probelm too. olutions. I am no gun nut, but if you think "ban guns" will fix the problems surrounding the recent shootings you are a simple person.

Guns may be part of the problem but our society is a violent one (moreso than most western civilized nations) and our methods of helping those with mental illness are seriously lacking. If you think the hammer/gun statistic is worthless I suggest you are engaging in confirmation bias because it does not conform to your viewpoint.

Or you are just simple.
 
2013-01-03 01:48:01 PM  
girthbrooks.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-03 01:49:15 PM  

jst3p: Simple people think complex problems are solved with simple shanding of those with mental health issues a re a part of the probelm too. solutions. I am no gun nut, but if you think "ban guns" will fix the problems surrounding the recent shootings you are a simple person.

Guns may be part of the problem but our society is a violent one (moreso than most western civilized nations) and our methods of helping those with mental illness are seriously lacking. If you think the hammer/gun statistic is worthless I suggest you are engaging in confirmation bias because it does not conform to your viewpoint.

Or you are just simple.



GRRRR
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 01:52:12 PM  

way south: You've got a wistful notion that some strong guy will never take a machete to do the deed.
That doesn't assure anyone it can't happen.


Nevertheless it's harder to kill 30 people with a machete than a gun.
 
2013-01-03 01:52:24 PM  

way south: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: FitzShivering: dittybopper: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.

Actually, guns are among the least efficient means. Arson and explosives are the most efficient. See: Bath School Disaster and Happy Land Fire

As long as your efficiency calculation does not involve the difficulty of performing the action effectively.

How hard is it to block the exits of a building and set it on fire with a couple gallons of gasoline?

The military has been doing it wrong. Instead of being trained in firearms they should have been using gas cans, chains, and padlocks.

The military uses explosives to kill more people than guns since WWI.
So there's that.

d23: Carn: Short and sweet version: You are a psycho. There is a hammer and an AR-15 with 3 full magazines on the table. There are also plans for making a bomb which would take weeks to build, and it's not clear whether you'd be able to acquire all the ingredients nor successfully assemble the bomb nor carry out the attack. You're about to go postal. You can only pick up one. Which do you take?

Gentle reminder of the mass knife attack that happened in China on the same day. It had more victims but no one died.

Everyone here in the U.S. wants the 100% answer and they give up the partial answers to get it. Solar energy won't totally fix the oil problem... so fark it. Getting money out of politics won't 100% fix the problem with crooked government... so fark it. Getting assault weapons out of people's hands won't 100% stop the killing... so fark it. For god's sake....

That wasn't the only knife attack, china has had a string of bad luck and its been coming up with more security and a media blackout as the solution.
Basically what you would do now if you didn't have the aay arr fifteen to blame for people coming unhinged.

You've got a wistful notion that some strong guy will never take a machete to do the deed.
That doesn't assure anyone it can't happen.


Except he was referring to an arson case but thanks for trying.
 
2013-01-03 01:52:38 PM  

dryknife: [girthbrooks.files.wordpress.com image 550x367]


I used to snark at that photo because there's no hose there. But I think the nail gun retains pressure after being disconnected from the hose. So her noggin nailing is believable.

/is that an assault nailer or a nailer you assault with?
/is that a nailer with a big ass or a big-ass nailer?
/one of those was my nickname in college
 
2013-01-03 01:54:45 PM  
From my blood:

remember when ronnie cut the budget for all the nuts and let them loose on the street? I herd a sub on hannity over the past week ask " why are we not institutionalizing the crazies? " He almost said ronnie cut the budget for crazies back in the 80's, but he stopped short. He knew that saint ronnie cut the crazies loose, so know what do we do? Raise taxes to help the crazies? Grover says No way lower taxes are way more important then mental health issues.
 
2013-01-03 01:56:27 PM  

CPennypacker: the_geek: CPennypacker: Notice how none of them, even the craziest one you could find, has a higher death toll than Newtown. But I guess you're done, though. Because you "proved me wrong." So good job. Strong point.

In principle you're right but your argument is stupid. Newton is what, the 2nd highest kill count of a mass shooting ever in this country? Okay so if hammer killings have fewer deaths per incident but happen more frequently so the net number of deaths per year is higher then hammers are worse.

The whole hammer/club argument is stupid, but you made it even more stupider.

Why is my argument stupid? The whole reason we're talking about this is Newtown, so to make his point he has to go back to a killing spree in 1954. Clearly knife killing sprees are rampant!


Hell, all the cites he listed combined don't even equal one days worth of gun killings in the US.
 
2013-01-03 01:57:04 PM  

FitzShivering: To be fair, if you remember gang and drug related crimes, a great deal of the "high crimes" we have as a nation drop down sensibly.


From what I've seen of the statistics, if you removed drug violence we'd be safer than Europe. Heck, remove 'black male' violence would do the same. The vast majority of murder victims are also felons.

Thus, I think that part of the reason the reaction to school shootings and such is so massive is that most murders are concentrated in 'those crowds', and if you're not part of that crowd... As a consequence spree killers are seen as targeting innocent people like us, not 'those people'.

The problem with doing so is that gangs and drug related crimes are actually part of who we are as a nation. There are solutions to this problem, but they are long term, and no one wants to seriously discuss them, instead focusing on short-term knee-jerk reactions (not even most of which are related to guns) that do nothing but kick the can down the road or hide the problem.

Oh, I'm willing to discuss them. The problems I see:
1. You're going to have to dismantle a complete subculture in the USA - $$$
2. You're going to have to give said people comprehensive education and employment opportunities - $$$
3. You're probably going to have to KILL a targeted 10% of the population of the subculture to make it stick.
4. End the war on drugs.
 
2013-01-03 01:58:45 PM  

natas6.0: Ah! I get it now

it isn't about the guns
it's about wanting more government to regulate the things we do, places we go, what we buy
so YOU feel safe.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place!

you coulda saved dittybopper and others a whole lotta internet breath


----------------------------

Of course control is always the Proggy Leftist's true motive. Controlling others is their over-arching, all-consuming passion in life.

If they were genuinely concerned about threats to health and safety, they'd start by addressing the more frequent and preventable causes of early death. Like traffic (an area over which the government already has total control).

They don't care about guns. They just want the only people who have guns to collect a government paycheck (which you and I will pay for, by the way).

They do this because they want everyone to be as dependent on the State as possible.

Dependent for the money supply. Dependent for retirement income. Dependent for old age medical care, and now for all medical care.

"Gun control" is just another way to make more people more state-dependent in yet another critical area of our daily lives; in this case personal security.
 
2013-01-03 02:00:14 PM  
images4.wikia.nocookie.net

You have no idea of the evil that resides in this man's soul
 
2013-01-03 02:10:30 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

Because the world was just so much more civilized and less violent before we got all those guns. Yeup.
 
2013-01-03 02:14:03 PM  

gerrymander: gilgigamesh: LRA61380: That's just a shiatty comparison, not a false equivalence.

Its also a strawman because he's actually selectively comparing deaths with rifles, and I don't think I've heard anyone actually suggest rifles should be banned.

Sadly, that's only evidence that you haven't paid close enough attention to the news. The Illinois legislature now has two bills submitted that effectively ban any firearms more recent than flintlocks, including rifles.

(6) "Pistol grip" includes any feature of a rifle,
shotgun, or pistol capable of functioning as a protruding
grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.


LOL WAT???????
 
2013-01-03 02:19:26 PM  

Fart_Machine: mongbiohazard: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.


Then you've been misinformed it seems. The deadliest attack in US history on school children was the Bath School Bombings, and three gueses what he used to kill the kids.

Well obviously the outlier must prove the rule then.



Isn't that what you're trying to do though? School shootings are horrible, but statistically speaking they're exceptional events. How many people die a year in school shootings vs. how many die from other things like.... Medical errors? More run-of-the-mill murders? Traffic fatalities? Domestic violence? Accidental falls? The flu?

So how come you're suggesting we further erode the Bill of Rights for something which is so rare that it is, in your words, an outlier? A law, which even if it would work 100% as you hope (which it won't and doesn't in many other countries) would still not make a blip in our yearly death rate that you could distinguish from the noise? Especially when solutions which DO make some amount of sense (such as increasing the availability and access of people to mental health care across society) would also positively impact our society in other ways as well?
 
2013-01-03 02:19:45 PM  

Boudica's War Tampon: dryknife: [girthbrooks.files.wordpress.com image 550x367]

I used to snark at that photo because there's no hose there. But I think the nail gun retains pressure after being disconnected from the hose. So her noggin nailing is believable.

/is that an assault nailer or a nailer you assault with?
/is that a nailer with a big ass or a big-ass nailer?
/one of those was my nickname in college


Less ridiculous than:

www.gregoryhilldesign.com
 
2013-01-03 02:27:11 PM  

CPennypacker: wambu: CPennypacker: wambu: Submitter, the false equivalency you and all gun control advocates make is in assuming that taking away or restricing my right to own any type of gun will reduce mass murders committed by madmen using guns. It will not.

Yes it will.

Then please explain how it will.

Decrease circulation


Elucidate?
 
2013-01-03 02:27:56 PM  

LRA61380: That's just a shiatty comparison, not a false equivalence.


And the title is shiat also. I bet there is probably as much or more gun use than hammer use in this country. I own 1 hammer and 3 guns. I have hurt myself with a hammer many more times than I have with a firearm. (And yes a firearm can hurt you without it actually hitting you with a bullet for the uninformed gun haters)
 
2013-01-03 02:30:41 PM  

Kazrath: LRA61380: That's just a shiatty comparison, not a false equivalence.

And the title is shiat also. I bet there is probably as much or more gun use than hammer use in this country. I own 1 hammer and 3 guns. I have hurt myself with a hammer many more times than I have with a firearm. (And yes a firearm can hurt you without it actually hitting you with a bullet for the uninformed gun haters)


Great comparison. How many times a year does someone accidentally smash their brains in with a hammer versus the number of accidental maiming or death by firearm?
 
2013-01-03 02:31:31 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: natas6.0: Ah! I get it now

it isn't about the guns
it's about wanting more government to regulate the things we do, places we go, what we buy
so YOU feel safe.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place!

you coulda saved dittybopper and others a whole lotta internet breath

I take it your knew to the English language. Or maybe you have some sort of reading comprehension problem that is normally addressed in elementary school.


Are you being ironic? Humorous?
 
2013-01-03 02:32:24 PM  

NephilimNexus: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 600x413]

Because the world was just so much more civilized and less violent before we got all those guns. Yeup.


...it's not all or nothing/black or white. You can kill people with your bare hands.

What has the potential to do more damage to more people in a shorter period of time? A sword or a semi-automatic rifle with 30 round magazine?

Stop being intentionally obtuse.
 
2013-01-03 02:38:52 PM  

Boudica's War Tampon:

It's just not fair. I can't mow down targets with my car.


If you were of the "mind" you could. Anything is a target.
Now, if you wanted to really get with the times, you could use it on humans.
And with a full tank of gas, you could mow down quite a few before "reloading"

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 02:39:07 PM  

simplicimus: Uranus Is Huge!: natas6.0: Ah! I get it now

it isn't about the guns
it's about wanting more government to regulate the things we do, places we go, what we buy
so YOU feel safe.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place!

you coulda saved dittybopper and others a whole lotta internet breath

I take it your knew to the English language. Or maybe you have some sort of reading comprehension problem that is normally addressed in elementary school.

Are you being ironic? Humorous?


I guess not...

I new I should have hit Preview.
 
2013-01-03 02:44:17 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: (6) "Pistol grip" includes any feature of a rifle,
shotgun, or pistol capable of functioning as a protruding
grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.

LOL WAT???????


That means something like the forward grip on the upper rifle in this picture:
photos.gunsamerica.com
 
2013-01-03 02:46:31 PM  

Karac: DoBeDoBeDo: (6) "Pistol grip" includes any feature of a rifle,
shotgun, or pistol capable of functioning as a protruding
grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.

LOL WAT???????

That means something like the forward grip on the upper rifle in this picture:
[photos.gunsamerica.com image 850x459]


I think he's commenting about the fact that a "pistol grip" (i.e. the grip on a pistol) is held by the same hand as the trigger finger.

So to call a front grip on a rifle a "pistol grip" and explain it's held by the non-trigger hand, kind of goes against the definition of a "pistol grip".

At least that's what I was gathering from his comment (hard to say unless we're the commenter).
 
2013-01-03 02:47:50 PM  

mongbiohazard: sn't that what you're trying to do though? School shootings are horrible, but statistically speaking they're exceptional events. How many people die a year in school shootings vs. how many die from other things like.... Medical errors? More run-of-the-mill murders? Traffic fatalities? Domestic violence? Accidental falls? The flu?


Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.
 
2013-01-03 02:47:53 PM  
Sad things is.

Violence (not guns) is glorified in US Culture.
You can watch hundreds of acts of violence a night on TV.

Janet Jackson showed a glimpse of her nipple so short you need a DVR to see it and the response is even more pronounced than anything we've all talked about up above. I'd trade violence on TV for sexuality anyway.

Can't we get back to PDA, Orgies, and 70s Pr0n Music, and tone down all the cop drama, psycho drama and reality TV? And even though i love the genre.... isn't the allure of Zombies that we get to see things/people all shot up without feeling to bad about it... they are not human anymore afterall.
 
2013-01-03 02:51:04 PM  

Karac:

That means something like the forward grip on the upper rifle in this picture:
[photos.gunsamerica.com image 850x459]


It just speaks to the people who are writing the legislation. They don't even try to understand or consult with those that do. A pistol grip is on the Shooting Hand (period), the Fore Grip is used by the off hand.

The fact that they get it so ass-backwards is what annoys some people, myself included.
If you want to effect the lives of millions of people, at least get educated in regards to the task you are attempting to perform.
 
2013-01-03 02:51:44 PM  

computerguyUT: You guys really crack me up.

I could categorically come up with an argument over something you "don't need" to remove every single of of your civil rights in the name of "security" and "what if" and "just in case on person might want to do something evil with blah, blah, blah".
Your position is all too easy to take and feel all warm and fuzzy and safe.

You can't have it both ways.
Just because you're absolutey terrified of evil menacing black guns does not give you the right to take away my civil rights to not be afraid of an inanimate object.

Go hide in your little gun free hole and pretend that the world has ever been or ever will be free of evil, bad people, and tyrranical controlling governments, because your twisted little minds are only place it's ever going to happen.

When one single person or organization and their stooges want to be the only people with guns, my bullshiat detector goes completely bezerk.

Get out my life, leave my rights alone. Take your ivory towers and shove them up your collective self righteous you know whats.


No, I wouldn't recommend hiding in a gun free zone, that's where almost all mass shootings occur. You would be safer hiding in a gun store, or at a gun show, or an NRA meeting.
 
2013-01-03 02:52:03 PM  

FlashHarry: thomps: it's addressing an argument that doesn't exist.

a hallmark of the rabid right.


How soon before they move onto Step 2: Pretend it's a Liberal talking point that should be refuted ten times per comment page?
 
2013-01-03 02:53:04 PM  

Karac: DoBeDoBeDo: (6) "Pistol grip" includes any feature of a rifle,
shotgun, or pistol capable of functioning as a protruding
grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.

LOL WAT???????

That means something like the forward grip on the upper rifle in this picture:
[photos.gunsamerica.com image 850x459]


I know what the descption is, but a pistol grip is the grip back by the trigger, you know the one that looks like the grip of a pistol, hence pistol grip.

A fore grip is called a fore grip, because it's a grip on the forward part of the gun.

I know it's hard, especially for politicians, to understand that words mean things, but they do!

When you write legislation without even a basic knowledge of a subject you are, in fact, much more dangerous to society as a whole than Adam Lanza ever was. The pen is far mightier that the sword (or gun in this case).
 
2013-01-03 02:55:15 PM  
Firethorn: FitzShivering: To be fair, if you remember gang and drug related crimes, a great deal of the "high crimes" we have as a nation drop down sensibly.

From what I've seen of the statistics, if you removed drug violence we'd be safer than Europe. Heck, remove 'black male' violence would do the same. The vast majority of murder victims are also felons.


You can segregate it further. If you remove '_young_ black male' we're actually generally safer than a lot of countries we look bad against now. Of course, I know that leads to people going, "OMG the problem is young black males!" which is the easy way out. If, in general, you remove violence and crimes committed in the _poorest areas_ of the country, immaterial of the race of people, you end up with a near utopia, with the closest thing next being domestic violence (which also conflates largely). This is also true of many other places. But then I get lumped into that group of people who like to talk about "economics" when we discuss crime, which I believe makes me a liberal pantywaist or some such.

Thus, I think that part of the reason the reaction to school shootings and such is so massive is that most murders are concentrated in 'those crowds', and if you're not part of that crowd... As a consequence spree killers are seen as targeting innocent people like us, not 'those people'.


Middle America, now it's a tragedy, now it's so sad to see an upper class city having this happen.
/yeah, quoting Eminem, get over it Farkers ;)


Oh, I'm willing to discuss them. The problems I see:
1. You're going to have to dismantle a complete subculture in the USA - $$$
2. You're going to have to give said people comprehensive education and employment opportunities - $$$
3. You're probably going to have to KILL a targeted 10% of the population of the subculture to make it stick.
4. End the war on drugs.


Correct. Though I'd start with 4.
 
2013-01-03 02:56:24 PM  

JungleBoogie: mongbiohazard: sn't that what you're trying to do though? School shootings are horrible, but statistically speaking they're exceptional events. How many people die a year in school shootings vs. how many die from other things like.... Medical errors? More run-of-the-mill murders? Traffic fatalities? Domestic violence? Accidental falls? The flu?

Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.


Right. Exactly like folks are doing when they suggest we do something about the shoddy state of mental health care in our country.

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, we should probably disarm more people who had nothing to do with this attack, and never will."
 
2013-01-03 02:59:12 PM  
What if I want to shoot people AND build a house at the same time? Is there a product that suits my needs?
qwdrama.quakeworld.nu
There is!
 
2013-01-03 03:00:25 PM  
I'm raising the BS flag on this...

The headline is clearly mistated. Guns are by far the most responsible for the most homices.
2011
All Firearms: 8583
Knives or cutting instruments: 1732
Blunt Objects: 549

The article attempts to distinguish between hammers and rifles, but skews the data. He uses the whole category for blunt objects (549) - this includes more than just hammers.

This figure is then compared to the number of homicides specifically attributed to rifles (367).

However, there is still a large number of deaths attributed to "firearms, type not stated" (1933) at least some of these were likely commited with a rifle.

Bottom line, the article is overstatig the number of homicides with hammers and potentially understating the number of homicides commited with a rifle.
 
2013-01-03 03:01:02 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Mikey1969: thetubameister: Hammers have other uses; guns don't (except practicing to murder scores).

And HERE is why I don't buy the "I don't see anybody here calling for a complete ban on guns" bullshiat response.

Was this a reply to the above? It doesn't seem to contradict it at all...

I was stating that I continually hear the "People only use guns to kill each other, there is no other legitimate use for them" claim such as you made side by side with people on the Left saying "Nobody's calling for a "complete" ban on guns" claim. In other words, by implying that you see them only used to slaughter people, or practice for slaughtering people, you are implying that they should all be banned, and are therefore, according to your other buddies, "Nobody".


That's a lot to surmise from one short sentence... and you've made an incorrect series of assumptions.

It was a parody of the idea of banning hammers, which would leave us no means of assembling bird houses and such. Banning an AR-15, however, doesn't seem ludicrous, because the cowardly could still own their 12 gauge or rifle and still "hunt" and "target practice"... but they wouldn't take out quite so many bystanders when someone takes their parking spot. And they'd still have their "kicking Uncle Sam's ass" fantasies to masturbate to.
 
2013-01-03 03:01:07 PM  

Bontesla: I didn't realize the nationwide sale of nuclear weapons was so rampant. Oh wait. It's not because we've banned personal use of nuclear weapons.


Really man? Comparing guns to nuclear weapons? So based on your theory, if we banned alcohol then no one would drink - sort of like how the prohibition worked right? If we banned smoking, the drug problem would go away? Illegal is illegal, no matter what you do, the illegal parts will remain. What proper gun control does do is help ensure that it is not EASY for someone with bad intentions to acquire a fire arm, and help ensure that those with firearms are responsible. Proper gun control or the ban of firearms will not stop guns from being purchased illegally.

Wow. You are a TotalFarker and a TotalMoran.
 
2013-01-03 03:06:24 PM  

mongbiohazard: Fart_Machine: mongbiohazard: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.


Then you've been misinformed it seems. The deadliest attack in US history on school children was the Bath School Bombings, and three gueses what he used to kill the kids.

Well obviously the outlier must prove the rule then.


Isn't that what you're trying to do though? School shootings are horrible, but statistically speaking they're exceptional events. How many people die a year in school shootings vs. how many die from other things like.... Medical errors? More run-of-the-mill murders? Traffic fatalities? Domestic violence? Accidental falls? The flu?

So how come you're suggesting we further erode the Bill of Rights for something which is so rare that it is, in your words, an outlier? A law, which even if it would work 100% as you hope (which it won't and doesn't in many other countries) would still not make a blip in our yearly death rate that you could distinguish from the noise? Especially when solutions which DO make some amount of sense (such as increasing the availability and access of people to mental health care across society) would also positively impact our society in other ways as well?


Cool story bro except that wasn't my point at all. I'm saying it's disingenuous to say that firearms are less efficient to kill people than gas, hammers, knives, or homemade bombs. If gun proponents truly believe that, then they should put away their sidearms and strap on a tool belt. It's more effective anyway amirite?
 
2013-01-03 03:08:12 PM  

thetubameister: Mikey1969: thetubameister: Mikey1969: thetubameister: Hammers have other uses; guns don't (except practicing to murder scores).

And HERE is why I don't buy the "I don't see anybody here calling for a complete ban on guns" bullshiat response.

Was this a reply to the above? It doesn't seem to contradict it at all...

I was stating that I continually hear the "People only use guns to kill each other, there is no other legitimate use for them" claim such as you made side by side with people on the Left saying "Nobody's calling for a "complete" ban on guns" claim. In other words, by implying that you see them only used to slaughter people, or practice for slaughtering people, you are implying that they should all be banned, and are therefore, according to your other buddies, "Nobody".

That's a lot to surmise from one short sentence... and you've made an incorrect series of assumptions.

It was a parody of the idea of banning hammers, which would leave us no means of assembling bird houses and such. Banning an AR-15, however, doesn't seem ludicrous, because the cowardly could still own their 12 gauge or rifle and still "hunt" and "target practice"... but they wouldn't take out quite so many bystanders when someone takes their parking spot. And they'd still have their "kicking Uncle Sam's ass" fantasies to masturbate to.


Not a lot of target practice with a 12 gauge. I have a 25 round magazine for my .22 rifle, used at the practice range because reloading takes time. Liberal Democrat here.
 
2013-01-03 03:14:37 PM  

simplicimus: I have a 25 round magazine for my .22 rifle, used at the practice range because reloading takes time.



So does burying 20 children. But thank god you aren't inconvenienced...
 
2013-01-03 03:18:48 PM  

thetubameister: Banning an AR-15, however, doesn't seem ludicrous, because the cowardly could still own their 12 gauge or rifle and still "hunt" and "target practice"... but they wouldn't take out quite so many bystanders when someone takes their parking spot. And they'd still have their "kicking Uncle Sam's ass" fantasies to masturbate to.


Now who's making assumptions?

Explain one idiotic part of your post, and I'll let you wander off and diddle the dog in the corner...


Why is target practice in quotes? Regardless of WHY someone is at the range, whether it is to shot your pussy, paranoid, scared little church girl ass, or if it is just a hobby, they are still out improving their aim with the weapon. It's still target practice, no matter what you think of guns in general.

Better look out, someone might jump out from behind a bush and scare you at any minute, make you wet yourself because they have a phone in their hand and you thought it was a gun... I mean, you sound REALLY concerned.
 
2013-01-03 03:21:05 PM  

simplicimus: Not a lot of target practice with a 12 gauge. I have a 25 round magazine for my .22 rifle, used at the practice range because reloading takes time. Liberal Democrat here.


These dipshiats don't understand the concept, don't waste your time. They all pretend to be "experts" that know if you can't hit something at 4,000 years the first time you ever shoot a gun with a bolt action and crooked sights, that's just going to have to be the way you go through life, because they think you should only get one bullet. Oh, and they'll try and blame YOU for every person who has ever died from a gunshot, because they're just that stupid and scared.
 
2013-01-03 03:23:05 PM  

pwhp_67: simplicimus: I have a 25 round magazine for my .22 rifle, used at the practice range because reloading takes time.


So does burying 20 children. But thank god you aren't inconvenienced...


I haven't killed anyone. And the argument on magazine size is just silly. I could by extra, smaller, magazines and reload quickly.
 
2013-01-03 03:24:05 PM  
simplicimus: And the argument on magazine size is just silly. I could by extra, smaller, magazines and reload quickly.

So why don't you, instead of needing high capacity magazines?

That's an equally silly rebuttal.
 
2013-01-03 03:24:36 PM  

Mikey1969: Better look out, someone might jump out from behind a bush and scare you at any minute, make you wet yourself



Is that why you guys all own so many guns? Because you scare easy and the world is a frightening place for you?


I thought it was just because you couldn't afford sports cars...
 
2013-01-03 03:27:53 PM  

Phinn: natas6.0: Ah! I get it now

it isn't about the guns
it's about wanting more government to regulate the things we do, places we go, what we buy
so YOU feel safe.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place!

you coulda saved dittybopper and others a whole lotta internet breath

----------------------------

Of course control is always the Proggy Leftist's true motive. Controlling others is their over-arching, all-consuming passion in life.

If they were genuinely concerned about threats to health and safety, they'd start by addressing the more frequent and preventable causes of early death. Like traffic (an area over which the government already has total control).

They don't care about guns. They just want the only people who have guns to collect a government paycheck (which you and I will pay for, by the way).

They do this because they want everyone to be as dependent on the State as possible.

Dependent for the money supply. Dependent for retirement income. Dependent for old age medical care, and now for all medical care.

"Gun control" is just another way to make more people more state-dependent in yet another critical area of our daily lives; in this case personal security.


By now you should have drowned on that load of horse shiat. Probably while watching Fox "News".
 
2013-01-03 03:30:04 PM  

LasersHurt: simplicimus: And the argument on magazine size is just silly. I could by extra, smaller, magazines and reload quickly.

So why don't you, instead of needing high capacity magazines?

That's an equally silly rebuttal.


Expense. My .22 has an internal hold of 8 rounds and is specific to my rifle. The bigger magazine was a lot cheaper than buying more gun specific smaller magazines.
 
2013-01-03 03:35:25 PM  

Fart_Machine: mongbiohazard: Fart_Machine: mongbiohazard: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.


Then you've been misinformed it seems. The deadliest attack in US history on school children was the Bath School Bombings, and three gueses what he used to kill the kids.

Well obviously the outlier must prove the rule then.


Isn't that what you're trying to do though? School shootings are horrible, but statistically speaking they're exceptional events. How many people die a year in school shootings vs. how many die from other things like.... Medical errors? More run-of-the-mill murders? Traffic fatalities? Domestic violence? Accidental falls? The flu?

So how come you're suggesting we further erode the Bill of Rights for something which is so rare that it is, in your words, an outlier? A law, which even if it would work 100% as you hope (which it won't and doesn't in many other countries) would still not make a blip in our yearly death rate that you could distinguish from the noise? Especially when solutions which DO make some amount of sense (such as increasing the availability and access of people to mental health care across society) would also positively impact our society in other ways as well?

Cool story bro except that wasn't my point at all. I'm saying it's disingenuous to say that firearms are less efficient to kill people than gas, hammers, knives, or homemade bombs. If gun proponents truly believe that, then they should put away their sidearms and strap on a tool belt. It's more effective anyway amirite?



Hate to have to explain this again, but you're still arguing about eroding the Bill of Rights in a futile attempt to stop events which are literally less likely to kill someone than a lightning strike. So don't be all surprised when you try and pretend like something didn't happen which conflicts with one of your arguments because it's an "outlier". Your entire premise is predicated upon changing the laws which govern 370 million people in response to a rare outlier in our society.

As far as the efficiency goes, your facile suggestion that gun proponents put away their firearms because bombs and fires are more efficient at mass murdering people would only make sense if gun proponents were also pro-mass murder. Gun proponents simply want law-abiding citizens to have the right to be armed so they have the means to defend themselves and others if necessary, not to have the right to mass murder. Honestly, as far as false equivalencies go you're really taking the cake...
 
2013-01-03 03:36:36 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Banning an AR-15, however, doesn't seem ludicrous, because the cowardly could still own their 12 gauge or rifle and still "hunt" and "target practice"... but they wouldn't take out quite so many bystanders when someone takes their parking spot. And they'd still have their "kicking Uncle Sam's ass" fantasies to masturbate to.

Now who's making assumptions?

Explain one idiotic part of your post, and I'll let you wander off and diddle the dog in the corner...

Why is target practice in quotes? Regardless of WHY someone is at the range, whether it is to shot your pussy, paranoid, scared little church girl ass, or if it is just a hobby, they are still out improving their aim with the weapon. It's still target practice, no matter what you think of guns in general.

Better look out, someone might jump out from behind a bush and scare you at any minute, make you wet yourself because they have a phone in their hand and you thought it was a gun... I mean, you sound REALLY concerned.


Actually, this diatribe and "powerful" defense marks one of us a coward... and it ain't me. I know, for instance, that CT was an anomaly. And I also think you will get what you expect from people and society. So... I'm not planning to be shot, and I'm not walk around afraid with a weapon. Courage... what does it mean again?

Go practice your bogeyman removal device...
 
2013-01-03 03:39:55 PM  

JungleBoogie: Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.


----------------

This is the Leftist mindset in a nutshell.

People are not mechanical objects. They adapt. You simply cannot control people the way you can control the way that an airplane is constructed. If you think you can "ban" something, take a look at every other attempt at banning desirable things. Look at your ideology's record of abysmal failure.

Besides, where is all of your concern about avoidable deaths related to cars instead of airplanes? I don't see a massive political push to overhaul the mechanical standards, rules of use, procedures, training, enforcement and other design features of the traffic system.

Meanwhile 100 people per day are dying. Children are being buried. Limbs are amputated. Head injuries. People disabled for life. But I guess those deaths aren't politically valuable to you.

You ignore those deaths, just so you neener-neener your political opponents, rally around your vacationing President and cheer him on. Does it make you feel warm in your naughty place to win your petty political victories?

How can you be so callous?
 
2013-01-03 03:44:05 PM  

mongbiohazard: Fart_Machine: mongbiohazard: Fart_Machine: mongbiohazard: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.


Then you've been misinformed it seems. The deadliest attack in US history on school children was the Bath School Bombings, and three gueses what he used to kill the kids.

Well obviously the outlier must prove the rule then.


Isn't that what you're trying to do though? School shootings are horrible, but statistically speaking they're exceptional events. How many people die a year in school shootings vs. how many die from other things like.... Medical errors? More run-of-the-mill murders? Traffic fatalities? Domestic violence? Accidental falls? The flu?

So how come you're suggesting we further erode the Bill of Rights for something which is so rare that it is, in your words, an outlier? A law, which even if it would work 100% as you hope (which it won't and doesn't in many other countries) would still not make a blip in our yearly death rate that you could distinguish from the noise? Especially when solutions which DO make some amount of sense (such as increasing the availability and access of people to mental health care across society) would also positively impact our society in other ways as well?

Cool story bro except that wasn't my point at all. I'm saying it's disingenuous to say that firearms are less efficient to kill people than gas, hammers, knives, or homemade bombs. If gun proponents truly believe that, then they should put away their sidearms and strap on a tool belt. It's more effective anyway amirite?


Hate to have to explain this again, but you're still arguing about eroding the Bill of Rights in a futile attempt to stop events which are literally less likely to kill someone than a lightning strike. So don't be all surprised when you try and pretend like something didn't happen which conflicts with one of your arguments because it's an "outlier". Your entire premise is predicated upon changing the laws which govern 370 million people in response to a rare outlier in our society.

As far as the efficiency goes, your facile suggestion that gun proponents put away their firearms because bombs and fires are more efficient at mass murdering people would only make sense if gun proponents were also pro-mass murder. Gun proponents simply want law-abiding citizens to have the right to be armed so they have the means to defend themselves and others if necessary, not to have the right to mass murder. Honestly, as far as false equivalencies go you're really taking the cake...


Do you miss the point on purpose or are you really this obtuse? Where did I say I want to erode anything? My whole point is that saying that hammers and gas are more effective is pants on head retarded.
 
2013-01-03 03:46:37 PM  

pwhp_67: Mikey1969: Better look out, someone might jump out from behind a bush and scare you at any minute, make you wet yourself


Is that why you guys all own so many guns? Because you scare easy and the world is a frightening place for you?


I thought it was just because you couldn't afford sports cars...


Nope, but continue making ASSumptions, it just demonstrates your ignorance.
 
2013-01-03 03:46:52 PM  

Phinn: JungleBoogie: Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.

----------------

This is the Leftist mindset in a nutshell.

People are not mechanical objects. They adapt. You simply cannot control people the way you can control the way that an airplane is constructed. If you think you can "ban" something, take a look at every other attempt at banning desirable things. Look at your ideology's record of abysmal failure.

Besides, where is all of your concern about avoidable deaths related to cars instead of airplanes? I don't see a massive political push to overhaul the mechanical standards, rules of use, procedures, training, enforcement and other design features of the traffic system.

Meanwhile 100 people per day are dying. Children are being buried. Limbs are amputated. Head injuries. People disabled for life. But I guess those deaths aren't politically valuable to you.

You ignore those deaths, just so you neener-neener your political opponents, rally around your vacationing President and cheer him on. Does it make you feel warm in your naughty place to win your petty political victories?

How can you be so callous?


Your imagination appears to be a violent place.

Phinn - when you need to understand the liberal mind.
 
2013-01-03 03:49:12 PM  
If hammers are so dangerous, then people should just use hammers to defend themselves and their homes then.
 
2013-01-03 03:49:39 PM  

Phinn: ...rally around your vacationing President...


If you're an American, he's your president too. And there's nothing you can do about it.

Nothing.

Suck on that.
 
2013-01-03 03:51:01 PM  

Tryfan: If hammers are so dangerous, then people should just use hammers to defend themselves and their homes then.


But hammers should only be used at specific times, maybe "Hammer periods".
 
2013-01-03 03:51:56 PM  

pwhp_67: simplicimus: I have a 25 round magazine for my .22 rifle, used at the practice range because reloading takes time.


So does burying 20 children. But thank god you aren't inconvenienced...


When it comes down to it, both can be done quickly with enough practice.
 
2013-01-03 03:51:56 PM  

Phinn: JungleBoogie: Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.

----------------

This is the Leftist mindset in a nutshell.

People are not mechanical objects. They adapt. You simply cannot control people the way you can control the way that an airplane is constructed. If you think you can "ban" something, take a look at every other attempt at banning desirable things. Look at your ideology's record of abysmal failure.

Besides, where is all of your concern about avoidable deaths related to cars instead of airplanes? I don't see a massive political push to overhaul the mechanical standards, rules of use, procedures, training, enforcement and other design features of the traffic system.

Meanwhile 100 people per day are dying. Children are being buried. Limbs are amputated. Head injuries. People disabled for life. But I guess those deaths aren't politically valuable to you.

You ignore those deaths, just so you neener-neener your political opponents, rally around your vacationing President and cheer him on. Does it make you feel warm in your naughty place to win your petty political victories?

How can you be so callous?


You're so full of shiat. Good idea pointing out cars and airplanes, two of the most heavily regulated industries in this country. Let's apply some similar rules to gun ownership shall we? We'll start with:

1) Mandatory licensing for purchasing guns. Safety and aptitude tests required.
2) Liability Insurance
3) Mandatory safety measures on the guns themselves ie safeties, trigger locks, etc. (seat belts? brakes?)
 
2013-01-03 04:02:15 PM  
I'm a gun owner, but willing to consider rational limits on ownership.

I'm NOT willing to click on those lying farkwads at Breitbart.
If they're telling the truth about something, it's probably by accident.
 
2013-01-03 04:03:47 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: And there's nothing you can do about it.



I don't know. Shaking a tiny fist in impotent rage is something, isn't it?
 
2013-01-03 04:03:58 PM  
I prefer to go deer hunting with a good quality hammer.
 
2013-01-03 04:06:37 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 04:12:09 PM  

coeyagi: 99.6 of "Poor" Household have refrigerators. A lot of poor people murder other people because they are desperate and poor.

Has anyone seen statistics on how many refrigerators have been used to murder someone? I mean, we all know they can save a life in the event of a nuclear blast, but how many times have they been commissioned in a homicide? I bet those poors are killing up a storm with frigs.


37 , but not in a row
 
2013-01-03 04:15:34 PM  

thetubameister: Actually, this diatribe and "powerful" defense marks one of us a coward... and it ain't me. I know, for instance, that CT was an anomaly. And I also think you will get what you expect from people and society. So... I'm not planning to be shot, and I'm not walk around afraid with a weapon. Courage... what does it mean again?

Go practice your bogeyman removal device...


So what you're saying is that you don't have an answer...

Thanks for playing.
 
2013-01-03 04:27:55 PM  

Fart_Machine: Do you miss the point on purpose or are you really this obtuse? Where did I say I want to erode anything? My whole point is that saying that hammers and gas are more effective is pants on head retarded.



I got your point, I just wasn't impressed with it. I pointed out some pretty glaring weaknesses in it. You seem to be using those arguments as an attempt to pretend like I'm missing your point instead of arguing against it now though.

It's not retarded, and if you'd drop your own false equivalency perhaps you'd be able to acknowledge that. If you want to commit mass murder there's few things as efficient as bombs and fire. Why do you think our military now kills so many more people with explosives then guns? Why do you think they have firebombs, and have literally killed millions of people with them - more then we killed with the nuclear bombs we dropped on Japan?

Now if you want to kill someone specific, for instance someone who is attacking you, then yes I'd say a gun is more efficient. It has the ability to be aimed at the very person who threatens you, and no others. But for indiscriminate slaughter though there's no beating bombs or fire. With bombs you can kill a mass of people in an instant, with no way for them to have any time to react to minimize harm in any way (when the attack is triggered, it's already over). You know, like the Oklahoma City federal building bombing or the Bath School Bombings or etc. etc.... With fire not only can you kill a mass of people, but the fire itself can actually trap many of the victims in place and between smoke inhalation and the fire itself there's very little the people inside can do to protect themselves from the threat of fire threat once it's launched. Not familiar with a lot of mass murders by fire, but I do know one - Julian Carlton set fire to Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin. He trapped a bunch of folks in there with fire, and then finished off with a hatchet the few workers who managed to break out.

Guns may be used more often (though as I pointed out several times, we're still talking about events which are shocking but statistically irrelevant), but bombs are unquestionably more efficient. Oklahoma City Federal bombing killed 198 people. The Bath School Bombings are also still the largest mass murder in a school in US history.

As for you saying you want to erode something... I didn't say "something", I said "the bill of rights". If you didn't know, the 2nd amendment is part of the bill of rights. Are you NOT arguing for more gun "control"? Because if want to pretend you're not that's just ridiculous. If you are arguing for more gun control then yes, you're arguing we should chip away at the bill of rights a little more. I think the bill of rights has suffered enough the last 30 years or so.
 
2013-01-03 04:29:26 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Actually, this diatribe and "powerful" defense marks one of us a coward... and it ain't me. I know, for instance, that CT was an anomaly. And I also think you will get what you expect from people and society. So... I'm not planning to be shot, and I'm not walk around afraid with a weapon. Courage... what does it mean again?

Go practice your bogeyman removal device...

So what you're saying is that you don't have an answer...

Thanks for playing.


He asked a question?
 
2013-01-03 04:31:55 PM  

Carn: Good idea pointing out cars and airplanes, two of the most heavily regulated industries in this country.


Yes, they are. And yet traffic is still the No. 1 cause of death for all age groups under age 45. It has been for decades. It looks like your reliance on "regulation" is a failure.

Also, by assuming control over these areas, the government is responsible for happens. That's how it works. If you are in control of something, then you are ethically responsible for the outcome.

This is a government that you're participating in, by the way, even if it's only on the level of being a good little drone and a shiat-disturber on the Internet. By demanding political action over something that kills fewer people than traffic collisions, which are preventable, then you are in effect advocating that the government allow 35,000 traffic deaths per year to occur. You are advocating that the government waste time and energy by addressing a less significant problem, and thus necessarily ignoring a more threatening and deadly problem.

But you don't get political traction out of traffic issues, do you? It's too banal and ordinary. Dealing with it doesn't make you feel quite so energized and powerful, does it? Not compared to really sticking it to your political opponents.

No, saving more lives is too mundane for you. You're too busy agitating for an expansion of government control into new areas where it can be completely ineffective.
 
2013-01-03 04:35:28 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Your imagination appears to be a violent place.


DOT statistics are out here in reality, where people are dying, while you fart around with yet another futile attempt at prohibition.

So much for your concern over safety, troll.
 
2013-01-03 04:44:11 PM  
Came for the Far Side Cartoon--"I hear you're pretty handy with a gun."

Left disappointed.
 
2013-01-03 04:47:43 PM  

Phinn: Carn: Good idea pointing out cars and airplanes, two of the most heavily regulated industries in this country.

Yes, they are. And yet traffic is still the No. 1 cause of death for all age groups under age 45. It has been for decades. It looks like your reliance on "regulation" is a failure.

Also, by assuming control over these areas, the government is responsible for happens. That's how it works. If you are in control of something, then you are ethically responsible for the outcome.

This is a government that you're participating in, by the way, even if it's only on the level of being a good little drone and a shiat-disturber on the Internet. By demanding political action over something that kills fewer people than traffic collisions, which are preventable, then you are in effect advocating that the government allow 35,000 traffic deaths per year to occur. You are advocating that the government waste time and energy by addressing a less significant problem, and thus necessarily ignoring a more threatening and deadly problem.

But you don't get political traction out of traffic issues, do you? It's too banal and ordinary. Dealing with it doesn't make you feel quite so energized and powerful, does it? Not compared to really sticking it to your political opponents.

No, saving more lives is too mundane for you. You're too busy agitating for an expansion of government control into new areas where it can be completely ineffective.


Once again, you are entirely full of shiat. It is quite possible to care about multiple things all at the same time. One can talk about gun control one day and civil rights the next if one is so inclined. That does not mean that one stops caring about each thing when one moves on to the next. At least that's how most normal rational brains work. This goes for individual people and society at large. This attack and line of reasoning is absolutely ridiculous and stupid. We have a problem with gun violence in the country and recently it has manifested itself in some pretty horrible mass shootings.

Regarding regulation: since you don't think it works, would you advocate removing the requirement that all cars come with seatbelts? Oh, no? Because every study on the subjects shows that statistically wearing seatbelts saves lives? Which then logically follows that the regulation that requires seatbelts saves lives? You are a troll, or you are very stupid.
 
2013-01-03 04:48:40 PM  

thetubameister: Mikey1969: thetubameister: Actually, this diatribe and "powerful" defense marks one of us a coward... and it ain't me. I know, for instance, that CT was an anomaly. And I also think you will get what you expect from people and society. So... I'm not planning to be shot, and I'm not walk around afraid with a weapon. Courage... what does it mean again?

Go practice your bogeyman removal device...

So what you're saying is that you don't have an answer...

Thanks for playing.

He asked a question?


Here, I'll quote it for you and explain how you would recognize a question in a crowded room...

Why is target practice in quotes? Regardless of WHY someone is at the range, whether it is to shot your pussy, paranoid, scared little church girl ass, or if it is just a hobby, they are still out improving their aim with the weapon. It's still target practice, no matter what you think of guns in general.

See that little symbol that has been bolded and supersized?
So which is it?

/^^^^^Look, it's another question mark!!^^^^^
 
2013-01-03 04:50:42 PM  
What does Zombie Breitbart have to say when we compare the number of people who died on 9/11 to the number of people who have been killed by guns since then, and the proportional level of hysterical overreaction over 9/11 and gun deaths.

"That's different" would about sum it up, I expect.

Still waiting on my constitutional right to carry a bazooka onto a 747.
 
2013-01-03 04:58:08 PM  

OgreMagi: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 557x298]



I can't believe nobody put this in here sooner...
 
2013-01-03 05:04:01 PM  

Mikey1969: pwhp_67: Mikey1969: Better look out, someone might jump out from behind a bush and scare you at any minute, make you wet yourself


Is that why you guys all own so many guns? Because you scare easy and the world is a frightening place for you?


I thought it was just because you couldn't afford sports cars...

Nope, but continue making ASSumptions, it just demonstrates your ignorance.



Like when a small joke zooms over your head?
 
2013-01-03 05:06:43 PM  

Carn: Once again, you are entirely full of shiat. It is quite possible to care about multiple things all at the same time. One can talk about gun control one day and civil rights the next if one is so inclined. That does not mean that one stops caring about each thing when one moves on to the next. At least that's how most normal rational brains work. This goes for individual people and society at large. This attack and line of reasoning is absolutely ridiculous and stupid. We have a problem with gun violence in the country and recently it has manifested itself in some pretty horrible mass shootings.


You want people to believe that gun control is the most pressing issue for the government to address right now -- the gun control legislation is the very best, most important use of the government's power and resources. To save lives.

Even though prohibition never works, because people adapt. Because government decrees do not actually have the power to alter reality. You want the government to focus on an area of life over which it has very little control, and a long history of ineffective and counter-productive action (prohibition of drugs is a miserable failure, and has fostered an environment -- drug-dealing gangs, which are the main cause of US gun violence, incidentally!).

And yet, decade after decade, it ignores a predictable, steady rate of death which has occurred on government property, where it has a very high degree of control.

You don't get it. The government doesn't give a shiat about saving lives. If it did, it would have found the time to address the No. 1 cause of death for people under 45, all of which occur on its property. Something more effective than the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Carn: Regarding regulation: since you don't think it works, would you advocate removing the requirement that all cars come with seatbelts? Oh, no? Because every study on the subjects shows that statistically wearing seatbelts saves lives? Which then logically follows that the regulation that requires seatbelts saves lives? You are a troll, or you are very stupid.


Government regulation has the uncanny ability to bring technological progress to a virtual standstill. Also, the issue of seat belts is a false choice. There are a million other things the government could do, which it's not doing, to save lives, if it wanted to.

But I am supposed to believe that this very same government, which you fellate so eagerly, is soooooo concerned about people dying.

You want people to believe that you are caring and compassionate, that you and your man-crush are driven by the purest of life-saving motives.

But your actions (and habit of inaction) contradict your claims. You have no credibility.
 
2013-01-03 05:07:06 PM  

Phinn: Uranus Is Huge!: Your imagination appears to be a violent place.

DOT statistics are out here in reality, where people are dying, while you fart around with yet another futile attempt at prohibition.

So much for your concern over safety, troll.


Please tell me all about the futile attempts at prohibition that I have been posting about. Hint: You won't find any because they only exist in your mind.
 
2013-01-03 05:11:54 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Please tell me all about the futile attempts at prohibition that I have been posting about. Hint: You won't find any because they only exist in your mind.


You have a reading comprehension problem. The government's record on "solving problems" through prohibition of desirable things is an abysmal failure. Attempting to solve complex social problems through prohibition is futile.

I couldn't give two shiats what you post about.
 
2013-01-03 05:16:37 PM  

Phinn: Carn: Once again, you are entirely full of shiat. It is quite possible to care about multiple things all at the same time. One can talk about gun control one day and civil rights the next if one is so inclined. That does not mean that one stops caring about each thing when one moves on to the next. At least that's how most normal rational brains work. This goes for individual people and society at large. This attack and line of reasoning is absolutely ridiculous and stupid. We have a problem with gun violence in the country and recently it has manifested itself in some pretty horrible mass shootings.

You want people to believe that gun control is the most pressing issue for the government to address right now -- the gun control legislation is the very best, most important use of the government's power and resources. To save lives.

Even though prohibition never works, because people adapt. Because government decrees do not actually have the power to alter reality. You want the government to focus on an area of life over which it has very little control, and a long history of ineffective and counter-productive action (prohibition of drugs is a miserable failure, and has fostered an environment -- drug-dealing gangs, which are the main cause of US gun violence, incidentally!).

And yet, decade after decade, it ignores a predictable, steady rate of death which has occurred on government property, where it has a very high degree of control.

You don't get it. The government doesn't give a shiat about saving lives. If it did, it would have found the time to address the No. 1 cause of death for people under 45, all of which occur on its property. Something more effective than the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Carn: Regarding regulation: since you don't think it works, would you advocate removing the requirement that all cars come with seatbelts? Oh, no? Because every study on the subjects shows that statistically wearing seatbelts saves lives? Which then logi ...


Just a troll then. Bye.
 
2013-01-03 05:16:58 PM  
There's no movement to stop murder-by-blunt-object, even though it's clearly a bigger threat (at least, based on bodycount). Obviously nobody gives a shiat because the people who die to blunt objects don't do so all at once - as if the act of dying in unison somehow makes it more tragic.

The issue the adults are trying to focus on is that when a lunatic attacts a group of people with a hammer the members of that group have a chance of stopping him before people are killed. Like they stopped that guy in China.

Here our lunatics don't tend to grab hammers, they tend to grab guns with extended clips and shoot up a crowd. This nut in CT is just the latest example and now that little children are being murdered in school more people are paying attention to the issue.

When that doofus shot Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, he shot at a crowd with a pistol and as soon as the clip was empty he was tackled. This guy bought his guns and ammo legally. Had it been illegal to sell extended clips, he would have bought one with less capacity, he would have fired fewer rounds, and more people would be alive.

So for the sane people, it's not much of an issue. If you have to reload more often at the range but nutjobs kill/injure fewer people - we'll go with the ban...
 
2013-01-03 05:18:57 PM  

mongbiohazard: I got your point, I just wasn't impressed with it. I pointed out some pretty glaring weaknesses in it. You seem to be using those arguments as an attempt to pretend like I'm missing your point instead of arguing against it now though.


You're been arguing shait I never said for a few posts now. But please continue, you might just win this argument with yourself.

mongbiohazard: It's not retarded, and if you'd drop your own false equivalency perhaps you'd be able to acknowledge that. If you want to commit mass murder there's few things as efficient as bombs and fire. Why do you think our military now kills so many more people with explosives then guns? Why do you think they have firebombs, and have literally killed millions of people with them - more then we killed with the nuclear bombs we dropped on Japan?


Again the original poster was saying that guns are less effective than arson, hammers, and knives. I was sarcastically saying that if guns are so ineffective compared to hammers then exchange your sidearm for a tool belt. Your best example was a bombing that happened back in 1927 so yes, that's considered an outlier. Now you want to bring up nuclear weapons and military grade explosives and compare them with guns. And you talk about false equivalency? Hahahaha oh wow.

As for you saying you want to erode something... I didn't say "something", I said "the bill of rights". If you didn't know, the 2nd amendment is part of the bill of rights. Are you NOT arguing for more gun "control"? Because if want to pretend you're not that's just ridiculous. If you are arguing for more gun control then yes, you're arguing we should chip away at the bill of rights a little more. I think the bill of rights has suffered enough the last 30 years or so.

I'm sure the voices in your head are quite persuasive. No I'm not arguing for Gun Control. I'm saying that comparing guns to hammers and knives and nukes and explosives is stupid. But please keep beating that strawman. You've nearly got him licked!
 
2013-01-03 05:22:21 PM  

Carn: Just a troll then. Bye.


You've got nothing.
 
2013-01-03 05:30:08 PM  

pwhp_67: Had it been illegal to sell extended clips, he would have bought one with less capacity, he would have fired fewer rounds, and more people would be alive.


Newsflash:  Those magazine are already on the market, even with a ban.....grandfathered high capacity magazines were allowed to be bought and sold during the Clinton ban.  So what are you proposing?  Everyone has to turn them in?
 
2013-01-03 05:34:38 PM  

pwhp_67:
When that doofus shot Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, he shot at a crowd with a pistol and as soon as the clip was empty he was tackled. This guy bought his guns and ammo legally. Had it been illegal to sell extended clips, he would have bought one with less capacity, he would have fired fewer rounds, and more people would be alive.

So for the sane people, it's not much of an issue. If you have to reload more often at the range but nutjobs kill/injure fewer people - we'll go with the ban...


Just curious - You are aware that these extended magazines you want to ban so much are just stamped steel and a spring, right? (Yes, some of the nicer ones are polymer, but the basic mag is just stamped steel) With only the basic metalworking tools in my garage I can easily make "extended" magazines for a variety of weapons(*). Not even going to get into the subject of how - during the last "AWB", it didn't affect the availability of grandfathered extended magazines at all. Just drove the price up another $10.00 each is all.

* And I'm one of the good guys. Imagine what the guys who have been trained in the prison metal shop can make.
 
2013-01-03 05:37:18 PM  

The_Sponge: pwhp_67: Had it been illegal to sell extended clips, he would have bought one with less capacity, he would have fired fewer rounds, and more people would be alive.

Newsflash:  Those magazine are already on the market, even with a ban.....grandfathered high capacity magazines were allowed to be bought and sold during the Clinton ban.  So what are you proposing?  Everyone has to turn them in?


You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

So again, had these extended clips been illegal he would not have had any. That equals more people alive.

But if you want to go a step further and require people who own the larger magazines to turn them in, probably for a replacement, I'd support that...
 
2013-01-03 05:37:25 PM  

Phinn: Uranus Is Huge!: Please tell me all about the futile attempts at prohibition that I have been posting about. Hint: You won't find any because they only exist in your mind.

You have a reading comprehension problem. The government's record on "solving problems" through prohibition of desirable things is an abysmal failure. Attempting to solve complex social problems through prohibition is futile.

I couldn't give two shiats what you post about.


Odd. I usually don't respond to the posts that don't give two shiats about.
 
2013-01-03 05:41:18 PM  

pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.


How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.
 
2013-01-03 05:45:07 PM  

jst3p: pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.


Well, I didn't see anything in the Constitution about the right to own extended magazines. But you're the internet Constitutional scholar, not me...
 
2013-01-03 05:52:48 PM  

pwhp_67: But if you want to go a step further and require people who own the larger magazines to turn them in, probably for a replacement, I'd support that...



For a replacement?  BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  That is a shiatty deal if I ever heard one.

Here's the problem....you put a ban on high capacity mags, it affects non-crazies like me, and millions of other gun owners.
 
2013-01-03 05:58:26 PM  

The_Sponge: Here's the problem....you put a ban on high capacity mags, it affects non-crazies like me, and millions of other gun owners.


That's a problem? That doesn't sound like a problem...
 
2013-01-03 06:00:40 PM  

pwhp_67: jst3p: pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.

Well, I didn't see anything in the Constitution about the right to own extended magazines. But you're the internet Constitutional scholar, not me...


Apology accepted.


/Really, that's the best you could do?
 
2013-01-03 06:02:00 PM  

jst3p: pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.


While I agree, I am curious what new measures would be taken now that previously have not been taken to identify and lock up crazies?
 
2013-01-03 06:03:44 PM  

pwhp_67: Well, I didn't see anything in the Constitution about the right to own extended magazines. But you're the internet Constitutional scholar, not me...


Its the Amendment after the 1st and before the 3rd

pwhp_67: So again, had these extended clips been illegal he would not have had any. That equals more people alive.


They are called magazines. And no, it wouldn't have made a difference. Heres a .pdf of the Virginia Tech Review Panel's Report on the Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech.

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/tempcontent/techpanelreport.cfm

Page 87 of the report:

"The panel also considered whether the previous federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned 15-round magazines would have made a difference inthe April 16 incidents. The law lapsed after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders (ed. I think they are referring to revolver speed loaders here) could have been about as deadly in this situation."

(from post on THR.com)

And these were able bodied adults the Virginia Tech guy killed. The Sandy hook guy locked children in a classroom and killed them. Are you gullible enough to believe that he could only have been able to do that with a "specialized" weapon? That he had to have a "DEADLY ASSAULT RIFLE" to kill 6 year olds?

jst3p: How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.


Yes.
 
2013-01-03 06:08:05 PM  

Pete_T_Mann: Its the Amendment after the 1st and before the 3rd


No, no it isn't. Nothing in there about extended magazines...


Pete_T_Mann: And no, it wouldn't have made a difference


And yes, it would have made a difference. Jared Loughner was tackled immediately after emptying his magazine...
 
2013-01-03 06:09:57 PM  

jst3p: /Really, that's the best you could do?



I figured you weren't trying so why should I?
 
2013-01-03 06:14:31 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: jst3p: pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.

While I agree, I am curious what new measures would be taken now that previously have not been taken to identify and lock up crazies?


For starters, when a woman says her son is a danger take her a little more seriously and expidite the process of admitting him...

Link
 
2013-01-03 06:14:52 PM  

mongbiohazard: With bombs you can kill a mass of people in an instant, with no way for them to have any time to react to minimize harm in any way (when the attack is triggered, it's already over). You know, like the Oklahoma City federal building bombing


Oh, I see I missed this.

We regulate the sale of ammonium nitrate due to the Oklahoma City bombing. Sure you want to go there?
 
2013-01-03 06:30:40 PM  

pwhp_67: The_Sponge: Here's the problem....you put a ban on high capacity mags, it affects non-crazies like me, and millions of other gun owners.

That's a problem? That doesn't sound like a problem...



An infringement on my rights is a problem, pal.

My AR - Came with two 30 round mags in the box.
My Glock - Came with 15 round mags.
My Beretta - Also came with 15 round mags.
 
2013-01-03 06:33:13 PM  

The_Sponge: An infringement on my rights is a problem, pal.



I don't know where some of you get the idea that you have a "right" to a particular size clip but it's an idiotic rebuttal...
 
2013-01-03 06:38:14 PM  

pwhp_67: The_Sponge: An infringement on my rights is a problem, pal.


I don't know where some of you get the idea that you have a "right" to a particular size clip but it's an idiotic rebuttal...


You know what's more idiotic?  Thinking that only allowing 10 round mags to be manufactured and imported from now on will somehow make a difference.  There are MILLIONS of magazines out there that hold more than 10 rounds.  In other words, some sick f*ck will still get his hands on them if he wants to, and your roody-poo proposals only fark with gun owners who will NEVER commit a crime with any of their firearms.

It's a free country, so if you want to be a biatch like Feinstein, you can do so at your leisure.
 
2013-01-03 06:38:18 PM  

pwhp_67: The_Sponge: An infringement on my rights is a problem, pal.


I don't know where some of you get the idea that you have a "right" to a particular size clip but it's an idiotic rebuttal...


But they came in the box!
 
2013-01-03 06:42:40 PM  
Is there a problem with criminals using fully automatic weapons to commit crimes? Because I learned from the Fark Militia that if you ban a weapon, the criminals will ignore the ban. So... is this what happened after fully automatic weapons were banned?
 
2013-01-03 06:43:32 PM  

The_Sponge: pwhp_67: The_Sponge: Here's the problem....you put a ban on high capacity mags, it affects non-crazies like me, and millions of other gun owners.

That's a problem? That doesn't sound like a problem...


An infringement on my rights is a problem, pal.

My AR - Came with two 30 round mags in the box.
My Glock - Came with 15 round mags.
My Beretta - Also came with 15 round mags.


I always wondered why Fark's userbase was so spot-on about the idiocy of TSA liquid restrictions (and recent loopholes) yet have problems seeing how mag restrictions is pretty much useless at preventing mass shooters.

Just think about how Fark would react if one of those MADD types proposed that six-packs, containers larger than 10ozs, and high proof liquors should be banned in order to prevent drunk driving and binge drinking.

Methinks that these people aren't entirely motivated by rational thinking.
 
2013-01-03 06:43:50 PM  
The only incident i can think of is that Hollywood bank robbery.
 
2013-01-03 06:44:09 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Because I learned from the Fark Militia that if you ban a weapon, the criminals will ignore the ban.



Or maybe you could learn something from reality.  How are those gun bans working out for Chicago?
 
2013-01-03 06:45:24 PM  

The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: Because I learned from the Fark Militia that if you ban a weapon, the criminals will ignore the ban.


Or maybe you could learn something from reality.  How are those gun bans working out for Chicago?


Nice dodge. Care to reply to the question posed?
 
2013-01-03 06:47:12 PM  

The_Sponge: You know what's more idiotic?


Just about every one of your posts?

Jared Loughner had no idea where to get those millions of mags you're ranting about. So he bought one in a store. It's not rocket science you know. A lunatic may not be thinking straight when he snaps. Would a ban keep gang members from getting them? No. Would it keep some of the nuts from getting them, quickly and easily, when they snap? Yes.

We have the right to a well-regulated militia. It's time for some meaningful regulation...
 
2013-01-03 06:49:28 PM  

The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: Because I learned from the Fark Militia that if you ban a weapon, the criminals will ignore the ban.


Or maybe you could learn something from reality.  How are those gun bans working out for Chicago?


Wow. Over 500 murders! How many of those murders were committed with fully automatic weapons, and how many were committed by legally purchased handguns? Or straw-purchased guns?

Feel free to keep digging.
 
2013-01-03 06:51:45 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: Because I learned from the Fark Militia that if you ban a weapon, the criminals will ignore the ban.


Or maybe you could learn something from reality.  How are those gun bans working out for Chicago?

Nice dodge. Care to reply to the question posed?



Any full autos that can be bought by civilians are a very limited market....the tax stamp is only $300, but a Thompson will cost $15,000+.  So having something that is rare and very expensive prevents mass shootings with those firearms.

However.....

There are MILLIONS of so-called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines out there.  Prices might go up after a ban, but they will not reach the price levels of full autos.  So unless you actually want the government to take them away from millions of decent gun owners, you aren't going to prevent some sick f*ck from getting them.

Now please answer my question regarding Chicago.
 
2013-01-03 06:54:28 PM  

pwhp_67: It's time for some meaningful regulation...


And 10 round mags aren't the answer.
 
2013-01-03 06:56:36 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: and how many were committed by legally purchased handguns? Or straw-purchased guns?


Exactly....their gun ban did jack shiat.
 
2013-01-03 06:57:27 PM  

The_Sponge: pwhp_67: It's time for some meaningful regulation...

And 10 round mags aren't the answer.



Not for you, sure, but you may be out-voted soon. Especially if that dick stays as head of the NRA...
 
2013-01-03 06:57:30 PM  

pwhp_67: Just about every one of your posts?


Awwww...the gun control pussy is getting cranky.  Is it time for your nap?
 
2013-01-03 06:58:40 PM  

pwhp_67: The_Sponge: pwhp_67: It's time for some meaningful regulation...

And 10 round mags aren't the answer.


Not for you, sure, but you may be out-voted soon. Especially if that dick stays as head of the NRA...



Oh yeah?  Well I'm not registering mine or turning them in if a hardcore ban passes.
 
2013-01-03 07:02:18 PM  

The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: and how many were committed by legally purchased handguns? Or straw-purchased guns?

Exactly....their gun ban did jack shiat.


It never occurs to you that the prevalence of weapons and huge loopholes/utter lack of regulation in transferring weapons from one owner to another makes it easier for criminals too? I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.

You would rather have a gunfight with the criminal.
 
2013-01-03 07:03:19 PM  

pwhp_67: Jared Loughner had no idea where to get those millions of mags you're ranting about. So he bought one in a store. It's not rocket science you know. A lunatic may not be thinking straight when he snaps. Would a ban keep gang members from getting them? No. Would it keep some of the nuts from getting them, quickly and easily, when they snap? Yes.



"Bbbbbbbut Loughner!"

Do you remember the Clinton ban?  Pre-ban mags were available to buy and sell during that time....I bought a few myself.

So what do you want?  People to turn in their magazines?  Prevent them for selling or giving them to others?

And you made an excellent point....gang members will still have them, and I refuse to get rid of mine if they still get to have theirs.
 
2013-01-03 07:07:23 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.



And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?
 
2013-01-03 07:25:34 PM  

pwhp_67: No, no it isn't. Nothing in there about extended magazines...


There are no limits or purpose set by the Second amendment. Its the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms that are limited in capacity, or are only good for hunting. You are attempting to impose limits on that right.

pwhp_67: And yes, it would have made a difference. Jared Loughner was tackled immediately after emptying his magazine...


Incorrect. His pistol malfunctioned. It had nothing to do with the capacity of the weapon. If you've ever seen anyone change magazines you would understand this. You're like an Amish trying to understand and put restrictions on a power plant.

pwhp_67: I don't know where some of you get the idea that you have a "right" to a particular size clip but it's an idiotic rebuttal...


Not nearly as idiotic as your fantasy that 10 round "clips" would somehow prevent crimes, and that this magical ten round clip would stop rampage killings, especially when you've been given a clear report that says that they wont. Arguing against overwhelming evidence is idiotic, belief in a right is not.

The question you should ask yourself is if you really care about stopping things like this, or if you're just using this as an excuse to try to force a bunch of people to do what you want with no real reason behind it, like Diane Fienstien is. If the answer is the first, than look other places for meaningful contributions and changes that might be beneficial. If the second, you're just another clueless douche that's not worth talking to, except, perhaps, as an example for others of the illogic of positions such as yours.
 
2013-01-03 07:26:50 PM  
For all the gun control advocates who like to say, "a gun has no purpose other than to kill" :

You have no idea how firearms are used, even in military combat.

I think it's safe to say that the US military knows something about the effective use of firearms, and it's generally estimated that a ton of ammunition is fired for every enemy casualty. Even in a firefight, the most effective way of using a firearm is to limit an opponent's range of motion. Its purpose is to say, "you really don't want to go there," in a way that even someone equipped and determined to kill you will respect.

If the public truly wants to limit gun violence -- especially "go out in a blaze of whatever" wankfests like the recent one -- there's one step toward a solution that's very inexpensive, very easy to implement, and has no significant legal consequences:

Stop treating guns as magic totems that grant the bearer absolute power over life and death.

Seriously.. what resentful sad sack itching to lash out at the world wouldn't want such a thing?

A selfish nobody is now the center of the nation's attention, and while it's true he's no longer around to 'enjoy' his notoriety, does anyone want to cite him as a prime example of thinking through the consequences of one's actions? In the meantime, every jackass in the nation with a tendency toward sloppy thinking has gotten a dose of operational reality that says, "if you want everyone's attention, this is how to do it."

If you want to steer people away from something, make it boring.. throw out the easy generalizations like "the only purpose of this device is to murder/destroy" and replace them with nice yawnfests full of math. Encourage discussions of tactics that allow a group of unarmed people to limit/distract/contain/disable an armed attacker.

In short, stop letting any selfish asshole with a gun (or any other weapon) set the rules everyone else will follow.  You control a situation by limiting the threat's options. You don't do it by reacting to the threat, and you don't do it by limiting the options of people/things that don't present any threat.

Change the terms of discussion. Don't waste effort looking for ways to nerf society to the point where no one can present a credible threat. To the extent that it's possible, the unintended consequences are undesirable. Start thinking about ways to give a random group of unarmed people more options than 'run', 'hide', 'wait for someone else to protect you', and 'hope the assailant runs out of bullets before he gets to you'.
 
2013-01-03 07:28:04 PM  
time to ban baseball
 
2013-01-03 07:33:53 PM  

The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.


And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?


Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.
 
2013-01-03 07:38:09 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.



Yeah, but then you still want bans.
 
2013-01-03 07:44:59 PM  

The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.


Yeah, but then you still want bans.


I know that you find it easier to argue about what you think I want, but it's not really good for productive discussion. How about we take a few steps with registration and mandatory background checks and see if it helps curb gun crimes?

You respond to every single suggestion with, "Nope, won't work. There are already too many guns. You're stealing my rights." I may not have the answers, but I refuse to believe that, "arm everybody" is the best solution.
 
2013-01-03 07:46:46 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.


And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?

Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.


We already have that, except for the gun show loophole, which needs to be closed.
 
2013-01-03 07:49:19 PM  

simplicimus: Uranus Is Huge!: The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.


And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?

Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.

We already have that, except for the gun show loophole, which needs to be closed.


Perfect. Considering the nature of this loophole makes is very difficult to determine how many sales occur through it, I'd say that's the place to start.
 
2013-01-03 07:50:03 PM  
Next, give the mandatory background checks some teeth.
 
2013-01-03 07:50:11 PM  
JungleBoogie: Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.

Phinn: This is the Leftist mindset in a nutshell.

People are not mechanical objects. They adapt. You simply cannot control people the way you can control the way that an airplane is constructed. If you think you can "ban" something, take a look at every other attempt at banning desirable things. Look at your ideology's record of abysmal failure.

Besides, where is all of your concern about avoidable deaths related to cars instead of airplanes? I don't see a massive political push to overhaul the mechanical standards, rules of use, procedures, training, enforcement and other design features of the traffic system.

Meanwhile 100 people per day are dying. Children are being buried. Limbs are amputated. Head injuries. People disabled for life. But I guess those deaths aren't politically valuable to you.



You are absolutely right about the carnage caused every day on the roads. Pretty much every other day, I read about someone killed on the roads in the DC metro area. A lot of those 30,000-some killed every year in car crashes are no doubt children. 82 people a day. 3 Newtowns every day.

If some good comes out of Newtown, a renewed focus on limiting traffic fatalities will emerge.

However, Newtown itself happened. A classroom full of 6 year olds were senselessly slaughtered, in addition to their teachers. Some changes need to be made to be sure that doesn't happen again. And if it means restricting access to certain types of grownup toys, then so be it. If it means commiting those with homicidal ideation, so be it.
 
2013-01-03 07:54:37 PM  

jst3p: the money is in the banana stand: jst3p: pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.

While I agree, I am curious what new measures would be taken now that previously have not been taken to identify and lock up crazies?

For starters, when a woman says her son is a danger take her a little more seriously and expidite the process of admitting him...

Link


Who denied her request? How do we ensure that doesn't happen (as often) in the future? I know it is a pain in the ass to deal with. A coworker of mine has a truly dysfunctional son. Her sister died of drug use and of course was on drugs while she had her son, so my coworker became the caretaker. The kid has always been messed up. It is like he doesn't understand right from wrong and does all sorts of farked up things. The police have been called out numerous times. It has taken her years to finally convince the state to help deal with him. She isn't very well off, so of course all of those institutions wouldn't help her because she didn't have the money for it. On top of that, she is still responsible for his actions when he was skipping school, burglarizing his neighbor's house etc. It is blatantly obvious the kid should be removed from society, yet no one is willing to touch him. She is worried about her well-being and her husband's.

I don't understand this.
 
2013-01-03 08:03:40 PM  

pwhp_67: simplicimus: I have a 25 round magazine for my .22 rifle, used at the practice range because reloading takes time.

So does burying 20 children. But thank god you aren't inconvenienced...


Dude... do you have any idea of how godlike your aim would have to be to actually kill someone with a .22 varmint round?

www.roanoke-chowan.com
That's actual size. It moves packs about 65 joules of energy.

Your average nail gun hits at well over 100 joules of energy. Do the math.

Oh, and 25 rounds has you worried?

year1shopfitting.wikispaces.com
 
2013-01-03 08:18:50 PM  
also according to the article more people were killed by "hands and feet" than by rifles. time to ban hands and feet.
 
2013-01-03 08:19:42 PM  
this whole rifle ban thing is nothing but pure sensationalism
 
2013-01-03 08:59:25 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: simplicimus: Uranus Is Huge!: The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.


And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?

Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.

We already have that, except for the gun show loophole, which needs to be closed.

Perfect. Considering the nature of this loophole makes is very difficult to determine how many sales occur through it, I'd say that's the place to start.


Sorry, but that sadly isn't true. In October, I went to a reputable sporting goods store and bought myself a new shotgun and duck hunting license on the same day. They happened in that order and were separate purchases.

I had to produce a government issued photo ID and my hunter/firearm safety training certificate in order to buy the duck hunting license. I didn't have to produce dick for the shotgun, other than my wallet. And unlike an airplane ticket, I'm allowed to pay for it in cash. I did register it, but there was ZERO background check as it isn't required. That's a shame.

The majority of legal gun-owners are reasonable people and do not resemble the stereotypes that some people wish them to be. It makes this debate much more entertaining for them that way.

But for the rest of us, we recognize that the truly politically feasible goal is to keep guns in the hands of the good guys, AND get them out of the hands of the bad guys. That means ending the gun show loophole, mandatory mental and criminal background checks of both parties before a transaction, and regular (maybe yearly) firearms permit recertification.

Regulate that all sales, including private sales, must have their paperwork notarized a local police department or at least a state certified gun dealer or before the transaction can complete. It'll basically be treated like a car title transfer, except all parties must have a valid license too. All transaction procedures should be regulated to include confirming the firearm's serial number and running a stolen gun check on every firearm.

Gun owners should also be required by law to report all stolen firearms in a timely fashion. Maintaining certification requires regularly checking all firearms are accounted for. Gun owners will be able to let the police know exactly what guns were stolen, including serial numbers (even if they forgot) because they'll be on file from the prior registration.

Finally, if someone chooses to ignore the rules and sells, fails to report stolen, or otherwise "loses" their gun without going through the legal steps, then if that firearm is used in the commission of a crime, they will be held at least partially accountable. Not for the crime itself, but for gross negligence.

This should help make burglarizing a home and stealing guns to be not so lucrative and help return more truly stolen guns back to their rightful owners. It should also end the era of loose gun laws that made Fast and Furious possible. It really gets me that Fox News was all in a tissy-fit that the 0FARTBAMA was sinisterly ALLOWING guns to go to Mexico.... Well, duh! It's no surprise guns were flowing into Mexico when any American meth head is perfectly within their legal right to buy 50 farking guns for "himself", take 3 steps outside the gun store, "decide" he doesn't want them anymore, and privately sell them (or "lose" them) to front men for Mexican drug cartels.

US citizens DO NOT have the right to privately sell firearms to people that have no 2nd amendment protection, and enabling criminals, foreign or otherwise, to shop for any gun they want with impunity is insane.
 
2013-01-03 09:33:53 PM  

oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!: simplicimus: Uranus Is Huge!: The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.


And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?

Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.

We already have that, except for the gun show loophole, which needs to be closed.

Perfect. Considering the nature of this loophole makes is very difficult to determine how many sales occur through it, I'd say that's the place to start.

Sorry, but that sadly isn't true. In October, I went to a reputable sporting goods store and bought myself a new shotgun and duck hunting license on the same day. They happened in that order and were separate purchases.

I had to produce a government issued photo ID and my hunter/firearm safety training certificate in order to buy the duck hunting license. I didn't have to produce dick for the shotgun, other than my wallet. And unlike an airplane ticket, I'm allowed to pay for it in cash. I did register it, but there was ZERO background check as it isn't required. That's a shame.

The majority of legal gun-owners are reasonable people and do not resemble the stereotypes that some people wish them to be. It makes this debate much more entertaining for them that way.

But for the rest of us, we recognize that the truly politically feasible goal is to keep guns in the hands of the good guys, AND get them out of the hands of the bad guys. That means ending the gun show loophole, mandatory mental and criminal background checks of both parties before a transaction, and regular (maybe yearly) firearms permit recertification.

Regulate that all sales, including private sales, must have their paperwork notarized a local police department or at least a state certified gun dealer or before the transaction can complete. It'll basically be treated like a car title transfer, except all parties must ...


Sounds like we agree. What am I missing?
 
2013-01-03 10:02:42 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: oldass31:
But for the rest of us, we recognize that the truly politically feasible goal is to keep guns in the hands of the good guys, AND get them out of the hands of the bad guys. That means ending the gun show loophole, mandatory mental and criminal background checks of both parties before a transaction, and regular (maybe yearly) firearms permit recertification.

Regulate that all sales, including private sales, must have their paperwork notarized a local police department or at least a state certified gun dealer or before the transaction can complete. It'll basically be treated like a car title transfer, except all pa ...

Sounds like we agree. What am I missing?


Nothing we can't work out. It'd help if people in mass media learned a little more about guns. I was watching Piers Morgan on CNN talking about gun control. He had a panel of experts on. One said something like, "now relax, we don't want to take away the hunting guns that hunters are using and enjoying". Another chimed in, "just all the semi-automatic weapons, because those represent the majority of gun-related murders".

Hearing that scares the shiat out of hunters like me and makes me very apprehensive of people in mass media professing for more gun control when they keep spewing nuanced conflictions like that. Every firearm I own is used by me for hunting, is primarily marketed for hunting, and is a semi-automatic. My deer rifle is 45 years old. Guess what? Semi-automatic. My point is that by not being very clear when speaking about proposed regulations to such a culturally sensitive subject, what we'll get is a political climate that is ultimately toxic and destructive to the future of any sensible gun laws.

Just a word of caution to the Piers Morgans out there.
 
2013-01-03 10:02:49 PM  
Phinn:

They just want the only people who have guns to collect a government paycheck (which you and I will pay for, by the way).

They do this because they want everyone to be as dependent on the State as possible.

Dependent for the money supply. Dependent for retirement income. Dependent for old age medical care, and now for all medical care.


queencityfamilyman.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-03 10:22:13 PM  
If more sane people were armed, the crazy people would get off fewer shots.
 
2013-01-03 10:26:32 PM  

oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!: oldass31:
But for the rest of us, we recognize that the truly politically feasible goal is to keep guns in the hands of the good guys, AND get them out of the hands of the bad guys. That means ending the gun show loophole, mandatory mental and criminal background checks of both parties before a transaction, and regular (maybe yearly) firearms permit recertification.

Regulate that all sales, including private sales, must have their paperwork notarized a local police department or at least a state certified gun dealer or before the transaction can complete. It'll basically be treated like a car title transfer, except all pa ...

Sounds like we agree. What am I missing?

Nothing we can't work out. It'd help if people in mass media learned a little more about guns. I was watching Piers Morgan on CNN talking about gun control. He had a panel of experts on. One said something like, "now relax, we don't want to take away the hunting guns that hunters are using and enjoying". Another chimed in, "just all the semi-automatic weapons, because those represent the majority of gun-related murders".

Hearing that scares the shiat out of hunters like me and makes me very apprehensive of people in mass media professing for more gun control when they keep spewing nuanced conflictions like that. Every firearm I own is used by me for hunting, is primarily marketed for hunting, and is a semi-automatic. My deer rifle is 45 years old. Guess what? Semi-automatic. My point is that by not being very clear when speaking about proposed regulations to such a culturally sensitive subject, what we'll get is a political climate that is ultimately toxic and destructive to the future of any sensible gun laws.

Just a word of caution to the Piers Morgans out there.


Can we agree that handguns are for shooting targets or people?
 
2013-01-04 12:35:41 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!:
Sounds like we agree. What am I missing?

Nothing we can't work out. It'd help if people in mass media learned a little more about guns. I was watching Piers Morgan on CNN talking about gun control. He had a panel of experts on. One said something like, "now relax, we don't want to take away the hunting guns that hunters are using and enjoying". Another chimed in, "just all the semi-automatic weapons, because those represent the majority of gun-related murders".

Hearing that scares the shiat out of hunters like me and makes me very apprehensive of people in mass media professing for more gun control when they keep spewing nuanced conflictions like that. Every firearm I own is used by me for hunting, is primarily marketed for hunting, and is a semi-automatic. My deer rifle is 45 years old. Guess what? Semi-automatic. My point is that by not being very clear when speaking about proposed regulations to such a culturally sensitive subject, what we'll get is a political climate that is ultimately toxic and destructive to the future of any sensible gun laws.

Just a word of caution to the Piers Morgans out there.

Can we agree that handguns are for shooting targets or people?


Absolutely. There is a small percentage of hunters that actually use them for hunting game when regulations allow, but the reasons are exceedingly exceptional. And handguns represent a disproportionately large percent of gun-related homicides in the US. Kinda like motorcycle fatalities.
 
2013-01-04 12:45:12 AM  
Well then why aren't we talking about handguns instead of ARs and SKSs?
 
2013-01-04 01:11:42 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Well then why aren't we talking about handguns instead of ARs and SKSs?


Sadly, it's because these mass murderers are using AR-15s with some frequency and because the mass media is only interested in covering mass murder. The MSM doesn't really care if a dozen innocent black or latino kids are being randomly gunned down in his or her own neighborhood every single day. And ostensibly, neither does the audience, or at least not enough to make a difference.

If the Sandy Hook shooter had used handguns like the Virginia Tech shooter did, things might be different. Also, extremists aren't interested in steering conversation and debating for the sake of finding common ground and a trying workable solution. They're in it for the sake of debating, arguing, and calling each other "idiot".
 
2013-01-04 01:48:58 AM  

oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!: oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!:
Can we agree that handguns are for shooting targets or people?

Absolutely. There is a small percentage of hunters that actually use them for hunting game when regulations allow, but the reasons are exceedingly exceptional. And handguns represent a disproportionately large percent of gun-related homicides in the US. Kinda like motorcycle fatalities.


Point of order - I carry a handgun (.44 Redhawk) out in the Alaskan bush for defense, not hunting. Grant you, my 300 winmag or 308 would be better up against a 600+ pound bear, but it's hard to strap a hunting rifle to your hip while tending camp.

Not nit-picking, just saying handguns are useful for more than just "killin people".
 
2013-01-04 03:14:41 AM  
Given the NRA's very specific definition of rifle as opposed to any other firearm, I'm not surprised.

Statistical deception is still lying. Because most NRA members consider themselves to be Christians, I sure they are using Jesus as an example. After all, Jesus was a f**king liar just like them. Am I right? I have yet to have a "Christian" prove to me, by example, that Jesus was not a liar. Ever.
 
2013-01-04 03:24:49 AM  

Skyd1v: oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!: oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!:
Can we agree that handguns are for shooting targets or people?

Absolutely. There is a small percentage of hunters that actually use them for hunting game when regulations allow, but the reasons are exceedingly exceptional. And handguns represent a disproportionately large percent of gun-related homicides in the US. Kinda like motorcycle fatalities.

Point of order - I carry a handgun (.44 Redhawk) out in the Alaskan bush for defense, not hunting. Grant you, my 300 winmag or 308 would be better up against a 600+ pound bear, but it's hard to strap a hunting rifle to your hip while tending camp.

Not nit-picking, just saying handguns are useful for more than just "killin people".


Yes, of course. While you're not using the .44 explicitly for hunting, your reason for carrying it is most certainly exceptional! And there are always exceptions. Without exception. Exception.
 
2013-01-04 08:08:20 AM  

Chummer45: The only thing you can use a 5.56 assault rifle to hunt is maybe coyotes or other varmints


That must explain why its the weapon of choice for the US Military to kill human beings up to 500 yards+ out... because its only good for shooting varmints.

Im not suggesting its a popular hunting rifle. I'm just suggesting you're stupid. It's none of your damn business why I have an ar-15. Maybe I enjoy target shooting a weapon you can drive nails with using iron sites at 300 yards. Maybe after 8 years in the Marines I'm entitled to own a dummed-down version of the weapon I used for 8 years.
Maybe I feel that yes.. at some point in the next 50 years of my life...a few more fiscal cliffs & deficits soaring until our economy callapses or we get invaded successfully... its concievable that defending my home & family from everything from roving gangs of ararchal (is that a word ? ) vagrants... or foreign troops might actually be a possibilty.

Maybe you're only suggesting we just take ar-15/ ak-47s... which in itself is bad enough. But the legislation reaches MUCH further. Actually reading and understanding what they're trying to ban would shut most poeple up that keep saying "BUT THEY ONLY WANT MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLES??? WHY DO U NEED AN UZI >?????"

But explaining it to someone that clearly doesn't understand guns can be exhausting.
 
2013-01-04 08:16:46 AM  

rosebud_the_sled: Given the NRA's very specific definition of rifle as opposed to any other firearm, I'm not surprised.

Statistical deception is still lying. Because most NRA members consider themselves to be Christians, I sure they are using Jesus as an example. After all, Jesus was a f**king liar just like them. Am I right? I have yet to have a "Christian" prove to me, by example, that Jesus was not a liar. Ever.


Assault rifles are rifles genius and are therefore included in these statistics. Note... INCLUDED... not entirely responsibile.. just INCLUDED.

You're trying to legislate out of existence a type of weapon that... a couple tragic incidents aside... is NOT responsible for a statistically signifigant number of deaths. You are doing this NOT in the name of saving lives... but in the name of making scary looking guns illegal and disarming a signifigant percentage of the population which interestingly enough tend to be people on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the folks proposing & supporting the legislation.
 
2013-01-04 08:32:51 AM  

BHShaman: Chummer45: 5.56

You don't use 5.56 ASSAULT (anything) to hunt. Assault = full auto.

The use of the word ASSAULT is a slight of hand marketing term used to attach thoughts of military and terrorist activities to otherwise non-descript semi-auto firearms.

Instead of saying things like; detachable magazine, folding stock, high capacity magazines that people would hear about and say... "well, my little .22 has a detachable high capacity magazine".... they say ASSAULT RIFLE.

My little .22. Remington Nylon 66 from the 70s will be negated.

Amazingly some people use firearms for target shooting, not activities that actually kill anything.
For those people the 5.56 is a good medium round. Not quite so light as the .22 but not so expensive as the .30cal rounds.

I know it escapes some people, but not all firearms are used for hunting/killing...
as not all vehicles are used for commuting back and forth to work.



Oh ok. I see. You don't like the term "assault" because it makes AR-15s seem more scary. You want to make them seem less scary/effective. Good PR effort on your part.

I was just wondering one thing, though.... what exactly does the "AR" stand for in "AR-15?"
 
2013-01-04 08:36:12 AM  
Jesus, this thread is full of derp.

"BUT GUNS ARE REALLY COOL AND FUN! MY HOBBY IS TOTALLY WORTH HAVING SO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS! DON'T TREAD ON ME!"

Everyone keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-01-04 08:36:29 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DeathCipris: Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu

Is it wrong that I want to see a grown man stroll into a school and try to kung-fu everybody to death?

No. It's not wrong. Because it would be comical as all hell, I'm certain.


I think you covered it here.
 
2013-01-04 08:42:00 AM  

Chummer45: Jesus, this thread is full of derp.

"BUT GUNS ARE REALLY COOL AND FUN! MY HOBBY IS TOTALLY WORTH HAVING SO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS! DON'T TREAD ON ME!"

Everyone keep farking that chicken.


The mass shootings are a consequence of freedom. The only way to reduce the danger is to reduce freedoms. I err on the side of not reducing freedoms for the chirrin.

/not being snarky.
 
2013-01-04 08:46:20 AM  

Chummer45:
Oh ok. I see. You don't like the term "assault" because it makes AR-15s seem more scary. You want to make them seem less scary/effective. Good PR effort on your part.

I was just wondering one thing, though.... what exactly does the "AR" stand for in "AR-15?"


AR stands for ArmaLite (the company that designed it along with many other AR-# guns). Don't let that stop your derp though.


The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10, designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild ArmaLite corporation.[9] The AR-15 was developed as a lighter, 5.56 mm version of the AR-10. The "AR" in AR-15 comes from the ArmaLite name. ArmaLite's AR-1, AR-5, and some subsequent models were bolt action rifles, the AR-7 a semiautomatic survival rifle and there are shotguns and pistols whose model numbers include the "AR" prefix.[9]
 
2013-01-04 08:47:53 AM  

rosebud_the_sled: Given the NRA's very specific definition of rifle as opposed to any other firearm, I'm not surprised.

Statistical deception is still lying. Because most NRA members consider themselves to be Christians, I sure they are using Jesus as an example. After all, Jesus was a f**king liar just like them. Am I right? I have yet to have a "Christian" prove to me, by example, that Jesus was not a liar. Ever.


By the NRA do you actually mean the FBI? Because that is where the statistics come from. But please continue ranting on.
 
2013-01-04 09:09:18 AM  

Chummer45: "BUT GUNS ARE REALLY COOL AND FUN! MY HOBBY IS TOTALLY WORTH HAVING SO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS! DON'T TREAD ON ME!"


Actually, it's far more important to be able to kill people who are trying to kill you.

But please, continue with your argument about how rare it is that someone may try to kill you, at the same time you go hysterical about how frequently people are being killed.
 
2013-01-04 09:11:34 AM  

oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!: Well then why aren't we talking about handguns instead of ARs and SKSs?

Sadly, it's because these mass murderers are using AR-15s with some frequency and because the mass media is only interested in covering mass murder. The MSM doesn't really care if a dozen innocent black or latino kids are being randomly gunned down in his or her own neighborhood every single day. And ostensibly, neither does the audience, or at least not enough to make a difference.

If the Sandy Hook shooter had used handguns like the Virginia Tech shooter did, things might be different. Also, extremists aren't interested in steering conversation and debating for the sake of finding common ground and a trying workable solution. They're in it for the sake of debating, arguing, and calling each other "idiot".


More to the point, its about who owns the guns.
Conservatives currently own a big number of the gun votes (gun ownership being big among traditionalists). Liberals are attacking the evil AR as an inroad into banning what the left sees as a luxury item.
Unfortunately for them, machining has advanced and turned the armalite into the standard for civilian carbines. The right sees the left going after the very hunting and self defense rifles they previously claimed to have no interest in.

This brings out the slippery slope and don't tread on me responses.
Emotional arguments beget equally emotional counter arguments.
 
2013-01-04 09:17:07 AM  

oldass31:

Sorry, but that sadly isn't true. In October, I went to a reputable sporting goods store and bought myself a new shotgun and duck hunting license on the same day. They happened in that order and were separate purchases.

I had to produce a government issued photo ID and my hunter/firearm safety training certificate in order to buy the duck hunting license. I didn't have to produce dick for the shotgun, other than my wallet. And unlike an airplane ticket, I'm allowed to pay for it in cash. I did register it, but there was ZERO background check as it isn't required. That's a shame.



*cough*bullshiat*cough*

A "reputable" sporting goods store buying and selling firearms has a Fedeal Firearms license and is required by Federal law to have you complete a form 4473 and submit you to a background check. Some states have an exemption for the background check portion for certain permit holders but they are not exempt from the 4473 process.

A non-reputable sporting goods store buys and sell firearms without a Federal Firearms license and would not follow the process outlined above.

So did you go to a reputable store or not? Please provide the name of the establishment and the state in which it operates.

Also, please tell us how you registered your new shotgun.
 
2013-01-04 09:23:29 AM  

way south: This brings out the slippery slope and don't tread on me responses.
Emotional arguments beget equally emotional counter arguments.


As I see it, it's more like "The Left has so thoroughly demonstrated that they are fully prepared to lie about their true agenda that their pattern of deception begets everyone else realizing that negotiating with liars and control freaks is pointless and deciding not to trust them any longer."

This is what happens when you have no credibility. Watching a Progg attempt to persuade you that his latest Progg agenda idea is motivated by a sincere desire to save lives, it's sorta like watching a guy who weighs 600 pounds and eats KFC morning, noon and night trying to sell you his quick and easy fitness and nutrition plan. No credibility.

When you run out of credibility, the only thing left to get your way is brute force.
 
2013-01-04 09:29:42 AM  

Delectatio Morosa: oldass31:

Sorry, but that sadly isn't true. In October, I went to a reputable sporting goods store and bought myself a new shotgun and duck hunting license on the same day. They happened in that order and were separate purchases.

I had to produce a government issued photo ID and my hunter/firearm safety training certificate in order to buy the duck hunting license. I didn't have to produce dick for the shotgun, other than my wallet. And unlike an airplane ticket, I'm allowed to pay for it in cash. I did register it, but there was ZERO background check as it isn't required. That's a shame.


*cough*bullshiat*cough*

A "reputable" sporting goods store buying and selling firearms has a Fedeal Firearms license and is required by Federal law to have you complete a form 4473 and submit you to a background check. Some states have an exemption for the background check portion for certain permit holders but they are not exempt from the 4473 process.

A non-reputable sporting goods store buys and sell firearms without a Federal Firearms license and would not follow the process outlined above.

So did you go to a reputable store or not? Please provide the name of the establishment and the state in which it operates.

Also, please tell us how you registered your new shotgun.


Yes, I was just questioning his story myself. As a FFL holder, I can tell you NOTHING goes out of my shop without a call for a NICS check first. M&P 15 or single shot 410. Doesn't matter.
 
2013-01-04 12:15:43 PM  

thetubameister: thetubameister:

Banning an AR-15, however, doesn't seem ludicrous, because the cowardly could still own their 12 gauge or rifle and still "hunt" and "target practice"... but they wouldn't take out quite so many bystanders when someone takes their parking spot. And they'd still have their "kicking Uncle Sam's ass" fantasies to masturbate to.


I own an "AR-15", and I enjoy shooting it at the range. 1.How exactly does that make me a coward and 2. since it is legal for me to own and use responsibly, why wouldn't I find it ludicrous to have my own personal property banned?

You want to ban stuff, fine...but maybe try and make a point beyond "gun owners are horrible people".
 
2013-01-04 02:26:35 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Mikey1969: thetubameister: Actually, this diatribe and "powerful" defense marks one of us a coward... and it ain't me. I know, for instance, that CT was an anomaly. And I also think you will get what you expect from people and society. So... I'm not planning to be shot, and I'm not walk around afraid with a weapon. Courage... what does it mean again?

Go practice your bogeyman removal device...

So what you're saying is that you don't have an answer...

Thanks for playing.

He asked a question?

Here, I'll quote it for you and explain how you would recognize a question in a crowded room...

Why is target practice in quotes? Regardless of WHY someone is at the range, whether it is to shot your pussy, paranoid, scared little church girl ass, or if it is just a hobby, they are still out improving their aim with the weapon. It's still target practice, no matter what you think of guns in general.

See that little symbol that has been bolded and supersized?
So which is it?

/^^^^^Look, it's another question mark!!^^^^^


Didn't think it merited a response... I thought it rhetorical... but I put target practice in quotes because it's practice not, IMHO for inanimate targets but for biological ones.
 
2013-01-04 02:43:32 PM  

thetubameister: Didn't think it merited a response... I thought it rhetorical... but I put target practice in quotes because it's practice not, IMHO for inanimate targets but for biological ones.


Good thing your humble opinion doesn't really matter, then.


BTW, it's STILL target practice, whether I'm going to shoot elk, or am content to plug away at paper targets. Not that I expect you to understand these higher grade concepts.
 
2013-01-04 02:48:04 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Didn't think it merited a response... I thought it rhetorical... but I put target practice in quotes because it's practice not, IMHO for inanimate targets but for biological ones.

Good thing your humble opinion doesn't really matter, then.


BTW, it's STILL target practice, whether I'm going to shoot elk, or am content to plug away at paper targets. Not that I expect you to understand these higher grade concepts.


Kind of like not being able to infer an obvious explanation...
 
KIA
2013-01-04 07:07:55 PM  

12monkeys: Keep pulling those stats out of your ass and falsely claiming that your source is the FBI! It's really helping your case, gun advocates!


Way to cherry-pick data from ten years ago when the rates have been falling for the past ten years. Check your own data post-2005 and after the expiration of the prior AWB.
 
2013-01-04 07:40:37 PM  

Phinn: This is what happens when you have no credibility. Watching a Progg attempt to persuade you that his latest Progg agenda idea is motivated by a sincere desire to save lives, it's sorta like watching a guy who weighs 600 pounds and eats KFC morning, noon and night trying to sell you his quick and easy fitness and nutrition plan. No credibility.


Not really, the KFC guy might have actually done some research in the interest of losing weight before he explodes like a water balloon full of grease. It's more like the guy tries to sell people on a weight loss pill that he proclaims truly works, because he tested it and lost weight down to a slim 180 pounds (no pictures, though), plus it totally doesn't have any tapeworm eggs in it, like all those other weight loss pills had.

/eating less and exercising is so old and busted
//bad for the environment too, the food you don't eat just ends up rotting, and the food you do eat is all GM to be low-calorie
 
Displayed 431 of 431 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report