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  
•       •       •

8337 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report