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

(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  
•       •       •

8360 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 11:14 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 431 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report