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.

(NBC News)   Four people dead in hostage situation/shootout in Aurora, CO. Sadly, this is NOT a repeat   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 639
    More: Sad, morning, hostage situation, NBC News, KUSA, hostages  
•       •       •

12675 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-05 01:47:08 PM
But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.
 
2013-01-05 01:49:40 PM
That guy in the picture is somebody we all know and love.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-05 02:01:53 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.


Like the creepy attraction to weapons that psychos have?
 
2013-01-05 02:05:44 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.


Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.
 
2013-01-05 02:16:21 PM
Evil is something that your average person, gun owner or not, doesn't engage in.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-05 03:25:10 PM

vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.


Or the interaction between the two.

Why are many people including police officers able to be safe with a revolver or a shotgun that doesn't hold more than 6 rounds?

Why is it that some people fear that they are in deathly peril if they can't have a large capacity magazine in a semi automatic weapon, while 2/3 of the population survive just fine with no firearms at all?

What if there was some sort of symptom of persecutory delusional disorder?  Perhaps hoarding a certain type of object?  Something that they were so dependent on that they would do anything to keep it, make any sort of irrational argument.  Even threaten violence if someone were to come between them and the precious?

If you could identify a certain type of object that that insecure violent people would fixate on, you would be well on your way to understanding the link to mental illness and gun violence.
 
2013-01-05 03:38:09 PM
I'm sure glad this still isn't time to talk about guns.
 
2013-01-05 03:56:01 PM

GAT_00: I'm sure glad this still isn't time to talk about guns.


And it never will be.
 
2013-01-05 04:03:39 PM

vpb: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Like the creepy attraction to weapons that psychos Americans have?



Also works.
 
2013-01-05 04:04:24 PM

GAT_00: I'm sure glad this still isn't time to talk about guns.


Let's talk about them on Fark-that'll be productive!
 
2013-01-05 04:04:31 PM
The only thing that stops a bad psycho with a gun is a good psycho with a gun, so we have to let mentally ill people own whatever weapons they want.
 
2013-01-05 04:04:56 PM

vpb: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Like the creepy attraction to weapons that psychos have?


Bingo
 
2013-01-05 04:04:56 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.


Nobody brought it up in the mama bear thread.
 
2013-01-05 04:06:44 PM

vpb: Like the creepy attraction to weapons Ellen Degeneres that psychos I have?


Fixed that for me.
 
2013-01-05 04:06:46 PM
news.bbcimg.co.uk

it's a designated rape zone, yo
 
2013-01-05 04:08:17 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.


Not that mental health isn't an important issue, but what part of that article gave you any inclination as to the shooter's frame of mind? Sure, you are free to guess about it all you want, but there doesn't appear to be any indication that the shooter was anything more than a criminal as yet.
 
2013-01-05 04:08:24 PM
The NRA solution for this type of shooting is for the Federal government to post armed guards in every house.
 
2013-01-05 04:09:35 PM

Chinchillazilla: The only thing that stops a bad psycho with a gun is a good psycho with a gun, so we have to let mentally ill people own whatever weapons they want.


Who's the man with the golden gun?
Who's the man who kills for fun?
Psycho Dad! Psycho Dad.
 
2013-01-05 04:10:08 PM

vudutek: GAT_00: I'm sure glad this still isn't time to talk about guns.

And it never will be.


And when guns actually do get discussed, we get nowhere. So what's the point of even bringing it up anymore?
 
2013-01-05 04:10:28 PM
So things are improving?
 
2013-01-05 04:10:36 PM
Gunn porn thread?

lax-magazine.com
 
2013-01-05 04:10:41 PM
I'm really glad that the people in the house had guns, and were able to effectively take out this scumbag before everyone in the house were gunned down like tied down sheep.


/oh wait...they didn't and they were.
//please continue
 
2013-01-05 04:11:41 PM
We should ban hostages, and then things like this wouldn't happen.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-05 04:11:46 PM
who do we arm next to prevent this?
 
2013-01-05 04:12:08 PM
Mel?
 
2013-01-05 04:12:30 PM
I wonder what the liberal fascists will try to ban this time. They're already working on 2nd amendment and also the 1st with "violent" video games. How about the 3rd this time? You know, if more soldiers could commandeer homes, tragedies like this wouldn't happen as often. Think of the children and ban the 3rd amendment! No tragedy should remain unexploited!
 
2013-01-05 04:12:47 PM
Typical family murder-suicide is typical.

*yawn*
 
2013-01-05 04:13:27 PM
This is what happens when you take God out of hostage negotiations.
 
2013-01-05 04:13:48 PM

vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.


Stupidity is thinking that taking away guns will solve the completely problem.
 
2013-01-05 04:14:22 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.


Has there been any determination the suspect had prior mental health issues?
 
2013-01-05 04:14:23 PM
Is this the thread where we assume a bunch things and then the facts come out later but the trolls are already on a roll? I can't wait!


Adam Lanza used stolen weapons, let's retroactively criminalize everyone who doesn't piss their pants at the thought of tools.
 
2013-01-05 04:14:36 PM
Clearly, this could have been easily avoided if everyone in the house was armed with ED-209s.

/you have 20 seconds to comply
//you must wait 60 seconds to reply
 
2013-01-05 04:14:36 PM
So the gun nuts new war cry is "BUT WE SHOULDZ BE LOOKING INTO MENTAL HEALTH!!1" and acting as if that was somehow never suggested by the gun control advocates before?

Wow... just... wow.
 
2013-01-05 04:14:44 PM
The Dark Knight Rises? As usual, the sequel fails to live up to the hype
 
2013-01-05 04:15:26 PM
Clearly the answer to these situations is.....more guns!
 
2013-01-05 04:15:36 PM

vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.


Because mentally healthy people don't shoot up schools.
 
2013-01-05 04:15:49 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.


Thank You

this needs to be item ONE for Obama
 
2013-01-05 04:16:03 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm really glad that the people in the house had guns, and were able to effectively take out this scumbag before everyone in the house were gunned down like tied down sheep.


/oh wait...they didn't and they were.
//please continue


Exactly!!!' Everyone from birth to death should be heavily armed. Then we'd all be safe! Yippee.
 
2013-01-05 04:17:03 PM
That'll teach those people to go to bed at 3am unarmed!
 
2013-01-05 04:17:11 PM

Perverted Idiotic Nobleman: Stupidity is thinking that taking away guns will solve the completely problem.



Can the completely problem ever be solved?

/Rhetorical question, I know
 
2013-01-05 04:17:25 PM
What type of gun was used?
 
2013-01-05 04:17:38 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm really glad that the people in the house had guns, and were able to effectively take out this scumbag before everyone in the house were gunned down like tied down sheep.


/oh wait...they didn't and they were.
//please continue



You should get in touch with the police since you seem to be so familiar with the situation. Also, do you know which room I just walked in to?
 
2013-01-05 04:18:07 PM
Better regulation of guns would reduce these kinds of events, period. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply denying documented reality (those crazy bastards in Australia offer the most recent example).

But, benefits of universal gun ownership would be lost. Not sure what those are, but that's where the argument should be. Anyone arguing that gun control 'can't work to stop gun violence' is a mindless zealot you should ignore as thoroughly as a member of Westboro Baptist. But if they start asking why politicians tend to like having bodyguards who carry guns around, well that's a point for us to debate.

The benefits of gun ownership may outweigh the rare, if horrific, spectacle of a pile of dead kindergartners. That's the debate rational folks should be having.
 
2013-01-05 04:18:34 PM
Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.
 
2013-01-05 04:18:54 PM

Perverted Idiotic Nobleman: vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.

Stupidity is thinking that taking away guns will solve the completely problem.


stupidity is thinking that "better regulation of guns" means "ZOMG SOCIALISTBONGO BE TAKIN' MY ROCKIT LONCHER"
 
2013-01-05 04:18:55 PM
Maybe if they'd kept their dog armed, this wouldn't have happened.
 
2013-01-05 04:19:22 PM
He could have drowned them in a pool.
 
2013-01-05 04:19:36 PM

vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.


What additional regulation would you have? As it is now the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and will never use their guns to commit a crime. Only a handful of legal gun owners ever use their legally purchased guns to commit a crime. And with that being said, what regulation would you enact to prevent them from doing so? You are saying that we need better regulation of guns, so give us your suggestions. Tell us what regulation would have prevented this incident.
 
2013-01-05 04:19:40 PM

Duke_leto_Atredes: Thank You

this needs to be item ONE for Obama


Too bad his original healthcare plan that WOULD have made access to mental help easier got flushed down the toilet, right? Too bad about that... huh? Eh? Hello?

Yeah.
 
2013-01-05 04:20:00 PM
Another day in america. Another mass murder. Another shoot out. Another day full of sound and fury signifying nothing as america does nothing to solve the situation but whine. Another day where nobody outside of the us cares.
 
2013-01-05 04:20:12 PM

vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.


A)We have a constitutional right to own firearms
B)There's no putting the genie back in the bottle. There's nearly one firearm for every man woman and child in this country, trying to remove them is futile.
C)It's become a trite talking point but guns don't kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.
D)Trying to take the guns would result in a civil war/insurgency, if you think Iraq and Afghanistan were something realize that those populations had 1/3rd to 1/4 the gun ownership rate of the US and that soldiers could be conditioned to think of the brown people as evil, much harder to do that against your own citizenry.
 
2013-01-05 04:20:41 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.


.
Another farking blue state, and liberalisim is indeed a mental disorder.
 
2013-01-05 04:20:46 PM
Reading these gun threads on Fark over the past year has led me to believe that only the mentally ill use/own guns since every time a gun is used the person is disregarded as being mentally ill.
 
2013-01-05 04:21:10 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.


What sucks about reading your posts is knowing you're exactly the type of delusional nutjob that probably has a cache of guns
 
2013-01-05 04:21:26 PM
You know what? fark it. If people are intent on pretending like guns aren't a problem and it's 'THE CRAZY PEOPLE ARE TO BLAME LOL', then we need to have a tragedy like this every goddamned day until people get tired of seeing dead people, or enough victims get pissed off enough to tar and feather the local NRA gun nuts in their respective communities.

Until then, BRING IT ON, BABY. Let's see how much blood America can take before she flinches.
 
2013-01-05 04:21:39 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.



So a powerful weapon - does it go on the left with the forks, the right with the knife, or above the plate?
 
2013-01-05 04:21:42 PM

CruiserTwelve: That guy in the picture is somebody we all know and love.


I don't recognize him. Was in anything recent?
 
2013-01-05 04:21:59 PM
another Schizophrenic gun. when are these manufacturers going to start screen these guns for mental illness? its crazy. you'd have thougt they'd figured it out by now.
 
2013-01-05 04:22:09 PM

tblax: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.

What sucks about reading your posts is knowing you're exactly the type of delusional nutjob that probably has a cache of guns


He's a bleeding heart liberal, FWIW
 
2013-01-05 04:22:18 PM

Duke_leto_Atredes: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Thank You

this needs to be item ONE for Obama


If it is, then it'll be item 800 billion for the House GOP, right after tax cuts for billionaires, repealing Obamacare, tax cuts for billionaires, outlawing abortion, tax cuts for billionaires, criminalizing the practice of Islam, tax cuts for billionaires, cutting funding for social services, tax cuts for billionaires, cutting funding for infrastructure maintenance, tax cuts for billionaires, outlawing fuel-efficient cars, tax cuts for billionaires, redefining rape, tax cu--

[[omitted for brevity]]


--criminalizing the act of existing while Hispanic and tax cuts for billionaires.
 
2013-01-05 04:22:44 PM

david_gaithersburg: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

.
Another farking blue state, and liberalisim is indeed a mental disorder.


Because, as we all know, 'blue' state means EVERYONE is a liberal! And political affiliations have EVERYTHING to do with every shooting.
 
2013-01-05 04:22:50 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off


Which side of the plate does the Glock go on?
 
2013-01-05 04:23:00 PM

Waxing_Chewbacca: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm really glad that the people in the house had guns, and were able to effectively take out this scumbag before everyone in the house were gunned down like tied down sheep.


/oh wait...they didn't and they were.
//please continue

Exactly!!!' Everyone from birth to death should be heavily armed. Then we'd all be safe! Yippee.


/yes, because enacting a new total gun ban would make every criminal in the USA turn in their guns. You know, out of civic duty. It's a much better tactic when faced with a armed person in your home to just lay down and piss yourself, and wait for him to kill you and your family. Let me know how that works out for you.
 
2013-01-05 04:23:40 PM
i1121.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-05 04:23:50 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.


I don't want to meet the family in your second scenario.
 
2013-01-05 04:23:54 PM

duffblue: Adam Lanza used stolen weapons, let's retroactively criminalize everyone who doesn't piss their pants at the thought of tools.


The guns were legally bought by his mother, who taught Adam how to use them properly at legal gun control ranges (can't wait for the inevitable breathless media reports about what NRA supported classes he took). Adam would not have had access to them if they were illegal since his law-following mother would not have owned them.

"Good gun control means hitting what you shoot at - just like Adam Lanza did!" ...Hmm I think that tired joke may be retired soon.
 
2013-01-05 04:24:09 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Waxing_Chewbacca: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm really glad that the people in the house had guns, and were able to effectively take out this scumbag before everyone in the house were gunned down like tied down sheep.


/oh wait...they didn't and they were.
//please continue

Exactly!!!' Everyone from birth to death should be heavily armed. Then we'd all be safe! Yippee.

/yes, because enacting a new total gun ban would make every criminal in the USA turn in their guns. You know, out of civic duty. It's a much better tactic when faced with a armed person in your home to just lay down and piss yourself, and wait for him to kill you and your family. Let me know how that works out for you.


How do you get through the day without pissing yourself in fear?
 
2013-01-05 04:24:31 PM
once we ban aurora colorado all will be well. is columbine in aurora ?
 
2013-01-05 04:24:34 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.


The difference between you and me, is that I dream of place where people don't need guns to defend themselves and you do. Both dreams are stupidly implausible, but I choose the one that behooves a modern society and is nothing like Somalia. You really want a place where people NEED to carry guns? Really? That's barbaric. Dream bigger.
 
2013-01-05 04:24:46 PM

Mock26: What type of gun was used?


The bad kind, obviously.
 
2013-01-05 04:25:16 PM

MorePeasPlease: GAT_00: I'm sure glad this still isn't time to talk about guns.

Let's talk about them on Fark-that'll be productive!


Yeah, go get a blog.
 
2013-01-05 04:25:46 PM

vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.


Evil is thinking that you can make people safer by taking away their basic freedoms.

Are you going to make it harder for everyone to get instant cold packs, household cleaning products, model airplane fuel, castor beans, or the million other everyday things someone could use to kill a lot of people too?
 
2013-01-05 04:25:53 PM

TheHappyCanadian: Perverted Idiotic Nobleman: vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.

Stupidity is thinking that taking away guns will solve the completely problem.

stupidity is thinking that "better regulation of guns" means "ZOMG SOCIALISTBONGO BE TAKIN' MY ROCKIT LONCHER"


Alright, goddammit. I sick of this farking analogy. Rifles are small arms. Rocket Launchers are ordnance. NO ONE is advocating for ordnance to be legal. NO ONE. Now stop this nonsense, you ass.
 
2013-01-05 04:26:01 PM

TheHappyCanadian: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.

I don't want to meet the family in your second scenario.


After reading so many threads on this topic, I think scenario #2 is a wet dream fantasy of way too many people. As if people are just sitting around eating dinner hoping someone barges in so they can blow their head off. I know that's not actually true, but it sure seems that way.
 
2013-01-05 04:26:16 PM
We didn't even make it one day into 2013 without a shooting. We didn't even make it one week into 2013 without a shooting occurring where a massive shooting took place last year.

upload.wikimedia.org
"It is in your nature to destroy yourselves."
Life is short. Act accordingly.
 
2013-01-05 04:26:18 PM

Surpheon: The guns were legally bought by his mother, who taught Adam how to use them properly at legal gun control ranges (can't wait for the inevitable breathless media reports about what NRA supported classes he took). Adam would not have had access to them if they were illegal since his law-following mother would not have owned them.


Thankfully it's so simple. Just ban EVERYONE's guns because a very rare few may misuse them. Maybe we should do that with everything else.

Would we be having this same convseration if he had burglarized a police vehicle and used their guns? Even the ATF, FBI, and DEA have had automatic weapons, flashbangs, vests, etc. stolen in vehicle burglaries. If someone misuses one of their guns, should we disarm them too?
 
2013-01-05 04:26:27 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Bit'O'Gristle: story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off

Which side of the plate does the Glock go on?


/whichever side "handed" the person is. And yes, they would have to get to it...im not saying they would not, but whatever, lay down for it if you wanna, i prefer to have a method to defend my family. You do what you want.
 
2013-01-05 04:27:11 PM

TheHappyCanadian: stupidity is thinking that "better regulation of guns" means "ZOMG SOCIALISTBONGO BE TAKIN' MY ROCKIT LONCHER"


Not entirely. For it to be effective, gun control means a HELL of a lot more than requiring gun licenses. If we don't go whole-hog banning, there isn't much point beyond liberal point scoring. See Australia for the minimum needed actions to really have an impact.

No point lying about what it will take. It will take a constitutional amendment, with that level of public support, for that to happen too.

Obama will take the political point, but ultimately the half-measure will do no good. You have to dam the whole stream not just half, and the public support isn't there yet. Better to do nothing other than collect facts and educate people on them - both the good and bad on universal gun access.
 
2013-01-05 04:27:43 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun

and gets gunned down while he's getting it from wherever he keeps it, because nobody has their farking gun at the farking dinner table unless they, themselves, are mentally ill.
4. Gunman is more alert, so nobody escapes to get the police.
5. Eventually, he kills them all like sheep.
6. And gets away.


FTFY.
 
2013-01-05 04:27:52 PM

JesseL: vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.

Evil is thinking that you can make people safer by taking away their basic freedoms.

Are you going to make it harder for everyone to get instant cold packs, household cleaning products, model airplane fuel, castor beans, or the million other everyday things someone could use to kill a lot of people too?


No, that would be ridiculous, of course. The difference is only one of those things was specifically designed to kill people, the rest weren't
 
2013-01-05 04:28:33 PM

Infernalist: Bit'O'Gristle: Waxing_Chewbacca: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm really glad that the people in the house had guns, and were able to effectively take out this scumbag before everyone in the house were gunned down like tied down sheep.


/oh wait...they didn't and they were.
//please continue

Exactly!!!' Everyone from birth to death should be heavily armed. Then we'd all be safe! Yippee.

/yes, because enacting a new total gun ban would make every criminal in the USA turn in their guns. You know, out of civic duty. It's a much better tactic when faced with a armed person in your home to just lay down and piss yourself, and wait for him to kill you and your family. Let me know how that works out for you.

How do you get through the day without pissing yourself in fear?


/lol..who said i was afraid? I'm actually not at all.  i just choose my right to be able to defend myself and my family.  No, the odds are that nothing will happen, but those people killed probably thought the same thing. Just saying. Better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.
 
2013-01-05 04:28:39 PM

PillsHere: Reading these gun threads on Fark over the past year has led me to believe that only the mentally ill use/own guns since every time a gun is used the person is disregarded as being mentally ill.


Well it certainly shouldn't be normal for someone to have the urge to go on a shooting spree. Are you suggesting mentally stable people would shoot up a neighborhood?
 
2013-01-05 04:28:57 PM

LordJiro: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and gets gunned down while he's getting it from wherever he keeps it, because nobody has their farking gun at the farking dinner table unless they, themselves, are mentally ill.
4. Gunman is more alert, so nobody escapes to get the police.
5. Eventually, he kills them all like sheep.
6. And gets away.

FTFY.


So it's not a big deal if the dad still has a gun since he won't be able to make a difference anyway, right?
 
2013-01-05 04:29:00 PM

LordJiro: david_gaithersburg: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

.
Another farking blue state, and liberalisim is indeed a mental disorder.

Because, as we all know, 'blue' state means EVERYONE is a liberal! And political affiliations have EVERYTHING to do with every shooting.


.
Fark has taught me that such broad generalizations are perfectly acceptable, normal, and expected.
 
2013-01-05 04:29:43 PM

Linux_Yes: another Schizophrenic gun. when are these manufacturers going to start screen these guns for mental illness? its crazy. you'd have thougt they'd figured it out by now.


Lol, he's talking about himself.
 
2013-01-05 04:29:55 PM

Bit'O'Gristle:
/whichever side "handed" the person is. And yes, they would have to get to it...im not saying they would not, but whatever, lay down for it if you wanna, i prefer to have a method to defend my family. You do what you want.



Do you also set a second glass at each meal to collect the urine you expel while pissing yourself in fear?
 
2013-01-05 04:29:56 PM

tblax: No, that would be ridiculous, of course. The difference is only one of those things was specifically designed to kill people, the rest weren't


Does that really make it better? That they're used to kill as a secondary use, OR that they kill as an unintended side effect?

I thought the goal was saving lives and not simply shifting the methods of murder.
 
2013-01-05 04:29:57 PM

LordJiro: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and gets gunned down while he's getting it from wherever he keeps it, because nobody has their farking gun at the farking dinner table unless they, themselves, are mentally ill.
4. Gunman is more alert, so nobody escapes to get the police.
5. Eventually, he kills them all like sheep.
6. And gets away.

FTFY.


0 / 10. Who said anything about having it right at the table. Moron.
 
2013-01-05 04:30:17 PM

david_gaithersburg: LordJiro: david_gaithersburg: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

.
Another farking blue state, and liberalisim is indeed a mental disorder.

Because, as we all know, 'blue' state means EVERYONE is a liberal! And political affiliations have EVERYTHING to do with every shooting.

.
Fark has taught me that such broad generalizations are perfectly acceptable, normal, and expected.


Only for red states. Get it right.
 
2013-01-05 04:30:26 PM

Awesome T-Shirt: Linux_Yes: another Schizophrenic gun. when are these manufacturers going to start screen these guns for mental illness? its crazy. you'd have thougt they'd figured it out by now.

Lol, he's talking about himself.


And of course, I quote the wrong person.
 
2013-01-05 04:31:05 PM

pedrop357: Thankfully it's so simple. Just ban EVERYONE's guns because a very rare few may misuse them. Maybe we should do that with everything else.

Would we be having this same convseration if he had burglarized a police vehicle and used their guns? Even the ATF, FBI, and DEA have had automatic weapons, flashbangs, vests, etc. stolen in vehicle burglaries. If someone misuses one of their guns, should we disarm them too?



Again, every other first world nation on Earth demonstrates your argument as stupid. Police are well trained and take reasonable precautions with their weapons. Private citizens statistically do not.

I am not pro-gun control, but I have nothing but contempt for your idiotic and factually baseless religious position. It's the intellectual equivalent of creationism when we live in a world of data on a plethora of effective gun regulation schemes.
 
2013-01-05 04:31:37 PM
As a long-standing liberal the whole thing makes me chuckle.

There's SO much emphasis by the right to keep Libs away from their guns that they're willing to forego and betray almost every single other principle they stand for in order to keep them.

Mental health? We need more services....which means state-sponsored health care.
Better licensing? They're game to get as obtrusive into private lives as is needed.
More legislation? As long as it means they get to keep their guns, they're willing to listen.
Mandatory Safety Training? If they get to keep their guns then they'll be happy to let the State tell them what is and what is not a safe practice.
Mandatory Registration? Do you want DNA or is microchipping the weapon and the owner to match reasonable enough?

Seriously....you'll give it all away for the sake of being able to have the existing situation continue where people are getting killed on a consistent basis.
 
2013-01-05 04:32:12 PM
You all understand hostage situations and standoffs have gone on FOREVER, right? Find one year where someone doesn't do this. Then try to find one year in any of those gun control paradises where someone doesn't also take hostages and shoot at the police.
 
2013-01-05 04:33:19 PM

Surpheon: pedrop357: Thankfully it's so simple. Just ban EVERYONE's guns because a very rare few may misuse them. Maybe we should do that with everything else.

Would we be having this same convseration if he had burglarized a police vehicle and used their guns? Even the ATF, FBI, and DEA have had automatic weapons, flashbangs, vests, etc. stolen in vehicle burglaries. If someone misuses one of their guns, should we disarm them too?


Again, every other first world nation on Earth demonstrates your argument as stupid. Police are well trained and take reasonable precautions with their weapons. Private citizens statistically do not.

I am not pro-gun control, but I have nothing but contempt for your idiotic and factually baseless religious position. It's the intellectual equivalent of creationism when we live in a world of data on a plethora of effective gun regulation schemes.


.
DId you post to the wrong thread or something?
 
2013-01-05 04:33:19 PM

skinink: The NRA solution for this type of shooting is for the Federal government to post armed guards in every house.


My house has an armed guard. We haven't had a single problem.
 
2013-01-05 04:33:26 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: /ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed.


Yep. If you have a gun in the house, you are more likely to be involved in a homicide. 10 TIMES more likely to be involved in a suicide.

Good job. And I notice in your scenario, the gunman that breaks into the house lets dad go get his gun, go get ammo, load the weapon, and come back.

What a considerate gunman!
 
2013-01-05 04:33:30 PM
I wonder if he used guns purchased legally, like Holmes or Lanza.
 
2013-01-05 04:33:59 PM

Surpheon: Again, every other first world nation on Earth demonstrates your argument as stupid. Police are well trained and take reasonable precautions with their weapons. Private citizens statistically do not.

I am not pro-gun control, but I have nothing but contempt for your idiotic and factually baseless religious position. It's the intellectual equivalent of creationism when we live in a world of data on a plethora of effective gun regulation schemes.



Really? Is that why the police injure so many bystanders and average citizens do not? How do you explain police vehicles and armories being occasionally burglarized? If everyone should be disarms because one guy in CT stole someone's weapons and killed people, shouldn't that same standard apply to the government's weapons?
 
2013-01-05 04:34:28 PM

aearra: Another day in america. Another mass murder. Another shoot out. Another day full of sound and fury signifying nothing as america does nothing to solve the situation but whine. Another day where nobody outside of the us cares.


the us?
 
2013-01-05 04:35:04 PM
Aurora, Co. The Tijuana of Colorado. Act accordingly.
 
2013-01-05 04:35:32 PM

tblax: I wonder if he used guns purchased legally, like Holmes or Lanza.


Adam Lanza did not purchase any firearms legally.
 
2013-01-05 04:36:10 PM

Dimensio: tblax: I wonder if he used guns purchased legally, like Holmes or Lanza.

Adam Lanza did not purchase any firearms legally.


I didn't say he did. I said he used guns purchased legally.
 
2013-01-05 04:36:54 PM
The first one or two threads I made popcorn.Now? Not even worth peanuts.
The same old rehtoric and non-viable solutions.
It's going to happen,one way or the other.Always has and always will.
 
2013-01-05 04:37:03 PM
Nice to see that, as usual, Fark knows exactly what happened and what should be done to solve the problem, even before the police.

We should hire this shiat out.
 
2013-01-05 04:37:11 PM

jehovahs witness protection: skinink: The NRA solution for this type of shooting is for the Federal government to post armed guards in every house.

My house has an armed guard. We haven't had a single problem.


I leave my doors unlocked, my car unlocked, and my guns are nowhere near where I sleep.

I haven't had a single problem.

Shouldn't you have THREE armed guards? You know, for when one has to take a piss, sleep, eat?
 
2013-01-05 04:37:38 PM

aearra: Another day in america. Another mass murder. Another shoot out. Another day full of sound and fury signifying nothing as america does nothing to solve the situation but whine. Another day where nobody outside of the us cares.


They have their own problems:

MEXICO: "Mexico registered 27,199 murders in 2011, or 24 per 100,000 people"

USA: All homicides (2011): 16,799, or 5.5 per 100,000 population

Private ownership of firearms is verboten in Mexico, yet their murder rate is FOUR TIMES that of the US, and their rates are climbing, while ares have fallen to the lowest level in four decades.

Go figure.
 
2013-01-05 04:38:02 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: 0 / 10. Who said anything about having it right at the table. Moron.


Well, you seemed to have assumed that him having the gun would have somehow saved him, so the options for that scenario are
A) He has the gun at the table with him (in your hypothetical scenario)

B) This man in your hypothetical scenario is, in fact,The Flash, or has precognitive abilities that allow you to guarantee that the man is able to get to the gun, get back to his family, and shoot the man before anyone gets shot.
 
2013-01-05 04:38:26 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: LordJiro: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and gets gunned down while he's getting it from wherever he keeps it, because nobody has their farking gun at the farking dinner table unless they, themselves, are mentally ill.
4. Gunman is more alert, so nobody escapes to get the police.
5. Eventually, he kills them all like sheep.
6. And gets away.

FTFY.

0 / 10. Who said anything about having it right at the table. Moron.


You realize it's more likely Dad is the one who took the hostages in the first place, right?
 
2013-01-05 04:38:32 PM

sweet-daddy-2: The first one or two threads I made popcorn.Now? Not even worth peanuts.
The same old rehtoric and non-viable solutions.
It's going to happen,one way or the other.Always has and always will.


Truly, the American answer to this issue. Nothing can be done. Why even try?
 
2013-01-05 04:39:13 PM

Amos Quito: Private ownership of firearms is verboten in Mexico, yet their murder rate is FOUR TIMES that of the US, and their rates are climbing, while ares have fallen to the lowest level in four decades.

Go figure.



We happily supply Mexico with guns. They learned it from us.
 
2013-01-05 04:39:56 PM

tblax: I didn't say he did. I said he used guns purchased legally.


If that's the standard, then ALL guns were purchased legally. Every gun the Nazis used to kill Jews was procured or purchased legally. Every gun ever used by the police to kill innocent, unarmed people has been purchased legally. Every gun the US Marshals and FBI used at Ruby Ridge was purchased legally.

BTW, every length of rope used to hand runaway slaves, lynch black people, etc. was all purchased legally.

What's your point?
 
2013-01-05 04:40:57 PM

mediablitz: We happily supply Mexico with guns. They learned it from us.


"'We" do? Who is 'we', and how are 'we' supplying them with Russian and Chinese full auto AK rifles?
 
2013-01-05 04:40:59 PM
In before "Arming more people with guns would of prevented this tragedy"

/Okay... i'm late to the party.... way way too late.
 
2013-01-05 04:41:19 PM

tblax: JesseL: vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.

Evil is thinking that you can make people safer by taking away their basic freedoms.

Are you going to make it harder for everyone to get instant cold packs, household cleaning products, model airplane fuel, castor beans, or the million other everyday things someone could use to kill a lot of people too?

No, that would be ridiculous, of course. The difference is only one of those things was specifically designed to kill people, the rest weren't


Unfortunately, killing people is sometime still a valid need in this world.

And does the original intent of something really matter if someone turns it into a weapon and people end up dead anyway? In what way does the mental state of the original creator change anything?
 
2013-01-05 04:41:41 PM

MorePeasPlease: GAT_00: I'm sure glad this still isn't time to talk about guns.

Let's talk about them on Fark-that'll be productive!


Why not? Trolls aside, behind every Fark handle is a real person engaging in a real conversation even if it is taking place online. At least we're willing to have the conversation, even if the media and politicians won't.
 
2013-01-05 04:41:45 PM

pedrop357: BTW, every length of rope used to handdhang runaway slaves, lynch black people, etc. was all purchased legally.

 
2013-01-05 04:41:47 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.


Sadly, most of the time it's Dad shooting up his family, not some stranger.
 
2013-01-05 04:42:18 PM
In before Aspergers...
 
2013-01-05 04:42:50 PM

tblax: I didn't say he did. I said he used guns purchased legally.


Then that would apply to any guns that weren't either stolen from the factory or manufactured by a non-licensed manufacturer, thus making the measure all-but pointless. :-|
 
2013-01-05 04:42:51 PM

pedrop357: mediablitz: We happily supply Mexico with guns. They learned it from us.

"'We" do? Who is 'we', and how are 'we' supplying them with Russian and Chinese full auto AK rifles?


We meaning our ATFE and DOJ. Maybe you should learn a little bit before being willfully retarded.
 
2013-01-05 04:42:56 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.


http://www.fark.com/comments/7519459 here we have everyone suffering from multiple personality disorder.
 
2013-01-05 04:43:01 PM
Mental health and education are always the first to be chopped from the bootstrappy, deficit-reducing types in Government.

Once that stops and we're able to have a rational discussion about gun culture (not necessary control, but CULTURE), will any intelligent thought come out of this.
 
2013-01-05 04:43:08 PM

tblax: Dimensio: tblax: I wonder if he used guns purchased legally, like Holmes or Lanza.

Adam Lanza did not purchase any firearms legally.

I didn't say he did. I said he used guns purchased legally.


Well, most are. Because having them stolen from the warehouse of gun shop is bad business.
 
2013-01-05 04:43:37 PM

pedrop357: tblax: I didn't say he did. I said he used guns purchased legally.

If that's the standard, then ALL guns were purchased legally. Every gun the Nazis used to kill Jews was procured or purchased legally. Every gun ever used by the police to kill innocent, unarmed people has been purchased legally. Every gun the US Marshals and FBI used at Ruby Ridge was purchased legally.

BTW, every length of rope used to hand runaway slaves, lynch black people, etc. was all purchased legally.

What's your point?


I believe the point is the day before Adam went to school Nancy Lanza was one of millions of responsible gun owners who shouldn't be punished for the crimes of a few nuts.
 
2013-01-05 04:44:34 PM

JesseL: And does the original intent of something really matter if someone turns it into a weapon and people end up dead anyway? In what way does the mental state of the original creator change anything?


That's the thing they never admit, it doesn't. It makes them happier to know that a gun wasn't used, because gun control is an end unto itself for them.

A person who barricades some doors and lights a place on fire doesn't count in their world because he didn't use a gun. Matches, gasoline, etc. aren't 'intended' for that use, and if you follow left wing politics, you know that intentions are more important then methods or actions.
 
2013-01-05 04:46:04 PM

vpb: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Like the creepy attraction to weapons that psychos have?


Or maybe something is wrong withe people of Aurora CO?

You really think you are going to be able to create an effective mental health treatment program for a very diverse population of 315 million? This like all other health care is one of those issues best addressed at the state and local level.
 
2013-01-05 04:46:40 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I believe the point is the day before Adam went to school Nancy Lanza was one of millions of responsible gun owners who shouldn't be punished for the crimes of a few nuts.


If we're going to start cracking down on responsible and/or law abiding gun owners because someone might kill them and misuses their guns, are we also going to disarm the police when it happens to them?
 
2013-01-05 04:46:57 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I believe the point is the day before Adam went to school Nancy Lanza was one of millions of responsible gun owners who shouldn't be punished for the crimes of a few nuts.


Sounds like Nancy should have pulled the trigger, as it were, on getting her son committed a bit earlier.
 
2013-01-05 04:47:46 PM
We need to ban liberal cities. Far too many cities run by liberals have high murder rates.
 
2013-01-05 04:47:50 PM

here to help: So the gun nuts new war cry is "BUT WE SHOULDZ BE LOOKING INTO MENTAL HEALTH!!1" and acting as if that was somehow never suggested by the gun control advocates before?

Wow... just... wow.


When was that? The early '80s when Reagan and Brady were shot by a crazy person and more hospitals were closed down? Bang up job the Brady people did there.
 
2013-01-05 04:48:45 PM

WhoopAssWayne: I wonder what the liberal fascists will try to ban this time. They're already working on 2nd amendment and also the 1st with "violent" video games. How about the 3rd this time? You know, if more soldiers could commandeer homes, tragedies like this wouldn't happen as often. Think of the children and ban the 3rd amendment! No tragedy should remain unexploited!


I would ban people who believe that fascists can be liberals. Obviously too dim to think on their own.
 
2013-01-05 04:49:06 PM

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I believe the point is the day before Adam went to school Nancy Lanza was one of millions of responsible gun owners who shouldn't be punished for the crimes of a few nuts.

If we're going to start cracking down on responsible and/or law abiding gun owners because someone might kill them and misuses their guns, are we also going to disarm the police when it happens to them?


Yeah, okay. Sure, why not?
 
2013-01-05 04:49:08 PM

mediablitz: Amos Quito: Private ownership of firearms is verboten in Mexico, yet their murder rate is FOUR TIMES that of the US, and their rates are climbing, while ares have fallen to the lowest level in four decades.

Go figure.


We happily supply Mexico with guns. They learned it from us.



Well, that was a fast and furious reply.

Hint: The fact that DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL is the PRIMARY cause for most murders in BOTH countries.
 
2013-01-05 04:49:14 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Not that mental health isn't an important issue, but what part of that article gave you any inclination as to the shooter's frame of mind? Sure, you are free to guess about it all you want, but there doesn't appear to be any indication that the shooter was anything more than a criminal as yet.


Anyone who considers shooting hostages an option under any circumstances is mentally ill you farking moron.
 
2013-01-05 04:49:48 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pedrop357: tblax: I didn't say he did. I said he used guns purchased legally.

If that's the standard, then ALL guns were purchased legally. Every gun the Nazis used to kill Jews was procured or purchased legally. Every gun ever used by the police to kill innocent, unarmed people has been purchased legally. Every gun the US Marshals and FBI used at Ruby Ridge was purchased legally.

BTW, every length of rope used to hand runaway slaves, lynch black people, etc. was all purchased legally.

What's your point?

I believe the point is the day before Adam went to school Nancy Lanza was one of millions of responsible gun owners who shouldn't be punished for the crimes of a few nuts.


So we should remove any means a person might have to potentially have someone else kill them, steal it, and then commit a crime?

Seriously - you offer nothing of value to the debate.
 
2013-01-05 04:50:00 PM

pedrop357: That's the thing they never admit, it doesn't. It makes them happier to know that a gun wasn't used, because gun control is an end unto itself for them.


Damned straight.

Those people died FREE!

Free, before Fartbama and the UN could take away all their guns.
 
2013-01-05 04:50:55 PM
Headlines you never see:
"Crazed lunatic with a baseball bat holds family hostage, 4 dead, including batsman".

Crazy people will always be crazy, sometimes people just snap, regardless of access to mental health services. We do not have to let them get their hands on firearms.
 
2013-01-05 04:50:57 PM

GAT_00: I'm sure glad this still isn't time to talk about guns.


Such a dumb thing to keep repeating. You chickheads haven't shut your traps for years now.
 
2013-01-05 04:50:59 PM

pedrop357: tblax: I didn't say he did. I said he used guns purchased legally.

If that's the standard, then ALL guns were purchased legally. Every gun the Nazis used to kill Jews was procured or purchased legally. Every gun ever used by the police to kill innocent, unarmed people has been purchased legally. Every gun the US Marshals and FBI used at Ruby Ridge was purchased legally.

BTW, every length of rope used to hand runaway slaves, lynch black people, etc. was all purchased legally.

What's your point?


But rope isn't meant to kill people, so that makes it all better.
 
2013-01-05 04:51:40 PM

aearra: Another day in america. Another mass murder. Another shoot out. Another day full of sound and fury signifying nothing as america does nothing to solve the situation but whine. Another day where nobody outside of the us cares.


another day where people let emotion overwhelm logic.
 
2013-01-05 04:52:16 PM

Infernalist: You know what? fark it. If people are intent on pretending like guns aren't a problem and it's 'THE CRAZY PEOPLE ARE TO BLAME LOL', then we need to have a tragedy like this every goddamned day until people get tired of seeing dead people, or enough victims get pissed off enough to tar and feather the local NRA gun nuts in their respective communities.

Until then, BRING IT ON, BABY. Let's see how much blood America can take before she flinches.


Newsletter please.
 
2013-01-05 04:52:23 PM

2wolves: WhoopAssWayne: I wonder what the liberal fascists will try to ban this time. They're already working on 2nd amendment and also the 1st with "violent" video games. How about the 3rd this time? You know, if more soldiers could commandeer homes, tragedies like this wouldn't happen as often. Think of the children and ban the 3rd amendment! No tragedy should remain unexploited!

I would ban people who believe that fascists can be liberals. Obviously too dim to think on their own.


That's why I like "statists". It encompasses tyranny from both ends of the left-right spectrum.
 
2013-01-05 04:52:24 PM

aearra: Another day in america. Another mass murder. Another shoot out. Another day full of sound and fury signifying nothing as america does nothing to solve the situation but whine. Another day where nobody outside of the us cares.


Pretty much my thoughts as well.
I live in Denver and just realized this happened by going on Fark.
 
2013-01-05 04:52:56 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Not that mental health isn't an important issue, but what part of that article gave you any inclination as to the shooter's frame of mind? Sure, you are free to guess about it all you want, but there doesn't appear to be any indication that the shooter was anything more than a criminal as yet.


The fact that he killed 4 people seems to be a pretty solid clue to me. It seems to me that even "normal" criminals are averse to mass murder.

What is happening now is that there are more people who have no regard for their own lives and simply want to kill as many people as they can before they are taken out themselves. If such people are not classified as mentally ill, that term has absolutely no meaning.
 
2013-01-05 04:53:22 PM
And here's the counter-article about someone shooting a home invader in self-defense. Of course no one can prove the person entering the premises would have killed anyone and a gun stopped them but that's how lopsided the argument is.

Woman shoots alleged home invader in Walton County
 
2013-01-05 04:54:08 PM
If only those hostages had hostages...
 
2013-01-05 04:54:43 PM

volodya: Clearly the answer to these situations is.....more guns!


I bet we'd get a resounding "Yes!" if we could ask the three victims who were shot to death.
 
2013-01-05 04:56:00 PM
Interesting. Looks like the gunman was related to those who were killed.

So... the gun was already in the house? Yet another example of family killing family, courtesy of a gun for "protection"?
 
2013-01-05 04:56:10 PM

jaytkay: Damned straight.

Those people died FREE!

Free, before Fartbama and the UN could take away all their guns.



They died at the hands of another. Gun control groups and all the concern trolls only care when it's a gun in the killer's hands. The fact that there are tens of millions of people who own hundreds of millions of guns, only tens of thousands of problems with those guns, areas with high gun ownership do not correspond to high crime with or without guns, AND our non-gun crime rate ALONE dwarfs most countries goes very far to suggest that it's not a gun availability problem driving our crime rate, it's a violence problem.

Banning and confiscating is about the the only way to make a dent in the small number of deaths by the very rare mass shooting. So, all guns to stop some of the 200 or so deaths in this year by mass killer. Now what about the other 8800 or so people killed by guns? You really think the criminals will just walk away or will hey just guns they managed to steal (look at Britain), knives, fire, etc.? If we shift a substantial number of deaths by gun to being deaths by something else, we may have saved lives.

Now, what about all the crime against people gun owners have stopped? How many more rapes, robberies, brutal beatings, home invasions, etc. are we willing to accept?

Focusing 'crime prevention' efforts on guns, or other tools, is short sighted, idiotic, distracting, and overall ineffective. Focus on the people doing it and why,
 
2013-01-05 04:56:50 PM

stirfrybry: volodya: Clearly the answer to these situations is.....more guns!

I bet we'd get a resounding "Yes!" if we could ask the three victims who were shot to death.


Really? It looks like they were killed by a relative. Possibly by a gun already in the house. You think they wish the gun was there?
 
2013-01-05 04:56:53 PM
This is what happens when you legalize marijuana.
 
2013-01-05 04:58:01 PM
I just love how libs love to ignore the effectual use of firearms while spouting all of the evil. Look just 30 or so stories back and you see where a mom used a gun to stop an intruder and thus protect herself and 2 children. But I suppose in the liberal mind set, that is just fictional.

Y'all spend so much time panicking about the few gun tragedies that happen, and ignore the huge vast majority of guns and gun owners that NEVER are involved in a tragedy.

FACT: you are not safe, at all, in anything that you do. Life has dangers and you can not eliminate them.

/Not trying to minimize the tragedies that have occurred, every innocent death is a sad loss, but you are focusing on the wrong thing. Violence will happen regardless.
 
2013-01-05 04:58:17 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Bit'O'Gristle: LordJiro: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and gets gunned down while he's getting it from wherever he keeps it, because nobody has their farking gun at the farking dinner table unless they, themselves, are mentally ill.
4. Gunman is more alert, so nobody escapes to get the police.
5. Eventually, he kills them all like sheep.
6. And gets away.

FTFY.

0 / 10. Who said anything about having it right at the table. Moron.

You realize it's more likely Dad is the one who took the hostages in the first place, right?


1. Dad snaps and kills family with gun at dinner table.

Or more likely,

1. Family at dinner table mourns son who committed suicide with father's gun
 
2013-01-05 04:58:29 PM

JesseL: vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.

Evil is thinking that you can make people safer by taking away their basic freedoms.

Are you going to make it harder for everyone to get instant cold packs, household cleaning products, model airplane fuel, castor beans, or the million other everyday things someone could use to kill a lot of people too?


fark that basic freedom shiat. it's crap and you know it. want to bear arms? join the goddamn well-regulated militia. until then, stfu or diaf. cuz right now, this shiat is anything BUT well-regulated.
 
2013-01-05 04:59:10 PM

utah dude: once we ban aurora colorado all will be well. is columbine in aurora ?


No, but it's very close, and all are in the Denver area. I suggest a ban on high-altitude living.
 
2013-01-05 04:59:36 PM

LessO2: Mental health and education are always the first to be chopped from the bootstrappy, deficit-reducing types in Government.

Once that stops and we're able to have a rational discussion about gun culture (not necessary control, but CULTURE), will any intelligent thought come out of this.


Or when there's a mass shooting, if the media elects to not publish the name of the shooter and their high chore, but instead focus on the names of the victims (if their family allows them to be released). That may take away the potential notoriety that these shooters are seeking. I'm not looking to restrict the media with legislation, but maybe realize that they're part of the problem.
 
2013-01-05 04:59:52 PM

Farker Soze: But rope isn't meant to kill people, so that makes it all better.


Indeed. I'm sure that was comforting to all those people hung for helping runaway slaves, being runaway slaves, being black in a shiatty town.

Come to think of it, crosses were never meant to be used to crucify people. I wonder if it mattered to the people slowly dying on the cross that crosses weren't meant to be used that way.

All those heretic burned at the stake should have taken cold comfort in knowing that fire wasn't meant to kill and stakes weren't intended to be used this way.
 
2013-01-05 05:00:06 PM
Let's freak out about every shooting now, despite the fact gun murders go down every year.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-05 05:00:13 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.


I had a dream a few nights ago in which I saw a PSA regarding the Oregon mall shooter. In the dream, the guy starts popping off a few rounds, and a few concealed-carriers pull out their weapons on the mezzanine, brace their hands on the rail, and start firing until the gunman is dead. This was followed by a black slate saying "THIS NEVER HAPPENS". It was estimated that there were at least a dozen CCW holders in the mall packing heat at the time of the shooting, yet they served no useful purpose. By and large, I believe the fantasy of armed civilians stopping a shooter are just that: fantasy. In your scenario #2, what do you think the gunman is doing while Dad gets his gun? Capping the rest of the family.
 
2013-01-05 05:00:16 PM
score, not chore
 
2013-01-05 05:00:58 PM

pedrop357: Come to think of it, crosses were never meant to be used to crucify people. I wonder if it mattered to the people slowly dying on the cross that crosses weren't meant to be used that way.


What? Yes they were. That was where the originated. That was the entire f*cking point of them, they were execution devices.
 
2013-01-05 05:01:12 PM

piglet: Or more likely,

1. Family at dinner table mourns son who committed suicide with father's gun



Family at dinner table mourns son who used mom's kitchen knife to slit wrists.
Family at dinner table mourns son who used sister's pain medication to overdose.
Family at dinner table mourns son who used dad's rope to hang self.
 
2013-01-05 05:02:18 PM

mediablitz: sweet-daddy-2: The first one or two threads I made popcorn.Now? Not even worth peanuts.
The same old rehtoric and non-viable solutions.
It's going to happen,one way or the other.Always has and always will.

Truly, the American answer to this issue. Nothing can be done. Why even try?


The American reality is that nothing can be done by society. Only by individuals, and only one at a time. Organized action on such a hot issue is always going to be either ineffective or misguided.

We just have to hope that lots of individuals, including us, acting alone to do what we think is the right thing will be enough.
 
2013-01-05 05:02:47 PM

Felgraf: What? Yes they were. That was where the originated. That was the entire f*cking point of them, they were execution devices.


Good point.

I'll pull the leftwing tactic of shifting goalposts now and point out that wood isn't designed to kill
 
2013-01-05 05:04:52 PM

topcon: Let's freak out about every shooting now, despite the fact gun murders go down every year.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]


These facts get posted in every thread (once or twice by me). Few people seem to care.
 
2013-01-05 05:05:12 PM

pedrop357: piglet: Or more likely,

1. Family at dinner table mourns son who committed suicide with father's gun


Family at dinner table mourns son who used mom's kitchen knife to slit wrists.
Family at dinner table mourns son who used sister's pain medication to overdose.
Family at dinner table mourns son who used dad's rope to hang self.


At least they're still having dinner.

This probably started over an argument over what movie they were going to go see.
 
2013-01-05 05:06:17 PM

buckler: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.

I had a dream a few nights ago in which I saw a PSA regarding the Oregon mall shooter. In the dream, the guy starts popping off a few rounds, and a few concealed-carriers pull out their weapons on the mezzanine, brace their hands on the rail, and start firing until the gunman is dead. This was followed by a black slate saying "THIS NEVER HAPPENS". It was estimated that there were at least a dozen CCW holders in the mall packing heat at the time of the shooting, yet they served no useful purpose. By and large, I believe the fantasy of armed civilians stopping a shooter are just that: fantasy. In your scenario #2, what do you think the gunman is doing while Dad gets his gun? Capping the rest of the family.


Maybe because it's stupid and irresponsible fire a weapon into a crowd of screaming people. Bullets don't just magically stop once they enter a human body. Try learning something about what you're talking about if you want people to take you seriously.
 
2013-01-05 05:09:05 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: You realize it's more likely Dad is the one who took the hostages in the first place, right?


mediablitz: the gun was already in the house?



Then who was phone?
 
2013-01-05 05:09:17 PM

duffblue: Maybe because it's stupid and irresponsible fire a weapon into a crowd of screaming people. Bullets don't just magically stop once they enter a human body. Try learning something about what you're talking about if you want people to take you seriously.


And that's one point I was getting at. People think (as I saw in the aftermath of the first Aurora shooting), that they can fire willy-nilly into a crowd of screaming, rushing people trying desperately to escape, and magically only hit the gunman. Thanks for helping to support my point.
 
2013-01-05 05:09:51 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.


Story 3
1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. blows dad's head off when dad runs for a gun
4. kills family

See how your cute little stories don't actually mean anything?
 
2013-01-05 05:09:53 PM

buckler: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.

I had a dream a few nights ago in which I saw a PSA regarding the Oregon mall shooter. In the dream, the guy starts popping off a few rounds, and a few concealed-carriers pull out their weapons on the mezzanine, brace their hands on the rail, and start firing until the gunman is dead. This was followed by a black slate saying "THIS NEVER HAPPENS". It was estimated that there were at least a dozen CCW holders in the mall packing heat at the time of the shooting, yet they served no useful purpose. By and large, I believe the fantasy of armed civilians stopping a shooter are just that: fantasy. In your scenario #2, what do you think the gunman is doing while Dad gets his gun? Capping the rest of the family.


It's very doubtful that there were any CCW holders packing in the mall since I've yet to see a mall that allows you to carry your firearm and most CCW holders are law abiding citizens.
 
2013-01-05 05:10:25 PM

brukmann: SN1987a goes boom: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Not that mental health isn't an important issue, but what part of that article gave you any inclination as to the shooter's frame of mind? Sure, you are free to guess about it all you want, but there doesn't appear to be any indication that the shooter was anything more than a criminal as yet.

Anyone who considers shooting hostages an option under any circumstances is mentally ill you farking moron.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

/Also, if you have to resort to name calling, then your argument is probably BS.
 
2013-01-05 05:11:18 PM

buckler: And that's one point I was getting at. People think (as I saw in the aftermath of the first Aurora shooting), that they can fire willy-nilly into a crowd of screaming, rushing people trying desperately to escape, and magically only hit the gunman. Thanks for helping to support my point.


Crowd and bystander don't stop the police form firing like crazy and hitting everyone else and each other as much as the target. Average citizens? not so much. It should be easy to find all the stories where they shoot an attacker and wound/kill innocent people too.
 
2013-01-05 05:11:22 PM

vudutek: JesseL: vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.

Evil is thinking that you can make people safer by taking away their basic freedoms.

Are you going to make it harder for everyone to get instant cold packs, household cleaning products, model airplane fuel, castor beans, or the million other everyday things someone could use to kill a lot of people too?

fark that basic freedom shiat. it's crap and you know it. want to bear arms? join the goddamn well-regulated militia. until then, stfu or diaf. cuz right now, this shiat is anything BUT well-regulated.


#1 According to 10 USC § 311 I am in fact a member of the militia.

#2 The idea that the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on militia service has been thoroughly dismissed by the Supreme Court. It's a non-starter for a legal argument. Give it up.

#3 I'd have the right to own guns even if it weren't protected by the constitution. I'd have that right even if the state explicitly denied it, because it's directly implied by my self-ownership.

Owning myself implies the right to prevent others from infringing upon that ownership by killing, imprisoning, or enslaving me. Having that right to defend myself would be meaningless if I were powerless to enforce it. Effectively defending myself requires tools, and the most effective tools in existence today for defending myself are firearms.

Pass whatever laws you like, but I'll keep my guns.
 
2013-01-05 05:12:04 PM

robodog: It's very doubtful that there were any CCW holders packing in the mall since I've yet to see a mall that allows you to carry your firearm and most CCW holders are law abiding citizens.


And if they're concealed, how would the mall know unless they frisked everyone coming in? Your faith in humanity is charming.
 
2013-01-05 05:12:30 PM

efgeise: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.

Story 3
1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. blows dad's head off when dad runs for a gun
4. kills family

See how your cute little stories don't actually mean anything?


The family in story 2 is pretty farked up if they can just go back to eating dinner after witnessing the dad kill a guy.
 
2013-01-05 05:12:31 PM

pedrop357: piglet: Or more likely,

1. Family at dinner table mourns son who committed suicide with father's gun


Family at dinner table mourns son who used mom's kitchen knife to slit wrists.
Family at dinner table mourns son who used sister's pain medication to overdose.
Family at dinner table mourns son who used dad's rope to hang self.


Guns are just a bit more efficient than the other methods. When my second oldest brother tried to kill himself with pills, he failed and got help. When my other brother tried with a gun, there was no going back.

(Not in truth anti gun, but gun owners are most likely to face tragedy with their own gun. That is pretty clear at this point.)
 
2013-01-05 05:12:35 PM

pedrop357: .

I'll pull the leftwing tactic of shifting goalposts now and point out that wood isn't designed to kill


Haha, yes, it's totally a tactic that only the left wing uses. Right. Please, keep telling yourself that.

For those calling for 'better mental health screening', I do ask a question.

How exactly do you plan to implement this? Pay for it? Are you OK with people being held against their will? What checks will there be in place to make sure those who get committed involuntarily (BEFORE commiting, or attempting to commit, any act that endangers another) are actually insane, and are being evaluated fairly and objectively? (This is actually a HUGE problem. In a science/medical field that is currently almost *Entirely* observation based, observation bias is a dangerous son of a biatch).

And before you go off on me as ONNA DEM GUN GRABBIN LBIERALS!, no. I'm not certain what gun control measures (IF ANY) could, in fact, prevent stuff like this. Or even make them less common.
However, I'd also like those who are super-pro-second ammendment to ALSO be honest. Because I've seen people biatching when news or radio shows claimed that some people purchased the AR-rifles because, well, they thought they were cool! I've seen people going "What, no! That's a horrible mischaracterization, no one does that!"

And yet, bushmaster, you know, *had advertisements* to that very effect. That it should be purchased simply because it was "manly".

So, you know, I'd like some actual goddamn honesty from both sides. And perhaps some attempt to at least understand where people are coming from on different issues. Because, you know what? I can understand why people might feel any form of gun regulation is evil. I disagree, but I can understand where they come from. I'm not seeing a whole lot of that from the other side, but that could be the aforementioned 'confirmation bias' being a biatch.

Or perhaps a bit of honesty and humility from everyone is a bit too much to ask for.
 
2013-01-05 05:13:57 PM

piglet: Guns are just a bit more efficient than the other methods. When my second oldest brother tried to kill himself with pills, he failed and got help. When my other brother tried with a gun, there was no going back.

(Not in truth anti gun, but gun owners are most likely to face tragedy with their own gun. That is pretty clear at this point.)



Lack of availability of guns doesn't stop the Japanese from killing themselves as much or more as we do.
 
2013-01-05 05:17:21 PM

Bit'O'Gristle:

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-05 05:17:31 PM
This killed my boner :c
 
2013-01-05 05:17:33 PM

pedrop357: piglet: Guns are just a bit more efficient than the other methods. When my second oldest brother tried to kill himself with pills, he failed and got help. When my other brother tried with a gun, there was no going back.

(Not in truth anti gun, but gun owners are most likely to face tragedy with their own gun. That is pretty clear at this point.)


Lack of availability of guns doesn't stop the Japanese from killing themselves as much or more as we do.


Yes, but his argument is that a gun is a lot more effective, a lot harder to recover from if people catch you after the fact, and a lot easier to do in the spur of the moment if you have access to one (before you suggest "Jumping off a bridge is hard to recover from and super effective, too!", I wish to point out that very few people own tall bridges within their homes. Nor do many people have trains within their homes, and in theory people can be pulled off the train track-there's likely to be other people around). He has even pointed out he is not anti-gun, he IS pointing out that, yes, they ARE more effective suicide weapons, and that it's stupid, and, quite frankly, dishonest and childish to pretend that they are not.

Do you disagree?
 
2013-01-05 05:18:13 PM

pedrop357: piglet: Or more likely,

1. Family at dinner table mourns son who committed suicide with father's gun


Family at dinner table mourns son who used mom's kitchen knife to slit wrists.
Family at dinner table mourns son who used sister's pain medication to overdose.
Family at dinner table mourns son who used dad's rope to hang self.


The problem is though that, statistically, a gun in a house yields a higher chance of someone committing suicide a gun not in a house. Mainly because the gun offers the (hopefully) quickest and least-painful way of kill yourself.

That said, I am both a fan of mental health help and *smart* gun control. But I doubt either will come about, because A) gun control is inherently bad, according to the NRA, and B) increasing mental health care means spending money on it, and we've all seen how the GOP "dislikes" spending.

So, I don't see either of these problems getting fixed while the current crop of politicians are in place. The current left are too gun-control happy, and the current right are too batshiat to want to fix the problems.
 
2013-01-05 05:18:52 PM

buckler: I had a dream a few nights ago in which I saw a PSA regarding the Oregon mall shooter. In the dream, the guy starts popping off a few rounds, and a few concealed-carriers pull out their weapons on the mezzanine, brace their hands on the rail, and start firing until the gunman is dead. This was followed by a black slate saying "THIS NEVER HAPPENS". It was estimated that there were at least a dozen CCW holders in the mall packing heat at the time of the shooting, yet they served no useful purpose. By and large, I believe the fantasy of armed civilians stopping a shooter are just that: fantasy. In your scenario


Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.
 
2013-01-05 05:21:33 PM

JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.


Wishful thinking.
 
2013-01-05 05:23:13 PM

Felgraf: Yes, but his argument is that a gun is a lot more effective, a lot harder to recover from if people catch you after the fact, and a lot easier to do in the spur of the moment if you have access to one (before you suggest "Jumping off a bridge is hard to recover from and super effective, too!", I wish to point out that very few people own tall bridges within their homes. Nor do many people have trains within their homes, and in theory people can be pulled off the train track-there's likely to be other people around). He has even pointed out he is not anti-gun, he IS pointing out that, yes, they ARE more effective suicide weapons, and that it's stupid, and, quite frankly, dishonest and childish to pretend that they are not.

Do you disagree?



I suppose. We'd have to know how often people attempt in countries like Japan, Australia, etc.

If guns are 90% effective here and we have 100 attempts of which 90 succeed, is that better overall then a country where 300 people attempt with a 50% success rate? That means a lot more suicidal, depressed people. Still better to try and deal with the suicidal people and not their tools.
 
2013-01-05 05:23:18 PM

JesseL: buckler: I had a dream a few nights ago in which I saw a PSA regarding the Oregon mall shooter. In the dream, the guy starts popping off a few rounds, and a few concealed-carriers pull out their weapons on the mezzanine, brace their hands on the rail, and start firing until the gunman is dead. This was followed by a black slate saying "THIS NEVER HAPPENS". It was estimated that there were at least a dozen CCW holders in the mall packing heat at the time of the shooting, yet they served no useful purpose. By and large, I believe the fantasy of armed civilians stopping a shooter are just that: fantasy. In your scenario

Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.


Citation? (not being snarky, genuinely curious).
 
2013-01-05 05:24:09 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.



Because the right has always considered violence a mental health issue where the perps require hospital care and medication, not prison time.
 
2013-01-05 05:24:25 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Wishful thinking.


Maybe, but not quite as wishful as ignoring the fact that a CCW holder was in fact there and did something because it would fark up a good narrative.

So whats you're explanation for why the shooter chose that time to end his spree?
 
2013-01-05 05:25:21 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Wishful thinking.


That is received wisdom now. I actually read the daily NRA spam, and every time a "fact" like that is included, the gun wankers immediately begin parroting it on Fark.

They've got a whole canon of bullshiat stories and arguments, straight from the NRA.
 
2013-01-05 05:25:35 PM

buckler: JesseL: buckler: I had a dream a few nights ago in which I saw a PSA regarding the Oregon mall shooter. In the dream, the guy starts popping off a few rounds, and a few concealed-carriers pull out their weapons on the mezzanine, brace their hands on the rail, and start firing until the gunman is dead. This was followed by a black slate saying "THIS NEVER HAPPENS". It was estimated that there were at least a dozen CCW holders in the mall packing heat at the time of the shooting, yet they served no useful purpose. By and large, I believe the fantasy of armed civilians stopping a shooter are just that: fantasy. In your scenario

Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Citation? (not being snarky, genuinely curious).


http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-1 83 593571.html
 
2013-01-05 05:27:16 PM

Rich Cream: And here's the counter-article about someone shooting a home invader in self-defense. Of course no one can prove the person entering the premises would have killed anyone and a gun stopped them but that's how lopsided the argument is.

Woman shoots alleged home invader in Walton County



This is worthy of quoting.

"According to Walton County Chief Deputy Keith Brooks, the woman was working upstairs when she spotted a man outside the window of her home on Henderson Ridge Lane.  The woman, who was home with her 9-year-old twins, heard the man knock at the door. She called her husband, who said that he wasn't expecting anyone at the house.

The woman said that the man went to his vehicle and returned with a crowbar. The man then forced his way inside and rummaged through the home.
The woman grabbed a revolver fled into a crawlspace with her children.

When the man opened the crawlspace door, she fired six shots with her .38 revolver, hitting the man several times.
"She comes out of the crawlspace and she's standing over the perpetrator, who she says is crying, telling her to stop shooting," said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman.

The alleged would-be burglar -- now wounded --  fled the house, jumped into his vehicle and attempted to drive away, according to Brooks. He lost control of the vehicle and crashed. Deputies arrived on scene and took him into custody.

The man, identified by authorities as 32-year-old Paul Slater of Loganville, was taken to Gwinnett Medical Center. He is listed in critical condition."

END STORY

Clearly this is a selfish, right wing pigheaded woman who does NOT CARE about the well being of burglars / rapists / murderers, and has NO RESPECT for the families of those who lost their loved ones in Aurora or at Sandy Hook.

SHE IS THE PROBLEM!


/And I'll bet she's racist, too!
 
2013-01-05 05:27:54 PM

JesseL: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Wishful thinking.

Maybe, but not quite as wishful as ignoring the fact that a CCW holder was in fact there and did something because it would fark up a good narrative.

So whats you're explanation for why the shooter chose that time to end his spree?


I don't have an explanation but I'm not making up completely unfounded and unverifiable bullsh*t to support my argument.
 
2013-01-05 05:27:54 PM

JesseL: buckler: JesseL: buckler: I had a dream a few nights ago in which I saw a PSA regarding the Oregon mall shooter. In the dream, the guy starts popping off a few rounds, and a few concealed-carriers pull out their weapons on the mezzanine, brace their hands on the rail, and start firing until the gunman is dead. This was followed by a black slate saying "THIS NEVER HAPPENS". It was estimated that there were at least a dozen CCW holders in the mall packing heat at the time of the shooting, yet they served no useful purpose. By and large, I believe the fantasy of armed civilians stopping a shooter are just that: fantasy. In your scenario

Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Citation? (not being snarky, genuinely curious).

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-1 83 593571.html


Interesting, and food for thought. Thanks.
 
2013-01-05 05:28:38 PM

pedrop357: I suppose. We'd have to know how often people attempt in countries like Japan, Australia, etc.

If guns are 90% effective here and we have 100 attempts of which 90 succeed, is that better overall then a country where 300 people attempt with a 50% success rate? That means a lot more suicidal, depressed people. Still better to try and deal with the suicidal people and not their tools.


Where did I, or the original poster, *suggest* that we needed to deal with their tools?

As I said in my earlier post, I'm pissed people aren't being honest, and are just prentending that guns AREN'T effective killing machines, or better for suicicide, etc, like you seemed to be implying.

Why, look! Even in the person's post!

": Guns are just a bit more efficient than the other methods. When my second oldest brother tried to kill himself with pills, he failed and got help. When my other brother tried with a gun, there was no going back.

(Not in truth anti gun, but gun owners are most likely to face tragedy with their own gun. That is pretty clear at this point.)"

Being dishonest about the lethality of guns (and also denying the fact that, yeah, some gun manufacturers have sold their guns angling for the "IT'S COOOOOLLLLL to own this gun! You're not MANLY if you don't own it!) is only going to hurt your cause in the long run.

We're not going to be able to have a discussion about mental health, guns, and how they relate to each other (because, should we, say, improve mental health and remove all restrictions on guns?... even restrictions like, say, checking to see if the person is undergoing depression/on anti-psychotics-etc?), until people can be f*cking honest. And that includes being honest about guns lethality. Even if it makes you uncomfortable. Or makes you afraid that people are going to use that discussion to try to ban it. Or whatever.

/Not to say you were denying the fact that guns have been sold and MARKETED on the cool factor, just that I know a lot of people had.
 
2013-01-05 05:29:01 PM

Felgraf: pedrop357: .

I'll pull the leftwing tactic of shifting goalposts now and point out that wood isn't designed to kill

Haha, yes, it's totally a tactic that only the left wing uses. Right. Please, keep telling yourself that.

For those calling for 'better mental health screening', I do ask a question.

How exactly do you plan to implement this? Pay for it? Are you OK with people being held against their will? What checks will there be in place to make sure those who get committed involuntarily (BEFORE commiting, or attempting to commit, any act that endangers another) are actually insane, and are being evaluated fairly and objectively? (This is actually a HUGE problem. In a science/medical field that is currently almost *Entirely* observation based, observation bias is a dangerous son of a biatch).

And before you go off on me as ONNA DEM GUN GRABBIN LBIERALS!, no. I'm not certain what gun control measures (IF ANY) could, in fact, prevent stuff like this. Or even make them less common.
However, I'd also like those who are super-pro-second ammendment to ALSO be honest. Because I've seen people biatching when news or radio shows claimed that some people purchased the AR-rifles because, well, they thought they were cool! I've seen people going "What, no! That's a horrible mischaracterization, no one does that!"

And yet, bushmaster, you know, *had advertisements* to that very effect. That it should be purchased simply because it was "manly".

So, you know, I'd like some actual goddamn honesty from both sides. And perhaps some attempt to at least understand where people are coming from on different issues. Because, you know what? I can understand why people might feel any form of gun regulation is evil. I disagree, but I can understand where they come from. I'm not seeing a whole lot of that from the other side, but that could be the aforementioned 'confirmation bias' being a biatch.

Or perhaps a bit of honesty and humility from everyone is a bit too much to ask for.


I bought my AR for fun. I hunt deer and shoot targets with it. Both are fun. I will se it in a self defense scenario if that ever happens, but that will not be "fun" in any sense of the word and is very unlikely to happen. Once we see the proposals put on the table we will be able to better respond, but what I have seen proposed will not make us safer - it will just give us a false sense of security until the next mentally Ill person who has fallen through the cracks goes commits a rampage killing with 10-round magazines and pipe bombs or 5-round magazines and a machete.
 
2013-01-05 05:29:12 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Wishful thinking.

Maybe, but not quite as wishful as ignoring the fact that a CCW holder was in fact there and did something because it would fark up a good narrative.

So whats you're explanation for why the shooter chose that time to end his spree?

I don't have an explanation but I'm not making up completely unfounded and unverifiable bullsh*t to support my argument.


So you've not read the link he provided? Good to know.
 
2013-01-05 05:30:04 PM
Let me make this point again...

THE RIGHT WING GUN NUTS DID NOT CARE ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH UNTIL A BUNCH OF KIDS GOT MOWED DOWN BY A GUY WHO STOLE HIS GUN NUT MOTHER'S LEGALLY PURCHASED GUNS AND THEY HAD NO FREAKING DEFENSE FOR IT!!!

You do not care about mental health. You only care about your f*cking guns! You FOUGHT restrictions that would help prevent tragedies like Connecticut. Claiming the mental health stance (which has been a left leaning policy for ages) as if it's your own NOW is absolutely freaking disgusting!!

But... hopefully the mentally ill can get some help now because of your selfish lies. Just don't start screaming about funding after the spotlight has faded.
 
2013-01-05 05:31:09 PM

ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Wishful thinking.

Maybe, but not quite as wishful as ignoring the fact that a CCW holder was in fact there and did something because it would fark up a good narrative.

So whats you're explanation for why the shooter chose that time to end his spree?

I don't have an explanation but I'm not making up completely unfounded and unverifiable bullsh*t to support my argument.

So you've not read the link he provided? Good to know.


Quote it.
 
2013-01-05 05:31:42 PM

efgeise: That said, I am both a fan of mental health help and *smart* gun control. But I doubt either will come about, because A) gun control is inherently bad, according to the NRA, and B) increasing mental health care means spending money on it, and we've all seen how the GOP "dislikes" spending.

So, I don't see either of these problems getting fixed while the current crop of politicians are in place. The current left are too gun-control happy, and the current right are too batshiat to want to fix the problems.


Indeed.

My take on the situation is that healthy, well-adjusted, prosperous people are extremely unlikely to commit violent crime regardless of the availability of firearms. By working to improve people's lot in society, a lot of the factors that drive violent crime can be reduced (though never truly eliminated). I'm in full support of measures that provide people with good healthcare (both physical and mental), treating personal drug use as a public health issue rather than a crime, helping people to improve their lot in life, working to get people out of the cycle of multi-generational welfare dependence, gangs, lack of economic opportunity and social mobility, etc. It'll cost money, sure, and I for one think that it'd be money well-spent (assuming it isn't squandered, like so much the government does).

On the enforcement side, I'd much rather see the authorities going after drug smugglers, gun traffickers, and violent criminals than individuals who use drugs for personal use.

Violent crime is a symptom of underlying issues. Treating the symptoms does little if any to treat the cause of the problem.

Alas, I agree that little is going to be accomplished with the current batch of politicians. There's little I can do other than write letters to my members of Congress, even though it's not likely to do much. At least it gives a bit of money to the post office.
 
2013-01-05 05:31:58 PM

Felgraf: Where did I, or the original poster, *suggest* that we needed to deal with their tools?

As I said in my earlier post, I'm pissed people aren't being honest, and are just prentending that guns AREN'T effective killing machines, or better for suicicide, etc, like you seemed to be implying.

Why, look! Even in the person's post!

": Guns are just a bit more efficient than the other methods. When my second oldest brother tried to kill himself with pills, he failed and got help. When my other brother tried with a gun, there was no going back.

(Not in truth anti gun, but gun owners are most likely to face tragedy with their own gun. That is pretty clear at this point.)"

Being dishonest about the lethality of guns (and also denying the fact that, yeah, some gun manufacturers have sold their guns angling for the "IT'S COOOOOLLLLL to own this gun! You're not MANLY if you don't own it!) is only going to hurt your cause in the long run.

We're not going to be able to have a discussion about mental health, guns, and how they relate to each other (because, should we, say, improve mental health and remove all restrictions on guns?... even restrictions like, say, checking to see if the person is undergoing depression/on anti-psychotics-etc?), until people can be f*cking honest. And that includes being honest about guns lethality. Even if it makes you uncomfortable. Or makes you afraid that people are going to use that discussion to try to ban it. Or whatever.

/Not to say you were denying the fact that guns have been sold and MARKETED on the cool factor, just that I know a lot of people


I've never disputed that guns are lethal or even more lethal, just that it's irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.
 
2013-01-05 05:32:01 PM

here to help: Let me make this point again...

THE RIGHT WING GUN NUTS DID NOT CARE ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH UNTIL A BUNCH OF KIDS GOT MOWED DOWN BY A GUY WHO STOLE HIS GUN NUT MOTHER'S LEGALLY PURCHASED GUNS AND THEY HAD NO FREAKING DEFENSE FOR IT!!!

You do not care about mental health. You only care about your f*cking guns! You FOUGHT restrictions that would help prevent tragedies like Connecticut. Claiming the mental health stance (which has been a left leaning policy for ages) as if it's your own NOW is absolutely freaking disgusting!!

But... hopefully the mentally ill can get some help now because of your selfish lies. Just don't start screaming about funding after the spotlight has faded.


I also care about Chipotle.
 
2013-01-05 05:32:14 PM

not2conceited: I bought my AR for fun. I hunt deer and shoot targets with it. Both are fun. I will se it in a self defense scenario if that ever happens, but that will not be "fun" in any sense of the word and is very unlikely to happen. Once we see the proposals put on the table we will be able to better respond, but what I have seen proposed will not make us safer - it will just give us a false sense of security until the next mentally Ill person who has fallen through the cracks goes commits a rampage killing with 10-round magazines and pipe bombs or 5-round magazines and a machete.


That's fair. As I said, I don't know what gun control would work. Or if ANY would work. I'd rather do it not at all than do it halfassed.

But I'm also f*cking tired of people pretending that using a knife would be JUST AS BAD as using a bushmaster. Like the knife can shoot bullets, or teleport, or render the user invulnerable or something.
 
2013-01-05 05:32:50 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Wishful thinking.

Maybe, but not quite as wishful as ignoring the fact that a CCW holder was in fact there and did something because it would fark up a good narrative.

So whats you're explanation for why the shooter chose that time to end his spree?

I don't have an explanation but I'm not making up completely unfounded and unverifiable bullsh*t to support my argument.

So you've not read the link he provided? Good to know.

Quote it.


Scroll down you lazy twit. Seriously - it's just a few posts down, likely in blue letters as it's a link.
 
2013-01-05 05:33:12 PM

not2conceited: it will just give us a false sense of security until the next mentally Ill person who has fallen through the cracks goes commits a rampage killing with 10-round magazines and pipe bombs or 5-round magazines and a machete.



And whether he shoots 5 people or 30 before getting tackled while reloading, it won't matter cuz...oh wait.
 
2013-01-05 05:33:43 PM

ronaprhys: I also care about Chipotle.


God damnit now I want chipotle.
 
2013-01-05 05:34:03 PM

SN1987a goes boom: efgeise: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.

Story 3
1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. blows dad's head off when dad runs for a gun
4. kills family

See how your cute little stories don't actually mean anything?

The family in story 2 is pretty farked up if they can just go back to eating dinner after witnessing the dad kill a guy.


I can only imagine them eating KFC while screaming "FREEDOM" at each other with mouthfuls of food before masturbating each other and shooting their guns into the ceiling
 
2013-01-05 05:35:17 PM

Felgraf: ronaprhys: I also care about Chipotle.

God damnit now I want chipotle.


I will have it in about 2 hours. A nice steak fajita burrito. No sauce, but double cheese and lettuce. I'll chase it down with SoCo/OJ. This will make me happy.
 
2013-01-05 05:35:44 PM

ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Wishful thinking.

Maybe, but not quite as wishful as ignoring the fact that a CCW holder was in fact there and did something because it would fark up a good narrative.

So whats you're explanation for why the shooter chose that time to end his spree?

I don't have an explanation but I'm not making up completely unfounded and unverifiable bullsh*t to support my argument.

So you've not read the link he provided? Good to know.

Quote it.

Scroll down you lazy twit. Seriously - it's just a few posts down, likely in blue letters as it's a link.


I've read it. Nothing in there but speculation by someone who wants it to be true.
 
2013-01-05 05:35:54 PM

pedrop357: I've never disputed that guns are lethal or even more lethal, just that it's irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.


Really? You seemed really focused on downplaying how guns were just as lethal as knives and ropes.

If it's irrelevant, then we should ONLY focus on mental health screening, right? No need to even focus on making sure we keep the guns out of the hands of people, say, on antipsychotics or who have criminal backgrounds or whatnot?

/Or, if we SHOULD do that, should we also prevent them from purchasing knives, ropes, sleeping pills, and bridges?
//If the answer to *that* is no, then yeah, actually, the lethality of guns is, at least in a small way, relevant.
 
2013-01-05 05:36:27 PM

Felgraf: But I'm also f*cking tired of people pretending that using a knife would be JUST AS BAD as using a bushmaster. Like the knife can shoot bullets, or teleport, or render the user invulnerable or something.


If I get killed by stabbing, it IS just as bad as being killed by a Bushmaster. If I lose use of a limb or am paralyzed after being stabbed, it IS every bit as bad.
 
2013-01-05 05:37:00 PM

TheHappyCanadian: SN1987a goes boom: efgeise: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.

Story 3
1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. blows dad's head off when dad runs for a gun
4. kills family

See how your cute little stories don't actually mean anything?

The family in story 2 is pretty farked up if they can just go back to eating dinner after witnessing the dad kill a guy.

I can only imagine them eating KFC while screaming "FREEDOM" at each other with mouthfuls of food before masturbating each other and shooting their guns into the ceiling


Too bad mom and the twins were still hiding in the attic.
 
2013-01-05 05:37:24 PM

Felgraf: not2conceited: I bought my AR for fun. I hunt deer and shoot targets with it. Both are fun. I will se it in a self defense scenario if that ever happens, but that will not be "fun" in any sense of the word and is very unlikely to happen. Once we see the proposals put on the table we will be able to better respond, but what I have seen proposed will not make us safer - it will just give us a false sense of security until the next mentally Ill person who has fallen through the cracks goes commits a rampage killing with 10-round magazines and pipe bombs or 5-round magazines and a machete.

That's fair. As I said, I don't know what gun control would work. Or if ANY would work. I'd rather do it not at all than do it halfassed.

But I'm also f*cking tired of people pretending that using a knife would be JUST AS BAD as using a bushmaster. Like the knife can shoot bullets, or teleport, or render the user invulnerable or something.


What's "a bushmaster?"
 
2013-01-05 05:37:47 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Wishful thinking.

Maybe, but not quite as wishful as ignoring the fact that a CCW holder was in fact there and did something because it would fark up a good narrative.

So whats you're explanation for why the shooter chose that time to end his spree?

I don't have an explanation but I'm not making up completely unfounded and unverifiable bullsh*t to support my argument.

So you've not read the link he provided? Good to know.

Quote it.

Scroll down you lazy twit. Seriously - it's just a few posts down, likely in blue letters as it's a link.

I've read it. Nothing in there but speculation by someone who wants it to be true.


Good to know you can prove that and conveniently use that to dismiss the possibility. You are disingenuous. Again - you bring nothing to the debate that holds any value.
 
2013-01-05 05:38:45 PM

ronaprhys: You are disingenuous.


Just quote your "evidence", jackass.
 
2013-01-05 05:38:46 PM

topcon: Let's freak out about every shooting now, despite the fact gun murders go down every year.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]


Who do you think you are comin' in here with your facts and statistics? Don't you know this is a "ZOMG GUNZ ARE EBIL!!" thread?
 
2013-01-05 05:39:03 PM

Felgraf: Really? You seemed really focused on downplaying how guns were just as lethal as knives and ropes.


No, that the obsession some have with gun violence is misguided. People without guns manage to do quite a bit of damage, and there's no evidence to suggest overall violence would actually go down
 
2013-01-05 05:39:06 PM

here to help: You do not care about mental health. You only care about your f*cking guns! You FOUGHT restrictions that would help prevent tragedies like Connecticut. Claiming the mental health stance (which has been a left leaning policy for ages) as if it's your own NOW is absolutely freaking disgusting!!

But... hopefully the mentally ill can get some help now because of your selfish lies. Just don't start screaming about funding after the spotlight has faded.



Which restrictions in particular are you talking about?
 
2013-01-05 05:39:23 PM

pedrop357: Felgraf: But I'm also f*cking tired of people pretending that using a knife would be JUST AS BAD as using a bushmaster. Like the knife can shoot bullets, or teleport, or render the user invulnerable or something.

If I get killed by stabbing, it IS just as bad as being killed by a Bushmaster. If I lose use of a limb or am paralyzed after being stabbed, it IS every bit as bad.


So if you lose a limb or an arm after being stabbed, it's just as bad as being killed if you were shot?

So if someone attacks, say, a bunch of school children with a knife, your argument is that the outcome will be the same as if he attacks a bunch of school children with the gun?

/Again, not in favor of banning all guns, or a half-assed assault weapons ban or whatever.
//But I'd, again, like some honesty.
 
2013-01-05 05:39:56 PM
Gee... wonder which videogames this guy played.. *eyeroll*
 
2013-01-05 05:41:18 PM

tblax: Dimensio: tblax: I wonder if he used guns purchased legally, like Holmes or Lanza.

Adam Lanza did not purchase any firearms legally.

I didn't say he did. I said he used guns purchased legally.


99.999% of all guns everywhere are purchased legally, at least initially. How many gun factories or shipments from manufacturers are ripped off on a regular basis? Retard. Gee someone got stabbed. I bet that knife was purchased legally. I don't think anyone makes shanks to commit murder outside of prison. A vehicular homicide? Bet that car was purchased legally. In the end, murder is an older thing than firearms, as is psychosis. You won't end either, regardless of what you do. And if you think the gun was the deciding factor in sandy hook, may I refer you to the knife attacks against school children, think it was in China. Wasn't a one time incident either. In fact it happens pretty regularly. It's almost as if banning the "deadliest" weapon just makes the next weapon down the new deadliest. And if you want to argue that mass killings will be gone in a disarmed society, two words: suicide bomber. Bottom line, in a world completely without weapons or anything like weapons there are a myriad of ways to kill. Strangulation, pushing off a cliff, etc.
 
2013-01-05 05:41:26 PM

Felgraf: pedrop357: Felgraf: But I'm also f*cking tired of people pretending that using a knife would be JUST AS BAD as using a bushmaster. Like the knife can shoot bullets, or teleport, or render the user invulnerable or something.

If I get killed by stabbing, it IS just as bad as being killed by a Bushmaster. If I lose use of a limb or am paralyzed after being stabbed, it IS every bit as bad.

So if you lose a limb or an arm after being stabbed, it's just as bad as being killed if you were shot?

So if someone attacks, say, a bunch of school children with a knife, your argument is that the outcome will be the same as if he attacks a bunch of school children with the gun?

/Again, not in favor of banning all guns, or a half-assed assault weapons ban or whatever.
//But I'd, again, like some honesty.


That's not the argument he was making, a little reading comprehension goes a long way.
 
2013-01-05 05:41:49 PM

Abox: And whether he shoots 5 people or 30 before getting tackled while reloading, it won't matter cuz...oh wait.


[citation something something]
 
2013-01-05 05:42:02 PM

duffblue: Felgraf: not2conceited: I bought my AR for fun. I hunt deer and shoot targets with it. Both are fun. I will se it in a self defense scenario if that ever happens, but that will not be "fun" in any sense of the word and is very unlikely to happen. Once we see the proposals put on the table we will be able to better respond, but what I have seen proposed will not make us safer - it will just give us a false sense of security until the next mentally Ill person who has fallen through the cracks goes commits a rampage killing with 10-round magazines and pipe bombs or 5-round magazines and a machete.

That's fair. As I said, I don't know what gun control would work. Or if ANY would work. I'd rather do it not at all than do it halfassed.

But I'm also f*cking tired of people pretending that using a knife would be JUST AS BAD as using a bushmaster. Like the knife can shoot bullets, or teleport, or render the user invulnerable or something.

What's "a bushmaster?"


Bah, screwed up, sorry. I farked up the words in my head because I'd been talked about Bushmaster's advertising earlier, I realize "a bushmaster" is not, in fact, a gun.

And I did not mean to imply the poster as one of the people pretending the knife was as bad as a gun, which I realize I inadvertently did.
 
2013-01-05 05:42:06 PM

Felgraf: So if you lose a limb or an arm after being stabbed, it's just as bad as being killed if you were shot?

So if someone attacks, say, a bunch of school children with a knife, your argument is that the outcome will be the same as if he attacks a bunch of school children with the gun?

/Again, not in favor of banning all guns, or a half-assed assault weapons ban or whatever.
//But I'd, again, like some honesty.



Not all gun shots result in death. death is death, maiming is maiming. If a guy runs a bunch of kids over at a crosswalk, are they any less dead or injured because the guy didn't use a gun?
 
2013-01-05 05:43:51 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: You are disingenuous.

Just quote your "evidence", jackass.


I don't have enough time. Now run along and let the adults talk about important things.
 
2013-01-05 05:43:51 PM

Felgraf: For those calling for 'better mental health screening', I do ask a question.

How exactly do you plan to implement this? Pay for it? Are you OK with people being held against their will? What checks will there be in place to make sure those who get committed involuntarily (BEFORE commiting, or attempting to commit, any act that endangers another) are actually insane, and are being evaluated fairly and objectively? (This is actually a HUGE problem. In a science/medical field that is currently almost *Entirely* observation based, observation bias is a dangerous son of a biatch).



This should get posted at the beginning of every Fark thread about guns and/or multiple murders.
 
2013-01-05 05:44:40 PM
SN1987a goes boom:

I think trolling may in part be an outlet of self-gratification for those who have reached the physical limit of masturbation.
 
2013-01-05 05:44:45 PM

ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: You are disingenuous.

Just quote your "evidence", jackass.

I don't have enough time. Now run along and let the adults talk about important things.


Nice concession speech.
 
2013-01-05 05:45:06 PM
REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH

In the US and Mexico, nearly 44,000 murders were committed in 2011 alone.

The vast majority of these murders were related to illegal drugs - to trafficking, turf wars, revenge hits, or to crimes committed by people seeking to feed their drug habits.

I have to question the collective sanity of any nation that would maintain the anti-drug policies that feed this senseless carnage.
 
2013-01-05 05:45:53 PM
If EVERYONE had a gun then no one would ever get shot.

/common sense.
 
2013-01-05 05:46:47 PM

ElBarto79: If EVERYONE had a gun then no one would ever get shot.

/common sense.


I'm sure there's a Laffer curve in there somewhere.
 
2013-01-05 05:46:54 PM

ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: You are disingenuous.

Just quote your "evidence", jackass.

I don't have enough time. Now run along and let the adults talk about important things.


"You know when you make up a statisic you always use 83%" --Ted Mosby
 
2013-01-05 05:47:13 PM
www.freeimagehosting.net
 
2013-01-05 05:47:35 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: You are disingenuous.

Just quote your "evidence", jackass.

I don't have enough time. Now run along and let the adults talk about important things.

Nice concession speech.


Not at all - anyone who spends any time in these threads knows your schtick. Throw out a bit of snark, get called on it, abandon the thread. Just like here - an eyewitness gives a story, you immediately dismiss it. However, had it gone the other way (to support your case) you'd be all over it.
 
2013-01-05 05:48:23 PM

Amos Quito: REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH

In the US and Mexico, nearly 44,000 murders were committed in 2011 alone.

The vast majority of these murders were related to illegal drugs - to trafficking, turf wars, revenge hits, or to crimes committed by people seeking to feed their drug habits.

I have to question the collective sanity of any nation that would maintain the anti-drug policies that feed this senseless carnage.


Holmes? Mr. Hostage-Taker here? Whatchou talkin' 'bout, Amos?
 
2013-01-05 05:48:54 PM

Wulfman: Which restrictions in particular are you talking about?


Depends on the level of whackjobbiness. Some would have preferred that ANYONE (but preferably not minorities) could just walk into anywhere, buy a gun and start wandering around jerking it off.

Now that's not to say there aren't REASONABLE conservatives who have known for a looong time that SOME restrictions are necessary. But a lot of those people are just as disgusted as I am and perhaps MORE because they've seen their political ideologies hijacked by unreasonable, self serving, disingenuous psychopaths.
 
2013-01-05 05:49:55 PM

Muta: He could have drowned them in a pool.


The only thing that can save us is a good guy with a pool.
 
2013-01-05 05:50:46 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Holmes? Mr. Hostage-Taker here? Whatchou talkin' 'bout, Amos?


Extremely rare events in a nation of 360 million, and barely accounting for 2% of all homicides in any given year. Nice try though.
 
2013-01-05 05:51:00 PM
Bit'O'Gristle:
Strawman story 1.

Strawman story 2.

B.O.G, have you considered moving to a better neighbourhood?
 
2013-01-05 05:51:07 PM
What is up with Aurora Colorardo?
 
2013-01-05 05:51:26 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.


More like:

1. Gunman breaks in
2. Dad goes for his gun, drops his keys and can't get the lock off, now also can't open the locked ammo box
3. Gunman shoots him, rapes the daughter, kicks the dog
4. Police storm the house and kill everybody inside
 
2013-01-05 05:51:27 PM

lobotomy survivor: The only thing that can save us is a good guy with a pool.


We need that Yo Dawg guy here.
 
2013-01-05 05:51:58 PM

Felgraf: pedrop357: piglet: Guns are just a bit more efficient than the other methods. When my second oldest brother tried to kill himself with pills, he failed and got help. When my other brother tried with a gun, there was no going back.

(Not in truth anti gun, but gun owners are most likely to face tragedy with their own gun. That is pretty clear at this point.)


Lack of availability of guns doesn't stop the Japanese from killing themselves as much or more as we do.

Yes, but his argument is that a gun is a lot more effective, a lot harder to recover from if people catch you after the fact, and a lot easier to do in the spur of the moment if you have access to one (before you suggest "Jumping off a bridge is hard to recover from and super effective, too!", I wish to point out that very few people own tall bridges within their homes. Nor do many people have trains within their homes, and in theory people can be pulled off the train track-there's likely to be other people around). He has even pointed out he is not anti-gun, he IS pointing out that, yes, they ARE more effective suicide weapons, and that it's stupid, and, quite frankly, dishonest and childish to pretend that they are not.

Do you disagree?


It's also irrelevant to the whole gun control debate. Depending on which list you choose, there are between two and three dozen countries with a higher per capita suicide rate than the US. Several of them have have very strict control of firearms, and yet their citizens seem to find effective means of killing themselves.
 
2013-01-05 05:52:09 PM

ronaprhys: an eyewitness gives a story


Just show us all the part that lends credence to the theory that the Clackamas shooter quit because he saw another gun.

Besides you and CCW wanting it to be true, that is.
 
2013-01-05 05:52:48 PM

duffblue: That's not the argument he was making, a little reading comprehension goes a long way.


Actually, judging by his next post, that's the impression that I am getting: That all things can be deadly, so clearly the degree of lethality doesn't matter.

However, again, confirmation bias can be a biatch, and I know how a third party can sometimes sort of... restate what one side is saying, to make it clearer to the other side. (So if you've got a better idea/explanation, I would really appreciate it-and this is not sarcasm.)

pedrop357: Not all gun shots result in death. death is death, maiming is maiming. If a guy runs a bunch of kids over at a crosswalk, are they any less dead or injured because the guy didn't use a gun?


Yep, death is death, and maiming is maiming, and perhaps we are talking at cross purposes, or about different things. I'll try to explain my point more clearly, and I suppose I should apologize for some of the above snarkiness, I was growing a bit frustrated.

I am arguing that some things are, in fact, *more likely* to cause death. I realize that not all shots are fatal. This is not golden eye, we are not playing 1 Hit, 1 Kill, Slaps in the Facility. Even injuries that one would think SHOULD be fatal (getting shot through the head) are survivable (sometimes.)

But if we're going to talk about mental health as a result of these shootings, we again need to be honest. Would you, or would you not, advocate that a person on antipsychotics should be able to purchase weapons (if we improve mental health care in this country). What if the person were involuntarily committed, released, but still didn't think they had an issue?

If you feel the answer to the above is "No, they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun", then, yeah, guns (and their lethality) ARE kind of relevant, to an extent. It wouldn't necessarily require any NEW gun laws, mind you-I think existing gun laws *would* cover the above scenario?

Basically, if we KNOW a guy is psychotic or at strong risk of a psychotic break, I would rather them, at the very least, not able to easily purchase a firearm (again, I realize existing laws *already* cover this.) Them purchasing a knife and attempting to attack a group of schoolchildren would ALSO be bad, but, well...

If a guy attacks a group of schoolchildren with a knife, are they more or less likely to survive than if he attacks them with a gun?

We kind of have at least some degree of empiracal evidence on this. Can't draw *many* conclusions from it, though, because it is a (THANKFULLY) rather small data set.
 
2013-01-05 05:53:24 PM

ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: You are disingenuous.

Just quote your "evidence", jackass.

I don't have enough time. Now run along and let the adults talk about important things.

Nice concession speech.

Not at all - anyone who spends any time in these threads knows your schtick. Throw out a bit of snark, get called on it, abandon the thread. Just like here - an eyewitness gives a story, you immediately dismiss it. However, had it gone the other way (to support your case) you'd be all over it.


I thought you didn't have time.
 
2013-01-05 05:53:24 PM
4 deaths? Thats almost 1/10000th of a % of the population. Pools, automobiles, food, cigarrettes are all still deadlier. Fists and blunt objects kill more in a year here than scary rifles according to fbi statistics. But yes. Lets focus on this. I cant live without wetting my pants about everything.
 
2013-01-05 05:54:16 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: an eyewitness gives a story

Just show us all the part that lends credence to the theory that the Clackamas shooter quit because he saw another gun.

Besides you and CCW wanting it to be true, that is.


That he fixed his firearm and then offed himself. Seems plenty reasonable. Of course, other reasons could exist - but to immediately dismiss them just shows that you aren't interested in honest debate. I.e., disingenuous.

And yes, I've been in many of these threads. Well more than necessary to see your nonsense.
 
2013-01-05 05:54:18 PM
We must ban Aurora, CO!
 
2013-01-05 05:54:55 PM

vpb: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Like the creepy attraction to weapons that psychos have?


Psychos have creepy attraction to abuse.
 
2013-01-05 05:55:11 PM

duffblue: ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: You are disingenuous.

Just quote your "evidence", jackass.

I don't have enough time. Now run along and let the adults talk about important things.

Nice concession speech.

Not at all - anyone who spends any time in these threads knows your schtick. Throw out a bit of snark, get called on it, abandon the thread. Just like here - an eyewitness gives a story, you immediately dismiss it. However, had it gone the other way (to support your case) you'd be all over it.

I thought you didn't have time.


Well played, though I believe I did call out that I didn't have the time to quote all of the nonsense.
 
2013-01-05 05:55:52 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Amos Quito: REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH

In the US and Mexico, nearly 44,000 murders were committed in 2011 alone.

The vast majority of these murders were related to illegal drugs - to trafficking, turf wars, revenge hits, or to crimes committed by people seeking to feed their drug habits.

I have to question the collective sanity of any nation that would maintain the anti-drug policies that feed this senseless carnage.

Holmes? Mr. Hostage-Taker here? Whatchou talkin' 'bout, Amos?



The vast majority of murders.

As EMOTIONALLY SHOCKING as incidents like those in Aurora and at Sandy Hook may be, they represent a tiny percentage of the total homicides - with or without firearms - committed in the two countries mentioned.
 
2013-01-05 05:55:57 PM

MyRandomName: 4 deaths? Thats almost 1/10000th of a % of the population. Pools, automobiles, food, cigarrettes are all still deadlier. Fists and blunt objects kill more in a year here than scary rifles according to fbi statistics. But yes. Lets focus on this. I cant live without wetting my pants about everything.


I don't know why we waste time on anything til we figure out immortality.
 
2013-01-05 05:56:34 PM

Mock26: What type of gun was used?


I'll bet it was black and scary looking, just like those people on the other side of town.
 
2013-01-05 05:57:46 PM

topcon: Let's freak out about every shooting now, despite the fact gun murders go down every year.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]


Those figures get posted a lot. If you want to get into statistics I would point out that since Australia enacted strict gun laws and a mandatory buy back they haven't seen a single mass shooting and have seen both homicides and suicides drop by 50 percent. So you post your statistics that say more guns = less crime and I can put up my statistics that say fewer guns = even less crime.

Also, one particularly gruesome category of gun crime; mass shootings, have been on the increase lately.
 
2013-01-05 05:58:11 PM

lizardbrain: What is up with Aurora Colorardo?


Absolutely nothing different than the rest of the US. It's just the media's dicks are dribbling all over it because now it has name recognition to send everyone into a fervor.

Sh*t like the kids getting massacred is rare. The incident in this article isn't.

The fact that incidents like this one AREN'T rare should be the bigger signal that something is very much askew.
 
2013-01-05 05:59:07 PM

ronaprhys: That he fixed his firearm and then offed himself.


So, at least as likely the interruption made him doubt his plan and still NO evidence he saw CCW's weapon.

So, wishful thinking.
 
2013-01-05 06:00:19 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: That he fixed his firearm and then offed himself.

So, at least as likely the interruption made him doubt his plan and still NO evidence he saw CCW's weapon.

So, wishful thinking.


And still no evidence that it's not the reason. The CCW holder was there and he states he saw him.

You have no desire whatsoever to engage in an appropriate debate on the subject.
 
2013-01-05 06:00:23 PM

vpb: Why is it that some people fear that they are in deathly peril if they can't have a large capacity magazine in a semi automatic weapon, while 2/3 of the population survive just fine with no firearms at all?


That's probably a question best answered by the people who've had to defend themselves against more than 1 attacker. Statistically most people will never be victims of violent crime. Statistics aren't much comfort for those that are.
 
2013-01-05 06:02:43 PM

ElBarto79: topcon: Let's freak out about every shooting now, despite the fact gun murders go down every year.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]

Those figures get posted a lot. If you want to get into statistics I would point out that since Australia enacted strict gun laws and a mandatory buy back they haven't seen a single mass shooting and have seen both homicides and suicides drop by 50 percent. So you post your statistics that say more guns = less crime and I can put up my statistics that say fewer guns = even less crime.

Also, one particularly gruesome category of gun crime; mass shootings, have been on the increase lately.


You can - but their law would be unconstitutional here. Plain and simple. It's a seizure program and folks there have to prove need to obtain an approved firearm. No need means that they take your firearm. There are other differences there (cultural, etc)
 
2013-01-05 06:03:02 PM

ronaprhys: And still no evidence that it's not the reason.


Oh, well then, it was probably all those people in the mall praying for deliverance.

I'll bet we could find dozens willing to back up that theory.
 
2013-01-05 06:06:04 PM

Felgraf: But if we're going to talk about mental health as a result of these shootings, we again need to be honest. Would you, or would you not, advocate that a person on antipsychotics should be able to purchase weapons (if we improve mental health care in this country). What if the person were involuntarily committed, released, but still didn't think they had an issue?

If you feel the answer to the above is "No, they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun", then, yeah, guns (and their lethality) ARE kind of relevant, to an extent. It wouldn't necessarily require any NEW gun laws, mind you-I think existing gun laws *would* cover the above scenario?



I don't know if I agree with forbidding them from purchasing guns. The idea that they will end up in a database be subject to restrictions may cause some to avoid treatment and try to resolve it on their own.

I'd rather take the chance that a guy on meds will buy a gun and misuse, if the alternative is more guys don't seek help, go undetected, buy guns and engage in killings.

We see something similar with pilots and antidepressants. The mere use of an antidepressant is enough to get a certificate pulled. So, pilots who are depressed will not seek medication and some will misunderstand the policy and simply not seek help. So now we have depressed pilots flying planes rather than take very rare chance that an antidepressant will cause them make mistakes, apparently mistake that they won't make while distracted or mired in depression.

Involuntary commitment implies something illegal or seriously wrong has happened and there has been some form of hearing. This is more like a person being arrested and/or convicted.

I think one aspect of mental health reform has to be the stigma attached to it. Seeking mental health care should be viewed no differently than seeking dental health care. We may have to make it so the bar is actually higher before a professional can report a person and make that limitation known so as to draw in the people who are afraid of being committed so they can actually have a chance of getting help vs not going and either suffering from it OR acting out on it. That does mean a guy may tell his shrink that he's thinking of killing someone and the shrink can't say anything. If it works to make more people come in and admit that sort of stuff without fear of arrest, it may be better off in the long run.

It's worth pointing out that most killing in this country doesn't seem to involve mental health issues, the drug war and the gangs it fosters are a big part. Domestic issue and the issues of boundaries, impulse control, etc. that lead to domestic violence won't be helped much right away.

It might be better for the whole country, esp all the people who won't ever kill like these few guys did, but are are dealing with the same issues and suffering from the various ill effects all the same.

End the drug war and there goes a ton of violence and deaths with and without guns. Take the money that would be spent on all that law enforcement excess and apply it to mental health care. It's win-win.
 
2013-01-05 06:06:46 PM

ElBarto79: Also, one particularly gruesome category of gun crime; mass shootings, have been on the increase lately.


They have?
 
2013-01-05 06:07:05 PM

pedrop357: Not all gun shots result in death. death is death, maiming is maiming. If a guy runs a bunch of kids over at a crosswalk, are they any less dead or injured because the guy didn't use a gun?


You're not being clever, you're not winning any argument, you're not entertaining. Being dishonest and disingenuous just makes you look like an asshole.
 
2013-01-05 06:07:44 PM

jaytkay: pedrop357: Not all gun shots result in death. death is death, maiming is maiming. If a guy runs a bunch of kids over at a crosswalk, are they any less dead or injured because the guy didn't use a gun?

You're not being clever, you're not winning any argument, you're not entertaining. Being dishonest and disingenuous just makes you look like an asshole.


Unlike your valuable contributions and insight?
 
2013-01-05 06:09:16 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: And still no evidence that it's not the reason.

Oh, well then, it was probably all those people in the mall praying for deliverance.

I'll bet we could find dozens willing to back up that theory.


Probably. What's your point? We have an eyewitness story that could be plausible, yet you immediately dismiss it because it doesn't fit in your narrative. It's very possible to show that firearms prevent crimes - yet I'm betting you'll also dismiss that as well.

Again - you have no interest in an honest debate.
 
2013-01-05 06:11:13 PM

topcon: Let's freak out about every shooting now, despite the fact gun murders go down every year.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]


it's sad that you come into the tread with facts and only get 2 replies
 
2013-01-05 06:12:36 PM
I wouldn't mind massive gun ownership if it was only the gun owners shooting themselves.

jibarosoy.files.wordpress.com.
 
2013-01-05 06:12:37 PM

ronaprhys: ElBarto79: topcon: Let's freak out about every shooting now, despite the fact gun murders go down every year.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]

Those figures get posted a lot. If you want to get into statistics I would point out that since Australia enacted strict gun laws and a mandatory buy back they haven't seen a single mass shooting and have seen both homicides and suicides drop by 50 percent. So you post your statistics that say more guns = less crime and I can put up my statistics that say fewer guns = even less crime.

Also, one particularly gruesome category of gun crime; mass shootings, have been on the increase lately.

You can - but their law would be unconstitutional here. Plain and simple. It's a seizure program and folks there have to prove need to obtain an approved firearm. No need means that they take your firearm. There are other differences there (cultural, etc)


We don't need to have a seizure program, though I would question whether a mandatory buyback that is only aimed at certain classes of weapons and not all guns would be illegal. One possibility would be to ban all future sales of all semi-automatic weapons, both public and private. So, anyone who currently has an assault weapon could keep it, but it would be illegal for them to sell or trade it to anyone else and once they die it would have to be turned into the government. Institute a mandatory nationwide registration system for all guns. Every gun must be registered to someone, if the police come across any guns that aren't registered they can seize them on the spot. This would severely cut back on any kind of black market gun sales, for one thing prices would sky rocket and for another thing availability would dry up. There would still be guns around but not nearly as many in the hands of criminals, and the number of weapons would steadily drop over time through attrition.
 
2013-01-05 06:12:41 PM
Too many guns.
 
2013-01-05 06:14:08 PM

haywatchthis: it's sad that you come into the tread with facts and only get 2 replies


Facts have no place in anti-gun arguments. It's all about intentions and feelings. You've to to get emotional and talk about what things are supposed to do and disregard any evidence that they didn't work (see DC, Chicago and handgun bans)
 
2013-01-05 06:15:29 PM

ronaprhys: We have an eyewitness story that could be plausible, yet you immediately dismiss it because it doesn't fit in your narrative.


Roberts is the only reliable eyewitness for what you're claiming and he isn't talking.

Just stick with the evolution threads.
 
2013-01-05 06:16:18 PM

ElBarto79: We don't need to have a seizure program, though I would question whether a mandatory buyback that is only aimed at certain classes of weapons and not all guns would be illegal. One possibility would be to ban all future sales of all semi-automatic weapons, both public and private. So, anyone who currently has an assault weapon could keep it, but it would be illegal for them to sell or trade it to anyone else and once they die it would have to be turned into the government. Institute a mandatory nationwide registration system for all guns. Every gun must be registered to someone, if the police come across any guns that aren't registered they can seize them on the spot. This would severely cut back on any kind of black market gun sales, for one thing prices would sky rocket and for another thing availability would dry up. There would still be guns around but not nearly as many in the hands of criminals, and the number of weapons would steadily drop over time through attrition.


If someone proposed the same with abortion, it would be called a blatant infringement on rights. We're not banning abortion, just issuing licenses that can't be transferred. When abortion doctors die, no can take their place and the number of abortions will steadily drop over time through attrition.

Will the cops be disarmed in your fantasy? If not, I know who I'm killing to get a gun.
 
2013-01-05 06:18:45 PM

Fano: Chinchillazilla: The only thing that stops a bad psycho with a gun is a good psycho with a gun, so we have to let mentally ill people own whatever weapons they want.

Who's the man with the golden gun?
Who's the man who kills for fun?
Psycho Dad! Psycho Dad.


great now they are gonna quit rerunning the episodes with Psycho Dad mentioned in them
 
2013-01-05 06:18:45 PM

pedrop357: abortions will steadily drop over time through attrition.

Will the cops be disarmed in your fantasy? If not, I know who I'm killing to get a gun.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-05 06:19:04 PM

here to help: Let me make this point again...

THE RIGHT WING GUN NUTS DID NOT CARE ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH UNTIL A BUNCH OF KIDS GOT MOWED DOWN BY A GUY WHO STOLE HIS GUN NUT MOTHER'S LEGALLY PURCHASED GUNS AND THEY HAD NO FREAKING DEFENSE FOR IT!!!

You do not care about mental health. You only care about your f*cking guns! You FOUGHT restrictions that would help prevent tragedies like Connecticut. Claiming the mental health stance (which has been a left leaning policy for ages) as if it's your own NOW is absolutely freaking disgusting!!

But... hopefully the mentally ill can get some help now because of your selfish lies. Just don't start screaming about funding after the spotlight has faded.


Typical, scream accusations leaving out little things like facts to try and cover up YOUR part in that tragedy. "AND THEY HAD NO FREAKING DEFENSE FOR IT!!!" because people like YOU forbid them having a FREAKING DEFENSE FOR IT!!! Liberals have been training school children for years that they have to passively take anything anyone does to them and fighting back will be punished. That lunatic was more cowardly than most, choosing the most helpless victims YOU could provide. YOUR efforts to pretend that there are no bad people and ALL violence even in self-defense is EVIL has a large share of the blame.
 
2013-01-05 06:19:55 PM

ElBarto79: We don't need to have a seizure program, though I would question whether a mandatory buyback that is only aimed at certain classes of weapons and not all guns would be illegal. One possibility would be to ban all future sales of all semi-automatic weapons, both public and private. So, anyone who currently has an assault weapon could keep it, but it would be illegal for them to sell or trade it to anyone else and once they die it would have to be turned into the government. Institute a mandatory nationwide registration system for all guns. Every gun must be registered to someone, if the police come across any guns that aren't registered they can seize them on the spot. This would severely cut back on any kind of black market gun sales, for one thing prices would sky rocket and for another thing availability would dry up. There would still be guns around but not nearly as many in the hands of criminals, and the number of weapons would steadily drop over time through attrition.


1 - a buyback program is nothing more than a polite seizure program. You are forcing people, who have not broken any laws, to give up their firearms under penalty of law. That is a seizure program, regardless of the veneer you attempt to put on it.
2 - you are banning entire classes of weapons. DC v Heller showed us that this unconstitutional.
3 - drugs are illegal and the police seize any on the spot, charge the person possessing them. This has not made drugs any more difficult to get. As such, I don't think your program will work like you think it'll work.

Prohibition has never, ever worked. Ever. The vast majority of firearm-related homicides in the US are gang/drug related. A decent additional number are related to crimes already in progress (a burgler/robber comes across someone and shoots them to get away).
 
2013-01-05 06:20:34 PM

pedrop357: ElBarto79: We don't need to have a seizure program, though I would question whether a mandatory buyback that is only aimed at certain classes of weapons and not all guns would be illegal. One possibility would be to ban all future sales of all semi-automatic weapons, both public and private. So, anyone who currently has an assault weapon could keep it, but it would be illegal for them to sell or trade it to anyone else and once they die it would have to be turned into the government. Institute a mandatory nationwide registration system for all guns. Every gun must be registered to someone, if the police come across any guns that aren't registered they can seize them on the spot. This would severely cut back on any kind of black market gun sales, for one thing prices would sky rocket and for another thing availability would dry up. There would still be guns around but not nearly as many in the hands of criminals, and the number of weapons would steadily drop over time through attrition.

If someone proposed the same with abortion, it would be called a blatant infringement on rights. We're not banning abortion, just issuing licenses that can't be transferred. When abortion doctors die, no can take their place and the number of abortions will steadily drop over time through attrition.

Will the cops be disarmed in your fantasy? If not, I know who I'm killing to get a gun.


I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.
 
2013-01-05 06:21:07 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: We have an eyewitness story that could be plausible, yet you immediately dismiss it because it doesn't fit in your narrative.

Roberts is the only reliable eyewitness for what you're claiming and he isn't talking.

Just stick with the evolution threads.


Really? That's the best you've got?
 
2013-01-05 06:22:45 PM
I am so happy that we have this new surge in anti gun feelings in this country so that a huge portion of our citizens will be calling all politicians. With all the bipartizanship and the enormous backlash that the republicans would have gotten from the last decade of farking off I was deathly afraid that our politicians were going to be forced into actually doing something with this country and make progress in fixing our economy, in stopping the war waging, in fixing our horrible healthcare ruining our lives financially. Oh shiat we might have actually gotten something done and fixed finally.......BUT NOT NOW! oh thank god, we can go back to just shiatting on each other and jerking each other off in a circle repetitively. Thank farking god were back to normal.

Whew that was close.
 
2013-01-05 06:23:20 PM

ElBarto79: pedrop357: ElBarto79: We don't need to have a seizure program, though I would question whether a mandatory buyback that is only aimed at certain classes of weapons and not all guns would be illegal. One possibility would be to ban all future sales of all semi-automatic weapons, both public and private. So, anyone who currently has an assault weapon could keep it, but it would be illegal for them to sell or trade it to anyone else and once they die it would have to be turned into the government. Institute a mandatory nationwide registration system for all guns. Every gun must be registered to someone, if the police come across any guns that aren't registered they can seize them on the spot. This would severely cut back on any kind of black market gun sales, for one thing prices would sky rocket and for another thing availability would dry up. There would still be guns around but not nearly as many in the hands of criminals, and the number of weapons would steadily drop over time through attrition.

If someone proposed the same with abortion, it would be called a blatant infringement on rights. We're not banning abortion, just issuing licenses that can't be transferred. When abortion doctors die, no can take their place and the number of abortions will steadily drop over time through attrition.

Will the cops be disarmed in your fantasy? If not, I know who I'm killing to get a gun.

I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.


Go read Heller vs DC. What you have proposed is completely, totally, and beyond the pale unconstitutional.
 
2013-01-05 06:24:29 PM

ex-nuke: Typical, scream accusations leaving out little things like facts to try and cover up YOUR part in that tragedy. "AND THEY HAD NO FREAKING DEFENSE FOR IT!!!" because people like YOU forbid them having a FREAKING DEFENSE FOR IT!!! Liberals have been training school children for years that they have to passively take anything anyone does to them and fighting back will be punished. That lunatic was more cowardly than most, choosing the most helpless victims YOU could provide. YOUR efforts to pretend that there are no bad people and ALL violence even in self-defense is EVIL has a large share of the blame.


lolwut?

Now I'm picturing a bunch of 6 year olds swarming a heavily armed gunman and taking his ass down.

THAT... would be slick.
 
2013-01-05 06:25:03 PM

Rich Cream: Abox: And whether he shoots 5 people or 30 before getting tackled while reloading, it won't matter cuz...oh wait.

[citation something something]



Um...those were my words. The citation is my post that you quoted.
 
2013-01-05 06:26:54 PM

JesseL: 2wolves: WhoopAssWayne: I wonder what the liberal fascists will try to ban this time. They're already working on 2nd amendment and also the 1st with "violent" video games. How about the 3rd this time? You know, if more soldiers could commandeer homes, tragedies like this wouldn't happen as often. Think of the children and ban the 3rd amendment! No tragedy should remain unexploited!

I would ban people who believe that fascists can be liberals. Obviously too dim to think on their own.

That's why I like "statists". It encompasses tyranny from both ends of the left-right spectrum.


Please list your top 50 liberal fascists.

I'll wait.
 
2013-01-05 06:27:00 PM

ronaprhys: What you have proposed is completely, totally, and beyond the pale unconstitutional.


Heard the same thing about Obamacare.
 
2013-01-05 06:27:55 PM

pedrop357: I'd rather take the chance that a guy on meds will buy a gun and misuse, if the alternative is more guys don't seek help, go undetected, buy guns and engage in killings.


Actually that's fair, and that was a consequence I had forgotten.

At the same time, knowing how some people will stop taking their meds because they think they're 'cured'... it's a tricky line to walk. There probably isn't a perfect solution, I suppose.

pedrop357: I think one aspect of mental health reform has to be the stigma attached to it. Seeking mental health care should be viewed no differently than seeking dental health care. We may have to make it so the bar is actually higher before a professional can report a person and make that limitation known so as to draw in the people who are afraid of being committed so they can actually have a chance of getting help vs not going and either suffering from it OR acting out on it. That does mean a guy may tell his shrink that he's thinking of killing someone and the shrink can't say anything. If it works to make more people come in and admit that sort of stuff without fear of arrest, it may be better off in the long run.


I agree, I think. At the same time, there's also the difficulty of making sure they.. well, take their meds, if they need them. And the difficulty of making sure they can *get* them.

I have had a room mate go through a non-violent psychotic break because they tried to 'stretch' their meds, and stretched to far, due to being unable to afford them as often as they should have been able to purchase them. (I did not know/realize they were doing this until *after* the fact. Thankfully, they were OK.)

I think comprehensive healthcare reform WILL help here some. (Psych meds are f*cking expensive). Ideally (in my view), universal healthcare, or at least universal mental healthcare would help with this, but we're... well, a long way away from that, and I know the idea of government-sponsored health care causes a lot of people to balk. There are perhaps other solutions out there-but I'm not sure we can just leave it up to the free market. "Buy these meds or you lose touch with reality" creates a rather inelastic demand curve... it's a tricky business.

pedrop357: End the drug war and there goes a ton of violence and deaths with and without guns. Take the money that would be spent on all that law enforcement excess and apply it to mental health care. It's win-win.


And I again agree whole-heartedly. So perhaps this left-winger is not so different than you thought. =)
 
2013-01-05 06:28:18 PM

pedrop357: haywatchthis: it's sad that you come into the tread with facts and only get 2 replies

Facts have no place in anti-gun arguments. It's all about intentions and feelings. You've to to get emotional and talk about what things are supposed to do and disregard any evidence that they didn't work (see DC, Chicago and handgun bans)


And don't you dare suggest any kind of registration/licensure/liability insurance requirement.

The Fark Militia knows thats just lib code for "We'll come back later for your guns."
 
2013-01-05 06:28:22 PM

ronaprhys: ElBarto79: We don't need to have a seizure program, though I would question whether a mandatory buyback that is only aimed at certain classes of weapons and not all guns would be illegal. One possibility would be to ban all future sales of all semi-automatic weapons, both public and private. So, anyone who currently has an assault weapon could keep it, but it would be illegal for them to sell or trade it to anyone else and once they die it would have to be turned into the government. Institute a mandatory nationwide registration system for all guns. Every gun must be registered to someone, if the police come across any guns that aren't registered they can seize them on the spot. This would severely cut back on any kind of black market gun sales, for one thing prices would sky rocket and for another thing availability would dry up. There would still be guns around but not nearly as many in the hands of criminals, and the number of weapons would steadily drop over time through attrition.

1 - a buyback program is nothing more than a polite seizure program. You are forcing people, who have not broken any laws, to give up their firearms under penalty of law. That is a seizure program, regardless of the veneer you attempt to put on it.
2 - you are banning entire classes of weapons. DC v Heller showed us that this unconstitutional.
3 - drugs are illegal and the police seize any on the spot, charge the person possessing them. This has not made drugs any more difficult to get. As such, I don't think your program will work like you think it'll work.

Prohibition has never, ever worked. Ever. The vast majority of firearm-related homicides in the US are gang/drug related. A decent additional number are related to crimes already in progress (a burgler/robber comes across someone and shoots them to get away).


How is it that we banned assault weapons before then? I'm not a lawmaker, I won't claim that my solution is completely foolproof but I'm pretty sure if the government wants to ban certain kinds of weapons they can find a way to do it.
 
2013-01-05 06:29:55 PM

here to help: ex-nuke: Typical, scream accusations leaving out little things like facts to try and cover up YOUR part in that tragedy. "AND THEY HAD NO FREAKING DEFENSE FOR IT!!!" because people like YOU forbid them having a FREAKING DEFENSE FOR IT!!! Liberals have been training school children for years that they have to passively take anything anyone does to them and fighting back will be punished. That lunatic was more cowardly than most, choosing the most helpless victims YOU could provide. YOUR efforts to pretend that there are no bad people and ALL violence even in self-defense is EVIL has a large share of the blame.

lolwut?

Now I'm picturing a bunch of 6 year olds swarming a heavily armed gunman and taking his ass down.

THAT... would be slick.


Well, it made about as much sense as your rant did.

BTW, scroll down thread. There's a story of an armed woman defending herself against an intruder. Firearms also prevent crime.
 
2013-01-05 06:31:02 PM
Fully automatic weapons are very, very heavily regulated. How many crimes were committed with fully automatic weapons in the last twenty years?
 
2013-01-05 06:32:03 PM

ElBarto79: How is it that we banned assault weapons before then? I'm not a lawmaker, I won't claim that my solution is completely foolproof but I'm pretty sure if the government wants to ban certain kinds of weapons they can find a way to do it.


If you're referring to the Assault Weapons Ban, that didn't ban any assault rifles or weapons. It "banned" scary black rifles and had no impact whatsoever on crime rates. It also didn't involve the seizure of weapons from law-abiding citizens.
 
2013-01-05 06:32:15 PM

ronaprhys: There's a story of an armed woman defending herself against an intruder.


That story is fishy as hell.
 
2013-01-05 06:33:36 PM

ElBarto79: How is it that we banned assault weapons before then? I'm not a lawmaker, I won't claim that my solution is completely foolproof but I'm pretty sure if the government wants to ban certain kinds of weapons they can find a way to do it.


Actually the ban didnt work. There were so many work arounds to the laws enfored against AR's of all types that the ban's were pointless, but you probably know that right? Which is why the eventually were repealed. Even the california ban on AR's were worked around quite easily with a change to the grip sold through gun stores that bypassed the restriction. Of course it made the rifle look silly but I guess thats enough of a victory. Hey goppers, made yer rifle ugly! neener neener!

/Dance you monkey DANCE!
 
2013-01-05 06:33:51 PM
The only solution to this problem is to take a bunch of people who had nothing to do with it and who would never commit a violent crime against anybody and throw them in jail because they own weapons similar to the ones used by criminals.
 
2013-01-05 06:36:05 PM

Abox: Rich Cream: Abox: And whether he shoots 5 people or 30 before getting tackled while reloading, it won't matter cuz...oh wait.

[citation something something]


Um...those were my words. The citation is my post that you quoted.



Are you the guy who's going to charge bare-handed at another man who's holding multiple killing machines and in the process of killing people because you heard a click sound?
/the citation was for an example where someone was in the process of a killing spree and got tackled while reloading
 
2013-01-05 06:37:34 PM

ElBarto79: I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.



So revolvers are cool but not semi-automatic pistols... why, exactly?
 
2013-01-05 06:37:48 PM

pedrop357: haywatchthis: it's sad that you come into the tread with facts and only get 2 replies

Facts have no place in anti-gun arguments. It's all about intentions and feelings. You've to to get emotional and talk about what things are supposed to do and disregard any evidence that they didn't work (see DC, Chicago and handgun bans)


Violent crime plummeted during Chicago's thirty-year handgun ban.

As an honest person (not a conservative or emotional gun nut) I will also tell you it plummeted across the US.
 
2013-01-05 06:39:54 PM

2wolves: JesseL: 2wolves: WhoopAssWayne: I wonder what the liberal fascists will try to ban this time. They're already working on 2nd amendment and also the 1st with "violent" video games. How about the 3rd this time? You know, if more soldiers could commandeer homes, tragedies like this wouldn't happen as often. Think of the children and ban the 3rd amendment! No tragedy should remain unexploited!

I would ban people who believe that fascists can be liberals. Obviously too dim to think on their own.

That's why I like "statists". It encompasses tyranny from both ends of the left-right spectrum.

Please list your top 50 liberal fascists.

I'll wait.


Reread my statement and consider rephrasing or withdrawing your question. I never said liberals could be fascists.

Of course they can still be totalitarian despots.
 
2013-01-05 06:40:52 PM

DrPainMD: The only solution to this problem is to take a bunch of people who had nothing to do with it and who would never commit a violent crime against anybody and throw them in jail because they own weapons similar to the ones used by criminals.


I hear Rep. Nobody (I-Neverland) has introduced a bill to do just that.

Next-door neighbor Melissa Wright, a nurse who treated victims of the July movie theater shootings in Aurora, said she was in her second-floor bedroom when she saw the gunman start shooting from his own bedroom window. She said she didn't know what he was shooting at, and that she quickly dropped to the floor.

"I hit the ground pretty fast," Wright said.

Wright said she slid on her belly to the first floor of her home and told police what she saw upstairs. Officers quickly entered her home.

Wright said she knew the gunman as Sonny Archuleta - a name used by police officers trying to negotiate with the man with the bullhorn. Wright said the townhome may have been inhabited by the gunman, the gunman's wife, her father and another man.
 
2013-01-05 06:42:14 PM

ronaprhys: BTW, scroll down thread. There's a story of an armed woman defending herself against an intruder. Firearms also prevent crime.


I'm for gun CONTROL! Not outright BANNING guns!

What is it with the wing nuts that they can't see the bleeding difference?

And generally people who do NOT own guns suffer less gun fatalities than those who do.

This has been proven time and time again.

Try again, sparky.
 
2013-01-05 06:42:45 PM

orclover: ElBarto79: How is it that we banned assault weapons before then? I'm not a lawmaker, I won't claim that my solution is completely foolproof but I'm pretty sure if the government wants to ban certain kinds of weapons they can find a way to do it.

Actually the ban didnt work. There were so many work arounds to the laws enfored against AR's of all types that the ban's were pointless, but you probably know that right? Which is why the eventually were repealed. Even the california ban on AR's were worked around quite easily with a change to the grip sold through gun stores that bypassed the restriction. Of course it made the rifle look silly but I guess thats enough of a victory. Hey goppers, made yer rifle ugly! neener neener!

/Dance you monkey DANCE!


Right, the gun nuts always want to claim the ban was ineffective, it's not possible to ban weapons so we shouldn't even try, etc. etc. There are plenty of countries that have effectively banned certain weapons and have seen significant drops in crime rates. If we had the political will we could accomplish the same thing here. You can argue you the nitty gritty details of it if you want, the fact is it could be done. The only question is whether or not the citizens will get pissed off enough with almost weekly mass shooting to demand real action or if they will become apathetic.
 
2013-01-05 06:43:09 PM

ronaprhys: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: ronaprhys: an eyewitness gives a story

Just show us all the part that lends credence to the theory that the Clackamas shooter quit because he saw another gun.

Besides you and CCW wanting it to be true, that is.

That he fixed his firearm and then offed himself. Seems plenty reasonable. Of course, other reasons could exist - but to immediately dismiss them just shows that you aren't interested in honest debate. I.e., disingenuous.

And yes, I've been in many of these threads. Well more than necessary to see your nonsense.


No more disingenuous than leaping to the assumption that it was seeing a gun that made him off himself.
 
2013-01-05 06:43:22 PM

Rich Cream: Abox: Rich Cream: Abox: And whether he shoots 5 people or 30 before getting tackled while reloading, it won't matter cuz...oh wait.

[citation something something]


Um...those were my words. The citation is my post that you quoted.


Are you the guy who's going to charge bare-handed at another man who's holding multiple killing machines and in the process of killing people because you heard a click sound?


Me and my nunchucks.

Oh and...citation
 
2013-01-05 06:44:32 PM

tblax: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.

What sucks about reading your posts is knowing you're exactly the type of delusional nutjob that probably has a cache of guns


So, anyone who believes in the right to defend their home is a delusional nutjob?
 
2013-01-05 06:46:26 PM
Immediate attention to the state of mental health care in this country is the only solution that has a prayer of reducing situations like this. When I debate gun control issues, the last thing on my mind is limiting one's ability to protect their family and property *while at home*. Limiting clip sizes, mandatory liability insurance (with steep penalties if your gun is stolen and used in a crime), and stricter rules about who can carry in public. When it comes to defending your home, I don't necessarily care if you can shoot straight or calmly assess who the bad guy is. If you can show a reasonably stable state of mental health, buy what you want for your home.

For the second amendment fappers, we'll make exceptions for powder loaded muskets. Carry those wherever you want, bypass the mental health screening, buy as many as you want.
 
2013-01-05 06:49:34 PM

vpb: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Like the creepy attraction to weapons that psychos have?


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-05 06:51:30 PM
 
2013-01-05 06:51:35 PM

here to help: I'm for gun CONTROL! Not outright BANNING guns!

What is it with the wing nuts that they can't see the bleeding difference?



So what is the kind of control you'd like? Does it burden me in any way? Does it retain due process rights? Does it violate the Constitution or the intent of the Second Amendment?

here to help: And generally people who do NOT own guns suffer less gun fatalities than those who do.

This has been proven time and time again.


What do you suppose that actually means? Can you think of any factors that might be common to some people who own guns and people who tend to die violently? Drug dealers, police officers, people being stalked, etc.

I wouldn't presume that you're one of those people so credulous as to believe that merely owning a gun is a direct cause of being murdered.
 
2013-01-05 06:51:52 PM

drewsclues: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.

The difference between you and me, is that I dream of place where people don't need guns to defend themselves and you do. Both dreams are stupidly implausible, but I choose the one that behooves a modern society and is nothing like Somalia. You really want a place where people NEED to carry guns? Really? That's barbaric. Dream bigger.


Just because someone owns a firearm for home protection does not automatically mean that they dream of living in a dangerous world just so that they can use their gun to defend themselves. In fact, I would bet money that most gun owners would love to live in a world where they do not need to own a gun for home defense (or even self defense). Yes, there are people who fantasize about living in such a world where they can be a hero, but do you really think that that is what every gun owner believes? Their owning a gun for defensive purposes has nothing to do with dreaming of a specific type of world. It has more to do with living in the real world. Dreaming of a world where one does not need to own a gun to defend themselves is a great dream. Dream all you want, but you really do need to face the reality of the world around you. Give the world we live in today, I would much rather take the precaution of having a gun for home defense (and doing so is not about living in fear, but really is a precaution, much like wearing a seat belt) than to have to rely on the police to defend my home.

Though, I do have to wonder where at the table dad would keep his gun in the above examples.
 
2013-01-05 06:52:14 PM

ElBarto79: I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.


banning semi-automatic guns would also be a violation of the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-01-05 06:53:08 PM

Mock26: So, anyone who believes in the right to defend their home is a delusional nutjob?


Cuz you absolutely "need" a 30 round magazine semi-auto to defend your home.
 
2013-01-05 06:53:48 PM

pedrop357: ElBarto79: I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.

banning semi-automatic guns would also be a violation of the 2nd amendment.


If that's true, so is banning hand grenades.
 
2013-01-05 06:56:05 PM

jaytkay: Mock26: So, anyone who believes in the right to defend their home is a delusional nutjob?

Cuz you absolutely "need" a 30 round magazine semi-auto to defend your home.


http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-peopl e- need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/
 
2013-01-05 06:56:54 PM

jaytkay: pedrop357: ElBarto79: I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.

banning semi-automatic guns would also be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

If that's true, so is banning hand grenades.


What do you think semi-automatic means?
 
2013-01-05 06:57:12 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Wishful thinking.


Nope... Not wishful thinking. In fact most of these mass shooter cases end in suicide as soon as they are confronted.
 
2013-01-05 06:57:30 PM

DrPainMD: The only solution to this problem is to take a bunch of people who had nothing to do with it and who would never commit a violent crime against anybody and throw them in jail because they own weapons similar to the ones used by criminals.



Now apply that scenario to rapists, and you start to understand how senseless the gun-grabbers are.
 
2013-01-05 06:57:44 PM

jaytkay: Mock26: So, anyone who believes in the right to defend their home is a delusional nutjob?

Cuz you absolutely "need" a 30 round magazine semi-auto to defend your home.


Who said anything about needing a 30-round magazine semi-auto to defend your home? I never made such claim. Hell, I never even made that implication. So why in all of Hades would you bring that up? Hmmm?
 
2013-01-05 06:58:27 PM
You know, I have never owned a gun. I have never wanted a gun. Most importantly (to me anyway), I have never, ever had the feeling that I need a gun. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian. I fully expect to get rebuked here so have at it.
 
2013-01-05 06:58:37 PM

jaytkay: pedrop357: ElBarto79: I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.

banning semi-automatic guns would also be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

If that's true, so is banning hand grenades.


Care to back up that claim with a logical response?
 
2013-01-05 06:59:48 PM

ronaprhys: Now I'm picturing a bunch of 6 year olds swarming a heavily armed gunman and taking his ass down.


www.deviantart.com
That was how Bioshock ended.
 
2013-01-05 07:00:14 PM

jaytkay: pedrop357: ElBarto79: I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.

banning semi-automatic guns would also be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

If that's true, so is banning hand grenades.


Agreed.

You can have my grenades when you take them from my blown-apart fingers.
 
2013-01-05 07:01:49 PM

macgregor666: You know, I have never owned a gun. I have never wanted a gun. Most importantly (to me anyway), I have never, ever had the feeling that I need a gun. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian. I fully expect to get rebuked here so have at it.


Good for you. And I mean that with honest sincerity. Not sarcasm, no mocking, good for you. But, some of use enjoy sport shooting and hunting and want to keep that right. Both types of people can live peacefully side by side in this world.
 
2013-01-05 07:02:19 PM

Maul555: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Wishful thinking.

Nope... Not wishful thinking. In fact most of these mass shooter cases end in suicide as soon as they are confronted.


Name one.
 
2013-01-05 07:03:09 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Maul555: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nevermind that a CCW holder did in fact draw his gun on the shooter, and though he refrained from firing due to the presence of innocents behind the shooter (good observation of rule 4) it's likely that seeing him is what prompted the shooter to suicide.

Wishful thinking.

Nope... Not wishful thinking. In fact most of these mass shooter cases end in suicide as soon as they are confronted.

Name one.


And Roberts was never "confronted."
 
2013-01-05 07:04:14 PM

ElBarto79: orclover: ElBarto79: How is it that we banned assault weapons before then? I'm not a lawmaker, I won't claim that my solution is completely foolproof but I'm pretty sure if the government wants to ban certain kinds of weapons they can find a way to do it.

Actually the ban didnt work. There were so many work arounds to the laws enfored against AR's of all types that the ban's were pointless, but you probably know that right? Which is why the eventually were repealed. Even the california ban on AR's were worked around quite easily with a change to the grip sold through gun stores that bypassed the restriction. Of course it made the rifle look silly but I guess thats enough of a victory. Hey goppers, made yer rifle ugly! neener neener!

/Dance you monkey DANCE!

Right, the gun nuts always want to claim the ban was ineffective, it's not possible to ban weapons so we shouldn't even try, etc. etc. There are plenty of countries that have effectively banned certain weapons and have seen significant drops in crime rates. If we had the political will we could accomplish the same thing here. You can argue you the nitty gritty details of it if you want, the fact is it could be done. The only question is whether or not the citizens will get pissed off enough with almost weekly mass shooting to demand real action or if they will become apathetic.


a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com
hi howyadoin...

Gun laws in this country are kinda like mother nature, they find a way, always. You are right though, you could in theory manage to enact major sweeping permanent change in this country that would effectively eleminate the scary firearms from the populace. You could even wage a military campaign to remove the guns from people who refuse to sell them for $100 bucks apiece, and probably win. How much political ground are you willing to give up to get it? These things do not come without cost after all.

I personally will enjoy watching the reenactment of waco standoff on TV every day. I have popcorn. I do not have any rifles without wood furniture since you seem to be a in a reactionary accusation prone mood. Not that it will stop you from flying off the handle and accusing me of being a card carrying NRA knight or whatever.
 
2013-01-05 07:04:19 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.



Story 3.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun, which is in a completely different room from where they're eating, and get's shot.
4. Gunman freaks out, kills everyone in the house like sheep. No one escapes.
5. Neighbors call police about gun shots
6. Police arrive to find an entire family slaughtered and a murderous gunman on the loose.

Unless you're suggesting dad should have been packing heat while eating that Sloppy Joe?
 
2013-01-05 07:04:37 PM

macgregor666: You know, I have never owned a gun. I have never wanted a gun. Most importantly (to me anyway), I have never, ever had the feeling that I need a gun. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian. I fully expect to get rebuked here so have at it.


It is perfectly okay for you to hold that position, Canadian or otherwise. Where a problem occurs is if you attempt to make that choice for other people.
 
2013-01-05 07:06:43 PM

jaytkay: Mock26: So, anyone who believes in the right to defend their home is a delusional nutjob?

Cuz you absolutely "need" a 30 round magazine semi-auto to defend your home.



Depends what you're defending against.  You may need to fire 20 fast rounds to pin down your assailant, then another 10 to finish him off.
 
2013-01-05 07:06:54 PM

here to help: ronaprhys: BTW, scroll down thread. There's a story of an armed woman defending herself against an intruder. Firearms also prevent crime.

I'm for gun CONTROL! Not outright BANNING guns!

What is it with the wing nuts that they can't see the bleeding difference?

And generally people who do NOT own guns suffer less gun fatalities than those who do.

This has been proven time and time again.

Try again, sparky.


Yeah, and people who do not own cars suffer less car fatalities than those who do. And people who do not drink suffer less alcohol related fatalities than those who do. What is your point?

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners and generally speaking any attempt at gun control and/or tougher regulations only punishes those who are responsible gun owners. What gun control do you think should be enacted that would stop murders or mass shootings?
 
2013-01-05 07:06:59 PM

Malacon: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.


Story 3.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun, which is in a completely different room from where they're eating, and get's shot.
4. Gunman freaks out, kills everyone in the house like sheep. No one escapes.
5. Neighbors call police about gun shots
6. Police arrive to find an entire family slaughtered and a murderous gunman on the loose.

Unless you're suggesting dad should have been packing heat while eating that Sloppy Joe?


If you don't have a gun in your hand at all times, ready to fire, you are aren't protecting your family like a man, and you are a disgrace. (C'mon, give the guy his home defense fantasy, he has so little).
 
2013-01-05 07:08:40 PM

Rich Cream: Abox: Rich Cream: Abox: And whether he shoots 5 people or 30 before getting tackled while reloading, it won't matter cuz...oh wait.

[citation something something]


Um...those were my words. The citation is my post that you quoted.


Are you the guy who's going to charge bare-handed at another man who's holding multiple killing machines and in the process of killing people because you heard a click sound?
/the citation was for an example where someone was in the process of a killing spree and got tackled while reloading


If it seemed like I was going to die or if someone close to me was about to die, yeah, I like to think that I would rush the gunman and attempt to subdue him. I would much rather get gunned down charging a gunman than to simply wait behind cover until he finds me and shoots me.
 
2013-01-05 07:09:34 PM

Malacon: Bit'O'Gristle:

Unless you're suggesting dad should have been packing heat while eating that Sloppy Joe?


They definitely needed a couple large dogs, thats for damn sure. Or move out of the ghetto, crackheads are getting out of hand.
 
2013-01-05 07:09:43 PM

Mock26: jaytkay: pedrop357: ElBarto79: I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.

banning semi-automatic guns would also be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

If that's true, so is banning hand grenades.

Care to back up that claim with a logical response?


How can the government prevent you from owning a weapon? Where is that allowed in the Constitution?
 
2013-01-05 07:11:00 PM

Mock26: The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners


So was the guy in Aurora, before today. And the other guy in Aurora, until the day he murdered a bunch of moviegoers.
 
2013-01-05 07:13:07 PM

Malacon: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.


Story 3.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun, which is in a completely different room from where they're eating, and get's shot.
4. Gunman freaks out, kills everyone in the house like sheep. No one escapes.
5. Neighbors call police about gun shots
6. Police arrive to find an entire family slaughtered and a murderous gunman on the loose.

Unless you're suggesting dad should have been packing heat while eating that Sloppy Joe?


Did you even read the part after the slashies? "/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog." The poster admitted that having a gun does not guarantee that you will successfully defend yourself. His entire point was simply that with access to a firearm he has a better chance of defending his life, family, and home than if he did not have a gun. Unfortunately he example was pretty lame.
 
2013-01-05 07:13:43 PM
What? No "assault rifle" or AR-15 mentioned? That's gotta be pissin off a lot of you guys here.
 
2013-01-05 07:14:14 PM

jaytkay: Mock26: jaytkay: pedrop357: ElBarto79: I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.

banning semi-automatic guns would also be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

If that's true, so is banning hand grenades.

Care to back up that claim with a logical response?

How can the government prevent you from owning a weapon? Where is that allowed in the Constitution?


Right where it says "the right of the People to keep and bear ordnance shall not be infringed."
 
2013-01-05 07:14:28 PM
people die every day? DAMMIT. Whats wrong with this world?!!??!
 
2013-01-05 07:14:46 PM

jaytkay: Mock26: The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners

So was the guy in Aurora, before today. And the other guy in Aurora, until the day he murdered a bunch of moviegoers.


Nancy Lanza, Quackenbush, the hog-hunter...
 
2013-01-05 07:18:00 PM

orclover: jaytkay: Mock26: The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners

So was the guy in Aurora, before today. And the other guy in Aurora, until the day he murdered a bunch of moviegoers.

Had explosives out the wazoo and was crazy as farking fark while not taking medication to treat his farking crazy. I would call sideshow bob alot of things but responsible is not on that list. Lemme double check:
[mybroadband.co.za image 468x286]
yea no


Still one of the millions who would have been "punished" had we passed something after the Gifford shooting.
 
2013-01-05 07:18:53 PM

pedrop357: ElBarto79: I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.

banning semi-automatic guns would also be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Nowhere in there does it mention semi-automatic weapons. Also, SCOTUS has already listed numerous restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the second amendment.
 
2013-01-05 07:19:06 PM

Infernalist: You know what? fark it. If people are intent on pretending like guns aren't a problem and it's 'THE CRAZY PEOPLE ARE TO BLAME LOL', then we need to have a tragedy like this every goddamned day until people get tired of seeing dead people, or enough victims get pissed off enough to tar and feather the local NRA gun nuts in their respective communities.

Until then, BRING IT ON, BABY. Let's see how much blood America can take before she flinches.


I'll play those odds. I'd say the vast majority of us are pretty safe. The media doesn't report on all of the perfectly well-adjusted people who got throught their day just fine. Stop whimpering in the corner.
 
2013-01-05 07:19:28 PM

orclover: Had explosives out the wazoo and was crazy as farking fark while not taking medication to treat his farking crazy. I would call sideshow bob alot of things but responsible is not on that list.


How was he irresponsible with his guns and explosives? He harmed nobody before he killed all those people.

You are opposed to someone legally possessing guns and ammunition in his own home?
 
2013-01-05 07:20:15 PM

Abox: Me and my nunchucks.

Oh and...citation



1. Nunchucks are more illegal to carry than handguns. Can't get a permit for nunchucks.

2. Fair enough. I figure it happens less often than otherwise.
 
2013-01-05 07:20:24 PM

jaytkay: orclover: Had explosives out the wazoo and was crazy as farking fark while not taking medication to treat his farking crazy. I would call sideshow bob alot of things but responsible is not on that list.

How was he irresponsible with his guns and explosives? He harmed nobody before he killed all those people.

You are opposed to someone legally possessing guns and ammunition in his own home?


Yet another gun-grabbing fascist.
 
2013-01-05 07:20:49 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: jaytkay: Mock26: The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners

So was the guy in Aurora, before today. And the other guy in Aurora, until the day he murdered a bunch of moviegoers.

Nancy Lanza, Quackenbush, the hog-hunter...

James Devin Worsham, of Longview, said he accidentally shot himself in the leg with a Taurus Model PT-111 Pro semi-automatic 9 mm, while hog hunting on a hunting lease off Texas Hwy 149.

Hope those hogs were in traps, or he got lucky when he shot himself before a herd got irritated with him.

I mean yea you could use a .22 i you really wanted to as long as its penned up. Out walking around tho yer likely just be pickin a fight with the hogs.
 
2013-01-05 07:22:36 PM

ElBarto79: orclover: ElBarto79: How is it that we banned assault weapons before then? I'm not a lawmaker, I won't claim that my solution is completely foolproof but I'm pretty sure if the government wants to ban certain kinds of weapons they can find a way to do it.

Actually the ban didnt work. There were so many work arounds to the laws enfored against AR's of all types that the ban's were pointless, but you probably know that right? Which is why the eventually were repealed. Even the california ban on AR's were worked around quite easily with a change to the grip sold through gun stores that bypassed the restriction. Of course it made the rifle look silly but I guess thats enough of a victory. Hey goppers, made yer rifle ugly! neener neener!

/Dance you monkey DANCE!

Right, the gun nuts always want to claim the ban was ineffective, it's not possible to ban weapons so we shouldn't even try, etc. etc. There are plenty of countries that have effectively banned certain weapons and have seen significant drops in crime rates. If we had the political will we could accomplish the same thing here. You can argue you the nitty gritty details of it if you want, the fact is it could be done. The only question is whether or not the citizens will get pissed off enough with almost weekly mass shooting to demand real action or if they will become apathetic.


Do you have any evidence that shows that the ban was effective? On NPR last month they had Professor Daniel Webster from Johns Hopkins University, where he studies firearm policy and gun violence prevention. He went over a lot of the reports compiled by various groups who studied the Brady Bill and, "It did not have a significant impact on overall rates of gun violence. The researchers who studied this could not define any detectable difference in the use, particularly of guns with large-capacity magazines, which are far more prevalent as it relates to this ban." So, what evidence do you have that the Brady Bill worked?
 
2013-01-05 07:25:31 PM

aearra: Another day in america. Another mass murder. Another shoot out. Another day full of sound and fury signifying nothing as america does nothing to solve the situation but whine. Another day where nobody outside of the us cares.


2/10

Trying too hard there, Shakespeare.
 
2013-01-05 07:25:33 PM

jaytkay: Mock26: The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners

So was the guy in Aurora, before today. And the other guy in Aurora, until the day he murdered a bunch of moviegoers.


So? Why would you punish those who are still responsible and will still responsible? There are roughly 100 million legal gun owners in this country. How many never use their guns in an illegal manner? Again, why punish those for a relative handful of irresponsible people?
 
2013-01-05 07:26:30 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: jaytkay: orclover: Had explosives out the wazoo and was crazy as farking fark while not taking medication to treat his farking crazy. I would call sideshow bob alot of things but responsible is not on that list.

How was he irresponsible with his guns and explosives? He harmed nobody before he killed all those people.

You are opposed to someone legally possessing guns and ammunition in his own home?

Yet another gun-grabbing fascist.


THIS. If a nutcase like this guy has the foresight and intelligence to arm himself, why doesn't everyone else? I hate to be that guy, but it kind of makes you think that anyone that doesn't arm themselves at all times (at work, dinner, movies, school, church) kinda deserves to get shot. They may put him in jail for murder, but they'll never take away the fact that he was more of a man and a better American than any of the people he shot.

*Blank stare*
 
2013-01-05 07:26:40 PM

orclover: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: jaytkay: Mock26: The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners

So was the guy in Aurora, before today. And the other guy in Aurora, until the day he murdered a bunch of moviegoers.

Nancy Lanza, Quackenbush, the hog-hunter...

James Devin Worsham, of Longview, said he accidentally shot himself in the leg with a Taurus Model PT-111 Pro semi-automatic 9 mm, while hog hunting on a hunting lease off Texas Hwy 149.
Hope those hogs were in traps, or he got lucky when he shot himself before a herd got irritated with him.

I mean yea you could use a .22 i you really wanted to as long as its penned up. Out walking around tho yer likely just be pickin a fight with the hogs.


What I can't figure out is why this RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER couldn't get any friends to go hog-hunting with him.
 
2013-01-05 07:29:13 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: orclover: jaytkay: Mock26: The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners

So was the guy in Aurora, before today. And the other guy in Aurora, until the day he murdered a bunch of moviegoers.

Had explosives out the wazoo and was crazy as farking fark while not taking medication to treat his farking crazy. I would call sideshow bob alot of things but responsible is not on that list. Lemme double check:
[mybroadband.co.za image 468x286]
yea no

Still one of the millions who would have been "punished" had we passed something after the Gifford shooting.


Are you sure that stricter laws would have stopped him?

No amount of law will ever stop anyone from ever committing a crime. But, ever notice that millions of people are not clamoring for the banishment of alcohol because of tens of thousands of people killed by drunk drivers? Why is that? Alcohol is certainly a bigger threat to innocent people than legal firearm owners, so why are we not trying to ban alcohol along with "assault weapons"?
 
2013-01-05 07:32:23 PM
there's a man who sees all there is to see, what the future holds for all...
 
2013-01-05 07:33:09 PM
Gun threads are a lot like Texas threads, It brings the trolls out like crazy... They do serve the purpose of updating my ignore list though.

jaytkay and nina_hartley's_ass are the latest additions
 
2013-01-05 07:34:58 PM

Mock26: ElBarto79: orclover: ElBarto79: How is it that we banned assault weapons before then? I'm not a lawmaker, I won't claim that my solution is completely foolproof but I'm pretty sure if the government wants to ban certain kinds of weapons they can find a way to do it.

Actually the ban didnt work. There were so many work arounds to the laws enfored against AR's of all types that the ban's were pointless, but you probably know that right? Which is why the eventually were repealed. Even the california ban on AR's were worked around quite easily with a change to the grip sold through gun stores that bypassed the restriction. Of course it made the rifle look silly but I guess thats enough of a victory. Hey goppers, made yer rifle ugly! neener neener!

/Dance you monkey DANCE!

Right, the gun nuts always want to claim the ban was ineffective, it's not possible to ban weapons so we shouldn't even try, etc. etc. There are plenty of countries that have effectively banned certain weapons and have seen significant drops in crime rates. If we had the political will we could accomplish the same thing here. You can argue you the nitty gritty details of it if you want, the fact is it could be done. The only question is whether or not the citizens will get pissed off enough with almost weekly mass shooting to demand real action or if they will become apathetic.

Do you have any evidence that shows that the ban was effective? On NPR last month they had Professor Daniel Webster from Johns Hopkins University, where he studies firearm policy and gun violence prevention. He went over a lot of the reports compiled by various groups who studied the Brady Bill and, "It did not have a significant impact on overall rates of gun violence. The researchers who studied this could not define any detectable difference in the use, particularly of guns with large-capacity magazines, which are far more prevalent as it relates to this ban." So, what evidence do you have that the Brady Bill ...


I'm not talking about the Brady Bill, a good example is Australia - semi-automatic weapons banned, 50 percent reduction in homicides and suicides and no mass shootings since.
 
2013-01-05 07:38:31 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: orclover: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: jaytkay: Mock26: The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners

So was the guy in Aurora, before today. And the other guy in Aurora, until the day he murdered a bunch of moviegoers.

Nancy Lanza, Quackenbush, the hog-hunter...

James Devin Worsham, of Longview, said he accidentally shot himself in the leg with a Taurus Model PT-111 Pro semi-automatic 9 mm, while hog hunting on a hunting lease off Texas Hwy 149.
Hope those hogs were in traps, or he got lucky when he shot himself before a herd got irritated with him.

I mean yea you could use a .22 i you really wanted to as long as its penned up. Out walking around tho yer likely just be pickin a fight with the hogs.

What I can't figure out is why this RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER couldn't get any friends to go hog-hunting with him.


Accidents happen. How many people got into car accidents today? The average daily number of auto fatalities is double that of firearm homicides (93 vs. 45), and the number of actual accidents is over 6 million a year. Shall we ban cars?

But, did the guy who dropped it in a theater or the hunter use their gun in an illegal manner? Nope. Sure, the one guy lost his permit to carry, but he was not arrested for this accident. Also, what crime did Nancy Lanza commit with her guns? Hmmm? You keep focusing on a few examples, but those examples are just that, a few. That still does nothing to disprove the statement that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. How many examples can you provide? Hmmm? What, 5 or 6 out of 100 million? Hell, come up with 100 such examples for any given year. You are still looking at roughly 100 MILLION examples of responsible gun owners who do not lose their gun in a theater or who are murdered by their mentally unstable son or who accidentally shoot themselves in the leg. Again, why would you seek to punish MILLIONS of people for the actions of a few? Hmmm?
 
2013-01-05 07:41:26 PM

ElBarto79: Mock26: ElBarto79: orclover: ElBarto79: How is it that we banned assault weapons before then? I'm not a lawmaker, I won't claim that my solution is completely foolproof but I'm pretty sure if the government wants to ban certain kinds of weapons they can find a way to do it.

Actually the ban didnt work. There were so many work arounds to the laws enfored against AR's of all types that the ban's were pointless, but you probably know that right? Which is why the eventually were repealed. Even the california ban on AR's were worked around quite easily with a change to the grip sold through gun stores that bypassed the restriction. Of course it made the rifle look silly but I guess thats enough of a victory. Hey goppers, made yer rifle ugly! neener neener!

/Dance you monkey DANCE!

Right, the gun nuts always want to claim the ban was ineffective, it's not possible to ban weapons so we shouldn't even try, etc. etc. There are plenty of countries that have effectively banned certain weapons and have seen significant drops in crime rates. If we had the political will we could accomplish the same thing here. You can argue you the nitty gritty details of it if you want, the fact is it could be done. The only question is whether or not the citizens will get pissed off enough with almost weekly mass shooting to demand real action or if they will become apathetic.

Do you have any evidence that shows that the ban was effective? On NPR last month they had Professor Daniel Webster from Johns Hopkins University, where he studies firearm policy and gun violence prevention. He went over a lot of the reports compiled by various groups who studied the Brady Bill and, "It did not have a significant impact on overall rates of gun violence. The researchers who studied this could not define any detectable difference in the use, particularly of guns with large-capacity magazines, which are far more prevalent as it relates to this ban." So, what evidence do you have that the Bra ...


A wildly different culture, level of ethnic diversity, population density, level of firearms ownership pre-ban, and thousands of miles of relatively open land borders. Why would you not consider these variables before lofting Australia over your head and saying "See!"
 
2013-01-05 07:42:08 PM

Malacon: Unless you're suggesting dad should have been packing heat while eating that Sloppy Joe?


My pistol goes on when I get dressed in the morning and comes off when I get ready for bed. Seeing as it's for dealing with things that are by nature unforeseen, why wouldn't it be kept handy as much as possible?
 
2013-01-05 07:43:16 PM

Mock26: Are you sure that stricter laws would have stopped him?


Banning internet sales? I dunno.

The point is he was one of the millions of "responsible gun owners" so often cited by gun rights advocates as being punished by any additional restrictions. In fact, this sh*t is happening so often, let's just say HALF of all gun owners are "responsible" and the other half are just crazy or stupid and haven't been busted YET.

Cuz then all this sh*t makes perfect sense.
 
2013-01-05 07:45:31 PM

jaytkay: Mock26: jaytkay: pedrop357: ElBarto79: I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.

banning semi-automatic guns would also be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

If that's true, so is banning hand grenades.

Care to back up that claim with a logical response?

How can the government prevent you from owning a weapon? Where is that allowed in the Constitution?


Can you go to the store and buy an M-16? No, you can't. Now I know someone will pipe in to say "oh but if you go through such and such procedures, pay a crapload of money and agree to only use it under heavily restricted conditions you CAN own an M-16 legally" The point is the government can restrict ownership to the extent they are effectively banned. There are loopholes for everything. It's illegal for you to buy a Tomahawk missile for example, however if you were able to become the leader of a sovereign nation and could convince the Pentagon to sell you a Tomahawk missile then theoretically you COULD buy one. But in reality, yea, it's never gonna happen, no matter how much time and money you have on your hands.
 
2013-01-05 07:47:28 PM

JesseL: jaytkay: Mock26: So, anyone who believes in the right to defend their home is a delusional nutjob?

Cuz you absolutely "need" a 30 round magazine semi-auto to defend your home.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-peopl e- need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/


now cite one that doesn't use cartoon/comic phrases like "evil people"
 
2013-01-05 07:48:04 PM

Rich Cream: Can't get a permit for nunchucks.


www.wearysloth.com
 
2013-01-05 07:49:00 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mock26: Are you sure that stricter laws would have stopped him?

Banning internet sales? I dunno.

The point is he was one of the millions of "responsible gun owners" so often cited by gun rights advocates as being punished by any additional restrictions. In fact, this sh*t is happening so often, let's just say HALF of all gun owners are "responsible" and the other half are just crazy or stupid and haven't been busted YET.

Cuz then all this sh*t makes perfect sense.


Internet sales? :|
Internet sales are transferred through licenses FFLs, who then perform the necessary NICS check.

Also, even accounting for all firearms deaths for the past decade throwing out an average of 30,000 per year (I'm even adding in the suicides for you) that comes to 300,000 which is still wildly far from 50 million. Your hyperbole does you no favors.
 
2013-01-05 07:50:33 PM

ElBarto79: But in reality, yea, it's never gonna happen, no matter how much time and money you have on your hands.


No actually if you have enough money you can legally own a tomahawk missile, or a howitzer for that matter. Quite a few Americans actually own old tanks. Money is the deciding factor, there are loopholes that exist. A2A of course is alot harder, almost impossible legally. Illegally? If you have enough to spend the skys is not the limit, might require some travel.

You and me? not likely. Could always make one.
 
2013-01-05 07:50:49 PM

ElBarto79: There are loopholes for everything. It's illegal for you to buy a Tomahawk missile for example,


Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure that legally speaking it's just a very large model airplane.

I'll bet you think flamethrowers are illegal too.
 
2013-01-05 07:52:11 PM

TheHappyCanadian: JesseL: jaytkay: Mock26: So, anyone who believes in the right to defend their home is a delusional nutjob?

Cuz you absolutely "need" a 30 round magazine semi-auto to defend your home.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-peopl e- need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/

now cite one that doesn't use cartoon/comic phrases like "evil people"


Did you have any reason to dismiss what was stated in the article other than the choice of a colloquial term?
 
2013-01-05 07:57:44 PM

jaytkay: If that's true, so is banning hand grenades.


Agreed.
 
2013-01-05 07:59:25 PM

here to help: Wulfman: Which restrictions in particular are you talking about?

Depends on the level of whackjobbiness. Some would have preferred that ANYONE (but preferably not minorities) could just walk into anywhere, buy a gun and start wandering around jerking it off.



Uh, gotta call bullshiat on you here. You said that right wing gun nuts... um... let me directly quote you here:


THE RIGHT WING GUN NUTS DID NOT CARE ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH UNTIL A BUNCH OF KIDS GOT MOWED DOWN BY A GUY WHO STOLE HIS GUN NUT MOTHER'S LEGALLY PURCHASED GUNS AND THEY HAD NO FREAKING DEFENSE FOR IT!!!

You do not care about mental health. You only care about your f*cking guns! You FOUGHT restrictions that would help prevent tragedies like Connecticut. Claiming the mental health stance (which has been a left leaning policy for ages) as if it's your own NOW is absolutely freaking disgusting!!



So the question I again pose to you is, which restrictions in particular are you talking about, i.e. which restrictions did right wing gun nuts fight against, that would have helped prevent tragedies like Connecticut? Your general point about the most vocal gun-rights advocates suddenly arguing that the US needs to reform its mental health system is fair enough, but when pressed on the question of which reasonable restrictions could have been enacted that would have prevented a shooting like the one in Newtown (and pretty much every specific case of mass murder), there is a lack of specific answer. Care to take another crack at it?
 
2013-01-05 08:00:13 PM

ElBarto79: Nowhere in there does it mention semi-automatic weapons. Also, SCOTUS has already listed numerous restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the second amendment.


Pposting on fark.com isn't mentioned either, so I suppose it's OK for the government to require a background or posting permit before you can post here, right?

Semi-automatic firearms don't fall under any of the categories that were talked about as not being in scope for DC v Heller. That's all they were, listings of things that that ruling didn't apply to. Semi-automatic handguns were also most certainly IN scope for the ruling and protected under the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-01-05 08:01:00 PM

vudutek: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Please, explain. Why have these gun-related issues become a discussion ONLY about mental health? Why not discuss mental health programs AND better regulation of guns? And, if mental health is SO important, why are mental health programs being cut to the bone by just about every governmental agency around?

Evil is thinking that more guns is the answer. Evil is thinking that bulletproof clothing for schoolkids is the answer.


Why should everything be regulated to the slowest moving ship in the fleet? Just because one person exists somewhere that cannot handle something doesn't mean that everyone else should be punished.

This is supposed to be a free country. Not a giant government school run by the sociopaths who manage to win popularity contests. I really understand why government school teachers have group punishments for all the children when a small minority acted up. It makes for adults who look to government to punish everyone when one person does something wrong. Adults who want government power increased at every turn.

Johnny made too much noise so now nobody is allowed to talk during the lunch period. Johnny ran a red light so now we have to have red light cameras. Johnny drove too fast so now we need automated roads. Johnny misused a gun so now nobody can have guns.... One law after the next.

310 million people in this country last I heard. Six sigma is 3.4 defects per million. How perfect does the entire population need to be not to have ever increasing controls placed upon everyone?

Why the fark do so many people want to live a farking prison?

Let's just skip to the end game and stop this nonsense of a slow progression. Everyone has to seek permission of government for everything. Viewscreens in every home so our parents of government can watch over everything we do. Our food will be decided for us. There will be mandatory exercise periods.... The whole nine farking yards. People just need to jump to the end and get it over with. Then we can all be 'safe'.
 
2013-01-05 08:01:25 PM

ElBarto79: Mock26: ElBarto79: orclover: ElBarto79: How is it that we banned assault weapons before then? I'm not a lawmaker, I won't claim that my solution is completely foolproof but I'm pretty sure if the government wants to ban certain kinds of weapons they can find a way to do it.

Actually the ban didnt work. There were so many work arounds to the laws enfored against AR's of all types that the ban's were pointless, but you probably know that right? Which is why the eventually were repealed. Even the california ban on AR's were worked around quite easily with a change to the grip sold through gun stores that bypassed the restriction. Of course it made the rifle look silly but I guess thats enough of a victory. Hey goppers, made yer rifle ugly! neener neener!

/Dance you monkey DANCE!

Right, the gun nuts always want to claim the ban was ineffective, it's not possible to ban weapons so we shouldn't even try, etc. etc. There are plenty of countries that have effectively banned certain weapons and have seen significant drops in crime rates. If we had the political will we could accomplish the same thing here. You can argue you the nitty gritty details of it if you want, the fact is it could be done. The only question is whether or not the citizens will get pissed off enough with almost weekly mass shooting to demand real action or if they will become apathetic.

Do you have any evidence that shows that the ban was effective? On NPR last month they had Professor Daniel Webster from Johns Hopkins University, where he studies firearm policy and gun violence prevention. He went over a lot of the reports compiled by various groups who studied the Brady Bill and, "It did not have a significant impact on overall rates of gun violence. The researchers who studied this could not define any detectable difference in the use, particularly of guns with large-capacity magazines, which are far more prevalent as it relates to this ban." So, what evidence do you have that the Brady Bill ...

I'm not talking about the Brady Bill, a good example is Australia - semi-automatic weapons banned, 50 percent reduction in homicides and suicides and no mass shootings since.


Not completely true. Sure, there has been a decline in the number of murders since the ban went into effect in 1996, as evidenced by this graph put out by the Government of Australia:

Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)
img.photobucket.com

But, they also put out this graph:

Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number)
img.photobucket.com
Source.

The number of murders has been trending downward since roughly the middle-end of the 1960s. Nor did the ban in 1996 really speed up the "fall." It was already taking a nose dive by then. So, yeah, the ban in Australia did pretty much nothing to stop or even slow down the murder rate.

As for mass shootings, Australia really did not have all that many to begin with.  Also, correlation does not prove causation. Given that there were no mass killings from 1971 to 1984 in Australia can you really say that this current lack of mass shootings is due to the ban? Additionally, the ban has not stopped mass killings. There was a "mass arson" in 2000, where some nutjob set fire to a hostel and 15 people perished in the fire. And, in 2000 there was a mass shooting at Monash University. Only two people were killed, but 6 others were shot.
 
2013-01-05 08:03:46 PM

ElBarto79: Can you go to the store and buy an M-16? No, you can't. Now I know someone will pipe in to say "oh but if you go through such and such procedures, pay a crapload of money and agree to only use it under heavily restricted conditions you CAN own an M-16 legally" The point is the government can restrict ownership to the extent they are effectively banned. There are loopholes for everything. It's illegal for you to buy a Tomahawk missile for example, however if you were able to become the leader of a sovereign nation and could convince the Pentagon to sell you a Tomahawk missile then theoretically you COULD buy one. But in reality, yea, it's never gonna happen, no matter how much time and money you have on your hands.


I love the police state bootstrapping here. One government infringement apparently opens the door for others. These same people advocating this position never understand why some people take a really hard line on some issues.

Hey, people were banned from selling pornography in some states. If someone was being tried for some illegal protest and claimed that the government had no business interfering with their speech, would you support the idea that it's OK because people can't buy/sell porn?
 
2013-01-05 08:03:57 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mock26: Are you sure that stricter laws would have stopped him?

Banning internet sales? I dunno.

The point is he was one of the millions of "responsible gun owners" so often cited by gun rights advocates as being punished by any additional restrictions. In fact, this sh*t is happening so often, let's just say HALF of all gun owners are "responsible" and the other half are just crazy or stupid and haven't been busted YET.

Cuz then all this sh*t makes perfect sense.


So, by your wild estimation, 500,000 people are crazy or stupid and have not yet been busted YET? Careful there, your irrationality is showing.
 
2013-01-05 08:04:23 PM

Loaded Six String: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mock26: Are you sure that stricter laws would have stopped him?

Banning internet sales? I dunno.

The point is he was one of the millions of "responsible gun owners" so often cited by gun rights advocates as being punished by any additional restrictions. In fact, this sh*t is happening so often, let's just say HALF of all gun owners are "responsible" and the other half are just crazy or stupid and haven't been busted YET.

Cuz then all this sh*t makes perfect sense.

Internet sales? :|
Internet sales are transferred through licenses FFLs, who then perform the necessary NICS check.

Also, even accounting for all firearms deaths for the past decade throwing out an average of 30,000 per year (I'm even adding in the suicides for you) that comes to 300,000 which is still wildly far from 50 million. Your hyperbole does you no favors.


I'm talking about the kids that get dad's gun and just put a hole in the fridge or the dog, all the guys that point their guns at their wives or kids and don't pull the trigger and all the TVs that get shot but don't get reported, all these geniuses that get included with your "responsible gun owners" because they move their gun to a higher shelf or get divorced or buy a bigger TV.

I'm just saying gun owners aren't special, they're just as crazy and stupid as the rest of the population.
You just never hear about a family murdered with the TV remote.
 
2013-01-05 08:05:15 PM

leadmetal: 310 million people in this country last I heard. Six sigma is 3.4 defects per million. How perfect does the entire population need to be not to have ever increasing controls placed upon everyone?


if were to actually use this very tough standard for mass killings, we would pass pretty nicely. Not even 100 people nationwide are responsible for mass killings. It's something like 30 killing 200 or so.
 
2013-01-05 08:07:24 PM

jaytkay: Mock26: jaytkay: pedrop357: ElBarto79: I'm not sure how your analogy is even remotely relevant. Of course cops would have guns. And citizens could still own guns too, and buy new ones, just not semi-automatic guns. This is why it's not a violation of the second amendment, you can still buy a gun if you want! just not an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol. That would be my proposition anyway.

banning semi-automatic guns would also be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

If that's true, so is banning hand grenades.

Care to back up that claim with a logical response?

How can the government prevent you from owning a weapon? Where is that allowed in the Constitution?


How? Because the Constitution does NOT classify the types of "arms" that can be owned by the citizens of this country. As such the government has the authority to define what is classified by "arms" in this country (and the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitutionality of any regulations), and grenades are not classified as arms as defined by the 2nd Amendment. And more importantly, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is Constitutional. So, not being allowed to own hand grenades is in fact 100% Constitutional.
 
2013-01-05 08:10:15 PM

Mock26: jaytkay: Mock26: The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners

So was the guy in Aurora, before today. And the other guy in Aurora, until the day he murdered a bunch of moviegoers.

So? Why would you punish those who are still responsible and will still responsible? There are roughly 100 million legal gun owners in this country. How many never use their guns in an illegal manner? Again, why punish those for a relative handful of irresponsible people?


I wonder if they would be willing to apply this standard to other areas. Since every person who ever produces child porn was once a law abiding computer/camera owner, law abiding doesn't mean anything. Time for background checks on cameras and bans on possession in households with children.

Time to start banning guns from the police-every cop who has committed an illegal shooting was once a law abiding cop, so we have to start cracking down on all cops.
 
2013-01-05 08:11:10 PM

Mock26: can you really say that this current lack of mass shootings is due to the ban?


If only someone could come up with a plausible causal relationship between a reduction in the number of guns around and a reduction in the number of people killed by guns... Correlation does not prove causation, but all causal links do show correlation. This isn't rocket science. Ban guns and fewer people are killed by guns. The big question is are there other, bad impacts of banning guns that outweigh preventing a few hundred murders by gun a year (or preventing around 8,500/yr in the us)?

The US has more guns than any other nation in the world, a higher percentage of people in prison than any other nation in the world (possibly more than any other nation in the world, ever, depending how you account for USSR gulags under Stalin), and... does not have the lowest rate of violent crime. US exceptionalism at being violent criminal prone bastards I suppose, or perhaps there is something else at work?
 
2013-01-05 08:13:28 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: You just never hear about a family murdered with the TV remote.


Obscure!
i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-05 08:14:47 PM

pedrop357: I wonder if they would be willing to apply this standard to other areas.


Just curious, are you serious? Do you honestly believe that you are presenting a rational rebuttal?
 
2013-01-05 08:16:29 PM

Mock26: How? Because the Constitution does NOT classify the types of "arms" that can be owned by the citizens of this country. As such the government has the authority to define what is classified by "arms" in this country (and the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitutionality of any regulations), and grenades are not classified as arms as defined by the 2nd Amendment. And more importantly, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is Constitutional. So, not being allowed to own hand grenades is in fact 100% Constitutional.


That doesn't seem to be in keeping with the 2nd amendment. pretty hard to have a militia if the government can define arms so narrowly that you can only possess pellet guns or single shot 100lb muskets.
 
2013-01-05 08:16:42 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Loaded Six String: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mock26: Are you sure that stricter laws would have stopped him?

Banning internet sales? I dunno.

The point is he was one of the millions of "responsible gun owners" so often cited by gun rights advocates as being punished by any additional restrictions. In fact, this sh*t is happening so often, let's just say HALF of all gun owners are "responsible" and the other half are just crazy or stupid and haven't been busted YET.

Cuz then all this sh*t makes perfect sense.

Internet sales? :|
Internet sales are transferred through licenses FFLs, who then perform the necessary NICS check.

Also, even accounting for all firearms deaths for the past decade throwing out an average of 30,000 per year (I'm even adding in the suicides for you) that comes to 300,000 which is still wildly far from 50 million. Your hyperbole does you no favors.

I'm talking about the kids that get dad's gun and just put a hole in the fridge or the dog, all the guys that point their guns at their wives or kids and don't pull the trigger and all the TVs that get shot but don't get reported, all these geniuses that get included with your "responsible gun owners" because they move their gun to a higher shelf or get divorced or buy a bigger TV.

I'm just saying gun owners aren't special, they're just as crazy and stupid as the rest of the population.
You just never hear about a family murdered with the TV remote.


When people such as yourself continually try to paint gun owners as specifically irresponsible, stupid, or dangerous, it becomes important to some of us to try and dispel that myth by showing how many gun owners do no such thing. Thank you for admitting that the ownership of a firearm has no bearing on how different one person is from any other in regards to responsibility or intelligence though. You're right. We're not special. In a negative or positive context.
 
2013-01-05 08:19:04 PM
Wulfman:
which restrictions did right wing gun nuts fight against, that would have helped prevent tragedies like Connecticut?

Connecticut has gun laws in place where the government can take the guns of anyone remotely suspected of so-called mental illness.
Link

In 1999, the Connecticut legislature enacted Sec. 29-38c, a measure allowing the police to confiscate firearms from anybody believed to pose "a risk of imminent personal injury to himself ... or to other individuals." All that is required is a sworn complaint "by any state's attorney or assistant state's attorney or by any two police officers to any judge of the Superior Court." A warrant will then be issued allowing police to confiscate the firearms and hold them for up to a year.


So whatever 'right wingers' fought against, if they fought, they lost. Because in Connecticut the government can effectively take the guns of pretty much anyone they want to take them from.
 
2013-01-05 08:19:49 PM

skinink: The NRA solution for this type of shooting is for the Federal government to post armed guards in every house.


Why do you want to violate my 3rd Amendment rights?
 
2013-01-05 08:23:58 PM

Wulfman: So the question I again pose to you is, which restrictions in particular are you talking about, i.e. which restrictions did right wing gun nuts fight against, that would have helped prevent tragedies like Connecticut? Your general point about the most vocal gun-rights advocates suddenly arguing that the US needs to reform its mental health system is fair enough, but when pressed on the question of which reasonable restrictions could have been enacted that would have prevented a shooting like the one in Newtown (and pretty much every specific case of mass murder), there is a lack of specific answer. Care to take another crack at it?


I was eating dinner.

Mandatory background checks before purchase of ALL firearms.

Mandatory training and licensing every year or so (the licensing could ease the burden on the BG checks... essentially if you have the valid paperwork the check would be simply a matter of looking up the license).

Close the gun show and "collectors" loopholes.

STRICT laws and stiff penalties in regards to illegal possession, sales and improper storage. Screw up with a gun ONCE and you're out of the game.

I'd say that's a good and reasonable start.

Yes some of it is already in place in certain areas but it needs to be across the board and taken seriously. None of this half assed crap.

And in case you mistake my non response to further posts don't think it's because I am cowering from the "massive intellects" countering my argument. It's because I'm watching some shows and crap before going to bed. I can't argue with every opposing position on Fark 24/7.

I will repeat myself... I do not think a total ban is the cure but leaving things as is is unacceptable. To argue otherwise is foolish and highly irresponsible. To suggest that the rules need to be SLACKENED is outright insanity.
 
2013-01-05 08:24:19 PM

Surpheon: If only someone could come up with a plausible causal relationship between a reduction in the number of guns around and a reduction in the number of people killed by guns... Correlation does not prove causation, but all causal links do show correlation. This isn't rocket science. Ban guns and fewer people are killed by guns. The big question is are there other, bad impacts of banning guns that outweigh preventing a few hundred murders by gun a year (or preventing around 8,500/yr in the us)?


There is no correlation between murder rates and gun laws. There are countries which ban firearms with high and low murder rates just like there are countries where people have guns with high and low murder rates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg
 
2013-01-05 08:24:53 PM

Loaded Six String: When people such as yourself continually try to paint gun owners as specifically irresponsible, stupid, or dangerous, it becomes important to some of us to try and dispel that myth by showing how many gun owners do no such thing.


Hey, I'm only saying HALF are stupid or crazy.
Half are, of course, wonderful responsible human beings.
 
2013-01-05 08:28:24 PM

Surpheon: Just curious, are you serious? Do you honestly believe that you are presenting a rational rebuttal?


Trying to point out that their particular approach is a pretty egregious assault on rights by trying to point how doing it any other area would be a violation. unless all rights are equal, but some are more equal, it shouldn't be tolerated towards objects of the 2nd amendment if it isn't tolerated towards objects of the 1st amendment.
 
2013-01-05 08:30:04 PM
 
2013-01-05 08:31:14 PM
Colorado? Must be that reefer. Somebody tell Fox News.
 
2013-01-05 08:31:34 PM

here to help: Wulfman: So the question I again pose to you is, which restrictions in particular are you talking about, i.e. which restrictions did right wing gun nuts fight against, that would have helped prevent tragedies like Connecticut? Your general point about the most vocal gun-rights advocates suddenly arguing that the US needs to reform its mental health system is fair enough, but when pressed on the question of which reasonable restrictions could have been enacted that would have prevented a shooting like the one in Newtown (and pretty much every specific case of mass murder), there is a lack of specific answer. Care to take another crack at it?

I was eating dinner.

Mandatory background checks before purchase of ALL firearms.

Mandatory training and licensing every year or so (the licensing could ease the burden on the BG checks... essentially if you have the valid paperwork the check would be simply a matter of looking up the license).

Close the gun show and "collectors" loopholes.

STRICT laws and stiff penalties in regards to illegal possession, sales and improper storage. Screw up with a gun ONCE and you're out of the game.

I'd say that's a good and reasonable start.

Yes some of it is already in place in certain areas but it needs to be across the board and taken seriously. None of this half assed crap.

And in case you mistake my non response to further posts don't think it's because I am cowering from the "massive intellects" countering my argument. It's because I'm watching some shows and crap before going to bed. I can't argue with every opposing position on Fark 24/7.

I will repeat myself... I do not think a total ban is the cure but leaving things as is is unacceptable. To argue otherwise is foolish and highly irresponsible. To suggest that the rules need to be SLACKENED is outright insanity.



I don't see how these would have prevented what happened in Connecticut. When you said right wingers fought against restrictions that could have prevented that, you had my curiosity aroused... oh well.
 
2013-01-05 08:33:53 PM
And as far as the Connecticut situation being preventable? Well the mother did sound like a nut, the kid was known to have problems so her guns should have been locked the f*ck up or completely removed from the home.

The pro gun nuts would have found the thought of forcing this woman to take extraordinary measures to keep the guns away from the kid or having the state see there was a problem and banning firearms from the home as more than distasteful. So yeah... there are things that could have been done they would have disagreed with. However there may have been no way to prevent that particular incident but that wasn't my point.

My point was they didn't care about mental health before. They care now because they KNOW that they are running out of arguments so they are hopping on a left leaning ideal to save their pathetic arses.

It would be hilarious to watch if it wasn't so disgusting.
 
2013-01-05 08:35:35 PM

here to help: Close the gun show and "collectors" loopholes.


1st I've ever heard of a 'collector's loophole" what is that?
 
2013-01-05 08:37:46 PM

Wulfman: I don't see how these would have prevented what happened in Connecticut. When you said right wingers fought against restrictions that could have prevented that, you had my curiosity aroused... oh well.


It's called doing things that prevent these things happening so frequently. It's not about that specific incident. Perhaps those steps would have prevented it. Perhaps not. The point is those steps can lessen the frequency of the TOTAL of gun crimes and other gun related fatalities.

This is the thing about you gun dudes. You don't see the big picture. You hone in on stuff and twist things to fit your own view but as time goes on and the bodies pile up your arguments are looking more and more desperate/insane. Just work towards a goddamned solution for once.

F*ck!
 
2013-01-05 08:38:23 PM

here to help: Mandatory training and licensing every year or so (the licensing could ease the burden on the BG checks... essentially if you have the valid paperwork the check would be simply a matter of looking up the license).


I'm on board, but only if we can do it for fark posters and drivers licenses-yearly renewal and training requirement to keep your posting or driving license.
 
2013-01-05 08:38:56 PM

pedrop357: here to help: Close the gun show and "collectors" loopholes.

1st I've ever heard of a 'collector's loophole" what is that?


watch pawn stars

basically if someone wants to commit suicide they can to go to the pawn shop and buy any firearm made before 1900. instead of doing it the old fashioned way with drain-o
 
2013-01-05 08:39:31 PM

pedrop357: here to help: Close the gun show and "collectors" loopholes.

1st I've ever heard of a 'collector's loophole" what is that?


You know exactly what I'm talking about. Don't be coy.

Anyway... flame on you crazy derpers. I'm done for the night.
 
2013-01-05 08:40:13 PM

here to help: And as far as the Connecticut situation being preventable? Well the mother did sound like a nut, the kid was known to have problems so her guns should have been locked the f*ck up or completely removed from the home.

The pro gun nuts would have found the thought of forcing this woman to take extraordinary measures to keep the guns away from the kid or having the state see there was a problem and banning firearms from the home as more than distasteful. So yeah... there are things that could have been done they would have disagreed with. However there may have been no way to prevent that particular incident but that wasn't my point.

My point was they didn't care about mental health before. They care now because they KNOW that they are running out of arguments so they are hopping on a left leaning ideal to save their pathetic arses.

It would be hilarious to watch if it wasn't so disgusting.


Again, the law in Connecticut is that anyone suspected of being a danger to himself or others may have firearms taken by the government. That's the law. You should be asking why the gun grabbers' laws didn't work instead of assuming that there would have been some even stronger law that some "pro gun nuts" would have fought against. The "pro gun nuts" obviously lost in Connecticut if they put up a fight at all, given the law that has been in place for more than a dozen years.
 
2013-01-05 08:43:33 PM

leadmetal: Again, the law in Connecticut is that anyone suspected of being a danger to himself or others may have firearms taken by the government. That's the law. You should be asking why the gun grabbers' laws didn't work instead of assuming that there would have been some even stronger law that some "pro gun nuts" would have fought against. The "pro gun nuts" obviously lost in Connecticut if they put up a fight at all, given the law that has been in place for more than a dozen years.


Way to ignore all my other suggestions and points. It's like talking to a bowl of pudding.
 
2013-01-05 08:44:02 PM

here to help: Wulfman: I don't see how these would have prevented what happened in Connecticut. When you said right wingers fought against restrictions that could have prevented that, you had my curiosity aroused... oh well.

It's called doing things that prevent these things happening so frequently. It's not about that specific incident. Perhaps those steps would have prevented it. Perhaps not. The point is those steps can lessen the frequency of the TOTAL of gun crimes and other gun related fatalities.

This is the thing about you gun dudes. You don't see the big picture. You hone in on stuff and twist things to fit your own view but as time goes on and the bodies pile up your arguments are looking more and more desperate/insane. Just work towards a goddamned solution for once.

F*ck!



This is the thing about you anti-gun dudes... I'm not a gun dude, and I simply asked you a farking question. You said that right-wing gun nuts "FOUGHT restrictions that would help prevent tragedies like Connecticut," and I asked for more information. You got pretty defensive about it, too, and now you're making assumptions about me to cover your own frustration. Well shiat, it's fine to be frustrated about living in a violent society and it's fine to be frustrated about having said something that isn't really what you meant, but there's no need to be a dick about it.
 
2013-01-05 08:44:23 PM

pedrop357: here to help: Mandatory training and licensing every year or so (the licensing could ease the burden on the BG checks... essentially if you have the valid paperwork the check would be simply a matter of looking up the license).

I'm on board, but only if we can do it for fark posters and drivers licenses-yearly renewal and training requirement to keep your posting or driving license.


I'm on board if we license and train people prior to posting on the intrawebs, too. Mandatory testing and training before posting silliness. Also, while you computer can be moderately fast, we're going to limit you to 5 page refreshes or loads per minute. Because, honestly, what need do you have to refresh or look more than 5 pages per minute?
 
2013-01-05 08:44:40 PM

Surpheon: Mock26: can you really say that this current lack of mass shootings is due to the ban?

If only someone could come up with a plausible causal relationship between a reduction in the number of guns around and a reduction in the number of people killed by guns... Correlation does not prove causation, but all causal links do show correlation. This isn't rocket science. Ban guns and fewer people are killed by guns. The big question is are there other, bad impacts of banning guns that outweigh preventing a few hundred murders by gun a year (or preventing around 8,500/yr in the us)?

The US has more guns than any other nation in the world, a higher percentage of people in prison than any other nation in the world (possibly more than any other nation in the world, ever, depending how you account for USSR gulags under Stalin), and... does not have the lowest rate of violent crime. US exceptionalism at being violent criminal prone bastards I suppose, or perhaps there is something else at work?


So what about the 13 year period from 1971 to 1984 when there were no mass killings? There was no ban in effect during that time, so what caused that 13-year lack of mass shootings? This is why you cannot point to the current ban and say, "Aha! The ban has caused eliminated mass shootings."

As for the US having a higher percentage of guns, that is true, but the number of guns is not causing the high murder rate. The United States has 88.8 per 100 people. In Switzerland it is 45.7 and in Finland it is 32. The per capita firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people in each of these three countries is 2.9, 0.52, and 0.26 respectively. 1.9x as many guns as Switzerland, yet 5.6x as many firearm homicides. 2.8x as many guns as Finland, yet 11x as many firearm deaths. There is also a similar disproportion for other countries, such as Sweden(31.6/0.19), Norway(31.3/0.04), France(31.2/0.22), Germany(30.3/0.06), and Canada(30.9/0.76). If guns were the problem then how come there are not more firearm homicides for those countries? Surely if this was all because of the number of guns then all those other countries would have a firearm homicide rate much closer to our own, right?
 
2013-01-05 08:45:29 PM

here to help: leadmetal: Again, the law in Connecticut is that anyone suspected of being a danger to himself or others may have firearms taken by the government. That's the law. You should be asking why the gun grabbers' laws didn't work instead of assuming that there would have been some even stronger law that some "pro gun nuts" would have fought against. The "pro gun nuts" obviously lost in Connecticut if they put up a fight at all, given the law that has been in place for more than a dozen years.

Way to ignore all my other suggestions and points. It's like talking to a bowl of pudding.


You said you were leaving. Are you staying or going? We can respond to your derp, but only if you're going to stick around to defend it.
 
2013-01-05 08:47:29 PM

pedrop357: Trying to point out


God damn. You were trying?

/Weeping quietly at the state of education in America
 
2013-01-05 08:48:08 PM

Mock26: Surpheon: Mock26: can you really say that this current lack of mass shootings is due to the ban?

If only someone could come up with a plausible causal relationship between a reduction in the number of guns around and a reduction in the number of people killed by guns... Correlation does not prove causation, but all causal links do show correlation. This isn't rocket science. Ban guns and fewer people are killed by guns. The big question is are there other, bad impacts of banning guns that outweigh preventing a few hundred murders by gun a year (or preventing around 8,500/yr in the us)?

The US has more guns than any other nation in the world, a higher percentage of people in prison than any other nation in the world (possibly more than any other nation in the world, ever, depending how you account for USSR gulags under Stalin), and... does not have the lowest rate of violent crime. US exceptionalism at being violent criminal prone bastards I suppose, or perhaps there is something else at work?

So what about the 13 year period from 1971 to 1984 when there were no mass killings? There was no ban in effect during that time, so what caused that 13-year lack of mass shootings? This is why you cannot point to the current ban and say, "Aha! The ban has caused eliminated mass shootings."

As for the US having a higher percentage of guns, that is true, but the number of guns is not causing the high murder rate. The United States has 88.8 per 100 people. In Switzerland it is 45.7 and in Finland it is 32. The per capita firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people in each of these three countries is 2.9, 0.52, and 0.26 respectively. 1.9x as many guns as Switzerland, yet 5.6x as many firearm homicides. 2.8x as many guns as Finland, yet 11x as many firearm deaths. There is also a similar disproportion for other countries, such as Sweden(31.6/0.19), Norway(31.3/0.04), France(31.2/0.22), Germany(30.3/0.06), and Canada(30.9/0.76). If guns were the problem then how come there are ...


I think that, if you were to remove the drug/gang related homicides, our homicide rate would match that of most northern European countries (the nice ones with hot chicks - not the shiatty ones)
 
2013-01-05 08:50:32 PM

leadmetal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg


Any citation to youtube is admitting "I have no argument" or a Rickroll (it's in the charter).

Mock26: So what about the 13 year period from 1971 to 1984 when there were no mass killings? There was no ban in effect during that time, so what caused that 13-year lack of mass shootings? This is why you cannot point to the current ban and say, "Aha! The ban has caused eliminated mass shootings."


Sorry, I don't argue with stupid. Perhaps if you showed the vaguest flirtation with rational thought or comprehensible grammar I'd bother.
 
2013-01-05 08:50:53 PM
Clearly we must outlaw tattoos
 
2013-01-05 08:51:58 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm really glad that the people in the house had guns, and were able to effectively take out this scumbag before everyone in the house were gunned down like tied down sheep.


Yeah, just think of how tragic it would have been if nobody in the house had been armed.
 
2013-01-05 08:52:14 PM

Surpheon: leadmetal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

Any citation to youtube is admitting "I have no argument" or a Rickroll (it's in the charter).

Mock26: So what about the 13 year period from 1971 to 1984 when there were no mass killings? There was no ban in effect during that time, so what caused that 13-year lack of mass shootings? This is why you cannot point to the current ban and say, "Aha! The ban has caused eliminated mass shootings."

Sorry, I don't argue with stupid. Perhaps if you showed the vaguest flirtation with rational thought or comprehensible grammar I'd bother.


Any citation to youtube rebuttal that starts with "I don't argue with stupid" or resorts to grammar nazism is admitting "I have no argument" or a Rickroll (it's in the charter).

FTFY
 
2013-01-05 08:52:48 PM

here to help: It's called doing things that prevent these things happening so frequently. It's not about that specific incident. Perhaps those steps would have prevented it. Perhaps not. The point is those steps can lessen the frequency of the TOTAL of gun crimes and other gun related fatalities.


You mean how as more people have bought guns and states have liberalized concealed carry laws, the 'assault weapon' ban sunset, etc. deaths by guns have gone down. Sounds like less and less gun control IS a solution.

This is the thing about you gun dudes. You don't see the big picture. You hone in on stuff and twist things to fit your own view but as time goes on and the bodies pile up your arguments are looking more and more desperate/insane. Just work towards a goddamned solution for once.

You mean not at all how various 'community partnerships', 'stop the violence' groups, etc. along with the gun control groups offer one solution to every problem-more gun control.

Every single thing you said is how the gun control groups operate. When deaths go down after repealing or loosening a law, they claim that deaths would gone down more without the law going away, even if the entire nation was going up (See Florida 1987 and their change to shall issue CCW). After railing against shall concealed carry, claiming that more people would die, they try to claim tha the lack of increased death and the lack of decreased crime proves that CCW was unnecessary as CCW holder didn't make anything better.

They ignore the increased bodies piling up in Chicago and DC and claim that the handgun ban is definitely working when gun crime goes up and up. They focus intently on 'assault rifles', despite them being less 3% of all gun murders.

Gun control groups measure success solely in reducing incidents with guns. They don't care if more people get robbed at knifepoint, murdered with baseball bats, beaten to death, etc. as long as they aren't victimized with a gun.

If anyone is small minded, myopic, deceptive, and uncaring, it's gun control groups.
 
2013-01-05 08:53:41 PM

here to help: You know exactly what I'm talking about. Don't be coy.

Anyway... flame on you crazy derpers. I'm done for the night.


Don't let the door hit you in the ass. I've heard of the bullshiat 'gun show loophole', but never a 'collectors loophole'
 
2013-01-05 08:53:56 PM

pedrop357: Mock26: How? Because the Constitution does NOT classify the types of "arms" that can be owned by the citizens of this country. As such the government has the authority to define what is classified by "arms" in this country (and the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitutionality of any regulations), and grenades are not classified as arms as defined by the 2nd Amendment. And more importantly, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is Constitutional. So, not being allowed to own hand grenades is in fact 100% Constitutional.

That doesn't seem to be in keeping with the 2nd amendment. pretty hard to have a militia if the government can define arms so narrowly that you can only possess pellet guns or single shot 100lb muskets.


Actually it is quite in keeping with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Also, the definition of militia has changed over the years. Also, at present no one in the government is pushing a bill to ban all semi-automatic firearms or even handguns. Do not get me wrong, I am against the banning of military style semi-automatic firearms (in part because such a ban is based simply on fear and the visual aspects of the guns in question), but the regulation of firearms, including the restriction of hand grenades, is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment. If you disagree then you should take it up with the Supreme Court, because their current interpretation of the 2nd is that it is primarily an individual right and less of a state right. They have also ruled that the 2nd Amendment is not a right to own any type of firearm that you want.
 
2013-01-05 08:55:20 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: basically if someone wants to commit suicide they can to go to the pawn shop and buy any firearm made before 1900. instead of doing it the old fashioned way with drain-o


THAT is the so-called loophole? It's no loophole if Congress specifically exempts something from the scope of a bill.

Next they're going to tell us that Congress exempting blackpowder firearms is a loophole too.
 
2013-01-05 08:56:34 PM

pedrop357: They ignore the increased bodies piling up in Chicago and DC and claim that the handgun ban is definitely working when gun crime goes up and up.


lol conservative logic lol

Murders and other violent crimes plummeted in Chicago during the 30 year handgun ban.

Firearm homicides soared afterwards.
 
2013-01-05 08:58:25 PM

here to help: leadmetal: Again, the law in Connecticut is that anyone suspected of being a danger to himself or others may have firearms taken by the government. That's the law. You should be asking why the gun grabbers' laws didn't work instead of assuming that there would have been some even stronger law that some "pro gun nuts" would have fought against. The "pro gun nuts" obviously lost in Connecticut if they put up a fight at all, given the law that has been in place for more than a dozen years.

Way to ignore all my other suggestions and points. It's like talking to a bowl of pudding.


I am not going to filter them out of the thread branch you have with someone else.
The fact remains that the state of Connecticut has some of, if not the strongest gun grabbing laws in the nation. They could have grabbed the Lanza's guns at any time under the 1999 law. Why did your government fail? That's the question you should be asking rather than blaming those who know that government is a giant ball of a fail and giving it more power every time it fails is not the answer.

The so-called "pro gun nuts" lost in Connecticut (if there are any in that state). Retaining a gun in Connecticut is entirely based on the whim of government and yet, it didn't keep the children safe. The government there has all the power on who can and who can not have a gun that any government could ever dream of short of ban by default and it did not prevent anything. It just takes a couple-three government employees to decide a person shouldn't have a gun and that's it, guns are grabbed. Why do you want to reward government failure with more power?
 
2013-01-05 09:01:01 PM

pedrop357: It's no loophole if Congress specifically exempts something


You know how I know you don't have any idea of the meaning of "loophole"?
 
2013-01-05 09:01:21 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: pedrop357: here to help: Close the gun show and "collectors" loopholes.

1st I've ever heard of a 'collector's loophole" what is that?

watch pawn stars

basically if someone wants to commit suicide they can to go to the pawn shop and buy any firearm made before 1900. instead of doing it the old fashioned way with drain-o


Why would they want to stop even crazy people from collecting guns made pre-1900? Have you seen those things? You could kill yerself with one, you could kill a couple other people with one. You wont be killing a "mass" of anything.
upload.wikimedia.org
..Well ok, but if you roll that thing into a mall then people WILL notice.
 
2013-01-05 09:02:23 PM

Mock26: pedrop357: Mock26: How? Because the Constitution does NOT classify the types of "arms" that can be owned by the citizens of this country. As such the government has the authority to define what is classified by "arms" in this country (and the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitutionality of any regulations), and grenades are not classified as arms as defined by the 2nd Amendment. And more importantly, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is Constitutional. So, not being allowed to own hand grenades is in fact 100% Constitutional.

That doesn't seem to be in keeping with the 2nd amendment. pretty hard to have a militia if the government can define arms so narrowly that you can only possess pellet guns or single shot 100lb muskets.

Actually it is quite in keeping with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Also, the definition of militia has changed over the years. Also, at present no one in the government is pushing a bill to ban all semi-automatic firearms or even handguns. Do not get me wrong, I am against the banning of military style semi-automatic firearms (in part because such a ban is based simply on fear and the visual aspects of the guns in question), but the regulation of firearms, including the restriction of hand grenades, is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment. If you disagree then you should take it up with the Supreme Court, because their current interpretation of the 2nd is that it is primarily an individual right and less of a state right. They have also ruled that the 2nd Amendment is not a right to own any type of firearm that you want.


Uhmm, no. The SCOTUS has already determined that one cannot ban a specific group of firearms (see Heller). The definition of arms cannot be randomly changed to suit the populace. There's no argument that the Founders didn't think firearms would become more and more advance - they had been doing so throughout the living memory of people alive during those times. Secondly, to attempt to restrict to only that which was available at that time means the government should happily be able to censor and restrict your right to free speech on any medium not available when they were writing.
 
2013-01-05 09:03:46 PM

jaytkay: lol conservative logic lol

Murders and other violent crimes plummeted in Chicago during the 30 year handgun ban.

Firearm homicides soared afterwards.



Ahh. Less murder and violent crime in Chicago, but the crime that was committed was more likely to be committed with a gun then before. So the ban on guns led less people to kill overall, but caused the existing killers to use guns more often? OK, I guess.
Why didn't the more gun plentiful areas surrounding Chicago have anything close to Chicago's crime rate?

What about DC? Was the handgun ban and ban on nearly all semi-auto firearms responsible for DC being the murder capital of the country in the 90s and having a violent crime rate absurdly higher then gun happy neighbors like Richmond and Arlington?
 
2013-01-05 09:04:59 PM

jaytkay: pedrop357: They ignore the increased bodies piling up in Chicago and DC and claim that the handgun ban is definitely working when gun crime goes up and up.

lol conservative logic lol

Murders and other violent crimes plummeted in Chicago during the 30 year handgun ban.

Firearm homicides soared afterwards.


They see me trollin', they hatin'
 
2013-01-05 09:05:15 PM

Surpheon: leadmetal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

Any citation to youtube is admitting "I have no argument" or a Rickroll (it's in the charter).


You're not worth my scouring the intertubes to find the individual cited facts in other places. The video is Gun Control: History, Philosophy and Ethics, by Stefan Molyneux. But you're in luck... when I went to copy and paste his name I noticed he has a link to a page of cites. So here:
http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/37694.aspx
 
2013-01-05 09:05:28 PM

jaytkay: You know how I know you don't have any idea of the meaning of "loophole"?


I can figure that you don't know what one is.

A loophole is not simply something you don't like that is still legal.

Specifically exempting something in the law and then people doing that IS not exploiting a loophole.
 
2013-01-05 09:05:53 PM
According to state records, Archuleta had three previous charges for weapons offenses, including a prohibited use of a weapon in Federal Heights in 2004 and carrying a concealed weapon in Denver in June.

Archuleta's LinkedIn account says he is a freelance artist who specializes in animation, landscape design, concept art and texturing. According to the account, he attended the University of Colorado between 2007 and 2010.

For the past three years, Archuleta has helped run a boutique for infants and toddlers. Before that, he was the director of Step Up Inc., a faith-based life-skills workshop and recovery support agency that focused on overcoming hopelessness, his profile says.

His listed interests include gaming, music, talent management, graffiti art, mentoring, coaching, biblical study, Hebrew, Greek, manuscripts, autographs, history and business.
 
2013-01-05 09:07:41 PM

ronaprhys: Mock26: Surpheon: Mock26: can you really say that this current lack of mass shootings is due to the ban?

If only someone could come up with a plausible causal relationship between a reduction in the number of guns around and a reduction in the number of people killed by guns... Correlation does not prove causation, but all causal links do show correlation. This isn't rocket science. Ban guns and fewer people are killed by guns. The big question is are there other, bad impacts of banning guns that outweigh preventing a few hundred murders by gun a year (or preventing around 8,500/yr in the us)?

The US has more guns than any other nation in the world, a higher percentage of people in prison than any other nation in the world (possibly more than any other nation in the world, ever, depending how you account for USSR gulags under Stalin), and... does not have the lowest rate of violent crime. US exceptionalism at being violent criminal prone bastards I suppose, or perhaps there is something else at work?

So what about the 13 year period from 1971 to 1984 when there were no mass killings? There was no ban in effect during that time, so what caused that 13-year lack of mass shootings? This is why you cannot point to the current ban and say, "Aha! The ban has caused eliminated mass shootings."

As for the US having a higher percentage of guns, that is true, but the number of guns is not causing the high murder rate. The United States has 88.8 per 100 people. In Switzerland it is 45.7 and in Finland it is 32. The per capita firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people in each of these three countries is 2.9, 0.52, and 0.26 respectively. 1.9x as many guns as Switzerland, yet 5.6x as many firearm homicides. 2.8x as many guns as Finland, yet 11x as many firearm deaths. There is also a similar disproportion for other countries, such as Sweden(31.6/0.19), Norway(31.3/0.04), France(31.2/0.22), Germany(30.3/0.06), and Canada(30.9/0.76). If guns were the problem then how come th ...


Where would you put the Czech Republic in that mix?

/Czech women can be pretty hot.
 
2013-01-05 09:08:25 PM

Surpheon:
Mock26: So what about the 13 year period from 1971 to 1984 when there were no mass killings? There was no ban in effect during that time, so what caused that 13-year lack of mass shootings? This is why you cannot point to the current ban and say, "Aha! The ban has caused eliminated mass shootings."

Sorry, I don't argue with stupid. Perhaps if you showed the vaguest flirtation with rational thought or comprehensible grammar I'd bother.


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You respond with name calling and you say that I am not capable of rational thought? Did you also run upstairs and tell your mommy that someone exposed your ignorance on the internet?
 
2013-01-05 09:10:43 PM

pedrop357: You mean how as more people have bought guns and states have liberalized concealed carry laws, the 'assault weapon' ban sunset, etc. deaths by guns have gone down.


Got a cite for that? Or did you see it on youtube?
 
2013-01-05 09:11:32 PM

Loaded Six String: ronaprhys: Mock26: Surpheon: Mock26: can you really say that this current lack of mass shootings is due to the ban?

If only someone could come up with a plausible causal relationship between a reduction in the number of guns around and a reduction in the number of people killed by guns... Correlation does not prove causation, but all causal links do show correlation. This isn't rocket science. Ban guns and fewer people are killed by guns. The big question is are there other, bad impacts of banning guns that outweigh preventing a few hundred murders by gun a year (or preventing around 8,500/yr in the us)?

The US has more guns than any other nation in the world, a higher percentage of people in prison than any other nation in the world (possibly more than any other nation in the world, ever, depending how you account for USSR gulags under Stalin), and... does not have the lowest rate of violent crime. US exceptionalism at being violent criminal prone bastards I suppose, or perhaps there is something else at work?

So what about the 13 year period from 1971 to 1984 when there were no mass killings? There was no ban in effect during that time, so what caused that 13-year lack of mass shootings? This is why you cannot point to the current ban and say, "Aha! The ban has caused eliminated mass shootings."

As for the US having a higher percentage of guns, that is true, but the number of guns is not causing the high murder rate. The United States has 88.8 per 100 people. In Switzerland it is 45.7 and in Finland it is 32. The per capita firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people in each of these three countries is 2.9, 0.52, and 0.26 respectively. 1.9x as many guns as Switzerland, yet 5.6x as many firearm homicides. 2.8x as many guns as Finland, yet 11x as many firearm deaths. There is also a similar disproportion for other countries, such as Sweden(31.6/0.19), Norway(31.3/0.04), France(31.2/0.22), Germany(30.3/0.06), and Canada(30.9/0.76). If guns were the problem then ...


Yeah - some of the Czech women can be, but damned if they don't go down hill pretty quickly.
 
2013-01-05 09:11:37 PM

ronaprhys: Mock26: pedrop357: Mock26: How? Because the Constitution does NOT classify the types of "arms" that can be owned by the citizens of this country. As such the government has the authority to define what is classified by "arms" in this country (and the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitutionality of any regulations), and grenades are not classified as arms as defined by the 2nd Amendment. And more importantly, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is Constitutional. So, not being allowed to own hand grenades is in fact 100% Constitutional.

That doesn't seem to be in keeping with the 2nd amendment. pretty hard to have a militia if the government can define arms so narrowly that you can only possess pellet guns or single shot 100lb muskets.

Actually it is quite in keeping with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Also, the definition of militia has changed over the years. Also, at present no one in the government is pushing a bill to ban all semi-automatic firearms or even handguns. Do not get me wrong, I am against the banning of military style semi-automatic firearms (in part because such a ban is based simply on fear and the visual aspects of the guns in question), but the regulation of firearms, including the restriction of hand grenades, is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment. If you disagree then you should take it up with the Supreme Court, because their current interpretation of the 2nd is that it is primarily an individual right and less of a state right. They have also ruled that the 2nd Amendment is not a right to own any type of firearm that you want.

Uhmm, no. The SCOTUS has already determined that one cannot ban a specific group of firearms (see Heller). The definition of arms cannot be randomly changed to suit the populace. There's no argument that the Founders didn't think firearms would become more and more advance - they had been doing so throughout the living memory of people alive during those times. Secondly, to attempt to restrict to only that which was available at that time means the government should happily be able to censor and restrict your right to free speech on any medium not available when they were writing.


I was not saying that they could ban a class of firearms. All of that was in response as to why hand grenades were not allowed under the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-01-05 09:12:16 PM

leadmetal: You're not worth my scouring the intertubes to find the individual cited facts in other places.


If you read my early comments, I'm not in favor of gun control. But you appear to be stupid and incapable of rational thought; I don't want farking idiots like you on my side.
 
2013-01-05 09:13:08 PM

ronaprhys: Yeah - some of the Czech women can be, but damned if they don't go down hill pretty quickly.


It is all trickery. The only way mother nature could ensure that Czech people could reproduce was to make the women hot when they were young. And, to limit the number of Czechs they made they get ugly really quickly.
 
2013-01-05 09:13:14 PM

Surpheon: pedrop357: You mean how as more people have bought guns and states have liberalized concealed carry laws, the 'assault weapon' ban sunset, etc. deaths by guns have gone down.

Got a cite for that? Or did you see it on youtube?


Go look up some actual stats. Firearm ownership has been on the rise for several years now and homicide rates have been falling. Well established. If you don't even know this, I'm not sure it's worth bothering to debate with you.
 
2013-01-05 09:14:41 PM

Surpheon: pedrop357: You mean how as more people have bought guns and states have liberalized concealed carry laws, the 'assault weapon' ban sunset, etc. deaths by guns have gone down.

Got a cite for that? Or did you see it on youtube?


I'd say this page covers it pretty well:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
 
2013-01-05 09:14:43 PM

Mock26: You respond with name calling and you say that I am not capable of rational thought?


Uh-oh sounds like you're of the "no stupid question" snowflake generation.
 
2013-01-05 09:15:27 PM

pedrop357: Ahh. Less murder and violent crime in Chicago, but the crime that was committed was more likely to be committed with a gun then before.


Is that true? Or just an imaginary "fact" which "proves" your prejudice?
 
2013-01-05 09:15:46 PM

Mock26: I was not saying that they could ban a class of firearms. All of that was in response as to why hand grenades were not allowed under the 2nd Amendment.


Arms vs ordnance. It's pretty simple, actually.

That being said, there are some very surprising things that one can own with just a bit of paperwork, so you may want to research that in greater detail.
 
2013-01-05 09:16:24 PM

Mock26: I was not saying that they could ban a class of firearms. All of that was in response as to why hand grenades were not allowed under the 2nd Amendment.


You do know that hand grenades, among other munitions of that type, are classified as "Destructive Devices", and can be legally owned in the US provided the purchaser complete the Class III Stamp paperwork and submit the $200 tax stamp to the ATF, right? As can 40mm grenade launchers and their munitions, etc.
 
2013-01-05 09:18:29 PM

ronaprhys: Mock26: I was not saying that they could ban a class of firearms. All of that was in response as to why hand grenades were not allowed under the 2nd Amendment.

Arms vs ordnance. It's pretty simple, actually.

That being said, there are some very surprising things that one can own with just a bit of paperwork, so you may want to research that in greater detail.


With the right paperwork and enough money, You can own just about any small arm you want. Hell, if I had a couple of mil laying around and the desire to go through a lot of paperwork, I could probably get my hands on a GE Minigun to mount in my truck. Expensive as hell to shoot, of course, but once you expend that kind of scratch on the toy, you're probably well past worrying about cost of ammo...
 
2013-01-05 09:19:59 PM

Felgraf: B) This man in your hypothetical scenario is, in fact,The Flash, or has precognitive abilities that allow you to guarantee that the man is able to get to the gun, get back to his family, and shoot the man before anyone gets shot.


Nah.  There'll be plenty of time as the bad guy works to extricate his balls from the pitbull's mouth.
 
2013-01-05 09:20:54 PM

Kit Fister: ronaprhys: Mock26: I was not saying that they could ban a class of firearms. All of that was in response as to why hand grenades were not allowed under the 2nd Amendment.

Arms vs ordnance. It's pretty simple, actually.

That being said, there are some very surprising things that one can own with just a bit of paperwork, so you may want to research that in greater detail.

With the right paperwork and enough money, You can own just about any small arm you want. Hell, if I had a couple of mil laying around and the desire to go through a lot of paperwork, I could probably get my hands on a GE Minigun to mount in my truck. Expensive as hell to shoot, of course, but once you expend that kind of scratch on the toy, you're probably well past worrying about cost of ammo...


Yeah - I can't say that I'd be any different. I wonder how difficult it'd be to make a .22 minigun? So much less expensive to shoot and the sheer stupidity of spending all of that money to just shoot .22LR at a psychotic rate would be worth it.
 
2013-01-05 09:21:07 PM

jaytkay: pedrop357: Ahh. Less murder and violent crime in Chicago, but the crime that was committed was more likely to be committed with a gun then before.

Is that true? Or just an imaginary "fact" which "proves" your prejudice?


According to a few different articles on google search results, yes, it's true.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp -- first thing that comes up when searching for it.

Anyway, as a gun owner, I'm all for making it hard for criminals to get guns. I won't give up mine as I'm not a criminal, nor will I accept harsh restrictions on my way of life because of irrational fear (I'm also strongly against the patriot act, funny that...), but I will agree that there needs to be a better way to prevent these tools from getting into the hands of criminals. Unfortunately, no matter what we do, we won't stop criminals themselves.
 
2013-01-05 09:23:38 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Meth and previous weapons violations.


Yep.  He definitely appears to be someone who would have turned in his guns if they had been banned.
 
2013-01-05 09:24:56 PM

ronaprhys: Firearm ownership has been on the rise for several years now and homicide rates have been falling.


That is an interesting page and the sort of facts that should be part of the debate. But not sure where you see firearm ownership being on the rise.

But if you cared to debate facts, you might be interested in FBI stats , which shows the rate of homicide by any weapon has been falling faster than the rate of gun homicides.
 
2013-01-05 09:25:47 PM

here to help: Wulfman: I don't see how these would have prevented what happened in Connecticut. When you said right wingers fought against restrictions that could have prevented that, you had my curiosity aroused... oh well.

It's called doing things that prevent these things happening so frequently. It's not about that specific incident. Perhaps those steps would have prevented it. Perhaps not. The point is those steps can lessen the frequency of the TOTAL of gun crimes and other gun related fatalities.

This is the thing about you gun dudes. You don't see the big picture. You hone in on stuff and twist things to fit your own view but as time goes on and the bodies pile up your arguments are looking more and more desperate/insane. Just work towards a goddamned solution for once.

F*ck!


Until you can prove that those steps will lessen the frequency of the TOTAL of gun crimes then they should not be enacted. That is the thing about you anti-gun dudes. You do not think. You hone in a few examples and then twist things around to try and make those few examples reflect all gun owners. Take Sandy Hook. The guy uses a military style semi-automatic firearm and suddenly you all think that these "assault weapons" are the problem and that if you ban them that they will stop all similar mass shootings. You never stop to think about why someone like this would go on a murder spree. You simply see the tool as being evil and think that if you remove the tool that you will solve the problem.

Also, how come you never look at all the numbers? Do you know how many military style semi-automatic rifles are out there? Unfortunately there is no exact number known as many states do not require people to register their firearms. But, when the Brady Bill went into effect in 1994 there were an estimated 1.25 million legally owned at the time (and we can assume that most of those are still in circulation as the Brady Bill did not confiscate any of those). Also, since the ban expired Colt has produced for domestic sale over 1.5 million. That is just Colt. The number of AK-47s and other similar rifles has only gone up since 2004. One article over at Slate.com estimates about 3.25 legally owned military style semi-automatic rifles in this country. And how many were used in mass shootings this past year? 2? 3? Let us high ball the number and say that it was 10. That means that 0.000003% were used in mass shootings. Why is there any need to regulate or ban this style of firearm when it is almost never used to kill people?
 
2013-01-05 09:27:17 PM

Kit Fister: [www.tacticalinc.com image 250x200]

From here: Link

$400 plus shipping. Looks like a blast to shoot!


Yeah - but then I wouldn't have 6 or so spinning barrels.

I want 6 spinning barrels spitting out .22 bullets. Just to make people scratch their head as to why I would do something like this.
 
2013-01-05 09:29:28 PM

Surpheon: ronaprhys: Firearm ownership has been on the rise for several years now and homicide rates have been falling.

That is an interesting page and the sort of facts that should be part of the debate. But not sure where you see firearm ownership being on the rise.

But if you cared to debate facts, you might be interested in FBI stats , which shows the rate of homicide by any weapon has been falling faster than the rate of gun homicides.


Not sure I provided an actual page. My stats come from the Harris polls that have been occurring lately. Toss in the spike in firearm sales that we keep hearing about in the news, it's pretty obvious that firearm ownership is on the rise. Some of it's due to the "Obama be stealing our guns", other bits due to the hysteria and rising prices, and so forth.
 
2013-01-05 09:30:02 PM

Kit Fister: ronaprhys: Kit Fister: ronaprhys: Mock26: I was not saying that they could ban a class of firearms. All of that was in response as to why hand grenades were not allowed under the 2nd Amendment.

Arms vs ordnance. It's pretty simple, actually.

That being said, there are some very surprising things that one can own with just a bit of paperwork, so you may want to research that in greater detail.

With the right paperwork and enough money, You can own just about any small arm you want. Hell, if I had a couple of mil laying around and the desire to go through a lot of paperwork, I could probably get my hands on a GE Minigun to mount in my truck. Expensive as hell to shoot, of course, but once you expend that kind of scratch on the toy, you're probably well past worrying about cost of ammo...

Yeah - I can't say that I'd be any different. I wonder how difficult it'd be to make a .22 minigun? So much less expensive to shoot and the sheer stupidity of spending all of that money to just shoot .22LR at a psychotic rate would be worth it.

[www.tacticalinc.com image 250x200]

From here: Link

$400 plus shipping. Looks like a blast to shoot!


Needs more DAKKA.
 
2013-01-05 09:30:39 PM

tblax: Bit'O'Gristle: Story 1.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. Gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone.
3. No way to defend yourself, due to no guns in the house
4. One member of the family gets away, alerting police
5. gunman sees police, kills everyone in the house like sheep
6. cops charge in and gun the shooter until he dies from it.

story 2.

1. family is at home having dinner
2. gunman comes in and threatens to kill everyone
3. Dad goes for his gun and blows the gunmans head off
4 Dad calls the cops, and they show up with the meat wagon.
5. Family finishes dinner.


/ya ya, i know its not that clear cut, and even with a gun or guns in the house, you still have a chance at getting killed. But...at least you would have a chance at defending your family. And its a better chance than having nothing and just getting shot like a dog.

What sucks about reading your posts is knowing you're exactly the type of delusional nutjob that probably has a cache of guns


And yet you can't negate what he said,
 
2013-01-05 09:31:42 PM
I DARE any of you gun control Farkers to read this all the way through...Link
 
2013-01-05 09:32:32 PM

Mock26: And how many were used in mass shootings this past year?


How many mass shootings did not involve guns?

I'll give you three guesses. Take your time!
 
2013-01-05 09:34:13 PM

Mock26: Until you can prove that those steps will lessen the frequency of the TOTAL of gun crimes then they should not be enacted.


That's not how politics works.

The Party of Glock will lose the House in 2014.
 
2013-01-05 09:34:23 PM

jaytkay: Mock26: And how many were used in mass shootings this past year?

How many mass shootings did not involve guns?

I'll give you three guesses. Take your time!


Did you just actually type that?

Seriously - troll harder.
 
2013-01-05 09:36:51 PM

Mock26: Until you can prove that those steps will lessen the frequency of the TOTAL of gun crimes then they should not be enacted. That is the thing about you anti-gun dudes. You do not think.


I agree on this. The half measures and soundbites being proposed will do little to nothing. Only a nationwide ban and buy back would make a difference, and it's not going to happen right now. Meaningful regulation of firearms in the US is the same place that gay marriage was in the 1950s.

"You simply see the tool as being evil and think that if you remove the tool that you will solve the problem."
God that's a stupid argument. Idiots like you just might move the discussion, like the anti-gay extremists who's dogma based 'reasoning' ultimately hurt their side.

There was a crazy man who tried to kill dozens of school kids the same day as Sandy Point. But he was in China and didn't have access to any guns. Two dozen kids were stabbed or slashed, none died that day. Soldiers go into combat with assault weapons for a reason, they kill more people faster than most other options. Yes, remove guns and you solve the problem of frequent mass shootings.

A rational argument would present why removing guns would have negative impacts that outweigh the occasional mass murder of school kids. And there are arguments to be made there (they have convinced me to a great extent, but I usually argue this sort of thing with people with above a grade school reasoning ability).
 
2013-01-05 09:40:58 PM

Infernalist: You know what? fark it. If people are intent on pretending like guns aren't a problem and it's 'THE CRAZY PEOPLE ARE TO BLAME LOL', then we need to have a tragedy like this every goddamned day until people get tired of seeing dead people, or enough victims get pissed off enough to tar and feather the local NRA gun nuts in their respective communities.

Until then, BRING IT ON, BABY. Let's see how much blood America can take before she flinches.


You think flinching is an option?
 
2013-01-05 09:41:36 PM

ronaprhys: Not sure I provided an actual page. My stats come from the Harris polls that have been occurring lately. Toss in the spike in firearm sales that we keep hearing about in the news, it's pretty obvious that firearm ownership is on the rise.


What the hell? Kit Fister posted a real link right under yours, I've posted a link to FBI stats, and you go all "I dun heard it on Fox"?

Sad. Just sad.
 
2013-01-05 09:43:03 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mock26: Until you can prove that those steps will lessen the frequency of the TOTAL of gun crimes then they should not be enacted.

That's not how politics works.

The Party of Glock will lose the House in 2014.


I wouldn't count on it. Sadly enough, I'm no fan of Republicans, but the Democrats obsession with gun control makes them even less desirable.
 
2013-01-05 09:44:09 PM

3StratMan: I DARE any of you gun control Farkers to read this all the way through...Link


Ugh. Don't bother.

A man who apparently never earned a dime outside the industry trots out every bumper sticker and straw man known to Fark.

/and something about that blog...
 
2013-01-05 09:45:11 PM
More people die each year from masturbating than from assault rifles.
 
2013-01-05 09:48:03 PM

Surpheon: leadmetal: You're not worth my scouring the intertubes to find the individual cited facts in other places.

If you read my early comments, I'm not in favor of gun control. But you appear to be stupid and incapable of rational thought; I don't want farking idiots like you on my side.


Why should I care what you are for or not? You decided to insult me because you believe that people who research subjects don't make presentations and put them on youtube. That a cite to such a youtube presentation is automatically invalid. You're not worth my time scouring the the internet for cites in whatever forms you approve of. I don't give a shiat if you approve of me or not or whether you are for gun control or not. This is about your asinine requirement that cites be only in the form you approve of or you insult the person who makes the cite. In short, go fark yourself. The cite is in the form of presentation of material recorded in video and hosted at youtube. Take it or leave it.
 
2013-01-05 09:48:36 PM
More people die each year from choking on ball point pens than are killed by fully automatic weapons.
 
2013-01-05 09:48:45 PM

pedrop357: the Democrats obsession with gun control


Absolutely! Obama's first term was gun control, 24/7! It was the centerpiece of his 2008 and 2012 campaigns!!!
 
2013-01-05 09:49:52 PM
God damn it. Why's this so hard for some of you people? Don't want a gun? Fine, don't have one. Leave the rest of us the fu*k alone.
 
2013-01-05 09:51:46 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mock26: Until you can prove that those steps will lessen the frequency of the TOTAL of gun crimes then they should not be enacted.

That's not how politics works.

The Party of Glock will lose the House in 2014.


I was prepared to go Democrat again. however attitudes like this, I'll go right back to voting Republican. Plus, After the fiscal cliff fiasco and the rise in taxes on more people, I wouldn't count your chickens just yet.
 
2013-01-05 09:52:47 PM
More people die from car crashes than murder.

We really need to lift these restrictive murder laws.
 
2013-01-05 09:53:10 PM

John Buck 41: God damn it. Why's this so hard for some of you people? Don't want a gun? Fine, don't have one. Leave the rest of us the fu*k alone.


because this is the US, where doing your own thing isn't good enough if you think your NEIGHBOR'S activities aren't the way you'd do things. See also HOAs.
 
2013-01-05 09:58:13 PM

Surpheon: ronaprhys: Firearm ownership has been on the rise for several years now and homicide rates have been falling.

That is an interesting page and the sort of facts that should be part of the debate. But not sure where you see firearm ownership being on the rise.

But if you cared to debate facts, you might be interested in FBI stats , which shows the rate of homicide by any weapon has been falling faster than the rate of gun homicides.


Oh really?

From 2006 to 2010 the Total Firearms: 14.2% decrease
Knives or cutting instruments: 6.9% decrease
Blunt objects: 12.6% decrease
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 11.4% decrease
Poison: 8.3% decrease
Fire: 36.8% decrease
Narcotics: 18.8% decrease
Drowning: 16.7% decrease
Strangulation: 10.9% decrease
Asphyxiation: 7.5% decrease
Other weapons or weapons not stated: 23.3% decrease

Oh, and Explosives increased by 400%.

And, if you want to look at the individual classifications under firearms, here you go:
Handguns: 23.3% decrease
Rifles: 18.3% decrease
Shotguns: 23.9% decrease
Other guns: 10.3% decrease
Firearms, type not stated: 43.2% increase.

Next time you might want to actually read the websites you link to before spouting off like a moran.
 
2013-01-05 09:59:01 PM

leadmetal: You decided to insult me because you believe that people who research subjects don't make presentations and put them on youtube.


Yes, and at this point I'm enjoying laughing at you. If it helps, I consider left wingers who cite Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" videos as similarly incapable of critical thought.

People who research subject do make presentations, but the presentation doesn't mean jack nor shiat. It's the publication and data. I can make a presentation on any of a hundred topics in my field on almost anything with 4 hours prep. But it takes me almost 6 months and over a hundred hours to write even a short chapter on a handful of topics I am most versed in. Just about anyone can BS a convincing presentation.
 
2013-01-05 10:01:45 PM

jaytkay: pedrop357: the Democrats obsession with gun control

Absolutely! Obama's first term was gun control, 24/7! It was the centerpiece of his 2008 and 2012 campaigns!!!


Its pretty much all we talk about now since december. Its what drives page views for Drew and advertising for the big newsies. So gunsgunsguns will be the only issue that matter in the next election. Which is too bad, might have gotten shiat done.

Oh well. Enjoy the show.
 
2013-01-05 10:02:44 PM

Surpheon: ronaprhys: Not sure I provided an actual page. My stats come from the Harris polls that have been occurring lately. Toss in the spike in firearm sales that we keep hearing about in the news, it's pretty obvious that firearm ownership is on the rise.

What the hell? Kit Fister posted a real link right under yours, I've posted a link to FBI stats, and you go all "I dun heard it on Fox"?

Sad. Just sad.


No I didn't you farking idiot. Seriously. I did quote Harris, and as it turns out, it was Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest- 1993.aspx

Fact - firearm ownership is up. Fact - firearm homicide rates are down. Now, quit being a biatch.
 
2013-01-05 10:03:46 PM

unamused: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Meth and previous weapons violations.

Yep.  He definitely appears to be someone who would have turned in his guns if they had been banned.


You think he used his own guns?
 
2013-01-05 10:05:27 PM
More people die from butt-chugging sherry each year than from .50 caliber sniper rifles.
 
2013-01-05 10:07:17 PM
Glad to see all the Fark anti-gun douchebags are out in force. Remember to never let any shooting go to waste.

My guns and nearly 250 million other guns have and will never be used to commit a crime. But banning guns will make us safer of course. Maybe you pussies who don't like guns should get guns and stop being such pussies.
 
2013-01-05 10:08:01 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: unamused: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Meth and previous weapons violations.

Yep.  He definitely appears to be someone who would have turned in his guns if they had been banned.

You think he used his own guns?


I think the guy is a violent criminal who would've committed a crime with or without guns. Do we REALLY want to talk about the beatings, stabbings, and mutilations done by Methheads in the past?
 
2013-01-05 10:08:14 PM
fact: you are more likely to die from a gun shot if you own a gun.
 
2013-01-05 10:08:34 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.

Not that mental health isn't an important issue, but what part of that article gave you any inclination as to the shooter's frame of mind? Sure, you are free to guess about it all you want, but there doesn't appear to be any indication that the shooter was anything more than a criminal as yet.


Fair point, but I tend to think that anyone who decides a murder-suicide is the solution to any problem probably needs their heads examined.
 
2013-01-05 10:08:39 PM

Mock26: But if you cared to debate facts, you might be interested in FBI stats , which shows the rate of homicide by any weapon has been falling faster than the rate of gun homicides.

Oh really?


Uh, I was using the definition of "any weapon" used by the reference, not the one you seem to be assuming. But I'm happy to get you to run the math and you're right - my mental math was off. Firearm homicides dropped by 14.2% while homicides by any weapon (the top line) dropped by 13.9%. So the rate of homicide by any weapon has been falling at almost the same rate as homicide by gun, not faster.
 
2013-01-05 10:09:28 PM

BGates: Glad to see all the Fark anti-gun douchebags are out in force. Remember to never let any shooting go to waste.

My guns and nearly 250 million other guns have and will never be used to commit a crime. But banning guns will make us safer of course. Maybe you pussies who don't like guns should get guns and stop being such pussies.


can't wait until your gun is used to kill you.
 
2013-01-05 10:09:32 PM

BGates: Glad to see all the Fark anti-gun douchebags are out in force. Remember to never let any shooting go to waste.

My guns and nearly 250 million other guns have and will never be used to commit a crime. But banning guns will make us safer of course. Maybe you pussies who don't like guns should get guns and stop being such pussies.


Folks like you give responsible gun owners everywhere a bad public image.  Grow up.
 
2013-01-05 10:09:47 PM

BGates: Glad to see all the Fark anti-gun douchebags are out in force. Remember to never let any shooting go to waste.

My guns and nearly 250 million other guns have and will never be used to commit a crime. But banning guns will make us safer of course. Maybe you pussies who don't like guns should get guns and stop being such pussies.


In this case, the guy was a methhead. Far be it for me to point out that if the guy had been treated for his addictions, maybe this shiat might not have happened? No, wait, I forgot. people who do meth aren't violent, unless they come in proximity with guns. How silly of me.
 
2013-01-05 10:10:53 PM

Surpheon: Mock26: But if you cared to debate facts, you might be interested in FBI stats , which shows the rate of homicide by any weapon has been falling faster than the rate of gun homicides.

Oh really?


Uh, I was using the definition of "any weapon" used by the reference, not the one you seem to be assuming. But I'm happy to get you to run the math and you're right - my mental math was off. Firearm homicides dropped by 14.2% while homicides by any weapon (the top line) dropped by 13.9%. So the rate of homicide by any weapon has been falling at almost the same rate as homicide by gun, not faster.


Which of course means we needs to ban guns and elect Ralph Nader, or something.
 
2013-01-05 10:11:09 PM

ronaprhys: I did quote Harris, and as it turns out, it was Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest- 1993.aspx

Fact - firearm ownership is up.


Well if that's a fact I guess Mitt Romney is also President, right?

Gallup poll shows Romney will win the election over Obama (Nov 5, 2012)
 
2013-01-05 10:11:35 PM

John Buck 41: God damn it. Why's this so hard for some of you people? Don't want a gun? Fine, don't have one. Leave the rest of us the fu*k alone.


How is enhanced mental health services and enhanced checks/training for those wishing to buy high power weapons bothering you?  Wouldn't you WANT that extra 10 minute inconvenience if it means less crazies give other gun owners a bad name?
 
2013-01-05 10:11:47 PM

jaytkay: Mock26: And how many were used in mass shootings this past year?

How many mass shootings did not involve guns?

I'll give you three guesses. Take your time!


So, since military style semi-automatic firearms have been used in mass shootings then we should ban them, right? That is the point you are trying to make, right? Well, what about all the innocent people killed by drunk drivers? They account for more deaths than intentional firearm homicides. So, what should we do about that? What should we ban in order to stop all those innocent people killed by drunk drivers?
 
2013-01-05 10:13:07 PM

Surpheon: ronaprhys: I did quote Harris, and as it turns out, it was Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest- 1993.aspx

Fact - firearm ownership is up.

Well if that's a fact I guess Mitt Romney is also President, right?

Gallup poll shows Romney will win the election over Obama (Nov 5, 2012)


wow. That's the best you've got? Speaking of the stupid...
 
2013-01-05 10:13:11 PM

BGates: Glad to see all the Fark anti-gun douchebags are out in force. Remember to never let any shooting go to waste.

My guns and nearly 250 million other guns have and will never be used to commit a crime. But banning guns will make us safer of course. Maybe you pussies who don't like guns should get guns and stop being such pussies.


What are we supposed to be looking for? Porn titles? Usually these posts are longer.
 
2013-01-05 10:14:52 PM

ronaprhys: Fact - firearm ownership is up.


Actually, according to your accurate-as-Gallup poll firearm ownership is up in 2012. It was DOWN most of the years prior to that. The years that we've seen links to REAL DATA on firearm homicides, ownership was trending down as much as up according to your data. Or is lining up the years on the datasets too hard for you to handle?
 
2013-01-05 10:15:47 PM

pacified: BGates: Glad to see all the Fark anti-gun douchebags are out in force. Remember to never let any shooting go to waste.

My guns and nearly 250 million other guns have and will never be used to commit a crime. But banning guns will make us safer of course. Maybe you pussies who don't like guns should get guns and stop being such pussies.

can't wait until your gun is used to kill you.


Nice. Maybe some mugger will get you tonight. He'll only want your wallet, but end up beating you to death.

Sweet dreams.
 
2013-01-05 10:15:48 PM

Surpheon: ronaprhys: Fact - firearm ownership is up.

Actually, according to your accurate-as-Gallup poll firearm ownership is up in 2012. It was DOWN most of the years prior to that. The years that we've seen links to REAL DATA on firearm homicides, ownership was trending down as much as up according to your data. Or is lining up the years on the datasets too hard for you to handle?


No, it was flat. Here's more information for you: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-wont -tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/
 
2013-01-05 10:16:48 PM

Surpheon: leadmetal: You decided to insult me because you believe that people who research subjects don't make presentations and put them on youtube.

Yes, and at this point I'm enjoying laughing at you. If it helps, I consider left wingers who cite Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" videos as similarly incapable of critical thought.

People who research subject do make presentations, but the presentation doesn't mean jack nor shiat. It's the publication and data. I can make a presentation on any of a hundred topics in my field on almost anything with 4 hours prep. But it takes me almost 6 months and over a hundred hours to write even a short chapter on a handful of topics I am most versed in. Just about anyone can BS a convincing presentation.


So follow his cites down to source material if you're inclined. Again, you're not worth my time to do that for you. I've given you the presentation. I've given you his short list of cites on the innertubes. I don't care about your asinine requirements for a cite on a fark.com thread. This isn't a scientific journal, it's FARK.COM. If you think it's BS, go through it and specifically state why the portion of the presentation showing no correlation between gun laws and murder rates is BS, not go 'oh it's on youtube so it's no good by default'. Again, go fark yourself.

PS: Your inefficiency is irrelevant. Perhaps if you entered the 1990s instead of using card catalogs and printed indexes of published information you might be a bit faster. Then if you enter the 21st century you might even faster ways to look up stuff.
 
2013-01-05 10:16:54 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/22/gun-sales-off-to-bang-for-electio n-year/

Now, how long before you just dismiss this one because it's Fox?
 
2013-01-05 10:17:06 PM

Kit Fister: Which of course means we needs to ban guns


I've already tossed out my opinion on what we need to do.

Surpheon: Obama will take the political point, but ultimately the half-measure will do no good. You have to dam the whole stream not just half, and the public support isn't there yet. Better to do nothing other than collect facts and educate people on them - both the good and bad on universal gun access.

 
2013-01-05 10:18:31 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 3StratMan: I DARE any of you gun control Farkers to read this all the way through...Link

Ugh. Don't bother.

A man who apparently never earned a dime outside the industry trots out every bumper sticker and straw man known to Fark.

/and something about that blog...


Yeah, and the President you chose to run your life for 8 years and beyond had no experience whatsoever either, but hey- it's not the messenger so much as it is the message a lot of times, eh? Like I said, I DARE you to read it. You might farking learn something for a change.
 
2013-01-05 10:18:37 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: John Buck 41: God damn it. Why's this so hard for some of you people? Don't want a gun? Fine, don't have one. Leave the rest of us the fu*k alone.

How is enhanced mental health services and enhanced checks/training for those wishing to buy high power weapons bothering you?  Wouldn't you WANT that extra 10 minute inconvenience if it means less crazies give other gun owners a bad name?


I'm okay with that, as long as going through the added BS doesn't come with having to endure asinine bans that do NOTHING but make people have an illusion of safety.

/oh yes, I feel so much safer! yeah, people are still getting raped and murdered, but at least they can't do it with a gun as easily!
 
2013-01-05 10:19:17 PM
Mock26:

They can't help it, they have the "Black Gun Phobia".
 
2013-01-05 10:21:03 PM
ronaprhys: Actually, according to your accurate-as-Gallup poll firearm ownership is up in 2012. It was DOWN most of the years prior to that. The years that we've seen links to REAL DATA on firearm homicides, ownership was trending down as much as up according to your data. Or is lining up the years on the datasets too hard for you to handle?

No, it was flat.


Your gallup link states:
2007 44%
2008 43%
2009 42%
2010 41%
2011 47%

If you think you're making a rational argument, you're as useful as Todd Akin to the gun rights protectors.
 
2013-01-05 10:21:36 PM

3StratMan: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 3StratMan: I DARE any of you gun control Farkers to read this all the way through...Link

Ugh. Don't bother.

A man who apparently never earned a dime outside the industry trots out every bumper sticker and straw man known to Fark.

/and something about that blog...

Yeah, and the President you chose to run your life for 8 years and beyond had no experience whatsoever either, but hey- it's not the messenger so much as it is the message a lot of times, eh? Like I said, I DARE you to read it. You might farking learn something for a change.


Well I triple-dog DARE you to go fnck yourself.
 
2013-01-05 10:21:45 PM

jaytkay: pedrop357: the Democrats obsession with gun control

Absolutely! Obama's first term was gun control, 24/7! It was the centerpiece of his 2008 and 2012 campaigns!!!


When did Obama=All Democrats? When did Democrats stop talking about gun control?
 
2013-01-05 10:21:47 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: John Buck 41: God damn it. Why's this so hard for some of you people? Don't want a gun? Fine, don't have one. Leave the rest of us the fu*k alone.

How is enhanced mental health services and enhanced checks/training for those wishing to buy high power weapons bothering you?  Wouldn't you WANT that extra 10 minute inconvenience if it means less crazies give other gun owners a bad name?


I wasn't referring to sensible acts like what you mentioned.
 
2013-01-05 10:23:11 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: But god forbid we talk about mental health issues...that would be evil.


Meh. Violent crime has been falling steadily for a long time. The "think of the children" panic lately over every incident is a misplaced fad.
 
2013-01-05 10:23:16 PM

Surpheon: ronaprhys: Actually, according to your accurate-as-Gallup poll firearm ownership is up in 2012. It was DOWN most of the years prior to that. The years that we've seen links to REAL DATA on firearm homicides, ownership was trending down as much as up according to your data. Or is lining up the years on the datasets too hard for you to handle?

No, it was flat.

Your gallup link states:
2007 44%
2008 43%
2009 42%
2010 41%
2011 47%

If you think you're making a rational argument, you're as useful as Todd Akin to the gun rights protectors.


Funny that you stopped at 2007. What about 2005? Within a few percent would be essentially flat - 41% up to 47% is up at a time when the homicide rate is down.

Now - how about that Forbes link? The one that clearly shows sales of firearms are up? Are you going to go with "they're all be purchased by only those who already own them"?
 
2013-01-05 10:25:36 PM

leadmetal: I've given you his short list of cites on the innertubes.


I read the cites. They were indeed quite short. Interesting, but they did not address my questions.

leadmetal: Perhaps if you entered the 1990s instead of using card catalogs and printed indexes of published information

Right, because all meaningful engineering advances are based upon and transmitted by youtube videos.
 
2013-01-05 10:25:56 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: How is enhanced mental health services and enhanced checks/training for those wishing to buy high power weapons bothering you? Wouldn't you WANT that extra 10 minute inconvenience if it means less crazies give other gun owners a bad name?


Oh, is that all that's being proposed? I could swear all the usual suspects are pushing various idiotic bans, registration, and paperwork crap.

What exactly is in the extra 10 minute inconvenience that isn't already covered in the standard background check-which usually takes under 1 minutes? Adding 9 more minutes to every transaction is a huge overhead and I'm not sure it's reasonable to cut firearms sales business by as much as 90% just so you can feel better.
 
2013-01-05 10:34:47 PM

ronaprhys: 41% up to 47% is up at a time when the homicide rate is down.


Where do you have the data that 2011 homicide rates are down? I have hard data that they were trending down as the Gallup poll indicated that gun ownership was trending down, pull the official numbers here:

Year Murder Rate Gun Ownership
2006 5.7 42%
2007 5.6 44%
2008 5.4 43%
2009 5.0 42%
2010 4.8 41%
2011 4.8 47%

And 2011 is here

Based on the data above, you're implying as fact that homicide rates have been dropping as gun ownership goes up?

That's some right good thinking there slick.
 
2013-01-05 10:35:28 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 3StratMan: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 3StratMan: I DARE any of you gun control Farkers to read this all the way through...Link

Ugh. Don't bother.

A man who apparently never earned a dime outside the industry trots out every bumper sticker and straw man known to Fark.

/and something about that blog...

Yeah, and the President you chose to run your life for 8 years and beyond had no experience whatsoever either, but hey- it's not the messenger so much as it is the message a lot of times, eh? Like I said, I DARE you to read it. You might farking learn something for a change.

Well I triple-dog DARE you to go fnck yourself.


Yep, about what I would expect from someone who obviously sides with the party that is supposedly so "open minded" about everything. Too farking smart for their own good, therefor no need to read or listen to ANYTHING that might have a different belief from theirs .Because none of it could possibly be true or make any sense at all.

Different opinion = go fark yourself... yep, open minded alright.
 
2013-01-05 10:37:20 PM

3StratMan: no need to read


I read it and provided a complete and thoughtful synopsis, dipsh*t.
 
2013-01-05 10:39:29 PM

pedrop357: I could swear all the usual suspects are pushing various idiotic bans, registration, and paperwork crap.


Well the usual suspects are crying bloody murder at the threat of requiring that 1 minute check at gun shows...

The absolutism of the NRA and it's fanboys will kill gun rights for everyone. If the NRA had stepped up with "Lets close the gun show loophole and institute a national education campaign on securing guns from those mentally ill for the safety of our children" and then had Republican John Doe ram that fluff bill through the House, the discussion would be over. Hell, they'd have taken the gun control issue off the table for another 10 years. Instead they went and tried to sell more guns for their industry backers (well, they are a gun producer trade group at heart and ultimately care more about selling than their members).
 
2013-01-05 10:41:39 PM

3StratMan: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 3StratMan: I DARE any of you gun control Farkers to read this all the way through...Link

Ugh. Don't bother.

A man who apparently never earned a dime outside the industry trots out every bumper sticker and straw man known to Fark.

/and something about that blog...

Yeah, and the President you chose to run your life for 8 years and beyond had no experience whatsoever either, but hey- it's not the messenger so much as it is the message a lot of times, eh? Like I said, I DARE you to read it. You might farking learn something for a change.


I read it. It was interesting in the sense that I can see where a lot of the gun nuts posting here are getting their material from. He uses a lot of misleading statistics and conveniently declines to mention data which contradicts his opinion. He's obviously well informed but also highly biased.

He claims that Australia has seen an increase in violent crime since they banned guns, but provides no statistics and declines to mention they've also seen a drop in suicides and murders of 50 percent.

He also trots out the 2.5 million crimes stopped annually figure which has been debunked and compares it only to the firearm murder rate in the US, which is around 9000 or so. 2.5 million crimes stopped a year and 9000 murders! Sucks for those people that died but this is a fair tradeoff is what he seems to be saying. In actuality the number of crimes stopped by firearms every year is probably closer to 100,000-200,000. Still that's a lot right? But how many crimes are committed with firearms every year? 9,000 murders, and around 260,000 robberies and assaults. That's 270,000 gun crimes a year. Add in suicides and guns are responsible for some 300,000 assaults, robberies, murders and deaths a year. Suddenly the math doesn't look so great in favor or guns. But of course he doesn't mention any of this.
 
2013-01-05 10:45:02 PM

Surpheon: Mock26: But if you cared to debate facts, you might be interested in FBI stats , which shows the rate of homicide by any weapon has been falling faster than the rate of gun homicides.

Oh really?


Uh, I was using the definition of "any weapon" used by the reference, not the one you seem to be assuming. But I'm happy to get you to run the math and you're right - my mental math was off. Firearm homicides dropped by 14.2% while homicides by any weapon (the top line) dropped by 13.9%. So the rate of homicide by any weapon has been falling at almost the same rate as homicide by gun, not faster.


Sorry, I do not argue with stupid.
 
2013-01-05 10:47:44 PM

Surpheon: Well the usual suspects are crying bloody murder at the threat of requiring that 1 minute check at gun shows...

The absolutism of the NRA and it's fanboys will kill gun rights for everyone. If the NRA had stepped up with "Lets close the gun show loophole and institute a national education campaign on securing guns from those mentally ill for the safety of our children" and then had Republican John Doe ram that fluff bill through the House, the discussion would be over. Hell, they'd have taken the gun control issue off the table for another 10 years. Instead they went and tried to sell more guns for their industry backers (well, they are a gun producer trade group at heart and ultimately care more about selling than their members).


Dealer sales always require a background check regardless of where the sale takes place, private sales have never had to do paperwork. They could have required all sales to have paperwork, but chose not to in 1968, specifically defining what a dealer was and applying the regs only to them; they could have chosen to require all sales have a background check in 1993, but again chose not to. This is not a loophole, thus there's nothing to close. Despite this so-called "loophole", only around 1.8% of guns recovered from crime scenes or used in crimes are attributed to private sales.

I notice the Democrats over the years have offered nothing but control as a solution, despite it simply not working.

What would be inside of a bill about "national education campaign on securing guns from those mentally ill for the safety of our children"?
 
2013-01-05 10:58:06 PM

3StratMan: I DARE any of you gun control Farkers to read this all the way through...Link


I read the entire page and I think that the guy is a farking moran. He is short on facts and long on hyperbole. Oh, and I am probably just as much a supporter of the 2nd Amendment as he is.
 
2013-01-05 10:58:09 PM

pedrop357: Despite this so-called "loophole", only around 1.8% of guns recovered from crime scenes or used in crimes are attributed to private sales.

That's an interesting and relevant statistic - can you provide a cite?

pedrop357: What would be inside of a bill about "national education campaign on securing guns from those mentally ill for the safety of our children"?

Nothing more than funding a token education campaign. "This is your gun. This is your gun in the hands of a crazy asshole. Use a gun lock to keep crazy assholes away from your guns."

pedrop357: This is not a loophole, thus there's nothing to close.

Define what "is" is all you want, if they took the small step of requiring private sales to have a background check (easily done with modern technology - it's just a phone call) Republicans could mollify the majority of non zealots and put the issue to bed for a decade.

pedrop357: I notice the Democrats over the years have offered nothing but control as a solution, despite it simply not working.

Democrats have indeed offered no EFFECTIVE control solution. But stating that gun control cannot be effective is stupid on its face and not supported when compared to many successful gun control schemes in other first world nations. That is an argument that will lose; not soon, and it will take a constitutional amendment, but if your argument is "well you can't do anything about it so don't try" it's going to lose.
 
2013-01-05 11:00:18 PM

ElBarto79: He also trots out the 2.5 million crimes stopped annually figure which has been debunked


I do not subscribe to Kleck's numbers, but who has debunked it?
 
2013-01-05 11:01:58 PM

BGates: Glad to see all the Fark anti-gun douchebags are out in force. Remember to never let any shooting go to waste.

My guns and nearly 250 million other guns have and will never be used to commit a crime. But banning guns will make us safer of course. Maybe you pussies who don't like guns should get guns and stop being such pussies.


Please point out one person in a position of authority or power who has proposed banning guns.
 
2013-01-05 11:09:45 PM

Surpheon: Define what "is" is all you want, if they took the small step of requiring private sales to have a background check (easily done with modern technology - it's just a phone call) Republicans could mollify the majority of non zealots and put the issue to bed for a decade.


The Democrats had control of Congress and pushed through the Brady Bill and AWB in 1993 and 1994 and made no effort to do anything then. They pushed through the gun control act of 1968 and felt no need to include it then. Why should the Republicans support ineffective nonsense just to mollify the Democrats? Are they really such a bunch of babies and limp noodles that they can be bought off with token crap?

I also don't see why I should have to pay $15-50 (depends on dealer) to have a dealer handle a bunch of paperwork to transfer the gun to the dealer just so I can give a gun to a sibling, parent, spouse, etc., who then has to fill out paperwork and pay for their background check (depends on the state, FBI doesn't charge, funded by firearm taxes, states typically do charge). Adding $15-50 to the cost of every private firearm sales does not justify closing a nonexistent loophole.

Nothing more than funding a token education campaign. "This is your gun. This is your gun in the hands of a crazy asshole. Use a gun lock to keep crazy assholes away from your guns."

I doubt that would be worth the effort, but even if did do that, we already know the gun control groups would not accept it as they have nothing but criticism and derision for the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" educational efforts.
 
2013-01-05 11:11:58 PM

CruiserTwelve: BGates: Glad to see all the Fark anti-gun douchebags are out in force. Remember to never let any shooting go to waste.

My guns and nearly 250 million other guns have and will never be used to commit a crime. But banning guns will make us safer of course. Maybe you pussies who don't like guns should get guns and stop being such pussies.

Please point out one person in a position of authority or power who has proposed banning guns.


Dianne Feinstein. The same person who talked about "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in", and who wrote the BS 94 "assault weapon" ban is now proposing a larger ban that covers far more semi-auto firearms. Does that count or does it have to be a proposal to ban all guns all at once?
 
2013-01-05 11:13:04 PM

Chinchillazilla: The only thing that stops a bad psycho with a gun is a good psycho with a gun, so we have to let mentally ill people own whatever weapons they want.


Gary Busey and Mel Gibson?
 
2013-01-05 11:15:42 PM

Mock26: ElBarto79: He also trots out the 2.5 million crimes stopped annually figure which has been debunked

I do not subscribe to Kleck's numbers, but who has debunked it?


One analysis here by David Frum: Link

I won't claim David Frum is an expert on gun violence or anything but the 2.5 million figure is grossly inaccurate.
 
2013-01-05 11:22:30 PM

3StratMan: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 3StratMan: I DARE any of you gun control Farkers to read this all the way through...Link

Ugh. Don't bother.

A man who apparently never earned a dime outside the industry trots out every bumper sticker and straw man known to Fark.

/and something about that blog...

Yeah, and the President you chose to run your life for 8 years and beyond had no experience whatsoever either, but hey- it's not the messenger so much as it is the message a lot of times, eh? Like I said, I DARE you to read it. You might farking learn something for a change.


Just another note about this guy, if you read the comments on that site it's pretty obvious he is sanitizing/selectively editing them to remove any that disagree with him. Every single comment is gushingly supportive and well written. The only comment that disagrees with him that I can see is one, from a guy who uses some bad words and sounds like a foaming at the mouth moron.
 
2013-01-05 11:31:10 PM

ElBarto79: Just another note about this guy, if you read the comments on that site it's pretty obvious he is sanitizing/selectively editing them to remove any that disagree with him. Every single comment is gushingly supportive and well written. The only comment that disagrees with him that I can see is one, from a guy who uses some bad words and sounds like a foaming at the mouth moron.


In other words, it's possible they're just a typical anti-gun a-hole. The people on slate and cnn get that way, they just * out their cussing. They also LOVE to talk about penises. It's bizarre.
 
2013-01-05 11:42:28 PM

pedrop357: They also LOVE to talk about penises. It's bizarre.


ctrl+f, "penis."

How 'bout that.
 
2013-01-05 11:45:52 PM

Amos Quito: aearra: Another day in america. Another mass murder. Another shoot out. Another day full of sound and fury signifying nothing as america does nothing to solve the situation but whine. Another day where nobody outside of the us cares.

They have their own problems:

MEXICO: "Mexico registered 27,199 murders in 2011, or 24 per 100,000 people"

USA: All homicides (2011): 16,799, or 5.5 per 100,000 population

Private ownership of firearms is verboten in Mexico, yet their murder rate is FOUR TIMES that of the US, and their rates are climbing, while ares have fallen to the lowest level in four decades.

Go figure.


Murder rates are misleading.  You have to ignore the murder rate and look, instead, at the rate at which people are trying to kill each other in a given society.  American medical technology is leaps and bounds ahead of Mexican medical technology. Access to life saving medical care in your typical American city is generally blocks or minutes away.  In Mexico, it could be hours, if at all.  Conservative estimates say that if we had 1920's medical technology in the United States today, the murder rate would be 10 times what it is now.  I would be surprised if the average Mexican hospital had much better technology than we had in the 1920's.  Clearly, in the more affluent parts of Mexico there are going to be great hospitals, but in the smaller cities or towns, not at all.

We'd have to look at the aggravated assault rate, plus the attempted murder rate and factor out the murders in Mexico that would likely not have been fatal if medical technology was on par with the United States.  I suspect then, that the actual "life threatening danger" rate of both societies would be closer.
 
2013-01-05 11:48:45 PM

pedrop357: Grand_Moff_Joseph: How is enhanced mental health services and enhanced checks/training for those wishing to buy high power weapons bothering you? Wouldn't you WANT that extra 10 minute inconvenience if it means less crazies give other gun owners a bad name?

Oh, is that all that's being proposed? I could swear all the usual suspects are pushing various idiotic bans, registration, and paperwork crap.

What exactly is in the extra 10 minute inconvenience that isn't already covered in the standard background check-which usually takes under 1 minutes? Adding 9 more minutes to every transaction is a huge overhead and I'm not sure it's reasonable to cut firearms sales business by as much as 90% just so you can feel better.


Firearm sales are like tobacco sales.  No matter how costly or time consuming it becomes, folks will still line up to buy their guns and as much ammo as they can carry.  Society has regulated and taxed the crap out of tobacco, and yet Big Tobacco is still rolling in the dough, and firearms are no different.  the extra background checks, mental health screenings, etc. might make it a pain in the ass for most folks, but they'll tough it out and make the sale.  The truly nutty guy, or the wanna-be crook?  They'll likely be dissuaded by the extra scrutiny, the higher prices, or the longer waits.
 
2013-01-05 11:54:52 PM

3StratMan: I DARE any of you gun control Farkers to read this all the way through...Link


ok, done.  All I see is a guy whose only response to everything is violence.  He wants guns for all teachers, guns on all campuses, and ideally, a gun in every home.  I saw nothing that even suggests that he spends any time at all considering what causes people to be violent, or why society (despite the stats) is more violent now than it was 10 years ago, or 20 years ago.  Until he's willing to address those topics with any level of seriousness, then he's basically part of the problem.
 
2013-01-05 11:56:25 PM

pedrop357: closing a nonexistent loophole.


Parse it all you want, but the first murder committed by a felon who should never have been able to buy a guy who bought one from a private individual at a gun show will be another nail in the coffin of gun rights,
 
2013-01-05 11:57:27 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 3StratMan: I DARE any of you gun control Farkers to read this all the way through...Link

ok, done.  All I see is a guy whose only response to everything is violence.  He wants guns for all teachers, guns on all campuses, and ideally, a gun in every home.  I saw nothing that even suggests that he spends any time at all considering what causes people to be violent, or why society (despite the stats) is more violent now than it was 10 years ago, or 20 years ago.  Until he's willing to address those topics with any level of seriousness, then he's basically part of the problem.


farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2013-01-05 11:59:55 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: why society (despite the stats) is more violent now than it was 10 years ago, or 20 years ago.


WTF does "despite the statistics" mean? Are you just coming right out and saying 'despite reality, facts, and data that are all to the contrary...'?

Crime crashed in the 90's. It was amazing and they're still working on why (unleaded gasoline and/or legalized abortion are surprisingly some of the more supported hypothesis out there).
 
2013-01-06 12:01:17 AM
OK, some of you idiots seem to think the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own firearms.
It *does not*.

What it does is acknowledge that we ALREADY had the right, by virtue of being Americans, by common sense, by God himself (whatever reason appeals to you)and that the government was not to take it away from us.

The founding fathers (slave owning drunkards they were) decided that the government wasn't giving us a privilege. They felt that as free men, this was something we could already do. Much like our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government had no business of interfering in this right.
 
2013-01-06 12:04:47 AM

BGates: Maybe you pussies who don't like guns should get guns and stop being such pussies.


So they have magic powers or something? Or is that just what you all believe?
 
2013-01-06 12:12:50 AM

MythDragon: OK, some of you idiots seem to think the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own firearms.
It *does not*.

What it does is acknowledge that we ALREADY had the right, by virtue of being Americans, by common sense, by God himself (whatever reason appeals to you)and that the government was not to take it away from us.

The founding fathers (slave owning drunkards they were) decided that the government wasn't giving us a privilege. They felt that as free men, this was something we could already do. Much like our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government had no business of interfering in this right.


Really? So convicted felons can buy guns? What about minors?
 
2013-01-06 12:37:08 AM

ElBarto79: Really? So convicted felons can buy guns? What about minors?


I would support both being able to buy guns. Any felon who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be out of prison to begin with. If minors can be tried as adults for misusing guns, then they should be treated as adults if they want to bu one.