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

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