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  
•       •       •

8364 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 02:53:04 PM  

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

LOL WAT???????

That means something like the forward grip on the upper rifle in this picture:
[photos.gunsamerica.com image 850x459]


I know what the descption is, but a pistol grip is the grip back by the trigger, you know the one that looks like the grip of a pistol, hence pistol grip.

A fore grip is called a fore grip, because it's a grip on the forward part of the gun.

I know it's hard, especially for politicians, to understand that words mean things, but they do!

When you write legislation without even a basic knowledge of a subject you are, in fact, much more dangerous to society as a whole than Adam Lanza ever was. The pen is far mightier that the sword (or gun in this case).
 
2013-01-03 02:55:15 PM  
Firethorn: FitzShivering: To be fair, if you remember gang and drug related crimes, a great deal of the "high crimes" we have as a nation drop down sensibly.

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


You can segregate it further. If you remove '_young_ black male' we're actually generally safer than a lot of countries we look bad against now. Of course, I know that leads to people going, "OMG the problem is young black males!" which is the easy way out. If, in general, you remove violence and crimes committed in the _poorest areas_ of the country, immaterial of the race of people, you end up with a near utopia, with the closest thing next being domestic violence (which also conflates largely). This is also true of many other places. But then I get lumped into that group of people who like to talk about "economics" when we discuss crime, which I believe makes me a liberal pantywaist or some such.

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


Middle America, now it's a tragedy, now it's so sad to see an upper class city having this happen.
/yeah, quoting Eminem, get over it Farkers ;)


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


Correct. Though I'd start with 4.
 
2013-01-03 02:56:24 PM  

JungleBoogie: mongbiohazard: sn't that what you're trying to do though? School shootings are horrible, but statistically speaking they're exceptional events. How many people die a year in school shootings vs. how many die from other things like.... Medical errors? More run-of-the-mill murders? Traffic fatalities? Domestic violence? Accidental falls? The flu?

Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.


Right. Exactly like folks are doing when they suggest we do something about the shoddy state of mental health care in our country.

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, we should probably disarm more people who had nothing to do with this attack, and never will."
 
2013-01-03 02:59:12 PM  
What if I want to shoot people AND build a house at the same time? Is there a product that suits my needs?
qwdrama.quakeworld.nu
There is!
 
2013-01-03 03:00:25 PM  
I'm raising the BS flag on this...

The headline is clearly mistated. Guns are by far the most responsible for the most homices.
2011
All Firearms: 8583
Knives or cutting instruments: 1732
Blunt Objects: 549

The article attempts to distinguish between hammers and rifles, but skews the data. He uses the whole category for blunt objects (549) - this includes more than just hammers.

This figure is then compared to the number of homicides specifically attributed to rifles (367).

However, there is still a large number of deaths attributed to "firearms, type not stated" (1933) at least some of these were likely commited with a rifle.

Bottom line, the article is overstatig the number of homicides with hammers and potentially understating the number of homicides commited with a rifle.
 
2013-01-03 03:01:02 PM  

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

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

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

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


That's a lot to surmise from one short sentence... and you've made an incorrect series of assumptions.

It was a parody of the idea of banning hammers, which would leave us no means of assembling bird houses and such. Banning an AR-15, however, doesn't seem ludicrous, because the cowardly could still own their 12 gauge or rifle and still "hunt" and "target practice"... but they wouldn't take out quite so many bystanders when someone takes their parking spot. And they'd still have their "kicking Uncle Sam's ass" fantasies to masturbate to.
 
2013-01-03 03:01:07 PM  

Bontesla: I didn't realize the nationwide sale of nuclear weapons was so rampant. Oh wait. It's not because we've banned personal use of nuclear weapons.


Really man? Comparing guns to nuclear weapons? So based on your theory, if we banned alcohol then no one would drink - sort of like how the prohibition worked right? If we banned smoking, the drug problem would go away? Illegal is illegal, no matter what you do, the illegal parts will remain. What proper gun control does do is help ensure that it is not EASY for someone with bad intentions to acquire a fire arm, and help ensure that those with firearms are responsible. Proper gun control or the ban of firearms will not stop guns from being purchased illegally.

Wow. You are a TotalFarker and a TotalMoran.
 
2013-01-03 03:06:24 PM  

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

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

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


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

Well obviously the outlier must prove the rule then.


Isn't that what you're trying to do though? School shootings are horrible, but statistically speaking they're exceptional events. How many people die a year in school shootings vs. how many die from other things like.... Medical errors? More run-of-the-mill murders? Traffic fatalities? Domestic violence? Accidental falls? The flu?

So how come you're suggesting we further erode the Bill of Rights for something which is so rare that it is, in your words, an outlier? A law, which even if it would work 100% as you hope (which it won't and doesn't in many other countries) would still not make a blip in our yearly death rate that you could distinguish from the noise? Especially when solutions which DO make some amount of sense (such as increasing the availability and access of people to mental health care across society) would also positively impact our society in other ways as well?


Cool story bro except that wasn't my point at all. I'm saying it's disingenuous to say that firearms are less efficient to kill people than gas, hammers, knives, or homemade bombs. If gun proponents truly believe that, then they should put away their sidearms and strap on a tool belt. It's more effective anyway amirite?
 
2013-01-03 03:08:12 PM  

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

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

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

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

That's a lot to surmise from one short sentence... and you've made an incorrect series of assumptions.

It was a parody of the idea of banning hammers, which would leave us no means of assembling bird houses and such. Banning an AR-15, however, doesn't seem ludicrous, because the cowardly could still own their 12 gauge or rifle and still "hunt" and "target practice"... but they wouldn't take out quite so many bystanders when someone takes their parking spot. And they'd still have their "kicking Uncle Sam's ass" fantasies to masturbate to.


Not a lot of target practice with a 12 gauge. I have a 25 round magazine for my .22 rifle, used at the practice range because reloading takes time. Liberal Democrat here.
 
2013-01-03 03:14:37 PM  

simplicimus: I have a 25 round magazine for my .22 rifle, used at the practice range because reloading takes time.



So does burying 20 children. But thank god you aren't inconvenienced...
 
2013-01-03 03:18:48 PM  

thetubameister: Banning an AR-15, however, doesn't seem ludicrous, because the cowardly could still own their 12 gauge or rifle and still "hunt" and "target practice"... but they wouldn't take out quite so many bystanders when someone takes their parking spot. And they'd still have their "kicking Uncle Sam's ass" fantasies to masturbate to.


Now who's making assumptions?

Explain one idiotic part of your post, and I'll let you wander off and diddle the dog in the corner...


Why is target practice in quotes? Regardless of WHY someone is at the range, whether it is to shot your pussy, paranoid, scared little church girl ass, or if it is just a hobby, they are still out improving their aim with the weapon. It's still target practice, no matter what you think of guns in general.

Better look out, someone might jump out from behind a bush and scare you at any minute, make you wet yourself because they have a phone in their hand and you thought it was a gun... I mean, you sound REALLY concerned.
 
2013-01-03 03:21:05 PM  

simplicimus: Not a lot of target practice with a 12 gauge. I have a 25 round magazine for my .22 rifle, used at the practice range because reloading takes time. Liberal Democrat here.


These dipshiats don't understand the concept, don't waste your time. They all pretend to be "experts" that know if you can't hit something at 4,000 years the first time you ever shoot a gun with a bolt action and crooked sights, that's just going to have to be the way you go through life, because they think you should only get one bullet. Oh, and they'll try and blame YOU for every person who has ever died from a gunshot, because they're just that stupid and scared.
 
2013-01-03 03:23:05 PM  

pwhp_67: simplicimus: I have a 25 round magazine for my .22 rifle, used at the practice range because reloading takes time.


So does burying 20 children. But thank god you aren't inconvenienced...


I haven't killed anyone. And the argument on magazine size is just silly. I could by extra, smaller, magazines and reload quickly.
 
2013-01-03 03:24:05 PM  
simplicimus: And the argument on magazine size is just silly. I could by extra, smaller, magazines and reload quickly.

So why don't you, instead of needing high capacity magazines?

That's an equally silly rebuttal.
 
2013-01-03 03:24:36 PM  

Mikey1969: Better look out, someone might jump out from behind a bush and scare you at any minute, make you wet yourself



Is that why you guys all own so many guns? Because you scare easy and the world is a frightening place for you?


I thought it was just because you couldn't afford sports cars...
 
2013-01-03 03:27:53 PM  

Phinn: natas6.0: Ah! I get it now

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

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

you coulda saved dittybopper and others a whole lotta internet breath

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Gun control" is just another way to make more people more state-dependent in yet another critical area of our daily lives; in this case personal security.


By now you should have drowned on that load of horse shiat. Probably while watching Fox "News".
 
2013-01-03 03:30:04 PM  

LasersHurt: simplicimus: And the argument on magazine size is just silly. I could by extra, smaller, magazines and reload quickly.

So why don't you, instead of needing high capacity magazines?

That's an equally silly rebuttal.


Expense. My .22 has an internal hold of 8 rounds and is specific to my rifle. The bigger magazine was a lot cheaper than buying more gun specific smaller magazines.
 
2013-01-03 03:35:25 PM  

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

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

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


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

Well obviously the outlier must prove the rule then.


Isn't that what you're trying to do though? School shootings are horrible, but statistically speaking they're exceptional events. How many people die a year in school shootings vs. how many die from other things like.... Medical errors? More run-of-the-mill murders? Traffic fatalities? Domestic violence? Accidental falls? The flu?

So how come you're suggesting we further erode the Bill of Rights for something which is so rare that it is, in your words, an outlier? A law, which even if it would work 100% as you hope (which it won't and doesn't in many other countries) would still not make a blip in our yearly death rate that you could distinguish from the noise? Especially when solutions which DO make some amount of sense (such as increasing the availability and access of people to mental health care across society) would also positively impact our society in other ways as well?

Cool story bro except that wasn't my point at all. I'm saying it's disingenuous to say that firearms are less efficient to kill people than gas, hammers, knives, or homemade bombs. If gun proponents truly believe that, then they should put away their sidearms and strap on a tool belt. It's more effective anyway amirite?



Hate to have to explain this again, but you're still arguing about eroding the Bill of Rights in a futile attempt to stop events which are literally less likely to kill someone than a lightning strike. So don't be all surprised when you try and pretend like something didn't happen which conflicts with one of your arguments because it's an "outlier". Your entire premise is predicated upon changing the laws which govern 370 million people in response to a rare outlier in our society.

As far as the efficiency goes, your facile suggestion that gun proponents put away their firearms because bombs and fires are more efficient at mass murdering people would only make sense if gun proponents were also pro-mass murder. Gun proponents simply want law-abiding citizens to have the right to be armed so they have the means to defend themselves and others if necessary, not to have the right to mass murder. Honestly, as far as false equivalencies go you're really taking the cake...
 
2013-01-03 03:36:36 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Banning an AR-15, however, doesn't seem ludicrous, because the cowardly could still own their 12 gauge or rifle and still "hunt" and "target practice"... but they wouldn't take out quite so many bystanders when someone takes their parking spot. And they'd still have their "kicking Uncle Sam's ass" fantasies to masturbate to.

Now who's making assumptions?

Explain one idiotic part of your post, and I'll let you wander off and diddle the dog in the corner...

Why is target practice in quotes? Regardless of WHY someone is at the range, whether it is to shot your pussy, paranoid, scared little church girl ass, or if it is just a hobby, they are still out improving their aim with the weapon. It's still target practice, no matter what you think of guns in general.

Better look out, someone might jump out from behind a bush and scare you at any minute, make you wet yourself because they have a phone in their hand and you thought it was a gun... I mean, you sound REALLY concerned.


Actually, this diatribe and "powerful" defense marks one of us a coward... and it ain't me. I know, for instance, that CT was an anomaly. And I also think you will get what you expect from people and society. So... I'm not planning to be shot, and I'm not walk around afraid with a weapon. Courage... what does it mean again?

Go practice your bogeyman removal device...
 
2013-01-03 03:39:55 PM  

JungleBoogie: Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.


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

This is the Leftist mindset in a nutshell.

People are not mechanical objects. They adapt. You simply cannot control people the way you can control the way that an airplane is constructed. If you think you can "ban" something, take a look at every other attempt at banning desirable things. Look at your ideology's record of abysmal failure.

Besides, where is all of your concern about avoidable deaths related to cars instead of airplanes? I don't see a massive political push to overhaul the mechanical standards, rules of use, procedures, training, enforcement and other design features of the traffic system.

Meanwhile 100 people per day are dying. Children are being buried. Limbs are amputated. Head injuries. People disabled for life. But I guess those deaths aren't politically valuable to you.

You ignore those deaths, just so you neener-neener your political opponents, rally around your vacationing President and cheer him on. Does it make you feel warm in your naughty place to win your petty political victories?

How can you be so callous?
 
2013-01-03 03:44:05 PM  

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

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

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


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

Well obviously the outlier must prove the rule then.


Isn't that what you're trying to do though? School shootings are horrible, but statistically speaking they're exceptional events. How many people die a year in school shootings vs. how many die from other things like.... Medical errors? More run-of-the-mill murders? Traffic fatalities? Domestic violence? Accidental falls? The flu?

So how come you're suggesting we further erode the Bill of Rights for something which is so rare that it is, in your words, an outlier? A law, which even if it would work 100% as you hope (which it won't and doesn't in many other countries) would still not make a blip in our yearly death rate that you could distinguish from the noise? Especially when solutions which DO make some amount of sense (such as increasing the availability and access of people to mental health care across society) would also positively impact our society in other ways as well?

Cool story bro except that wasn't my point at all. I'm saying it's disingenuous to say that firearms are less efficient to kill people than gas, hammers, knives, or homemade bombs. If gun proponents truly believe that, then they should put away their sidearms and strap on a tool belt. It's more effective anyway amirite?


Hate to have to explain this again, but you're still arguing about eroding the Bill of Rights in a futile attempt to stop events which are literally less likely to kill someone than a lightning strike. So don't be all surprised when you try and pretend like something didn't happen which conflicts with one of your arguments because it's an "outlier". Your entire premise is predicated upon changing the laws which govern 370 million people in response to a rare outlier in our society.

As far as the efficiency goes, your facile suggestion that gun proponents put away their firearms because bombs and fires are more efficient at mass murdering people would only make sense if gun proponents were also pro-mass murder. Gun proponents simply want law-abiding citizens to have the right to be armed so they have the means to defend themselves and others if necessary, not to have the right to mass murder. Honestly, as far as false equivalencies go you're really taking the cake...


Do you miss the point on purpose or are you really this obtuse? Where did I say I want to erode anything? My whole point is that saying that hammers and gas are more effective is pants on head retarded.
 
2013-01-03 03:46:37 PM  

pwhp_67: Mikey1969: Better look out, someone might jump out from behind a bush and scare you at any minute, make you wet yourself


Is that why you guys all own so many guns? Because you scare easy and the world is a frightening place for you?


I thought it was just because you couldn't afford sports cars...


Nope, but continue making ASSumptions, it just demonstrates your ignorance.
 
2013-01-03 03:46:52 PM  

Phinn: JungleBoogie: Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.

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

This is the Leftist mindset in a nutshell.

People are not mechanical objects. They adapt. You simply cannot control people the way you can control the way that an airplane is constructed. If you think you can "ban" something, take a look at every other attempt at banning desirable things. Look at your ideology's record of abysmal failure.

Besides, where is all of your concern about avoidable deaths related to cars instead of airplanes? I don't see a massive political push to overhaul the mechanical standards, rules of use, procedures, training, enforcement and other design features of the traffic system.

Meanwhile 100 people per day are dying. Children are being buried. Limbs are amputated. Head injuries. People disabled for life. But I guess those deaths aren't politically valuable to you.

You ignore those deaths, just so you neener-neener your political opponents, rally around your vacationing President and cheer him on. Does it make you feel warm in your naughty place to win your petty political victories?

How can you be so callous?


Your imagination appears to be a violent place.

Phinn - when you need to understand the liberal mind.
 
2013-01-03 03:49:12 PM  
If hammers are so dangerous, then people should just use hammers to defend themselves and their homes then.
 
2013-01-03 03:49:39 PM  

Phinn: ...rally around your vacationing President...


If you're an American, he's your president too. And there's nothing you can do about it.

Nothing.

Suck on that.
 
2013-01-03 03:51:01 PM  

Tryfan: If hammers are so dangerous, then people should just use hammers to defend themselves and their homes then.


But hammers should only be used at specific times, maybe "Hammer periods".
 
2013-01-03 03:51:56 PM  

pwhp_67: simplicimus: I have a 25 round magazine for my .22 rifle, used at the practice range because reloading takes time.


So does burying 20 children. But thank god you aren't inconvenienced...


When it comes down to it, both can be done quickly with enough practice.
 
2013-01-03 03:51:56 PM  

Phinn: JungleBoogie: Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.

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

This is the Leftist mindset in a nutshell.

People are not mechanical objects. They adapt. You simply cannot control people the way you can control the way that an airplane is constructed. If you think you can "ban" something, take a look at every other attempt at banning desirable things. Look at your ideology's record of abysmal failure.

Besides, where is all of your concern about avoidable deaths related to cars instead of airplanes? I don't see a massive political push to overhaul the mechanical standards, rules of use, procedures, training, enforcement and other design features of the traffic system.

Meanwhile 100 people per day are dying. Children are being buried. Limbs are amputated. Head injuries. People disabled for life. But I guess those deaths aren't politically valuable to you.

You ignore those deaths, just so you neener-neener your political opponents, rally around your vacationing President and cheer him on. Does it make you feel warm in your naughty place to win your petty political victories?

How can you be so callous?


You're so full of shiat. Good idea pointing out cars and airplanes, two of the most heavily regulated industries in this country. Let's apply some similar rules to gun ownership shall we? We'll start with:

1) Mandatory licensing for purchasing guns. Safety and aptitude tests required.
2) Liability Insurance
3) Mandatory safety measures on the guns themselves ie safeties, trigger locks, etc. (seat belts? brakes?)
 
2013-01-03 04:02:15 PM  
I'm a gun owner, but willing to consider rational limits on ownership.

I'm NOT willing to click on those lying farkwads at Breitbart.
If they're telling the truth about something, it's probably by accident.
 
2013-01-03 04:03:47 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: And there's nothing you can do about it.



I don't know. Shaking a tiny fist in impotent rage is something, isn't it?
 
2013-01-03 04:03:58 PM  
I prefer to go deer hunting with a good quality hammer.
 
2013-01-03 04:06:37 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 04:12:09 PM  

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

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


37 , but not in a row
 
2013-01-03 04:15:34 PM  

thetubameister: Actually, this diatribe and "powerful" defense marks one of us a coward... and it ain't me. I know, for instance, that CT was an anomaly. And I also think you will get what you expect from people and society. So... I'm not planning to be shot, and I'm not walk around afraid with a weapon. Courage... what does it mean again?

Go practice your bogeyman removal device...


So what you're saying is that you don't have an answer...

Thanks for playing.
 
2013-01-03 04:27:55 PM  

Fart_Machine: Do you miss the point on purpose or are you really this obtuse? Where did I say I want to erode anything? My whole point is that saying that hammers and gas are more effective is pants on head retarded.



I got your point, I just wasn't impressed with it. I pointed out some pretty glaring weaknesses in it. You seem to be using those arguments as an attempt to pretend like I'm missing your point instead of arguing against it now though.

It's not retarded, and if you'd drop your own false equivalency perhaps you'd be able to acknowledge that. If you want to commit mass murder there's few things as efficient as bombs and fire. Why do you think our military now kills so many more people with explosives then guns? Why do you think they have firebombs, and have literally killed millions of people with them - more then we killed with the nuclear bombs we dropped on Japan?

Now if you want to kill someone specific, for instance someone who is attacking you, then yes I'd say a gun is more efficient. It has the ability to be aimed at the very person who threatens you, and no others. But for indiscriminate slaughter though there's no beating bombs or fire. With bombs you can kill a mass of people in an instant, with no way for them to have any time to react to minimize harm in any way (when the attack is triggered, it's already over). You know, like the Oklahoma City federal building bombing or the Bath School Bombings or etc. etc.... With fire not only can you kill a mass of people, but the fire itself can actually trap many of the victims in place and between smoke inhalation and the fire itself there's very little the people inside can do to protect themselves from the threat of fire threat once it's launched. Not familiar with a lot of mass murders by fire, but I do know one - Julian Carlton set fire to Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin. He trapped a bunch of folks in there with fire, and then finished off with a hatchet the few workers who managed to break out.

Guns may be used more often (though as I pointed out several times, we're still talking about events which are shocking but statistically irrelevant), but bombs are unquestionably more efficient. Oklahoma City Federal bombing killed 198 people. The Bath School Bombings are also still the largest mass murder in a school in US history.

As for you saying you want to erode something... I didn't say "something", I said "the bill of rights". If you didn't know, the 2nd amendment is part of the bill of rights. Are you NOT arguing for more gun "control"? Because if want to pretend you're not that's just ridiculous. If you are arguing for more gun control then yes, you're arguing we should chip away at the bill of rights a little more. I think the bill of rights has suffered enough the last 30 years or so.
 
2013-01-03 04:29:26 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Actually, this diatribe and "powerful" defense marks one of us a coward... and it ain't me. I know, for instance, that CT was an anomaly. And I also think you will get what you expect from people and society. So... I'm not planning to be shot, and I'm not walk around afraid with a weapon. Courage... what does it mean again?

Go practice your bogeyman removal device...

So what you're saying is that you don't have an answer...

Thanks for playing.


He asked a question?
 
2013-01-03 04:31:55 PM  

Carn: Good idea pointing out cars and airplanes, two of the most heavily regulated industries in this country.


Yes, they are. And yet traffic is still the No. 1 cause of death for all age groups under age 45. It has been for decades. It looks like your reliance on "regulation" is a failure.

Also, by assuming control over these areas, the government is responsible for happens. That's how it works. If you are in control of something, then you are ethically responsible for the outcome.

This is a government that you're participating in, by the way, even if it's only on the level of being a good little drone and a shiat-disturber on the Internet. By demanding political action over something that kills fewer people than traffic collisions, which are preventable, then you are in effect advocating that the government allow 35,000 traffic deaths per year to occur. You are advocating that the government waste time and energy by addressing a less significant problem, and thus necessarily ignoring a more threatening and deadly problem.

But you don't get political traction out of traffic issues, do you? It's too banal and ordinary. Dealing with it doesn't make you feel quite so energized and powerful, does it? Not compared to really sticking it to your political opponents.

No, saving more lives is too mundane for you. You're too busy agitating for an expansion of government control into new areas where it can be completely ineffective.
 
2013-01-03 04:35:28 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Your imagination appears to be a violent place.


DOT statistics are out here in reality, where people are dying, while you fart around with yet another futile attempt at prohibition.

So much for your concern over safety, troll.
 
2013-01-03 04:44:11 PM  
Came for the Far Side Cartoon--"I hear you're pretty handy with a gun."

Left disappointed.
 
2013-01-03 04:47:43 PM  

Phinn: Carn: Good idea pointing out cars and airplanes, two of the most heavily regulated industries in this country.

Yes, they are. And yet traffic is still the No. 1 cause of death for all age groups under age 45. It has been for decades. It looks like your reliance on "regulation" is a failure.

Also, by assuming control over these areas, the government is responsible for happens. That's how it works. If you are in control of something, then you are ethically responsible for the outcome.

This is a government that you're participating in, by the way, even if it's only on the level of being a good little drone and a shiat-disturber on the Internet. By demanding political action over something that kills fewer people than traffic collisions, which are preventable, then you are in effect advocating that the government allow 35,000 traffic deaths per year to occur. You are advocating that the government waste time and energy by addressing a less significant problem, and thus necessarily ignoring a more threatening and deadly problem.

But you don't get political traction out of traffic issues, do you? It's too banal and ordinary. Dealing with it doesn't make you feel quite so energized and powerful, does it? Not compared to really sticking it to your political opponents.

No, saving more lives is too mundane for you. You're too busy agitating for an expansion of government control into new areas where it can be completely ineffective.


Once again, you are entirely full of shiat. It is quite possible to care about multiple things all at the same time. One can talk about gun control one day and civil rights the next if one is so inclined. That does not mean that one stops caring about each thing when one moves on to the next. At least that's how most normal rational brains work. This goes for individual people and society at large. This attack and line of reasoning is absolutely ridiculous and stupid. We have a problem with gun violence in the country and recently it has manifested itself in some pretty horrible mass shootings.

Regarding regulation: since you don't think it works, would you advocate removing the requirement that all cars come with seatbelts? Oh, no? Because every study on the subjects shows that statistically wearing seatbelts saves lives? Which then logically follows that the regulation that requires seatbelts saves lives? You are a troll, or you are very stupid.
 
2013-01-03 04:48:40 PM  

thetubameister: Mikey1969: thetubameister: Actually, this diatribe and "powerful" defense marks one of us a coward... and it ain't me. I know, for instance, that CT was an anomaly. And I also think you will get what you expect from people and society. So... I'm not planning to be shot, and I'm not walk around afraid with a weapon. Courage... what does it mean again?

Go practice your bogeyman removal device...

So what you're saying is that you don't have an answer...

Thanks for playing.

He asked a question?


Here, I'll quote it for you and explain how you would recognize a question in a crowded room...

Why is target practice in quotes? Regardless of WHY someone is at the range, whether it is to shot your pussy, paranoid, scared little church girl ass, or if it is just a hobby, they are still out improving their aim with the weapon. It's still target practice, no matter what you think of guns in general.

See that little symbol that has been bolded and supersized?
So which is it?

/^^^^^Look, it's another question mark!!^^^^^
 
2013-01-03 04:50:42 PM  
What does Zombie Breitbart have to say when we compare the number of people who died on 9/11 to the number of people who have been killed by guns since then, and the proportional level of hysterical overreaction over 9/11 and gun deaths.

"That's different" would about sum it up, I expect.

Still waiting on my constitutional right to carry a bazooka onto a 747.
 
2013-01-03 04:58:08 PM  

OgreMagi: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 557x298]



I can't believe nobody put this in here sooner...
 
2013-01-03 05:04:01 PM  

Mikey1969: pwhp_67: Mikey1969: Better look out, someone might jump out from behind a bush and scare you at any minute, make you wet yourself


Is that why you guys all own so many guns? Because you scare easy and the world is a frightening place for you?


I thought it was just because you couldn't afford sports cars...

Nope, but continue making ASSumptions, it just demonstrates your ignorance.



Like when a small joke zooms over your head?
 
2013-01-03 05:06:43 PM  

Carn: Once again, you are entirely full of shiat. It is quite possible to care about multiple things all at the same time. One can talk about gun control one day and civil rights the next if one is so inclined. That does not mean that one stops caring about each thing when one moves on to the next. At least that's how most normal rational brains work. This goes for individual people and society at large. This attack and line of reasoning is absolutely ridiculous and stupid. We have a problem with gun violence in the country and recently it has manifested itself in some pretty horrible mass shootings.


You want people to believe that gun control is the most pressing issue for the government to address right now -- the gun control legislation is the very best, most important use of the government's power and resources. To save lives.

Even though prohibition never works, because people adapt. Because government decrees do not actually have the power to alter reality. You want the government to focus on an area of life over which it has very little control, and a long history of ineffective and counter-productive action (prohibition of drugs is a miserable failure, and has fostered an environment -- drug-dealing gangs, which are the main cause of US gun violence, incidentally!).

And yet, decade after decade, it ignores a predictable, steady rate of death which has occurred on government property, where it has a very high degree of control.

You don't get it. The government doesn't give a shiat about saving lives. If it did, it would have found the time to address the No. 1 cause of death for people under 45, all of which occur on its property. Something more effective than the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Carn: Regarding regulation: since you don't think it works, would you advocate removing the requirement that all cars come with seatbelts? Oh, no? Because every study on the subjects shows that statistically wearing seatbelts saves lives? Which then logically follows that the regulation that requires seatbelts saves lives? You are a troll, or you are very stupid.


Government regulation has the uncanny ability to bring technological progress to a virtual standstill. Also, the issue of seat belts is a false choice. There are a million other things the government could do, which it's not doing, to save lives, if it wanted to.

But I am supposed to believe that this very same government, which you fellate so eagerly, is soooooo concerned about people dying.

You want people to believe that you are caring and compassionate, that you and your man-crush are driven by the purest of life-saving motives.

But your actions (and habit of inaction) contradict your claims. You have no credibility.
 
2013-01-03 05:07:06 PM  

Phinn: Uranus Is Huge!: Your imagination appears to be a violent place.

DOT statistics are out here in reality, where people are dying, while you fart around with yet another futile attempt at prohibition.

So much for your concern over safety, troll.


Please tell me all about the futile attempts at prohibition that I have been posting about. Hint: You won't find any because they only exist in your mind.
 
2013-01-03 05:11:54 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Please tell me all about the futile attempts at prohibition that I have been posting about. Hint: You won't find any because they only exist in your mind.


You have a reading comprehension problem. The government's record on "solving problems" through prohibition of desirable things is an abysmal failure. Attempting to solve complex social problems through prohibition is futile.

I couldn't give two shiats what you post about.
 
2013-01-03 05:16:37 PM  

Phinn: Carn: Once again, you are entirely full of shiat. It is quite possible to care about multiple things all at the same time. One can talk about gun control one day and civil rights the next if one is so inclined. That does not mean that one stops caring about each thing when one moves on to the next. At least that's how most normal rational brains work. This goes for individual people and society at large. This attack and line of reasoning is absolutely ridiculous and stupid. We have a problem with gun violence in the country and recently it has manifested itself in some pretty horrible mass shootings.

You want people to believe that gun control is the most pressing issue for the government to address right now -- the gun control legislation is the very best, most important use of the government's power and resources. To save lives.

Even though prohibition never works, because people adapt. Because government decrees do not actually have the power to alter reality. You want the government to focus on an area of life over which it has very little control, and a long history of ineffective and counter-productive action (prohibition of drugs is a miserable failure, and has fostered an environment -- drug-dealing gangs, which are the main cause of US gun violence, incidentally!).

And yet, decade after decade, it ignores a predictable, steady rate of death which has occurred on government property, where it has a very high degree of control.

You don't get it. The government doesn't give a shiat about saving lives. If it did, it would have found the time to address the No. 1 cause of death for people under 45, all of which occur on its property. Something more effective than the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Carn: Regarding regulation: since you don't think it works, would you advocate removing the requirement that all cars come with seatbelts? Oh, no? Because every study on the subjects shows that statistically wearing seatbelts saves lives? Which then logi ...


Just a troll then. Bye.
 
2013-01-03 05:16:58 PM  
There's no movement to stop murder-by-blunt-object, even though it's clearly a bigger threat (at least, based on bodycount). Obviously nobody gives a shiat because the people who die to blunt objects don't do so all at once - as if the act of dying in unison somehow makes it more tragic.

The issue the adults are trying to focus on is that when a lunatic attacts a group of people with a hammer the members of that group have a chance of stopping him before people are killed. Like they stopped that guy in China.

Here our lunatics don't tend to grab hammers, they tend to grab guns with extended clips and shoot up a crowd. This nut in CT is just the latest example and now that little children are being murdered in school more people are paying attention to the issue.

When that doofus shot Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, he shot at a crowd with a pistol and as soon as the clip was empty he was tackled. This guy bought his guns and ammo legally. Had it been illegal to sell extended clips, he would have bought one with less capacity, he would have fired fewer rounds, and more people would be alive.

So for the sane people, it's not much of an issue. If you have to reload more often at the range but nutjobs kill/injure fewer people - we'll go with the ban...
 
2013-01-03 05:18:57 PM  

mongbiohazard: I got your point, I just wasn't impressed with it. I pointed out some pretty glaring weaknesses in it. You seem to be using those arguments as an attempt to pretend like I'm missing your point instead of arguing against it now though.


You're been arguing shait I never said for a few posts now. But please continue, you might just win this argument with yourself.

mongbiohazard: It's not retarded, and if you'd drop your own false equivalency perhaps you'd be able to acknowledge that. If you want to commit mass murder there's few things as efficient as bombs and fire. Why do you think our military now kills so many more people with explosives then guns? Why do you think they have firebombs, and have literally killed millions of people with them - more then we killed with the nuclear bombs we dropped on Japan?


Again the original poster was saying that guns are less effective than arson, hammers, and knives. I was sarcastically saying that if guns are so ineffective compared to hammers then exchange your sidearm for a tool belt. Your best example was a bombing that happened back in 1927 so yes, that's considered an outlier. Now you want to bring up nuclear weapons and military grade explosives and compare them with guns. And you talk about false equivalency? Hahahaha oh wow.

As for you saying you want to erode something... I didn't say "something", I said "the bill of rights". If you didn't know, the 2nd amendment is part of the bill of rights. Are you NOT arguing for more gun "control"? Because if want to pretend you're not that's just ridiculous. If you are arguing for more gun control then yes, you're arguing we should chip away at the bill of rights a little more. I think the bill of rights has suffered enough the last 30 years or so.

I'm sure the voices in your head are quite persuasive. No I'm not arguing for Gun Control. I'm saying that comparing guns to hammers and knives and nukes and explosives is stupid. But please keep beating that strawman. You've nearly got him licked!
 
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