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 05:22:21 PM

Carn: Just a troll then. Bye.


You've got nothing.
 
2013-01-03 05:30:08 PM

pwhp_67: Had it been illegal to sell extended clips, he would have bought one with less capacity, he would have fired fewer rounds, and more people would be alive.


Newsflash:  Those magazine are already on the market, even with a ban.....grandfathered high capacity magazines were allowed to be bought and sold during the Clinton ban.  So what are you proposing?  Everyone has to turn them in?
 
2013-01-03 05:34:38 PM

pwhp_67:
When that doofus shot Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, he shot at a crowd with a pistol and as soon as the clip was empty he was tackled. This guy bought his guns and ammo legally. Had it been illegal to sell extended clips, he would have bought one with less capacity, he would have fired fewer rounds, and more people would be alive.

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


Just curious - You are aware that these extended magazines you want to ban so much are just stamped steel and a spring, right? (Yes, some of the nicer ones are polymer, but the basic mag is just stamped steel) With only the basic metalworking tools in my garage I can easily make "extended" magazines for a variety of weapons(*). Not even going to get into the subject of how - during the last "AWB", it didn't affect the availability of grandfathered extended magazines at all. Just drove the price up another $10.00 each is all.

* And I'm one of the good guys. Imagine what the guys who have been trained in the prison metal shop can make.
 
2013-01-03 05:37:18 PM

The_Sponge: pwhp_67: Had it been illegal to sell extended clips, he would have bought one with less capacity, he would have fired fewer rounds, and more people would be alive.

Newsflash:  Those magazine are already on the market, even with a ban.....grandfathered high capacity magazines were allowed to be bought and sold during the Clinton ban.  So what are you proposing?  Everyone has to turn them in?


You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

So again, had these extended clips been illegal he would not have had any. That equals more people alive.

But if you want to go a step further and require people who own the larger magazines to turn them in, probably for a replacement, I'd support that...
 
2013-01-03 05:37:25 PM

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

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

I couldn't give two shiats what you post about.


Odd. I usually don't respond to the posts that don't give two shiats about.
 
2013-01-03 05:41:18 PM

pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.


How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.
 
2013-01-03 05:45:07 PM

jst3p: pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.


Well, I didn't see anything in the Constitution about the right to own extended magazines. But you're the internet Constitutional scholar, not me...
 
2013-01-03 05:52:48 PM

pwhp_67: But if you want to go a step further and require people who own the larger magazines to turn them in, probably for a replacement, I'd support that...



For a replacement?  BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  That is a shiatty deal if I ever heard one.

Here's the problem....you put a ban on high capacity mags, it affects non-crazies like me, and millions of other gun owners.
 
2013-01-03 05:58:26 PM

The_Sponge: Here's the problem....you put a ban on high capacity mags, it affects non-crazies like me, and millions of other gun owners.


That's a problem? That doesn't sound like a problem...
 
2013-01-03 06:00:40 PM

pwhp_67: jst3p: pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.

Well, I didn't see anything in the Constitution about the right to own extended magazines. But you're the internet Constitutional scholar, not me...


Apology accepted.


/Really, that's the best you could do?
 
2013-01-03 06:02:00 PM

jst3p: pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.


While I agree, I am curious what new measures would be taken now that previously have not been taken to identify and lock up crazies?
 
2013-01-03 06:03:44 PM

pwhp_67: Well, I didn't see anything in the Constitution about the right to own extended magazines. But you're the internet Constitutional scholar, not me...


Its the Amendment after the 1st and before the 3rd

pwhp_67: So again, had these extended clips been illegal he would not have had any. That equals more people alive.


They are called magazines. And no, it wouldn't have made a difference. Heres a .pdf of the Virginia Tech Review Panel's Report on the Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech.

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/tempcontent/techpanelreport.cfm

Page 87 of the report:

"The panel also considered whether the previous federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned 15-round magazines would have made a difference inthe April 16 incidents. The law lapsed after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders (ed. I think they are referring to revolver speed loaders here) could have been about as deadly in this situation."

(from post on THR.com)

And these were able bodied adults the Virginia Tech guy killed. The Sandy hook guy locked children in a classroom and killed them. Are you gullible enough to believe that he could only have been able to do that with a "specialized" weapon? That he had to have a "DEADLY ASSAULT RIFLE" to kill 6 year olds?

jst3p: How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.


Yes.
 
2013-01-03 06:08:05 PM

Pete_T_Mann: Its the Amendment after the 1st and before the 3rd


No, no it isn't. Nothing in there about extended magazines...


Pete_T_Mann: And no, it wouldn't have made a difference


And yes, it would have made a difference. Jared Loughner was tackled immediately after emptying his magazine...
 
2013-01-03 06:09:57 PM

jst3p: /Really, that's the best you could do?



I figured you weren't trying so why should I?
 
2013-01-03 06:14:31 PM

the money is in the banana stand: jst3p: pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.

While I agree, I am curious what new measures would be taken now that previously have not been taken to identify and lock up crazies?


For starters, when a woman says her son is a danger take her a little more seriously and expidite the process of admitting him...

Link
 
2013-01-03 06:14:52 PM

mongbiohazard: With bombs you can kill a mass of people in an instant, with no way for them to have any time to react to minimize harm in any way (when the attack is triggered, it's already over). You know, like the Oklahoma City federal building bombing


Oh, I see I missed this.

We regulate the sale of ammonium nitrate due to the Oklahoma City bombing. Sure you want to go there?
 
2013-01-03 06:30:40 PM

pwhp_67: The_Sponge: Here's the problem....you put a ban on high capacity mags, it affects non-crazies like me, and millions of other gun owners.

That's a problem? That doesn't sound like a problem...



An infringement on my rights is a problem, pal.

My AR - Came with two 30 round mags in the box.
My Glock - Came with 15 round mags.
My Beretta - Also came with 15 round mags.
 
2013-01-03 06:33:13 PM

The_Sponge: An infringement on my rights is a problem, pal.



I don't know where some of you get the idea that you have a "right" to a particular size clip but it's an idiotic rebuttal...
 
2013-01-03 06:38:14 PM

pwhp_67: The_Sponge: An infringement on my rights is a problem, pal.


I don't know where some of you get the idea that you have a "right" to a particular size clip but it's an idiotic rebuttal...


You know what's more idiotic?  Thinking that only allowing 10 round mags to be manufactured and imported from now on will somehow make a difference.  There are MILLIONS of magazines out there that hold more than 10 rounds.  In other words, some sick f*ck will still get his hands on them if he wants to, and your roody-poo proposals only fark with gun owners who will NEVER commit a crime with any of their firearms.

It's a free country, so if you want to be a biatch like Feinstein, you can do so at your leisure.
 
2013-01-03 06:38:18 PM

pwhp_67: The_Sponge: An infringement on my rights is a problem, pal.


I don't know where some of you get the idea that you have a "right" to a particular size clip but it's an idiotic rebuttal...


But they came in the box!
 
2013-01-03 06:42:40 PM
Is there a problem with criminals using fully automatic weapons to commit crimes? Because I learned from the Fark Militia that if you ban a weapon, the criminals will ignore the ban. So... is this what happened after fully automatic weapons were banned?
 
2013-01-03 06:43:32 PM

The_Sponge: pwhp_67: The_Sponge: Here's the problem....you put a ban on high capacity mags, it affects non-crazies like me, and millions of other gun owners.

That's a problem? That doesn't sound like a problem...


An infringement on my rights is a problem, pal.

My AR - Came with two 30 round mags in the box.
My Glock - Came with 15 round mags.
My Beretta - Also came with 15 round mags.


I always wondered why Fark's userbase was so spot-on about the idiocy of TSA liquid restrictions (and recent loopholes) yet have problems seeing how mag restrictions is pretty much useless at preventing mass shooters.

Just think about how Fark would react if one of those MADD types proposed that six-packs, containers larger than 10ozs, and high proof liquors should be banned in order to prevent drunk driving and binge drinking.

Methinks that these people aren't entirely motivated by rational thinking.
 
2013-01-03 06:43:50 PM
The only incident i can think of is that Hollywood bank robbery.
 
2013-01-03 06:44:09 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Because I learned from the Fark Militia that if you ban a weapon, the criminals will ignore the ban.



Or maybe you could learn something from reality.  How are those gun bans working out for Chicago?
 
2013-01-03 06:45:24 PM

The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: Because I learned from the Fark Militia that if you ban a weapon, the criminals will ignore the ban.


Or maybe you could learn something from reality.  How are those gun bans working out for Chicago?


Nice dodge. Care to reply to the question posed?
 
2013-01-03 06:47:12 PM

The_Sponge: You know what's more idiotic?


Just about every one of your posts?

Jared Loughner had no idea where to get those millions of mags you're ranting about. So he bought one in a store. It's not rocket science you know. A lunatic may not be thinking straight when he snaps. Would a ban keep gang members from getting them? No. Would it keep some of the nuts from getting them, quickly and easily, when they snap? Yes.

We have the right to a well-regulated militia. It's time for some meaningful regulation...
 
2013-01-03 06:49:28 PM

The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: Because I learned from the Fark Militia that if you ban a weapon, the criminals will ignore the ban.


Or maybe you could learn something from reality.  How are those gun bans working out for Chicago?


Wow. Over 500 murders! How many of those murders were committed with fully automatic weapons, and how many were committed by legally purchased handguns? Or straw-purchased guns?

Feel free to keep digging.
 
2013-01-03 06:51:45 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: Because I learned from the Fark Militia that if you ban a weapon, the criminals will ignore the ban.


Or maybe you could learn something from reality.  How are those gun bans working out for Chicago?

Nice dodge. Care to reply to the question posed?



Any full autos that can be bought by civilians are a very limited market....the tax stamp is only $300, but a Thompson will cost $15,000+.  So having something that is rare and very expensive prevents mass shootings with those firearms.

However.....

There are MILLIONS of so-called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines out there.  Prices might go up after a ban, but they will not reach the price levels of full autos.  So unless you actually want the government to take them away from millions of decent gun owners, you aren't going to prevent some sick f*ck from getting them.

Now please answer my question regarding Chicago.
 
2013-01-03 06:54:28 PM

pwhp_67: It's time for some meaningful regulation...


And 10 round mags aren't the answer.
 
2013-01-03 06:56:36 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: and how many were committed by legally purchased handguns? Or straw-purchased guns?


Exactly....their gun ban did jack shiat.
 
2013-01-03 06:57:27 PM

The_Sponge: pwhp_67: It's time for some meaningful regulation...

And 10 round mags aren't the answer.



Not for you, sure, but you may be out-voted soon. Especially if that dick stays as head of the NRA...
 
2013-01-03 06:57:30 PM

pwhp_67: Just about every one of your posts?


Awwww...the gun control pussy is getting cranky.  Is it time for your nap?
 
2013-01-03 06:58:40 PM

pwhp_67: The_Sponge: pwhp_67: It's time for some meaningful regulation...

And 10 round mags aren't the answer.


Not for you, sure, but you may be out-voted soon. Especially if that dick stays as head of the NRA...



Oh yeah?  Well I'm not registering mine or turning them in if a hardcore ban passes.
 
2013-01-03 07:02:18 PM

The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: and how many were committed by legally purchased handguns? Or straw-purchased guns?

Exactly....their gun ban did jack shiat.


It never occurs to you that the prevalence of weapons and huge loopholes/utter lack of regulation in transferring weapons from one owner to another makes it easier for criminals too? I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.

You would rather have a gunfight with the criminal.
 
2013-01-03 07:03:19 PM

pwhp_67: Jared Loughner had no idea where to get those millions of mags you're ranting about. So he bought one in a store. It's not rocket science you know. A lunatic may not be thinking straight when he snaps. Would a ban keep gang members from getting them? No. Would it keep some of the nuts from getting them, quickly and easily, when they snap? Yes.



"Bbbbbbbut Loughner!"

Do you remember the Clinton ban?  Pre-ban mags were available to buy and sell during that time....I bought a few myself.

So what do you want?  People to turn in their magazines?  Prevent them for selling or giving them to others?

And you made an excellent point....gang members will still have them, and I refuse to get rid of mine if they still get to have theirs.
 
2013-01-03 07:07:23 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.



And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?
 
2013-01-03 07:25:34 PM

pwhp_67: No, no it isn't. Nothing in there about extended magazines...


There are no limits or purpose set by the Second amendment. Its the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms that are limited in capacity, or are only good for hunting. You are attempting to impose limits on that right.

pwhp_67: And yes, it would have made a difference. Jared Loughner was tackled immediately after emptying his magazine...


Incorrect. His pistol malfunctioned. It had nothing to do with the capacity of the weapon. If you've ever seen anyone change magazines you would understand this. You're like an Amish trying to understand and put restrictions on a power plant.

pwhp_67: I don't know where some of you get the idea that you have a "right" to a particular size clip but it's an idiotic rebuttal...


Not nearly as idiotic as your fantasy that 10 round "clips" would somehow prevent crimes, and that this magical ten round clip would stop rampage killings, especially when you've been given a clear report that says that they wont. Arguing against overwhelming evidence is idiotic, belief in a right is not.

The question you should ask yourself is if you really care about stopping things like this, or if you're just using this as an excuse to try to force a bunch of people to do what you want with no real reason behind it, like Diane Fienstien is. If the answer is the first, than look other places for meaningful contributions and changes that might be beneficial. If the second, you're just another clueless douche that's not worth talking to, except, perhaps, as an example for others of the illogic of positions such as yours.
 
2013-01-03 07:26:50 PM
For all the gun control advocates who like to say, "a gun has no purpose other than to kill" :

You have no idea how firearms are used, even in military combat.

I think it's safe to say that the US military knows something about the effective use of firearms, and it's generally estimated that a ton of ammunition is fired for every enemy casualty. Even in a firefight, the most effective way of using a firearm is to limit an opponent's range of motion. Its purpose is to say, "you really don't want to go there," in a way that even someone equipped and determined to kill you will respect.

If the public truly wants to limit gun violence -- especially "go out in a blaze of whatever" wankfests like the recent one -- there's one step toward a solution that's very inexpensive, very easy to implement, and has no significant legal consequences:

Stop treating guns as magic totems that grant the bearer absolute power over life and death.

Seriously.. what resentful sad sack itching to lash out at the world wouldn't want such a thing?

A selfish nobody is now the center of the nation's attention, and while it's true he's no longer around to 'enjoy' his notoriety, does anyone want to cite him as a prime example of thinking through the consequences of one's actions? In the meantime, every jackass in the nation with a tendency toward sloppy thinking has gotten a dose of operational reality that says, "if you want everyone's attention, this is how to do it."

If you want to steer people away from something, make it boring.. throw out the easy generalizations like "the only purpose of this device is to murder/destroy" and replace them with nice yawnfests full of math. Encourage discussions of tactics that allow a group of unarmed people to limit/distract/contain/disable an armed attacker.

In short, stop letting any selfish asshole with a gun (or any other weapon) set the rules everyone else will follow.  You control a situation by limiting the threat's options. You don't do it by reacting to the threat, and you don't do it by limiting the options of people/things that don't present any threat.

Change the terms of discussion. Don't waste effort looking for ways to nerf society to the point where no one can present a credible threat. To the extent that it's possible, the unintended consequences are undesirable. Start thinking about ways to give a random group of unarmed people more options than 'run', 'hide', 'wait for someone else to protect you', and 'hope the assailant runs out of bullets before he gets to you'.
 
2013-01-03 07:28:04 PM
time to ban baseball
 
2013-01-03 07:33:53 PM

The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.


And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?


Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.
 
2013-01-03 07:38:09 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.



Yeah, but then you still want bans.
 
2013-01-03 07:44:59 PM

The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.


Yeah, but then you still want bans.


I know that you find it easier to argue about what you think I want, but it's not really good for productive discussion. How about we take a few steps with registration and mandatory background checks and see if it helps curb gun crimes?

You respond to every single suggestion with, "Nope, won't work. There are already too many guns. You're stealing my rights." I may not have the answers, but I refuse to believe that, "arm everybody" is the best solution.
 
2013-01-03 07:46:46 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.


And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?

Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.


We already have that, except for the gun show loophole, which needs to be closed.
 
2013-01-03 07:49:19 PM

simplicimus: Uranus Is Huge!: The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.


And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?

Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.

We already have that, except for the gun show loophole, which needs to be closed.


Perfect. Considering the nature of this loophole makes is very difficult to determine how many sales occur through it, I'd say that's the place to start.
 
2013-01-03 07:50:03 PM
Next, give the mandatory background checks some teeth.
 
2013-01-03 07:50:11 PM
JungleBoogie: Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

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

Phinn: This is the Leftist mindset in a nutshell.

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

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

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



You are absolutely right about the carnage caused every day on the roads. Pretty much every other day, I read about someone killed on the roads in the DC metro area. A lot of those 30,000-some killed every year in car crashes are no doubt children. 82 people a day. 3 Newtowns every day.

If some good comes out of Newtown, a renewed focus on limiting traffic fatalities will emerge.

However, Newtown itself happened. A classroom full of 6 year olds were senselessly slaughtered, in addition to their teachers. Some changes need to be made to be sure that doesn't happen again. And if it means restricting access to certain types of grownup toys, then so be it. If it means commiting those with homicidal ideation, so be it.
 
2013-01-03 07:54:37 PM

jst3p: the money is in the banana stand: jst3p: pwhp_67: You missed a point that was so hard to miss you must have done it on purpose. We're talking about nut jobs in this thread. This particular nut job wanted a gun and some ammo so he could go shoot up a crowd of people. He was not in a gang, he didn't steal the gun from some law-abiding gun owner, and he didn't buy one from an international arms dealer. He went to WalMart and later to a gun store. He bought items that were perfectly legal to buy.

How about we focus on locking up the nut jobs? Seems like a better plan than taking the things they choose to use to kill people away from law abiding citizens and eroding the rights protected by the Constitution.

While I agree, I am curious what new measures would be taken now that previously have not been taken to identify and lock up crazies?

For starters, when a woman says her son is a danger take her a little more seriously and expidite the process of admitting him...

Link


Who denied her request? How do we ensure that doesn't happen (as often) in the future? I know it is a pain in the ass to deal with. A coworker of mine has a truly dysfunctional son. Her sister died of drug use and of course was on drugs while she had her son, so my coworker became the caretaker. The kid has always been messed up. It is like he doesn't understand right from wrong and does all sorts of farked up things. The police have been called out numerous times. It has taken her years to finally convince the state to help deal with him. She isn't very well off, so of course all of those institutions wouldn't help her because she didn't have the money for it. On top of that, she is still responsible for his actions when he was skipping school, burglarizing his neighbor's house etc. It is blatantly obvious the kid should be removed from society, yet no one is willing to touch him. She is worried about her well-being and her husband's.

I don't understand this.
 
2013-01-03 08:03:40 PM

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

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


Dude... do you have any idea of how godlike your aim would have to be to actually kill someone with a .22 varmint round?

www.roanoke-chowan.com
That's actual size. It moves packs about 65 joules of energy.

Your average nail gun hits at well over 100 joules of energy. Do the math.

Oh, and 25 rounds has you worried?

year1shopfitting.wikispaces.com
 
2013-01-03 08:18:50 PM
also according to the article more people were killed by "hands and feet" than by rifles. time to ban hands and feet.
 
2013-01-03 08:19:42 PM
this whole rifle ban thing is nothing but pure sensationalism
 
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