Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Well, it's time to reset the "days until we can talk about gun control" counter back to zero again   (latimesblogs.latimes.com ) divider line
    More: News, Kern County, Taft Union High School, gun controls, counters  
•       •       •

19298 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:04 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-10 02:05:08 PM  
i.imgur.com

go gunmerica go!
 
2013-01-10 02:05:20 PM  
If all it takes to reset the counter is a new shooting, we'll never have a conversation on gun control.
 
2013-01-10 02:05:59 PM  
Christ almighty will it ever stop?
 
2013-01-10 02:05:59 PM  

HOORAY FOR FREEDOM!




Congratulations, gun nuts, on yet another successful "2nd Amendment solution!"
 
2013-01-10 02:06:02 PM  
or as we like to call it here, "Commie totalitarian freedom haters v. sociopathic accessories to murder."
 
2013-01-10 02:06:03 PM  
But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!
 
2013-01-10 02:06:13 PM  
Statistics prove that this did not happen!
 
2013-01-10 02:06:19 PM  
2 people sounds more like a gang shooting, which no amount of gun control (short of every gun in american disappearing in a green puff of smoke) will solve.
 
2013-01-10 02:06:28 PM  
Clearly time to ban schools.
 
2013-01-10 02:06:32 PM  
Well, at least it is a high school. I couldn't take another elementary school shooting right now.
 
2013-01-10 02:06:39 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 850x111]

go gunmerica go!


spoken like a true Amerigun.
 
2013-01-10 02:07:06 PM  

Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!


Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?
 
2013-01-10 02:07:06 PM  
Aiyah. Following the news is getting to be emotionally damaging.
 
2013-01-10 02:07:24 PM  
I think it's pretty obvious that this is another FALSE FLAG concocted by Obama and his cronies.  He no doubt learned it from the Chicoms and the Norks back in Nam.
 
2013-01-10 02:07:33 PM  
No deaths? Just injuries? Guns aren't nearly as dangerous as you lib gun takers want people to believe.
 
2013-01-10 02:07:49 PM  
Only 2? Good thing this guy didn't use a hammer.
 
2013-01-10 02:07:51 PM  

Private_Citizen: If all it takes to reset the counter is a new shooting, we'll never have a conversation on gun control.


www.newyorker.com
"I know, right? It's farking brilliant!"
 
2013-01-10 02:08:02 PM  
Slim comfort to the two folks that have new orifices, but at least it stopped at two. Not like there's a shortage of targets or time for the motivated sociopath.
 
2013-01-10 02:08:03 PM  

Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!


Because he used a shotgun.
 
2013-01-10 02:08:05 PM  
They got the shooter alive.  This means we can find out his connection to the UN/Illuminati/Gnomes of Zurich.
 
2013-01-10 02:08:13 PM  
Ban violent video games, nao!
 
2013-01-10 02:08:28 PM  

Private_Citizen: If all it takes to reset the counter is a new shooting, we'll never have a conversation on gun control.


That is literally the exact reason why pro-gun types say we can't talk about guns after shootings.
 
2013-01-10 02:08:30 PM  
Pfft. The clock doesn't get reset until the number of dead from a single incident goes over 10.
 
2013-01-10 02:08:34 PM  
The shooter was pursuing happiness and excercising free speech in accord with his religion
 
2013-01-10 02:08:35 PM  
2 people in Bakersfield...

Also known as Thursday.
 
2013-01-10 02:08:35 PM  

lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?


That whooshing sound you hear is the point flying over your head.
 
2013-01-10 02:08:41 PM  
One person was shot with a shotgun.

Good call early new reports.
 
2013-01-10 02:08:46 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 850x111]

go gunmerica go!


I'd say this is why we need a "Stupid" button, but that would just encourage them
 
2013-01-10 02:08:48 PM  
If only there were more guns to prevent such a horrible gun tragedy. I feel guns are the only way we can gun safety for our children. Guns are the gun defense that gun the gun gunning. Gun the gun gun gun da gun. Gun gun gungungungun
 
2013-01-10 02:08:48 PM  

lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?


If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact
 
2013-01-10 02:09:07 PM  
It's like 1776 all over again.
 
2013-01-10 02:09:08 PM  

Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!


First of all, they're called CLIPS and not MAGAZINES.  Jeez, you Farklibs don't know anything about guns.
 
2013-01-10 02:09:10 PM  
If only every student had a gun, this wouldn't have happened.
 
2013-01-10 02:09:14 PM  

Counter_Intelligent: They got the shooter alive.  This means we can find out his connection to the UN/Illuminati/Gnomes of Zurich.


oh no....not the Gnomes of Zurich!
 
2013-01-10 02:09:23 PM  

LarryDan43: No deaths? Just injuries? Guns aren't nearly as dangerous as you lib gun takers want people to believe.


It was a lib shooting the gun. If a real Amerigun had been doin' the shootin', he would have broken the Sandy Hook record.
 
2013-01-10 02:09:28 PM  
Some of the Teabagger Fb peeps are posting pics basically stating that since we can't even seal our borders, there's no way police can protect schools..

Yay, using false equivalencies to make a non-point..
 
2013-01-10 02:09:45 PM  
Oppressive tyrannical government averted once again! Thanks, Supergunman!
 
2013-01-10 02:09:49 PM  
Was it a "gun free zone"? Why didn't the signs stop the guy?
 
2013-01-10 02:09:56 PM  

lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?



So your solution is for other states to adopt California's retarded gun laws?
 
2013-01-10 02:10:11 PM  

Cuyose: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?

If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact


Because state borders are the exact same as international borders, which is why they check my papers every time I drive to Oregon.
 
2013-01-10 02:10:16 PM  

murderguy: Well, at least it is a high school. I couldn't take another elementary school shooting right now.


I agree with you, but think about what that means for the United States. We've become so resigned to the fact that children are going to get gunned down in school, that we're just happy when it's older children and not younger ones. Our goalposts have moved WAY the fark too far in a certain direction.
 
2013-01-10 02:10:52 PM  
On CNN they just said this happened outside of the science building. WHY DIDN'T THEY STOP THE SHOOTINGS WITH SCIENCE??
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:11:04 PM  

Private_Citizen: If all it takes to reset the counter is a new shooting, we'll never have a conversation on gun control.


I think that's the idea.

jigger: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Because he used a shotgun.


Maybe that's why he got two instead of 28.
 
2013-01-10 02:11:09 PM  
Lots of gang activity in that area
Here's to hoping it was shiatheads shooting fellow shiatheads
 
2013-01-10 02:11:18 PM  
Only two people shot? Better up your game or we'll forget about you by the end of the week.
 
2013-01-10 02:11:23 PM  
If we only had a guard for each student. A guard armed with a tactical nuke.
 
2013-01-10 02:11:33 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cuyose: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?

If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact

Because state borders are the exact same as international borders, which is why they check my papers every time I drive to Oregon.


That's worked great for other laws based on international borders, nothing has ever come across the border without strict examination of papers!
 
2013-01-10 02:11:43 PM  
Think of the children, just don't talk about them.
 
2013-01-10 02:11:48 PM  

Somaticasual: 2 people sounds more like a gang shooting, which no amount of gun control (short of every gun in american disappearing in a green puff of smoke) will solve.


I'm not sure they have a lot of gang activity in Taft, California, a podunk (~ 10,000 population) town set amid the oil fields of Kern County, about a half-hour from Bakersfield.
 
2013-01-10 02:11:48 PM  

Queensowntalia: If only every student had a gun, this wouldn't have happened.


It's clearly the victim's fault they were shot since they weren't packing heat.
 
2013-01-10 02:11:51 PM  
Fox News spends more time talking about guns than the Military Channel. Obama should come out and tell everybody to buy an assault rifle. You'd probably see Republicans calling for repealing the 2nd.
 
2013-01-10 02:12:00 PM  
Perhaps if the pro-gun control argument wasn't lead by Piers Morgan, your side might have a chance of affecting real change.
 
2013-01-10 02:12:01 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cuyose: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?

If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact

Because state borders are the exact same as international borders, which is why they check my papers every time I drive to Oregon.


Rolling papers maybe.
 
2013-01-10 02:12:07 PM  
The conversation for mental health care is still patiently waiting. Your call, America.
 
2013-01-10 02:12:08 PM  

jigger: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Because he used a shotgun.


Shotgun, eh? Ok, how to spin from the gun fetish premise...??...

Ah...

"See! Crazy people will just find whatever they can get their hands on! What are you going to do, ban ALL guns, even shotguns for hunters? This is why the gun grabbers molest collies. Rap has something to do with this. And gangs because it's in California. Blue state. Commies. If the teachers were armed, this guy wouldn't have gotten a single shot off@!"

Did that cover it? Can we close the thread?
 
2013-01-10 02:12:09 PM  

vpb: jigger: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Because he used a shotgun.

Maybe that's why he got two instead of 28.


How can you standby and do nothing as 2 people are shot? The time to talk about banning shotguns is now.
 
2013-01-10 02:12:09 PM  
Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.
 
2013-01-10 02:12:19 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: On CNN they just said this happened outside of the science building. WHY DIDN'T THEY STOP THE SHOOTINGS WITH SCIENCE??


SHE BLINDED ME

WITH A SHOTGUN
 
2013-01-10 02:12:26 PM  

natas6.0: Lots of gang activity in that area
Here's to hoping it was shiatheads shooting fellow shiatheads


Doubtful. Gangbangers almost always, without fail, miss each other and hit bystanders.

/probably the result of holding the gun sideways.
 
2013-01-10 02:12:40 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: murderguy: Well, at least it is a high school. I couldn't take another elementary school shooting right now.

I agree with you, but think about what that means for the United States. We've become so resigned to the fact that children are going to get gunned down in school, that we're just happy when it's older children and not younger ones. Our goalposts have moved WAY the fark too far in a certain direction.



You have to take what you can get. Gun control in a meaningful way is impossible without a constitutional amendment which will not happen. I hope anyone who died, or will die in the future, got a little bit of time to live. It really is all we can hope for.
 
2013-01-10 02:12:46 PM  

Cuyose: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cuyose: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?

If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact

Because state borders are the exact same as international borders, which is why they check my papers every time I drive to Oregon.

That's worked great for other laws based on international borders, nothing has ever come across the border without strict examination of papers!


Maybe, just maybe, it's HARDER to get things across international borders, so fewer things come across than can be transferred across state lines.
 
2013-01-10 02:12:46 PM  

Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!


two were shot, not twenty.
 
2013-01-10 02:12:59 PM  

vpb: Private_Citizen: If all it takes to reset the counter is a new shooting, we'll never have a conversation on gun control.

I think that's the idea.

jigger: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Because he used a shotgun.

Maybe that's why he got two instead of 28.


Good thing it wasn't Lindsay Graham--that ol' boy can reload faster'n you can say "look at that negro run"
 
2013-01-10 02:13:00 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: murderguy: Well, at least it is a high school. I couldn't take another elementary school shooting right now.

I agree with you, but think about what that means for the United States. We've become so resigned to the fact that children are going to get gunned down in school, that we're just happy when it's older children and not younger ones. Our goalposts have moved WAY the fark too far in a certain direction.


There are a decent number of facts missing in this. The original link said two people shot, this thread says it's down to one. The shooter was also taken alive. Not sure what the motivator was here. Heaven forbid we wait until we have actual facts before getting all frothed up, but subby did a very good job with the headtrolline.
 
2013-01-10 02:13:12 PM  
I'm starting to think that the safest place for kids these days is in high crime urban settings. just keep them out of the drug trade, and no one will ever shoot 'em.

however, let them wonder just close to a suburb, and you may as well have signed their death warrant.
 
2013-01-10 02:13:21 PM  

you have pee hands: Only two people shot? Better up your game or we'll forget about you by the end of the week.


Forget about what?
 
2013-01-10 02:13:21 PM  
Surely this is a mistake. California is one of the most restrictive states in the nation when it comes to gun control, and we all know that more gun control will stop crazy people from trying to kill others. Furthermore, this was in a gun-free zone, so there clearly couldn't have been any guns there.

Right?

Right?
 
2013-01-10 02:13:37 PM  
...if you read some firearms forums, you'd think the world was ending. Seriously.

They really think that a civil war is imminent because of the government taking away their guns.
 
2013-01-10 02:13:40 PM  

marcand: If only there were more guns to prevent such a horrible gun tragedy. I feel guns are the only way we can gun safety for our children. Guns are the gun defense that gun the gun gunning. Gun the gun gun gun da gun. Gun gun gungungungun


gunmazing!
 
2013-01-10 02:13:53 PM  
It doesn't say in the story but obviously the shooter was stopped by an armed teacher, right?
 
2013-01-10 02:14:15 PM  
Ahhh, Taft.

They're
All
Fu*king
Tweekers

30 miles from my house.
 
2013-01-10 02:14:42 PM  

Counter_Intelligent: They got the shooter alive.  This means we can find out his connection to the UN/Illuminati/Gnomes of Zurich.


You can't do something like this, get caught alive and NOT claim that you were sent by the CIA on a false flag op as your legal defense.

WTF Indeed: Perhaps if the pro-gun control argument wasn't lead by Piers Morgan, your side might have a chance of affecting real change.


This.
 
2013-01-10 02:14:43 PM  

Dynascape: ...if you read some firearms forums, you'd think the world was ending. Seriously.

They really think that a civil war is imminent because of the government taking away their guns they don't like the guy who was elected president.


ftfy
 
2013-01-10 02:14:47 PM  
What the world needs now,
Are guns, sweet guns,
It's the only thing that there's just too little of.
What the world needs now,
Are guns, sweet guns,
No, not just for some but for everyone.

Lord, we don't need another Newtown,
There are psychos and inmates easy enough to kill,
There are burglars and rapists enough to mow down,
Enough to last 'til we all cross that last hill.

What the world needs now,
Are guns, sweet guns,
It's the only thing that there's just too little of.
What the world needs now,
Are guns, sweet guns,
No, not just for some but for everyone.

Lord, we don't need additional weapon bans,
There are teachers and students enough to shoot,
There are liberals and pinkos who have their fans,
Oh Lord they should be left to be shot dead... what a hoot!

What the world needs now,
Are guns, sweet guns,
It's the only thing that there's just too little of.
What the world needs now,
Are guns, sweet guns,
No, not just for some oh but just for every, every, everyone.

What the world needs now,
Are guns, sweet guns,
What the world needs now,
Are guns, sweet guns,
What the world needs now,
Are guns, sweet guns,
 
2013-01-10 02:14:53 PM  
How can this be? California bans assault weapons!
 
2013-01-10 02:14:54 PM  

Psycoholic_Slag: Ahhh, Taft.

They're
All
Fu*king
Tweekers

30 miles from my house.


you live in Bakersfield?

I'm sorry.
 
2013-01-10 02:14:58 PM  

Cuyose: If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact


I actually heard that today from some gun rights person, along with "we can't allow any gun laws to pass, because once one is passed, it's a slippery slope and pretty soon all guns will be banned."

Huh.
 
2013-01-10 02:15:01 PM  
Her boyfriend's a dick.
 
2013-01-10 02:15:01 PM  

you have pee hands: Only two people shot? Better up your game or we'll forget about you by the end of the week.


he had a shotgun, not an AR-15.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:15:02 PM  

Cuyose: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?

If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact


Or we can remember that international borders are controlled and just have nationwide gun control.
 
2013-01-10 02:15:14 PM  

natas6.0: Lots of gang activity in that area
Here's to hoping it was shiatheads shooting fellow shiatheads


A oil-drilling town of 10K people in Kern County is home to lots of gang activity?  What are the gangs, Chevron versus Shell?
 
2013-01-10 02:15:29 PM  

The_Sponge: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?


So your solution is for other states to adopt California's retarded gun laws?


Shiat, the border with Mexico is nearly as unsecured as the border with Nevada, and Mexico has hyper-restrictive gun control(and knife control).

I mean, Mexico has no gun crime since guns are banned, right?
 
2013-01-10 02:15:52 PM  

ronaprhys: There are a decent number of facts missing in this. The original link said two people shot, this thread says it's down to one. The shooter was also taken alive. Not sure what the motivator was here. Heaven forbid we wait until we have actual facts before getting all frothed up, but subby did a very good job with the headtrolline.


Is that supposed to counter my point that it is a sad state of our society that we aren't surprised by shootings? You seem pretty happy that "only" one kid got shot. You see, I'd like to live in a country where any violence in a school is shocking and out of the ordinary.
 
2013-01-10 02:15:53 PM  
This sounds like 1 person who had a beef with another 1 person.
That's different to me than some nut mowing down a bunch of school kids.
The shooter used a shotgun.
Not saying we shouldn't talk about how it could be prevented, but it's still different.
 
2013-01-10 02:16:00 PM  
Control freaks, congrats. You prove we really can only pay attention to one thing. And that thing is something that kills very few. You ignore tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths to focus on a few.

Half the energy spent debating any other major killer would save so many more people, but... well... you win. At this point I don't think you were ever worthy of the freedom that was so hard won.

Flock together and pray the 1%, the wolves guarding you are content.
 
2013-01-10 02:16:00 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Maybe, just maybe, it's HARDER to get things across international borders, so fewer things come across than can be transferred across state lines.


How hard is it to buy pot from someone?
 
2013-01-10 02:16:10 PM  

1derful: How can this be? California bans assault weapons!


OwnTheRide: Surely this is a mistake. California is one of the most restrictive states in the nation when it comes to gun control, and we all know that more gun control will stop crazy people from trying to kill others. Furthermore, this was in a gun-free zone, so there clearly couldn't have been any guns there.

Right?

Right?


Come to think of it, I think I saw there was an auto accident that killed a person somewhere. As a result, I'm no longer going to wear seatbelts, as they've proven useless.
 
2013-01-10 02:16:17 PM  
18,000 people die in drunk-driving incidents a year. Government, please ban assault cars and assault alcohol TIA.
 
2013-01-10 02:16:27 PM  
This is all Quentin Tarantino's fault....
 
jlt
2013-01-10 02:16:30 PM  
There was a barricaded gunman not far from my daughter's school this morning. Some 42 year old who was drunk and decided to randomly shoot his gun at a police helicopter. Then I guess he took off on foot firing his gun. He eventually surrendered and no person was shot - just some houses.

The absolute terror on parent's faces at school this morning were something to see. There were hysterical moms pulling their kids out of class, and the school was on lockdown. This was not happening anywhere near close enough for the level of hysteria that was going on.
 
2013-01-10 02:16:30 PM  
thismodernworld.com
 
2013-01-10 02:16:36 PM  

lordjupiter: Did that cover it? Can we close the thread?


Yes. Thread's closed everyone.
 
2013-01-10 02:16:37 PM  
Guy used a shotgun.  Probably bought in at Sears.

media.kickstatic.com
 
2013-01-10 02:16:38 PM  
The NRA just released its vision for America's schools in response.

www.notcoming.com
 
2013-01-10 02:16:47 PM  
B-B-But GUNS don't kill people!

/ Sick of this shiat
 
2013-01-10 02:17:02 PM  

topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.


This. Six months ago this shooting would have barely made the Kern County News-Ledger-Journal-Constitution. Now, it's OMFG! The guns are on a rampage and they're going after our children!

Gang bangers gonna bang.
 
2013-01-10 02:17:09 PM  

OwnTheRide: Surely this is a mistake. California is one of the most restrictive states in the nation when it comes to gun control, and we all know that more gun control will stop crazy people from trying to kill others. Furthermore, this was in a gun-free zone, so there clearly couldn't have been any guns there.

Right?

Right?


An ignorant argument on multiple levels, based on around a strawman.
But you already know that, surely.
 
2013-01-10 02:17:15 PM  

FlashHarry: he had a shotgun, not an AR-15.


BAN SHOTGUNS!!!
 
2013-01-10 02:17:26 PM  

lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?


You do realize that the US-Mexico border isn't a force field either?

And, criminals are not likely to follow the laws?

And, getting a gun in Mexico is as easy as bribing a federali?

And, heavily armed Mexican drug cartels can get over the border with no problem?
 
2013-01-10 02:17:31 PM  

chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.


Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-10 02:17:54 PM  

olddeegee: Fox News spends more time talking about guns than the Military Channel. Obama should come out and tell everybody to buy an assault rifle. You'd probably see Republicans calling for repealing the 2nd.


Worked when the Black Panthers were open carrying. Probably would work again if we had a bunch of blah people walking around with AR-15s.
 
2013-01-10 02:18:12 PM  

Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!


Seems like we are done here.
 
2013-01-10 02:18:15 PM  

Cuyose: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?

If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact


How do you figure? You seriously think border control for the country is the same as state to state? And that there would be no impact at all? Ok, right.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:18:19 PM  

The_Sponge: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?


So your solution is for other states to adopt California's retarded gun laws?


You are just angry that this guy wasn't able to get his score up into the twenties like your hero at Sandy Hook.
 
2013-01-10 02:18:21 PM  

Psycoholic_Slag: Ahhh, Taft.

They're
All
Fu*king
Tweekers

30 miles from my house.


Taft is most likely a shiathole (I've only passed the exit on the freeway, and have never been there), but if you're 30 miles away you must live in Bakersfield.  Which means you have no room to talk any shiat whatsoever about anyplace.
 
2013-01-10 02:18:23 PM  

Aeon Rising: Control freaks, congrats. You prove we really can only pay attention to one thing. And that thing is something that kills very few. You ignore tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths to focus on a few.


Which deaths are being ignored?
 
2013-01-10 02:18:29 PM  
The shooter could have done it just as easily with his bare hands. I refer you to Metal Gear Solid.
 
2013-01-10 02:18:32 PM  
How could this happen? It was a gun free zone!
 
2013-01-10 02:18:40 PM  
Am I the only one who thinks the headline doesn't make sense as written?
 
2013-01-10 02:18:55 PM  

Cuyose: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Maybe, just maybe, it's HARDER to get things across international borders, so fewer things come across than can be transferred across state lines.

How hard is it to buy pot from someone?


you're really going to suggest that our international borders are not monitored at all, whatsoever?

Because state borders aren't monitored for anything but produce. Unless you think international borders are never monitored for anything but produce, then they are by definition MORE secure.
 
2013-01-10 02:18:58 PM  

Utter Genius: 18,000 people die in drunk-driving incidents a year. Government, please ban assault cars and assault alcohol TIA.


Hmm, comparing car ownership and gun ownership really isn't a bad idea. Why don't we require you to pass two tests and take a class before being approved to even own a gun, AND require a couple hundred dollars a month in "gun insurance" which helps pay the medical bills or funeral expenses of whoever ends up dying by your piece.
 
2013-01-10 02:19:20 PM  

Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!


Only two injured, not double-digits dead.

Try harder.

1/10
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:19:21 PM  

WTF Indeed: Perhaps if the pro-gun control argument wasn't lead by Piers Morgan, your side might have a chance of affecting real change.


The side of sane people?
 
2013-01-10 02:19:35 PM  

Cyberluddite: Psycoholic_Slag: Ahhh, Taft.

They're
All
Fu*king
Tweekers

30 miles from my house.

Taft is most likely a shiathole (I've only passed the exit on the freeway, and have never been there), but if you're 30 miles away you must live in Bakersfield.  Which means you have no room to talk any shiat whatsoever about anyplace.


This, this and this.
 
2013-01-10 02:19:40 PM  

iheartscotch: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?

You do realize that the US-Mexico border isn't a force field either?

And, criminals are not likely to follow the laws?

And, getting a gun in Mexico is as easy as bribing a federali?

And, heavily armed Mexican drug cartels can get over the border with no problem?


You do realize that something =/= nothing?
 
2013-01-10 02:19:44 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Am I the only one who thinks the headline doesn't make sense as written?


It doesn't have to make sense, because guns.
 
2013-01-10 02:19:48 PM  
wow, it's almost been a month since the last school shooting.
 
2013-01-10 02:20:12 PM  
Guns give an unfair advantage to people who deserve to get their asses kicked.
 
2013-01-10 02:20:13 PM  

Lexx: Utter Genius: 18,000 people die in drunk-driving incidents a year. Government, please ban assault cars and assault alcohol TIA.

Hmm, comparing car ownership and gun ownership really isn't a bad idea. Why don't we require you to pass two tests and take a class before being approved to even own a gun, AND require a couple hundred dollars a month in "gun insurance" which helps pay the medical bills or funeral expenses of whoever ends up dying by your piece.


...and get the classes started in High School at that.

By the time you graduate you can have your gun license and your parents can pay your gun insurance until you're 24 (25 if Congress will grant you an extension under your parents).
 
2013-01-10 02:20:22 PM  

vpb: Cuyose: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?

If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact

Or we can remember that international borders are controlled and just have nationwide gun control.


Ok, so now only the criminals are getting new guns. I'm not seeing that as a better solution.
 
2013-01-10 02:20:25 PM  

vpb: WTF Indeed: Perhaps if the pro-gun control argument wasn't lead by Piers Morgan, your side might have a chance of affecting real change.

The side of sane people?


And who said he was "leading" it, except the people that are all butthurt over what he said?
 
2013-01-10 02:20:26 PM  
The men of Israel withdrew through the territory of the Benjaminites, putting to the sword the inhabitants of the city, the livestock, and all they chanced upon. Moreover they destroyed by fire all the cities they came upon. (Judges 20:48 NAB)

I forgot what book this is from, but we need to ban this hyper-violent media that is a terrible influence causing this kind of thing.
 
2013-01-10 02:20:48 PM  

vpb: Cuyose: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?

If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact

Or we can remember that international borders are controlled and just have nationwide gun control.


If our border was controlled, we wouldn't need a DREAM act.
 
2013-01-10 02:20:50 PM  
MOAR GUNZ FOR THE GUN GODD!
 
2013-01-10 02:20:55 PM  
Let's make sure we don't talk about the fact that everyone is on prescription mood altering drugs either!
 
2013-01-10 02:20:57 PM  

Lexx: Utter Genius: 18,000 people die in drunk-driving incidents a year. Government, please ban assault cars and assault alcohol TIA.

Hmm, comparing car ownership and gun ownership really isn't a bad idea. Why don't we require you to pass two tests and take a class before being approved to even own a gun, AND require a couple hundred dollars a month in "gun insurance" which helps pay the medical bills or funeral expenses of whoever ends up dying by your piece.


Being trained to use a gun properly will not stop people from killing people with one.
 
2013-01-10 02:21:02 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: The conversation for mental health care is still patiently waiting. Your call, America.


THIS. Spending 2 minutes on the internet is MORE than enough to hammer home the point that SO MANY people are farked up beyond belief. Seriously, we need to teach children how to deal with emotions... cause a lot of people have VERY serious emotional problems.

img7.imageshack.us

/scares me to think how many of them also own guns
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:21:03 PM  

murderguy: HMS_Blinkin: murderguy: Well, at least it is a high school. I couldn't take another elementary school shooting right now.

I agree with you, but think about what that means for the United States. We've become so resigned to the fact that children are going to get gunned down in school, that we're just happy when it's older children and not younger ones. Our goalposts have moved WAY the fark too far in a certain direction.


You have to take what you can get. Gun control in a meaningful way is impossible without a constitutional amendment which will not happen. I hope anyone who died, or will die in the future, got a little bit of time to live. It really is all we can hope for.


Bullshiat.  The Second Amendment has nothing to do with it.  We have been controlling NFA weapons effectively for decades.  It's time to add some new weapons to it/
 
2013-01-10 02:21:12 PM  

marcand


If only there were more guns to prevent such a horrible gun tragedy. I feel guns are the only way we can gun safety for our children. Guns are the gun defense that gun the gun gunning. Gun the gun gun gun da gun. Gun gun gungungungun


Gunga galunga. Gunga... gunga galunga.


Gunga Din
 
2013-01-10 02:21:14 PM  
You guys are all jumping to conclusions. Maybe the kid was just showing the other kids how safe his shotgun was.
 
2013-01-10 02:21:19 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Private_Citizen: If all it takes to reset the counter is a new shooting, we'll never have a conversation on gun control.

That is literally the exact reason why pro-gun types say we can't talk about guns after shootings.


I'd like the followup question to be asked, becuase something is supposed to implied:

WHY is this not the time to talk about gun control?
Is it because we should be in a period of mourning for the latest mass murder victims who were just killed by guns?
 
2013-01-10 02:21:28 PM  
The only solution is to ban schools.
 
2013-01-10 02:21:39 PM  

Cuyose: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Maybe, just maybe, it's HARDER to get things across international borders, so fewer things come across than can be transferred across state lines.

How hard is it to buy pot from someone?


Pot =/= guns.

Plus, you can't mass manufacture guns in your closet, dumbass.
 
2013-01-10 02:21:46 PM  

you have pee hands: Only two people shot? Better up your game or we'll forget about you by the end of the week.


At least they died in the one way you care about, otherwise the control freaks would not care in the slightest, or even hear about it.
 
2013-01-10 02:22:05 PM  
Reno Hightower
 
2013-01-10 02:22:05 PM  

topcon: Lexx: Utter Genius: 18,000 people die in drunk-driving incidents a year. Government, please ban assault cars and assault alcohol TIA.

Hmm, comparing car ownership and gun ownership really isn't a bad idea. Why don't we require you to pass two tests and take a class before being approved to even own a gun, AND require a couple hundred dollars a month in "gun insurance" which helps pay the medical bills or funeral expenses of whoever ends up dying by your piece.

Being trained to use a gun properly will not stop people from killing people with one.


Hmm, I wonder why I've been in almost every gun thread whining about mental health care...
 
2013-01-10 02:22:11 PM  

lordjupiter: Cuyose: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Maybe, just maybe, it's HARDER to get things across international borders, so fewer things come across than can be transferred across state lines.

How hard is it to buy pot from someone?

Pot =/= guns.

Plus, you can't mass manufacture guns in your closet, dumbass.


Yeah seriously and almost all the pot one can buy around here is grown IN california.
 
2013-01-10 02:22:20 PM  

lordjupiter: If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact

How do you figure? You seriously think border control for the country is the same as state to state? And that there would be no impact at all? Ok, right.


No it would have no impact at all, unless you repeal the 2nd and 4th amendment. There will be guns, people that want them for good or evil, will be able to get guns. Short of taking all guns from all citizens and making humanity forget they were ever invented, gang bangers will use them to kill other gang bangers. Mentally deranged people will find them to kill people, and lawful citizens will use them to protect themselves from those willing to do harm.
 
2013-01-10 02:22:53 PM  

vpb: We have been controlling NFA weapons effectively for decades.  It's time to add some new weapons to it/


That'll fix it.
 
2013-01-10 02:22:55 PM  

OwnTheRide: Surely this is a mistake. California is one of the most restrictive states in the nation when it comes to gun control, and we all know that more gun control will stop crazy people from trying to kill others. Furthermore, this was in a gun-free zone, so there clearly couldn't have been any guns there.

Right?

Right?


Right.

Right.
 
2013-01-10 02:22:59 PM  
Hey here's an idea, let's try to help the victims first, then we can talk about gun control....
 
2013-01-10 02:23:02 PM  

toomuchmarisa: The My Little Pony Killer: The conversation for mental health care is still patiently waiting. Your call, America.

THIS. Spending 2 minutes on the internet is MORE than enough to hammer home the point that SO MANY people are farked up beyond belief. Seriously, we need to teach children how to deal with emotions... cause a lot of people have VERY serious emotional problems.

[img7.imageshack.us image 266x190]

/scares me to think how many of them also own guns


Gun nuts are afraid that they may actually be crazy and will lose all their gun friends.  That's why we can't talk about it.
 
2013-01-10 02:23:04 PM  
Thanks to the CA state gun laws, the shooter didn't have an assault rifle, and only two people died in this attack. The law is working as intended.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:23:14 PM  

iheartscotch: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?

You do realize that the US-Mexico border isn't a force field either?

And, criminals are not likely to follow the laws?

And, getting a gun in Mexico is as easy as bribing a federali?

And, heavily armed Mexican drug cartels can get over the border with no problem?


Bullshiat.  We would have the kind of violence they have here if it were that easy, and so would all those countries with decent gun control that don't have this problem anywhere near as much.
 
2013-01-10 02:23:18 PM  

Utter Genius: 18,000 people die in drunk-driving incidents a year. Government, please ban assault cars and assault alcohol TIA.


hmm. cars require ID...Booze requires ID.

any banjo playing american hick can buy a gun anywhere, buy ammo without ID.

the real issue is that gunmericans are self righteous entitled twats who have penis problems and need guns on all their movie posters, in all the television shows and a gun to solve all their problems..except the big problem of it's corrupt political system and corporate police state..
no..don't mention that....

so any gun debate sadly avoids all that...

a nation of psychopaths .

right on gun nuts.
 
2013-01-10 02:23:26 PM  

lordjupiter: And that there would be no impact at all?


Of course there would be an impact. Everyone not willing to go across the border for an illegal gun wouldn't have a gun. Of course, those aren't the people you needed to worry about in the first place, but that's not the point, right?
 
2013-01-10 02:23:28 PM  

Rapmaster2000: I think it's pretty obvious that this is another FALSE FLAG concocted by Obama and his cronies.  He no doubt learned it from the Chicoms and the Norks back in Nam.


This isn't Nam Rapmaster, there are RULES!
 
2013-01-10 02:23:32 PM  

A Terrible Human: Christ almighty will it ever stop?


I think we all know the answer to that one. fark, yeah.
 
2013-01-10 02:23:33 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: topcon: Lexx: Utter Genius: 18,000 people die in drunk-driving incidents a year. Government, please ban assault cars and assault alcohol TIA.

Hmm, comparing car ownership and gun ownership really isn't a bad idea. Why don't we require you to pass two tests and take a class before being approved to even own a gun, AND require a couple hundred dollars a month in "gun insurance" which helps pay the medical bills or funeral expenses of whoever ends up dying by your piece.

Being trained to use a gun properly will not stop people from killing people with one.

Hmm, I wonder why I've been in almost every gun thread whining about mental health care...


Maybe your equus destruction fetish needs to be regulated.
 
2013-01-10 02:24:00 PM  

Dynascape: Lexx: Utter Genius: 18,000 people die in drunk-driving incidents a year. Government, please ban assault cars and assault alcohol TIA.

Hmm, comparing car ownership and gun ownership really isn't a bad idea. Why don't we require you to pass two tests and take a class before being approved to even own a gun, AND require a couple hundred dollars a month in "gun insurance" which helps pay the medical bills or funeral expenses of whoever ends up dying by your piece.

...and get the classes started in High School at that.

By the time you graduate you can have your gun license and your parents can pay your gun insurance until you're 24 (25 if Congress will grant you an extension under your parents).


I'm liking this idea more and more. Make insurance a mandatory component of legal gun ownership. Hell, make it like Obama care where if a private insurer won't touch you because you're a farking nutter, or you refuse to pay it, the government just fines you a few hundred dollars a year and puts the funds towards helping shooting victims.
 
2013-01-10 02:24:02 PM  
Ermagerd Kern
 
2013-01-10 02:24:05 PM  
I said it before and I'll say it again. The schools of the future will be equipped with panic rooms in every class room. Their parents will pay top dollar to send their snowflakes to those schools and like it. I see these crazy gun facks as job creators. Kinda like theater marshals, when going to a harmless movie.
 
2013-01-10 02:24:13 PM  
So if the 2nd Amendment guarantees a person's right to own firearms, how is it legal to take away that right for a person with a criminal record?
 
2013-01-10 02:24:18 PM  

lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?


Politicians do when it comes to redistricting, so I guess it's ok to do the same for gun control.

lordjupiter: Cuyose: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Maybe, just maybe, it's HARDER to get things across international borders, so fewer things come across than can be transferred across state lines.

How hard is it to buy pot from someone?

Pot =/= guns.

Plus, you can't mass manufacture guns in your closet, dumbass.


*yawn* wake me when someone uses a bag of weed to kill multiple people.

Hell, wake me when someone high on weed thinks violence is a good idea.
 
2013-01-10 02:24:21 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: Utter Genius: 18,000 people die in drunk-driving incidents a year. Government, please ban assault cars and assault alcohol TIA.

hmm. cars require ID...Booze requires ID.

any banjo playing american hick can buy a gun anywhere, buy ammo without ID.

the real issue is that gunmericans are self righteous entitled twats who have penis problems and need guns on all their movie posters, in all the television shows and a gun to solve all their problems..except the big problem of it's corrupt political system and corporate police state..
no..don't mention that....

so any gun debate sadly avoids all that...

a nation of psychopaths .

right on gun nuts.


Uhhhhhhh...

You need to show an ID to buy ammo. Hell, you need to show ID to buy a cigarette lighter in my state.
 
2013-01-10 02:24:26 PM  
That gun just jumped up and started shooting by itself!
 
2013-01-10 02:24:28 PM  

lordjupiter:

Plus, you can't mass manufacture guns in your closet, dumbass.


Tell that to the Israelis.

GoldSpider: Thanks to the CA state gun laws, the shooter didn't have an assault rifle, and only two people died in this attack. The law is working as intended.


The same weapons are available, just the magazine size is different.
 
2013-01-10 02:24:32 PM  

vpb: You are just angry that this guy wasn't able to get his score up into the twenties like your hero at Sandy Hook.



Well aren't you a piece of shiat?
 
2013-01-10 02:24:33 PM  

Cyberluddite: Psycoholic_Slag: Ahhh, Taft.

They're
All
Fu*king
Tweekers

30 miles from my house.

Taft is most likely a shiathole (I've only passed the exit on the freeway, and have never been there), but if you're 30 miles away you must live in Bakersfield.  Which means you have no room to talk any shiat whatsoever about anyplace.



Where do you live so that I might make a relevant retort? If your profile is correct you are from NorCal. Be more specific because I could go on all day about any town/city in California.
 
2013-01-10 02:24:34 PM  
If this keeps up much longer there's going to be enough freedom flowing in the streets to drown an elephant.
 
2013-01-10 02:24:41 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-01-10 02:24:54 PM  

GoldSpider: Thanks to the CA state gun laws, the shooter didn't have an assault rifle, and only two people died in this attack. The law is working as intended.


Oh, they died? I thought they lived.
 
2013-01-10 02:25:12 PM  

chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.


How many children will die today because of drunk drivers? Why aren't we having a discussion about installing breath interlock devices on all vehicles in the US? If we're going to make a big deal out of something, let's pick something big.
 
2013-01-10 02:25:41 PM  

jigger: GoldSpider: Thanks to the CA state gun laws, the shooter didn't have an assault rifle, and only two people died in this attack. The law is working as intended.

Oh, they died? I thought they lived.


They did live.
 
2013-01-10 02:25:50 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So if the 2nd Amendment guarantees a person's right to own firearms, how is it legal to take away that right for a person with a criminal record?


Because the courts have interpreted rights as reasonable rights, not unrestricted rights.
 
2013-01-10 02:25:59 PM  

Rapmaster2000: I think it's pretty obvious that this is another FALSE FLAG concocted by Obama and his cronies.  He no doubt learned it from the Chicoms and the Norks back in Nam.


tighten up your tinfoil there Alex...

/moran
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:26:07 PM  

topcon: chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]


It's good to see that the gun laws in California and New York and others have had an effect.  We need to expand them and things will improve more.
 
2013-01-10 02:26:10 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So if the 2nd Amendment guarantees a person's right to own firearms, how is it legal to take away that right for a person with a criminal record?


Technically, it's not, but the Supreme Court says it's ok.

Well, you could also look to the 5th amendment that says no person shall be deprived of liberty without the due process of law.
 
2013-01-10 02:26:17 PM  
Thats actually a pretty good idea.

Why dont all cars have a breath interlock device anyway? That shiat would cut drunk driving down.
 
2013-01-10 02:26:27 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: If this keeps up much longer there's going to be enough freedom flowing in the streets to drown an elephant.


Can you believe how polite society is?
 
2013-01-10 02:26:36 PM  

bhcompy: Popcorn Johnny: So if the 2nd Amendment guarantees a person's right to own firearms, how is it legal to take away that right for a person with a criminal record?

Because the courts have interpreted rights as reasonable rights, not unrestricted rights.


Just ask anyone in prison how many rights they have.
 
2013-01-10 02:26:47 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cuyose: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Maybe, just maybe, it's HARDER to get things across international borders, so fewer things come across than can be transferred across state lines.

How hard is it to buy pot from someone?

you're really going to suggest that our international borders are not monitored at all, whatsoever?

Because state borders aren't monitored for anything but produce. Unless you think international borders are never monitored for anything but produce, then they are by definition MORE secure.


So what? Your point is we should enact any law which takes any step forward to being more probably to cause a result you are aiming for, regardless of the impact or actual outcome? We could ban all sorts of things if the main goal is to preserve lives.
 
2013-01-10 02:27:02 PM  
Yes subby, because it wasnt a person who did the shooting it was the gun. Maybe we should have talk about parent controll to combat the irresponsible people who have kids and then dont raise them right or at all.
 
2013-01-10 02:27:21 PM  

Dynascape: Thats actually a pretty good idea.

Why dont all cars have a breath interlock device anyway? That shiat would cut drunk driving down.


Well for one thing, it's not illegal to operate your vehicle while drunk on private property.
 
2013-01-10 02:27:26 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 850x111]

go gunmerica go!


You are not better than the guy who wants the right to keep a 105 mm howitzer in his front yard. Congratulations.

Skarekrough: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Only two injured, not double-digits dead.

Try harder.

1/10


Simple. You could get the same result with a pre-Civil War revolver, but the fact is that banning whole classes of firearms doesn't fix the fact that people were hurt, gun free zones are a farking joke, and if it turns out he used a gun that is legal to purchase in California today, then it was a happy accident, as he could have easily used a grandfathered AR-15 he stole from some old dude that bought one prior to the California "ban" on assault weapons back in '89. BETTER SCHOOL SECURITY is what will stop shiat like this, not "gun control".
 
2013-01-10 02:27:36 PM  

Lexx: Hmm, comparing car ownership and gun ownership really isn't a bad idea. Why don't we require you to pass two tests and take a class before being approved to even own a gun, AND require a couple hundred dollars a month in "gun insurance" which helps pay the medical bills or funeral expenses of whoever ends up dying by your piece.


It's like you think criminals get their guns legally NOW, or something. Is it really that hard to understand that criminals, by definition, DON'T FOLLOW THE LAWS about this sort of thing?
 
2013-01-10 02:27:46 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: jigger: GoldSpider: Thanks to the CA state gun laws, the shooter didn't have an assault rifle, and only two people died in this attack. The law is working as intended.

Oh, they died? I thought they lived.

They did live.


Until obama's Men in Black come in the night to strangle them so he can hold the bodies in front of a bloodied american flag with heavenly music playing, his tears visible in the morning sun, all in black and white....
 
2013-01-10 02:27:51 PM  

Dynascape: Thats actually a pretty good idea.

Why dont all cars have a breath interlock device anyway? That shiat would cut drunk driving down.


That would only cover alcohol. All cars should have a blood testing station. You start the car by IV.
 
2013-01-10 02:28:00 PM  

Cuyose: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cuyose: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Maybe, just maybe, it's HARDER to get things across international borders, so fewer things come across than can be transferred across state lines.

How hard is it to buy pot from someone?

you're really going to suggest that our international borders are not monitored at all, whatsoever?

Because state borders aren't monitored for anything but produce. Unless you think international borders are never monitored for anything but produce, then they are by definition MORE secure.

So what? Your point is we should enact any law which takes any step forward to being more probably to cause a result you are aiming for, regardless of the impact or actual outcome? We could ban all sorts of things if the main goal is to preserve lives.


Uh no, my point is that your point is stupid.
 
2013-01-10 02:28:05 PM  

Joe Blowme: Yes subby, because it wasnt a person who did the shooting it was the gun. Maybe we should have talk about parent controll to combat the irresponsible people who have kids and then dont raise them right or at all.


Yes, more Jeebus AND more guns! That makes total sense. That is what you're getting at, isn't it?
 
2013-01-10 02:28:09 PM  
You mean it's time to try discussing the need for a decent revised set of gun regulation laws while being bullied by gun enthusiasts spouting a bunch of specs to muddy the discussion.

Yeah I believe I summed that one up correctly.
 
2013-01-10 02:28:09 PM  

vpb: The_Sponge: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?


So your solution is for other states to adopt California's retarded gun laws?

You are just angry that this guy wasn't able to get his score up into the twenties like your hero at Sandy Hook.


the douche is strong with this one...
 
2013-01-10 02:28:19 PM  

The_Sponge: vpb: You are just angry that this guy wasn't able to get his score up into the twenties like your hero at Sandy Hook.


Well aren't you a piece of shiat?


Concise.
 
2013-01-10 02:28:41 PM  
Easy solution, or at least a path to one:

Appease the gun crowd: Buy whatever you want. "Because fark you I want one" is a perfectly legitimate reason to own a weapon.

But, that comes with a cost... the cost of responsibility both fiscal and mental.

Let's put a nationwide tax on all gun-, ammunition- and gun-related items (hearing protection... targets... cases... stupid stickers for your truck... etc). Starts at 5%.

All revenue from that tax go to funding a massive mental health campaign -- screening of children from elementary school through college; screening of anyone buying a gun; annual screening of anyone with a license for a gun, which would also include checking for proper security and storage of that gun. Let's have PR campaigns working to reduce the stigma of mental counseling and increase the willingness of people to get help. Let's have success stories of people who were helped -before- they shot up a movie theater. Etc etc etc.

Here's the rub: Every time two or more people are killed with a gun, the tax goes up 5%. No limit.

Even if it's at 7000%, if some poor soul shoots up a [school | mall | nursing station | whatever]... 7005%, effective immediately.

You want an AR-AK-M-16-mp3-LOL fully auto anti-tank howitzer? Fine. But contribute to paying for and preventing the harm other weapons like it do to our society. Be a responsible gun owner, and support getting help for those who need it, and maybe, just maybe, we can reduce the problem. Fair trade?
 
2013-01-10 02:28:57 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: lordjupiter: And that there would be no impact at all?

Of course there would be an impact. Everyone not willing to go across the border for an illegal gun wouldn't have a gun. Of course, those aren't the people you needed to worry about in the first place, but that's not the point, right?


So you really, really think that people just looking for a gun for home defense would be totally unable to get a gun, and the streets would be controlled by gun-toting criminals who are the only ones able to get guns, and nobody would ever think to buy or sell them to anyone but drug dealers and burglers?

Or is this an abuse of the word "criminal" in the "only criminals will have guns" chiasmus, meaning that people looking to defend themselves TECHNICALLY become "criminals" when they have guns in a gun-ban area, even though the clear meaning of "criminal" is different from those who they're seeking defense from?
 
2013-01-10 02:29:05 PM  

Dynascape: Why dont all cars have a breath interlock device anyway? That shiat would cut drunk driving down.


If you can't wreck your car in a drunk driving accident, there's no guarantee you'd be buying another car, is there?
 
2013-01-10 02:29:09 PM  

Biner: chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

How many children will die today because of drunk drivers?


They're going to die today?! Then you're not allowed to discuss it, it's very insensitive and will hurt people's feelings.
 
2013-01-10 02:29:16 PM  

jigger: Dynascape: Thats actually a pretty good idea.

Why dont all cars have a breath interlock device anyway? That shiat would cut drunk driving down.

That would only cover alcohol. All cars should have a blood testing station. You start the car by IV.


Isnt that a scene from Gattaca?

Ethan Hawke has to use fake blood samples everywhere he goes or something.
 
2013-01-10 02:29:30 PM  

hdhale: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 850x111]

go gunmerica go!

You are not better than the guy who wants the right to keep a 105 mm howitzer in his front yard.


Yes. I am. Much better thank you.
 
2013-01-10 02:29:35 PM  
Thank Bog gun nuts' hobby remains unmolested.
 
2013-01-10 02:29:39 PM  
Dear batsh*t lunatic, gun wielding mass murderers.

Stop shooting schoolkids. Schoolkids aren't the problem.

Shoot evil bastards. Don't be one.

Thanks.
 
2013-01-10 02:29:43 PM  

whidbey: You mean it's time to try discussing the need for a decent revised set of gun regulation laws while being bullied by gun enthusiasts spouting a bunch of specs to muddy the discussion.

Yeah I believe I summed that one up correctly.


The regulations would ban guns with certain specs, so...
 
2013-01-10 02:30:17 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So if the 2nd Amendment guarantees a person's right to own firearms, how is it legal to take away that right for a person with a criminal record?


The NRA already successfully pushed for laws back in the 80s that rearm dangerous criminals like murderers and rapists as well as convicted terrorists, so it doesn't really matter.

/ no, that's not a joke, the NRA really did push for laws that rearms dangerous criminals and terrorists..... sorry.... "relieved" those "disabled" persons....

HotWingConspiracy: Can you believe how polite society is?


I still think it's far too impersonal. Can you imagine how much more interaction citizens could have if they had to stab each other to death instead?

Ah, well, a dream to strive for, I suppose.
 
2013-01-10 02:30:25 PM  

whidbey: You mean it's time to try discussing the need for a decent revised set of gun regulation laws while being bullied by gun enthusiasts spouting a bunch of specs to muddy the discussion.

Yeah I believe I summed that one up correctly.


Yes, those evil gun owners with their 'facts' and 'statistics'. Why can't they argue from emotion and ignorance like reasonable people?
 
2013-01-10 02:30:25 PM  
Actually, a 105mm Howitzer in my front yard would be farking awesome. Make for some awesome fireworks at Independence day.
 
2013-01-10 02:30:39 PM  

djh0101010: Lexx: Hmm, comparing car ownership and gun ownership really isn't a bad idea. Why don't we require you to pass two tests and take a class before being approved to even own a gun, AND require a couple hundred dollars a month in "gun insurance" which helps pay the medical bills or funeral expenses of whoever ends up dying by your piece.

It's like you think criminals get their guns legally NOW, or something. Is it really that hard to understand that criminals, by definition, DON'T FOLLOW THE LAWS about this sort of thing?


The Connecticut shooting was with legally owned guns. Also the point of that insurance would be to help counter the danger of guns by A: making them more difficult to obtain, B: making them more expensive to own, and C: creating a pool of money with which to help out the shooting victims, fund mental health treatment, etc etc.
 
2013-01-10 02:31:01 PM  
This is news why? Oh yeah, msm narrative needs to keep being rammed down our faces.
 
2013-01-10 02:31:11 PM  

zarberg: Plus, you can't mass manufacture guns in your closet, dumbass.

*yawn* wake me when someone uses a bag of weed to kill multiple people.


The comment wasn't intended to address the lethality of what is crossing the border, it was to demonstrate that making it illegal doesn't result in the inability of people willing to break the law to acquire the illegal commodity, but that went over your head.
 
2013-01-10 02:31:14 PM  

toomuchmarisa

The My Little Pony Killer: The conversation for mental health care is still patiently waiting. Your call, America.

THIS. Spending 2 minutes on the internet is MORE than enough to hammer home the point that SO MANY people are farked up beyond belief. Seriously, we need to teach children how to deal with emotions... cause a lot of people have VERY serious emotional problems.


Almost all are on drugs daily. But that can't have anything to do with it, because we need those
 
2013-01-10 02:31:18 PM  
What about ferry control?  We had more people hurt yesterday by a ferry than in any gun control incident outside of the netherlands.
 
2013-01-10 02:31:20 PM  

magic_patch: Clearly time to ban schools.


Give Congress time and that might actually get done.
 
2013-01-10 02:31:31 PM  

SFSailor: Easy solution, or at least a path to one:

Appease the gun crowd: Buy whatever you want. "Because fark you I want one" is a perfectly legitimate reason to own a weapon.

But, that comes with a cost... the cost of responsibility both fiscal and mental.

Let's put a nationwide tax on all gun-, ammunition- and gun-related items (hearing protection... targets... cases... stupid stickers for your truck... etc). Starts at 5%.

All revenue from that tax go to funding a massive mental health campaign -- screening of children from elementary school through college; screening of anyone buying a gun; annual screening of anyone with a license for a gun, which would also include checking for proper security and storage of that gun. Let's have PR campaigns working to reduce the stigma of mental counseling and increase the willingness of people to get help. Let's have success stories of people who were helped -before- they shot up a movie theater. Etc etc etc.

Here's the rub: Every time two or more people are killed with a gun, the tax goes up 5%. No limit.

Even if it's at 7000%, if some poor soul shoots up a [school | mall | nursing station | whatever]... 7005%, effective immediately.

You want an AR-AK-M-16-mp3-LOL fully auto anti-tank howitzer? Fine. But contribute to paying for and preventing the harm other weapons like it do to our society. Be a responsible gun owner, and support getting help for those who need it, and maybe, just maybe, we can reduce the problem. Fair trade?


www.themovies.co.za
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:31:34 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: vpb: Cuyose: lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?

If that is your logic, unless we can make guns disappear all over the world, gun control will never have an impact

Or we can remember that international borders are controlled and just have nationwide gun control.

Ok, so now only the criminals are getting new guns. I'm not seeing that as a better solution.


Obviously, that's nonsense or it wouldn't work for other countries.  The fact that gun control works isn't an opinion or speculation, it's proven fact.
 
2013-01-10 02:31:36 PM  

Joe Blowme: Yes subby, because it wasnt a person who did the shooting it was the gun. Maybe we should have talk about parent controll to combat the irresponsible people who have kids and then dont raise them right or at all.


I agree, the government should step in to decide who gets to reproduce. This is a sensible small government solution, whereas gun control is tyranny.
 
2013-01-10 02:31:49 PM  

Dynascape: Haliburton Cummings: Utter Genius: 18,000 people die in drunk-driving incidents a year. Government, please ban assault cars and assault alcohol TIA.

hmm. cars require ID...Booze requires ID.

any banjo playing american hick can buy a gun anywhere, buy ammo without ID.

the real issue is that gunmericans are self righteous entitled twats who have penis problems and need guns on all their movie posters, in all the television shows and a gun to solve all their problems..except the big problem of it's corrupt political system and corporate police state..
no..don't mention that....

so any gun debate sadly avoids all that...

a nation of psychopaths .

right on gun nuts.

Uhhhhhhh...

You need to show an ID to buy ammo. Hell, you need to show ID to buy a cigarette lighter in my state.


you buy your lighters from a guy off the street? online perhaps? and they make you show id?
wow..you live in crazyland!

/rebut fail
 
2013-01-10 02:31:53 PM  

EyeballKid: Joe Blowme: Yes subby, because it wasnt a person who did the shooting it was the gun. Maybe we should have talk about parent controll to combat the irresponsible people who have kids and then dont raise them right or at all.

Yes, more Jeebus AND more guns! That makes total sense. That is what you're getting at, isn't it?


? Where the fark do you see anything about jebus in my post? Why do you hate children and not want them to have a good upbringing?

/you do realize guns dont shoot themselves right? A person has to pull the trigger
 
2013-01-10 02:32:17 PM  
Free speech zones
Gun free zones
Implied consent to search when flying
Asset forfeiture abused
Prisoners forced to work below minimum wage by private corporations
9th amendment is practically all but ignored
The militarization of police following 9/11

And so many on Fark think leaving the only guns in the hands of the 1%, the military, those rich enough to get elected and the police that you respect so much.

So yea, you win. Be proud of your victory.
 
2013-01-10 02:32:26 PM  
If only there'd been a dynamite monkey at the door of the school...
 
2013-01-10 02:32:36 PM  

chuckufarlie: topcon: chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

well, aren't you the smartest kid in the class! I asked you to answer a simple question and you totally failed. Are you afraid to answer that question? Cowardice and stupidity seem to run rampant in the pro-gun community.

You are implying that it is okay to shoot and kill an entire classroom of children as long as the overall number of murders has been lowered. I will ask you again - How many more children need to die before you see that there is a problem?


There isn't a problem with so-called "assault weapons." They very like account for less than one percent of gun murders, based off of FBI data tables.

Saturday Night Special handguns are the problem. California banned them at one point (Bryco / Jennings, et al?)
 
2013-01-10 02:32:39 PM  

hdhale: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 850x111]

go gunmerica go!

You are not better than the guy who wants the right to keep a 105 mm howitzer in his front yard. Congratulations.Skarekrough: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Only two injured, not double-digits dead.

Try harder.

1/10

Simple. You could get the same result with a pre-Civil War revolver, but the fact is that banning whole classes of firearms doesn't fix the fact that people were hurt, gun free zones are a farking joke, and if it turns out he used a gun that is legal to purchase in California today, then it was a happy accident, as he could have easily used a grandfathered AR-15 he stole from some old dude that bought one prior to the California "ban" on assault weapons back in '89. BETTER SCHOOL SECURITY is what will stop shiat like this, not "gun control".


You don't think that preventing people that are criminals and mentally unstable from getting guns would also help to stop this? And that means requiring mental evaluations in order to get a gun permit, and to end private gun sales and close the gun show loophole to keep straw purchasers from buying as many gun as they want and selling them to who ever elsewhere.
 
2013-01-10 02:32:46 PM  
This incident is clearly a result of poor firearm regulation. Had the state of California substantially restricted access to handguns, prevented civilians from carrying firearms in public and enacted a "one-feature" based "assault weapons ban" and a prohibition upon "high-capacity" magazines, this incident could have been averted.
 
2013-01-10 02:33:41 PM  
Nice headline.
 
2013-01-10 02:34:13 PM  

kombat_unit: This is news why? Oh yeah, msm narrative needs to keep being rammed down our faces.


Nah man, you're way behind here. This was another false flag carried out by Israeli commandos. Obama negotiated this in return for a war with Iran.
 
2013-01-10 02:34:26 PM  
why do we have any laws? Words on paper don't stop shiat.
 
2013-01-10 02:34:29 PM  

Joe Blowme: EyeballKid: Joe Blowme: Yes subby, because it wasnt a person who did the shooting it was the gun. Maybe we should have talk about parent controll to combat the irresponsible people who have kids and then dont raise them right or at all.

Yes, more Jeebus AND more guns! That makes total sense. That is what you're getting at, isn't it?

? Where the fark do you see anything about jebus in my post? Why do you hate children and not want them to have a good upbringing?

/you do realize guns dont shoot themselves right? A person has to pull the trigger


They work just fine on their own when provided by Eric Holder and the Obama Administration.
 
2013-01-10 02:34:39 PM  
the braintrust in this thread is gunstoppable.

time to crap.
 
2013-01-10 02:34:44 PM  

ongbok: hdhale: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 850x111]

go gunmerica go!

You are not better than the guy who wants the right to keep a 105 mm howitzer in his front yard. Congratulations.Skarekrough: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Only two injured, not double-digits dead.

Try harder.

1/10

Simple. You could get the same result with a pre-Civil War revolver, but the fact is that banning whole classes of firearms doesn't fix the fact that people were hurt, gun free zones are a farking joke, and if it turns out he used a gun that is legal to purchase in California today, then it was a happy accident, as he could have easily used a grandfathered AR-15 he stole from some old dude that bought one prior to the California "ban" on assault weapons back in '89. BETTER SCHOOL SECURITY is what will stop shiat like this, not "gun control".

You don't think that preventing people that are criminals and mentally unstable from getting guns would also help to stop this? And that means requiring mental evaluations in order to get a gun permit, and to end private gun sales and close the gun show loophole to keep straw purchasers from buying as many gun as they want and selling them to who ever elsewhere.


Better tracking of firearm sales and better controls on prohibiting firearm possession by prohibited persons would likely reduce violent crime.

Unfortunately, "gun control" advocates typically eschew such suggestions in favour of banning handgrips and collapsing stocks on an already rarely criminally misused class of firearm, and "gun rights" advocacy organizations are led by irrational individuals opposed to absolutely any new regulation.
 
2013-01-10 02:34:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: topcon: chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

well, aren't you the smartest kid in the class! I asked you to answer a simple question and you totally failed. Are you afraid to answer that question? Cowardice and stupidity seem to run rampant in the pro-gun community.

You are implying that it is okay to shoot and kill an entire classroom of children as long as the overall number of murders has been lowered. I will ask you again - How many more children need to die before you see that there is a problem?


And yet more children die from drunk driving every year than from guns, How many more children need to die before you see that there is a problem?
 
2013-01-10 02:34:58 PM  

SFSailor: Easy solution, or at least a path to one:

Appease the gun crowd: Buy whatever you want. "Because fark you I want one" is a perfectly legitimate reason to own a weapon.

But, that comes with a cost... the cost of responsibility both fiscal and mental.

Let's put a nationwide tax on all gun-, ammunition- and gun-related items (hearing protection... targets... cases... stupid stickers for your truck... etc). Starts at 5%.

All revenue from that tax go to funding a massive mental health campaign -- screening of children from elementary school through college; screening of anyone buying a gun; annual screening of anyone with a license for a gun, which would also include checking for proper security and storage of that gun. Let's have PR campaigns working to reduce the stigma of mental counseling and increase the willingness of people to get help. Let's have success stories of people who were helped -before- they shot up a movie theater. Etc etc etc.

Here's the rub: Every time two or more people are killed with a gun, the tax goes up 5%. No limit.

Even if it's at 7000%, if some poor soul shoots up a [school | mall | nursing station | whatever]... 7005%, effective immediately.

You want an AR-AK-M-16-mp3-LOL fully auto anti-tank howitzer? Fine. But contribute to paying for and preventing the harm other weapons like it do to our society. Be a responsible gun owner, and support getting help for those who need it, and maybe, just maybe, we can reduce the problem. Fair trade?



Your ideas are bad and you should feel bad.

1) The only time I hear "f*ck you, I got mine" in the gun control debate is when somebody says "I only own a shotgun and a bolt action rifle, I don't care if there is a ban, it won't affect me."

2) You can take your tax proposal and shove it up your ass.  I already have to pay a 9.2% state sales tax on ammo, and that's enough.
 
2013-01-10 02:35:02 PM  

GoldSpider: Thanks to the CA state gun laws, the shooter didn't have an assault rifle, and only two people died in this attack. The law is working as intended.


Marc Lépine would like a word with you.
 
2013-01-10 02:35:07 PM  
How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.
 
2013-01-10 02:35:14 PM  

Joe Blowme: EyeballKid: Joe Blowme: Yes subby, because it wasnt a person who did the shooting it was the gun. Maybe we should have talk about parent controll to combat the irresponsible people who have kids and then dont raise them right or at all.

Yes, more Jeebus AND more guns! That makes total sense. That is what you're getting at, isn't it?

? Where the fark do you see anything about jebus in my post? Why do you hate children and not want them to have a good upbringing?

/you do realize guns dont shoot themselves right? A person has to pull the trigger


But the shooting is the fault of the shooter's parents now?! "Guns don't kill people. People don't people. The parents of people who kill people kill people."

Good personal responsibility there. Maybe the parents played violent video games and listened to that rap music.
 
2013-01-10 02:35:30 PM  

kombat_unit: This is news why? Oh yeah, msm narrative needs to keep being rammed down our faces.


Well, yea, when you have a whopping 400 gun homicides a year it sort of stops being newsworthy after awhile.

Er... wait... hmmm.. no, hold on, I read that wrong. That's the second highest gun homicide country, Germany.

What I meant was, when you have a whopping 9000 gun homicides a year it sort of stops being newsworthy after awhile.

That's better.
 
2013-01-10 02:35:37 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: hdhale: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 850x111]

go gunmerica go!

You are not better than the guy who wants the right to keep a 105 mm howitzer in his front yard.

Yes. I am. Much better thank you.


I keep reading that as Guernica...
img14.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-10 02:35:45 PM  

Dynascape: You need to show an ID to buy ammo. Hell, you need to show ID to buy a cigarette lighter in my state.


Incorrect on the first part. You can purchase ammo by the case and have it shipped to your door without any ID.
 
2013-01-10 02:35:46 PM  

hdhale: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 850x111]

go gunmerica go!

You are not better than the guy who wants the right to keep a 105 mm howitzer in his front yard. Congratulations.Skarekrough: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Only two injured, not double-digits dead.

Try harder.

1/10

Simple. You could get the same result with a pre-Civil War revolver, but the fact is that banning whole classes of firearms doesn't fix the fact that people were hurt, gun free zones are a farking joke, and if it turns out he used a gun that is legal to purchase in California today, then it was a happy accident, as he could have easily used a grandfathered AR-15 he stole from some old dude that bought one prior to the California "ban" on assault weapons back in '89. BETTER SCHOOL SECURITY is what will stop shiat like this, not "gun control".


Yeah, you're right. Deputy Gardner made a huge difference in taking down Harris and Klebold.
 
2013-01-10 02:35:53 PM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-01-10 02:35:57 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: They did live.


Seriously, that's good news.
 
2013-01-10 02:36:07 PM  

Cyberluddite: natas6.0: Lots of gang activity in that area
Here's to hoping it was shiatheads shooting fellow shiatheads

A oil-drilling town of 10K people in Kern County is home to lots of gang activity?  What are the gangs, Chevron versus Shell?


Mostly Norteños vs. Sureños with some motorcycle gang activity and tweekers doing what tweekers do thrown in for good measure.
 
2013-01-10 02:36:17 PM  

lordjupiter: So you really, really think that people just looking for a gun for home defense would be totally unable to get a gun, and the streets would be controlled by gun-toting criminals who are the only ones able to get guns, and nobody would ever think to buy or sell them to anyone but drug dealers and burglers?

Or is this an abuse of the word "criminal" in the "only criminals will have guns" chiasmus, meaning that people looking to defend themselves TECHNICALLY become "criminals" when they have guns in a gun-ban area, even though the clear meaning of "criminal" is different from those who they're seeking defense from?


Little of A, little of B.

My point was the guns you want to ban on a nationwide level (I'm making the assumption that since you mentioned personal defense you aren't out for everything) will still be available, but only to people willing to commit a crime to get them. That criminal is either someone who is otherwise law abiding (who you don't have to worry about having that gun), or someone who wants to use it to commit a crime. You haven't stopped the people you wanted to stop, you've only affected otherwise peaceful people. That sounds like a failure to me.
 
2013-01-10 02:36:20 PM  

Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.


I like to collect antique firearms, and while not necessarily capable of mass murder, they could probably fark someone up.

Not sure you can put a biometric grip on my Lee-Enfield from 1911.
 
2013-01-10 02:36:29 PM  

Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.


How would the three-hundred million firearms already owned by the public be addressed? How would "rental" firearms available at firearm ranges be addressed? Would law enforcement be required to use such firearms? Does such technology actually exist and, if so, is it reliable?
 
2013-01-10 02:36:32 PM  
No need to reset it back.

Kalifornia is Ultra safe and has very strict gun control laws.
No gun crime is ever committed there.

If a gun crime were committed there, they would pass lots more laws to stop it from happening.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.

Stop digging where the ground is softest and look where the freaking problems is.
 
2013-01-10 02:36:44 PM  
+1 For banning the schools.

Best option for those who don't want to give into natural selection.
 
2013-01-10 02:36:50 PM  

Dimensio: This incident is clearly a result of poor firearm regulation.


Perhaps.

Had the state of California substantially restricted access to handguns, prevented civilians from carrying firearms in public and enacted a "one-feature" based "assault weapons ban" and a prohibition upon "high-capacity" magazines, this incident could have been averted.

It was a shotgun apparently. So it looks like all of that worked.

You're on board with additional restrictions then, yes?
 
2013-01-10 02:37:03 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: You mean it's time to try discussing the need for a decent revised set of gun regulation laws while being bullied by gun enthusiasts spouting a bunch of specs to muddy the discussion.

Yeah I believe I summed that one up correctly.

Yes, those evil gun owners with their 'facts' and 'statistics'. Why can't they argue from emotion and ignorance like reasonable people?


Spot on, Noticeably F.A.T. Wrecked that fool. Here is another piece of shiat that doesn't have time for facts we must not allow a timely and empathetic response to be sidetracked yet again by studies or reports.
 
2013-01-10 02:37:13 PM  

magic_patch: Clearly time to ban schoolsadults.


FTFY
 
2013-01-10 02:37:46 PM  
You make Shotguns illegal and places like Cabellas are going to fark themselves.

A LOT of people who make a living on hunting will be *pissed*
 
2013-01-10 02:38:00 PM  

Begoggle: This sounds like 1 person who had a beef with another 1 person.
That's different to me than some nut mowing down a bunch of school kids.
The shooter used a shotgun.
Not saying we shouldn't talk about how it could be prevented, but it's still different.


This is all true, but I still want to know what Alex Jones has to say insanely rant about this. You know, for the lulz.
 
2013-01-10 02:38:29 PM  

Flakeloaf: GoldSpider: Thanks to the CA state gun laws, the shooter didn't have an assault rifle, and only two people died in this attack. The law is working as intended.

Marc Lépine would like a word with you.


Bahh fark, I meant Kimveer Gill. Got my Canadian school shiatheads messed up.

/his atrocious aim, not the weapon, kept the casualty count down
 
2013-01-10 02:38:44 PM  

Lexx: It's like you think criminals get their guns legally NOW, or something. Is it really that hard to understand that criminals, by definition, DON'T FOLLOW THE LAWS about this sort of thing?

The Connecticut shooting was with legally owned guns. Also the point of that insurance would be to help counter the danger of guns by A: making them more difficult to obtain, B: making them more expensive to own, and C: creating a pool of money with which to help out the shooting victims, fund mental health treatment, etc etc.


Really? Killing his mom and stealing her guns counts as "legally" in your mind? As someoene under the age of 21 in Connecticut, he's already banned from possessing a handgun, yet he stole those too.
 
2013-01-10 02:38:46 PM  

chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.


Are you familiar with the Bath incident?  Look it up if not.  I'm pretty certain that rigging up a school to explode is and was pretty damn illegal, but that didn't stop someone.
The problem is not with the ability, in general, to obtain weapons.  The problem is with the ability of certain people to obtain weapons, and that those certain people have problems that they need help with.

We don't let just every person in the country have a driver's license (although the number of vehicular deaths each year suggest that we are far too lax in that regard), we probably shouldn't let just every person in the country have weapons.
 
2013-01-10 02:39:00 PM  
Just renewed.....ahhhhhh

"Thank you for joining the NRA. We appreciate your interest in protecting and preserving our Second Amendment rights and promoting safe, responsible gun ownership.

Your credit card will be billed for $35.00* for a 1 Year Membership in the National Rifle Association with "America's First Freedom" as your magazine choice."
 
2013-01-10 02:39:27 PM  

Dynascape: You make Shotguns illegal and places like Cabellas are going to fark themselves.

A LOT of people who make a living on hunting will be *pissed*


I'm sure everybody in the 19th Century will be horrified.
 
2013-01-10 02:39:29 PM  

vpb: Obviously, that's nonsense or it wouldn't work for other countries. The fact that gun control works isn't an opinion or speculation, it's proven fact.


How many of those countries have borders as porous as the US?

Nightsweat: If only there'd been a dynamite monkey at the door of the school...


Yeah, because if there's one group of people you can trust to not taunt a dynamite monkey it's high schoolers...
 
2013-01-10 02:39:31 PM  

chuckufarlie: topcon: chuckufarlie: topcon: chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

well, aren't you the smartest kid in the class! I asked you to answer a simple question and you totally failed. Are you afraid to answer that question? Cowardice and stupidity seem to run rampant in the pro-gun community.

You are implying that it is okay to shoot and kill an entire classroom of children as long as the overall number of murders has been lowered. I will ask you again - How many more children need to die before you see that there is a problem?

There isn't a problem with so-called "assault weapons." They very like account for less than one percent of gun murders, based off of FBI data tables.

Saturday Night Special handguns are the problem. California banned them at one point (Bryco / Jennings, et al?)

I asked you one simple question and you are too cowardly to answer it. That says a lot about you.

You are implying that any number of children can die and you will still not change your mind. Thousands of children gunned down in schools across the country and you would still not want to address the problem.


You're asking a stupid, loaded question. Less and less people are being murdered every year by guns, not just by a little bit, dramatic drops every year with no end in sight. The system is working quite well. That's the bottom line.
 
2013-01-10 02:39:35 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: gunstoppable


Now that's a $100 band name right there.
 
2013-01-10 02:39:36 PM  

EyeballKid: Joe Blowme: EyeballKid: Joe Blowme: Yes subby, because it wasnt a person who did the shooting it was the gun. Maybe we should have talk about parent controll to combat the irresponsible people who have kids and then dont raise them right or at all.

Yes, more Jeebus AND more guns! That makes total sense. That is what you're getting at, isn't it?

? Where the fark do you see anything about jebus in my post? Why do you hate children and not want them to have a good upbringing?

/you do realize guns dont shoot themselves right? A person has to pull the trigger

But the shooting is the fault of the shooter's parents now?! "Guns don't kill people. People don't people. The parents of people who kill people kill people."

Good personal responsibility there. Maybe the parents played violent video games and listened to that rap music.


You obviously have no children nor do you understand ..... wait.... Why are you being purposely obtuse? Ahhhh trolling and i bit... my bad
 
2013-01-10 02:39:53 PM  
And i see it's in another state with loose gun regulations....
 
2013-01-10 02:39:54 PM  

Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun


If the battery is good and the mechanism is reliable. Would you trust it during a home invasion?
 
2013-01-10 02:40:19 PM  
I don't know about you, but I hold our right to be gunned down at random doing ordinary things to be sacrosanct.

Sir Not Sure The Unscannable: magic_patch: Clearly time to ban schoolsadults.

FTFY


Carousel!
 
2013-01-10 02:40:20 PM  

EyeballKid: Dynascape: You make Shotguns illegal and places like Cabellas are going to fark themselves.

A LOT of people who make a living on hunting will be *pissed*

I'm sure everybody in the 19th Century will be horrified.


We'll need to ban Deer, because hunters are the only guys keeping them in check in my state.

BAN ALL DEER!
 
2013-01-10 02:40:32 PM  

graeth: How could this happen? It was a gun free zone!


Congratulations! You are the 1,500,000th person to make this comment in a gun control thread! Call 1-800-UPARROT to claim your prize!
 
2013-01-10 02:40:33 PM  
I just joined the IRA to show my support for gun owners.

That's the right one to join, right?
 
2013-01-10 02:40:43 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: You mean it's time to try discussing the need for a decent revised set of gun regulation laws while being bullied by gun enthusiasts spouting a bunch of specs to muddy the discussion.

Yeah I believe I summed that one up correctly.

Yes, those evil gun owners with their 'facts' and 'statistics'. Why can't they argue from emotion and ignorance like reasonable people?


Thats the sound of you muddying the line between why the law needs has to change and why you think it doesn't. Your 'facts' and 'statistics' realllllyyyy dont farking matter.
 
2013-01-10 02:40:56 PM  

Joe Blowme: You obviously have no children nor do you understand ..... wait.... Why are you being purposely obtuse? Ahhhh trolling and i bit... my bad


Nope, sorry. No kids, and I just don't agree with you and think you're full of shiat.
 
2013-01-10 02:41:21 PM  

djh0101010: Lexx: It's like you think criminals get their guns legally NOW, or something. Is it really that hard to understand that criminals, by definition, DON'T FOLLOW THE LAWS about this sort of thing?

The Connecticut shooting was with legally owned guns. Also the point of that insurance would be to help counter the danger of guns by A: making them more difficult to obtain, B: making them more expensive to own, and C: creating a pool of money with which to help out the shooting victims, fund mental health treatment, etc etc.

Really? Killing his mom and stealing her guns counts as "legally" in your mind? As someoene under the age of 21 in Connecticut, he's already banned from possessing a handgun, yet he stole those too.


No, it was totally legal because after her evac'd her skull........oops, nope he stole them.
 
2013-01-10 02:41:21 PM  

chuckufarlie: How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.


When guns become the top killer of children, then we can talk. Until then, we should focus on the things that kill MORE children than guns, don't you think?
 
2013-01-10 02:41:32 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: This incident is clearly a result of poor firearm regulation.

Perhaps.

Had the state of California substantially restricted access to handguns, prevented civilians from carrying firearms in public and enacted a "one-feature" based "assault weapons ban" and a prohibition upon "high-capacity" magazines, this incident could have been averted.

It was a shotgun apparently. So it looks like all of that worked.

You're on board with additional restrictions then, yes?


I would suggest that blanket prohibitions upon firearm classes, prohibiting civilians from obtaining them under any circumstances, is a demonstrable failure as implemented in California and that more effective -- and reasonable -- controls would regulate firearm access to render access by criminal or mentally ill individuals less likely and to hold those who provide firearms to such individuals legally responsible for doing so while not prohibiting civilians who are not disqualified from possessing them.

Unfortunately, as I have stated, "gun rights" advocacy organizations oppose any new regulations upon firearm access and "gun control" advocacy organizations oppose any regulations that do not entirely prohibit civilian access to classes of firearms.
 
2013-01-10 02:41:42 PM  

tricycleracer: That's the right one to join, right?


Well, it's a more responsible one to join anyway.
 
2013-01-10 02:42:01 PM  

jigger: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun

If the battery is good and the mechanism is reliable. Would you trust it during a home invasion?


Hell no I wouldn't. I'm not hanging anything off my 1911 that JMB didn't design to be there.
 
2013-01-10 02:42:08 PM  

amquelbettamin: Just renewed.....ahhhhhh

"Thank you for joining the NRA. We appreciate your interest in protecting and preserving our Second Amendment rights and promoting safe, responsible gun ownership.

Your credit card will be billed for $35.00* for a 1 Year Membership in the National Rifle Association with "America's First Freedom" as your magazine choice."


I need to renew my membership....I let it slip a few months ago.

/Also going to join The Second Amendment Foundation.
 
2013-01-10 02:42:41 PM  

GoldSpider: When guns become the top killer of children, then we can talk. Until then, we should focus on the things that kill MORE children than guns, don't you think?


Since that's not how prioritization works, no.

Do you also have a terrible time understanding how to prioritize other things in your life or do you choose to restrict your extreme ignorance on the matter to this one topic?
 
2013-01-10 02:42:47 PM  

tricycleracer: I just joined the IRA to show my support for gun owners.

That's the right one to join, right?


www.elmer-iga.com
Close, but no cigar.
 
2013-01-10 02:43:10 PM  

The_Sponge: amquelbettamin: Just renewed.....ahhhhhh

"Thank you for joining the NRA. We appreciate your interest in protecting and preserving our Second Amendment rights and promoting safe, responsible gun ownership.

Your credit card will be billed for $35.00* for a 1 Year Membership in the National Rifle Association with "America's First Freedom" as your magazine choice."

I need to renew my membership....I let it slip a few months ago.

/Also going to join The Second Amendment Foundation.


Enjoy throwing your money away. As 2012 showed, the NRA is not viable as a political action committee anymore.
 
2013-01-10 02:43:10 PM  

Cyberluddite: I'm not sure they have a lot of gang activity in Taft, California, a podunk (~ 10,000 population) town set amid the oil fields of Kern County, about a half-hour from Bakersfield.


I went to a public high school in the Central Valley of California in a town with half that population and there were gangs. A couple of Latino gangs and a Hmong gang. Not that I'm saying any one race is more likely to form a gang than another. Just saying.
 
2013-01-10 02:43:42 PM  
trickymoo: 'facts' and 'statistics' realllllyyyy dont farking matter.

I have no words for how stupid that statement is.
 
2013-01-10 02:43:57 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Guns give an unfair advantage to people who deserve to get their asses kicked.


You see, a gun is real easy
In this desperate part of town
Turns you from hunted into hunter
Gonna hunt somebody down
 
2013-01-10 02:44:06 PM  

EyeballKid: tricycleracer: I just joined the IRA to show my support for gun owners.

That's the right one to join, right?

[www.elmer-iga.com image 600x385]
Close, but no cigar.


Are you sure?  These guys were some really fun Irishmen who sure do love guns.
 
2013-01-10 02:44:09 PM  
Anyone else notice that these things always happen in "gun-free" zones in states with the most restrictive gun laws?

Coincidence? You decide.
 
2013-01-10 02:44:20 PM  

The_Sponge: amquelbettamin: Just renewed.....ahhhhhh

"Thank you for joining the NRA. We appreciate your interest in protecting and preserving our Second Amendment rights and promoting safe, responsible gun ownership.

Your credit card will be billed for $35.00* for a 1 Year Membership in the National Rifle Association with "America's First Freedom" as your magazine choice."

I need to renew my membership....I let it slip a few months ago.

/Also going to join The Second Amendment Foundation.


They need the numbers to pressure the vote loving monkeys at capital hill
 
2013-01-10 02:44:45 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: GoldSpider: When guns become the top killer of children, then we can talk. Until then, we should focus on the things that kill MORE children than guns, don't you think?

Since that's not how prioritization works, no.

Do you also have a terrible time understanding how to prioritize other things in your life or do you choose to restrict your extreme ignorance on the matter to this one topic?


Uh, that's exactly how prioritization works.
 
2013-01-10 02:45:52 PM  

Cuyose: Vegan Meat Popsicle: GoldSpider: When guns become the top killer of children, then we can talk. Until then, we should focus on the things that kill MORE children than guns, don't you think?

Since that's not how prioritization works, no.

Do you also have a terrible time understanding how to prioritize other things in your life or do you choose to restrict your extreme ignorance on the matter to this one topic?

Uh, that's exactly how prioritization works.


Not if your confirmation bias controls your brain.
 
2013-01-10 02:46:01 PM  
One of the main problems is, there are a given amount of firearms already in existence and finding ammo isn't exactly like trying to smuggle cocaine in from Columbia, so, yeah... when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. Them and the cops. And so far, being the meat in this tidy little criminal / anti-criminal industry sandwich hasn't done Billy Bloke a lot of good. Maybe we should just put all the gangstah boyees and the steroid crazed cops into a big stadium with enough full automatic weapons to start Viet Nam, v.2.0 and let THEM fight it out.
 
2013-01-10 02:46:33 PM  

toomuchmarisa: The My Little Pony Killer: The conversation for mental health care is still patiently waiting. Your call, America.

THIS. Spending 2 minutes on the internet is MORE than enough to hammer home the point that SO MANY people are farked up beyond belief. Seriously, we need to teach children how to deal with emotions... cause a lot of people have VERY serious emotional problems.

[img7.imageshack.us image 266x190]

/scares me to think how many of them also own guns


You know, there's more to the internet than just 4chan.
 
2013-01-10 02:46:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The_Sponge: amquelbettamin: Just renewed.....ahhhhhh

"Thank you for joining the NRA. We appreciate your interest in protecting and preserving our Second Amendment rights and promoting safe, responsible gun ownership.

Your credit card will be billed for $35.00* for a 1 Year Membership in the National Rifle Association with "America's First Freedom" as your magazine choice."

I need to renew my membership....I let it slip a few months ago.

/Also going to join The Second Amendment Foundation.

Enjoy throwing your money away. As 2012 showed, the NRA is not viable as a political action committee anymore.


He's whines about taxes and throws money at organizations that spread misinformation. Typical.
 
2013-01-10 02:46:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: Joe Blowme: chuckufarlie: topcon: chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

well, aren't you the smartest kid in the class! I asked you to answer a simple question and you totally failed. Are you afraid to answer that question? Cowardice and stupidity seem to run rampant in the pro-gun community.

You are implying that it is okay to shoot and kill an entire classroom of children as long as the overall number of murders has been lowered. I will ask you again - How many more children need to die before you see that there is a problem?

And yet more children die from drunk driving every year than from guns, How many more children need to die before you see that there is a problem?

Your question is stupid. No more children need to die before I see that there is a problem. I see a problem with drunk drivers as well as with people shooting children.

You are acting as if it is and "either or" situation. Both problems need to be addressed You would rather allow children to be gunned down in schools because children are dying in other ways. You do not have the intelligence to realize that two or more problems can be addressed at the same time.


But you are screaming about a splinter and ignoring the gun shot wound. You just hate guns more than you hate liquor. You do not have the intelligence to realize that people can read my previous post and see i said nothing of the sort, but keep chucking that ficken.
 
2013-01-10 02:46:56 PM  

Dimensio: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.

How would the three-hundred million firearms already owned by the public be addressed? How would "rental" firearms available at firearm ranges be addressed? Would law enforcement be required to use such firearms? Does such technology actually exist and, if so, is it reliable?


Existing guns: put a law requiring the bio-trigger lock, and registration of the buyer's print to sell/transfer ownership. Firearm ranges: are already legally responsible for their pieces, so that's not an issue. Law enforcement: not really an issue, cops already get in a world of hurt if they ever lose their gun anyway. Yes the technology exists, and yes it is reliable.

Benefits: protects your kids from being able to use the gun. Prevents thieves from being able to use the gun.
 
2013-01-10 02:47:09 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: trickymoo: 'facts' and 'statistics' realllllyyyy dont farking matter.

I have no words for how stupid that statement is.


I have no words for an asshat like you and how tired we all are of hearing your boring "i still need mah guns'. Im pretty sure I can get a better response from others than 'well this gun can blah blah'
But no, please do go on on the day of yet another school shooting about how gun control is just not something that should be implemented.
 
2013-01-10 02:47:41 PM  

lordjupiter: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Seriously...do you look at lines on a map and think they're forcefields?


Some people think these are.
cdn.compliancesigns.com
 
2013-01-10 02:47:42 PM  

chuckufarlie: Joe Blowme: chuckufarlie: topcon: chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

well, aren't you the smartest kid in the class! I asked you to answer a simple question and you totally failed. Are you afraid to answer that question? Cowardice and stupidity seem to run rampant in the pro-gun community.

You are implying that it is okay to shoot and kill an entire classroom of children as long as the overall number of murders has been lowered. I will ask you again - How many more children need to die before you see that there is a problem?

And yet more children die from drunk driving every year than from guns, How many more children need to die before you see that there is a problem?

Your question is stupid. No more children need to die before I see that there is a problem. I see a problem with drunk drivers as well as with people shooting children.

You are acting as if it is and "either or" situation. Both problems need to be addressed You would rather allow children to be gunned down in schools because children are dying in other ways. You do not have the intelligence to realize that two or more problems can be addressed at the same time.


Let me pose this question, how come is it that there is such a push to "ban" firearms and not a push to "ban" alcohol? Alcohol has no other purpose when consumed other than inebriate you. The only thing stopping you from getting behind a wheel and driving after drinking is you (or your friends). Firearms, have multiple uses outside of killing people, yet this is what we choose to focus on.

We all saw how prohibition turned out, how would a prohibition on firearms turn out any differently?
 
2013-01-10 02:47:46 PM  

Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.


like..magic guns? how about guns with rectal scanners too so when they have to check the safety there is a 50% chance the gun nut can blow his/her brains out?

i knew a gun nut once. used to ruin every party by trolling the conversation over to guns, then spout off.

a few years ago his daughter knocked a box off the shelf getting her ice skates and that box had his loaded and prized penis extension in it...

he now has all his guns but is minus a daughter , a wife and a job.
in between sips i'm sure he tells himself about how awesome his guns are...

they are awesome until it's one of yours...


good luck gunmerica.
 
2013-01-10 02:48:02 PM  

kombat_unit: Cuyose: Vegan Meat Popsicle: GoldSpider: When guns become the top killer of children, then we can talk. Until then, we should focus on the things that kill MORE children than guns, don't you think?

Since that's not how prioritization works, no.

Do you also have a terrible time understanding how to prioritize other things in your life or do you choose to restrict your extreme ignorance on the matter to this one topic?

Uh, that's exactly how prioritization works.

Not if your confirmation bias controls your brain.


Seriously I sometimes wonder if peoples judgment is so clouded on issues that they try and toss logic out the window. Ill save you from looking up the word prioritize, as I know what it means. I would find it entertaining to hear your definition however, it aught to be a real treat.
 
2013-01-10 02:48:04 PM  
Before 2012: Bakersfield shooting? Another day in LA.

After 2012: Will someone think of the children?
 
2013-01-10 02:48:17 PM  

Dynascape: You make Shotguns illegal and places like Cabellas are going to fark themselves.

A LOT of people who make a living on hunting will be *pissed*


They're just pissed because they have small penises.

southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com
 
2013-01-10 02:48:29 PM  
Two people. I was hoping to hear one shot came from the gunman, the other from a citizen that returned fire.
 
2013-01-10 02:48:32 PM  
tricycleracer

I just joined the IRA to show my support for gun owners.

That's the right one to join, right?


After seeing comments/arguments from liberals about guns I honestly dont know if you guys know they difference between the NRA and IRA
 
2013-01-10 02:48:35 PM  

jigger: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun

If the battery is good and the mechanism is reliable. Would you trust it during a home invasion?


Responsible gun ownership involves regular maintenance of your piece. Same principles apply.
 
2013-01-10 02:48:58 PM  

Road Warrior: Anyone else notice that these things always happen in "gun-free" zones in states with the most restrictive gun laws?

Coincidence? You decide.


Highest gun homicide rate per 100,000: Louisiana. 10.13/100,000

Brady report card for Lousiana: Among the weakest gun laws in the country. Score: 2/100

It's not really a coincidence, you're just making shiat up because you're a farking liar...
 
2013-01-10 02:49:20 PM  

Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.

How would the three-hundred million firearms already owned by the public be addressed? How would "rental" firearms available at firearm ranges be addressed? Would law enforcement be required to use such firearms? Does such technology actually exist and, if so, is it reliable?

Existing guns: put a law requiring the bio-trigger lock, and registration of the buyer's print to sell/transfer ownership. Firearm ranges: are already legally responsible for their pieces, so that's not an issue. Law enforcement: not really an issue, cops already get in a world of hurt if they ever lose their gun anyway. Yes the technology exists, and yes it is reliable.

Benefits: protects your kids from being able to use the gun. Prevents thieves from being able to use the gun.


How would a firearm owning parent be able to instruct their children to use firearms?

Why would you exempt law enforcement from such a requirement? Even if a law enforcement agent is "in a world of hurt" following the loss of a firearm, the fact remains that a thief would have an unlocked firearm.

Please provide reference to demonstration of the technology's reliability.
 
2013-01-10 02:49:42 PM  

Road Warrior: Anyone else notice that these things always happen in "gun-free" zones in states with the most restrictive gun laws?

Coincidence? You decide.


Colorado doesn't have the most restrictive gun laws. Try again!
 
2013-01-10 02:49:49 PM  
It's ok, guys. Some random citizen with a gun will save the day. That's how these things always turn out, right?
 
2013-01-10 02:50:35 PM  

JonnyBGoode: Two people. I was hoping to hear one shot came from the gunman, the other from a citizen that returned fire.


Sorry, your fantasy will never come true.
 
2013-01-10 02:51:00 PM  

GoldSpider: chuckufarlie: How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

When guns become the top killer of children, then we can talk. Until then, we should focus on the things that kill MORE children than guns, don't you think?


You mean like Planned Parenthood?

/yes trolling
 
2013-01-10 02:51:23 PM  

Cuyose: Uh, that's exactly how prioritization works.


Only if you're stupid.
 
2013-01-10 02:51:49 PM  

JonnyBGoode: Two people. I was hoping to hear one shot came from the gunman, the other from a citizen that returned fire.


Do you guys stroke your guns when you are having these fantasies?
 
2013-01-10 02:52:11 PM  
Why don't you guys put a gun on your flag like Mozambique?
 
2013-01-10 02:52:35 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Cuyose: Uh, that's exactly how prioritization works.

Only if you're stupid.


Give me your definition of priority then, genius.
 
2013-01-10 02:52:53 PM  

GoldSpider: Haliburton Cummings: gunstoppable

Now that's a $100 band name right there.


gee thanks. I always thought if i had a band i would call it " Jimmy Gunnut and the ventilated fartknockers" but Gunstoppable is waaay better..

now if i could just find some imaginary musicians to go with my imaginary band....
 
2013-01-10 02:52:53 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: You mean it's time to try discussing the need for a decent revised set of gun regulation laws while being bullied by gun enthusiasts spouting a bunch of specs to muddy the discussion.

Yeah I believe I summed that one up correctly.

Yes, those evil gun owners with their 'facts' and 'statistics'. Why can't they argue from emotion and ignorance like reasonable people?


Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."

Yes, those evil gun owners with their 'facts' and 'statistics'.

Which have nothing to do with this argument.
 
2013-01-10 02:53:06 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: lordjupiter: So you really, really think that people just looking for a gun for home defense would be totally unable to get a gun, and the streets would be controlled by gun-toting criminals who are the only ones able to get guns, and nobody would ever think to buy or sell them to anyone but drug dealers and burglers?

Or is this an abuse of the word "criminal" in the "only criminals will have guns" chiasmus, meaning that people looking to defend themselves TECHNICALLY become "criminals" when they have guns in a gun-ban area, even though the clear meaning of "criminal" is different from those who they're seeking defense from?

Little of A, little of B.

My point was the guns you want to ban on a nationwide level (I'm making the assumption that since you mentioned personal defense you aren't out for everything) will still be available, but only to people willing to commit a crime to get them. That criminal is either someone who is otherwise law abiding (who you don't have to worry about having that gun), or someone who wants to use it to commit a crime. You haven't stopped the people you wanted to stop, you've only affected otherwise peaceful people. That sounds like a failure to me.


Your making an assumption, and it is flawed. That assumption is that the success rate of people trying to get guns for "bad reasons" will be too high (if not 100%) and the success rate of people trying to get guns for "good reasons" will be too low (close to 0%?).

Either way, it's a hypothetical that has no bearing on whether or not we should regulate weaponry at all. We already do. It's just a question of degrees.
 
2013-01-10 02:53:34 PM  

Lexx: jigger: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun

If the battery is good and the mechanism is reliable. Would you trust it during a home invasion?

Responsible gun ownership involves regular maintenance of your piece. Same principles apply.


Heavy steel mechanical mechanisms are able to be maintained and much less finicky than tiny electronic components. I wouldn't want to have to rely on any gun that wouldn't fire if the battery ran out or I had some shiat on my hands at the time.
 
2013-01-10 02:53:39 PM  

Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.

How would the three-hundred million firearms already owned by the public be addressed? How would "rental" firearms available at firearm ranges be addressed? Would law enforcement be required to use such firearms? Does such technology actually exist and, if so, is it reliable?

Existing guns: put a law requiring the bio-trigger lock, and registration of the buyer's print to sell/transfer ownership. Firearm ranges: are already legally responsible for their pieces, so that's not an issue. Law enforcement: not really an issue, cops already get in a world of hurt if they ever lose their gun anyway. Yes the technology exists, and yes it is reliable.

Benefits: protects your kids from being able to use the gun. Prevents thieves from being able to use the gun.

How would a firearm owning parent be able to instruct their children to use firearms?

Why would you exempt law enforcement from such a requirement? Even if a law enforcement agent is "in a world of hurt" following the loss of a firearm, the fact remains that a thief would have an unlocked firearm.

Please provide reference to demonstration of the technology's reliability.


Fingerprint scanners have been around for decades, do I really have to prove they're reliable?
 
2013-01-10 02:53:51 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: GoldSpider: Haliburton Cummings: gunstoppable

Now that's a $100 band name right there.

gee thanks. I always thought if i had a band i would call it " Jimmy Gunnut and the ventilated fartknockers" but Gunstoppable is waaay better..

now if i could just find some imaginary musicians to go with my imaginary band....


Your imaginary band will go great with the imaginary supervillain that a bunch of guns would stop.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:19 PM  

CynicalLA: cameroncrazy1984: The_Sponge: amquelbettamin: Just renewed.....ahhhhhh

"Thank you for joining the NRA. We appreciate your interest in protecting and preserving our Second Amendment rights and promoting safe, responsible gun ownership.

Your credit card will be billed for $35.00* for a 1 Year Membership in the National Rifle Association with "America's First Freedom" as your magazine choice."

I need to renew my membership....I let it slip a few months ago.

/Also going to join The Second Amendment Foundation.

Enjoy throwing your money away. As 2012 showed, the NRA is not viable as a political action committee anymore.

He's whines about taxes and throws money at organizations that spread misinformation. Typical.


Oh please, without the NRA you wouldn't even be able to buy any gun legally. (I'm assuming you have at least one gun in your house). You should thank the NRA for fighting for your rights
 
2013-01-10 02:54:20 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: JonnyBGoode: Two people. I was hoping to hear one shot came from the gunman, the other from a citizen that returned fire.

Sorry, your fantasy will never come true.


poor robber
 
2013-01-10 02:54:21 PM  

magic_patch: Clearly time to ban schools.


I think it's time to ban America.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:40 PM  

kombat_unit: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: You mean it's time to try discussing the need for a decent revised set of gun regulation laws while being bullied by gun enthusiasts spouting a bunch of specs to muddy the discussion.

Yeah I believe I summed that one up correctly.

Yes, those evil gun owners with their 'facts' and 'statistics'. Why can't they argue from emotion and ignorance like reasonable people?

Spot on, Noticeably F.A.T. Wrecked that fool. Here is another piece of shiat that doesn't have time for facts we must not allow a timely and empathetic response to be sidetracked yet again by studies or reports.


First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,



Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:45 PM  

Dynascape: Thats actually a pretty good idea.

Why dont all cars have a breath interlock device anyway? That shiat would cut drunk driving down

, spur innovation around systems that circumvent the interlock devices and create jobs in China for manufacturing those devices.

Fixed, but it still might be worth a shot.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:51 PM  
American society just kind of sucks across the board.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:51 PM  

whidbey: Which have nothing to do with this argument.


True, this is FARK after all.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:53 PM  
GUNBELIEVABLE!
GUNHEARD OF!
GUNCANNY VALLEY!
GUNFORGETTABLE!


or more appropriately:
GUNACCOUNTABLE
 
2013-01-10 02:55:27 PM  

CynicalLA: JonnyBGoode: Two people. I was hoping to hear one shot came from the gunman, the other from a citizen that returned fire.

Do you guys stroke your guns when you are having these fantasies?


It's not a fantasy. A totally legitimate and not at all suspect study from the 90s estimated that defensive gun use incidents happen almost 6850 time every day in the U.S.!

And it's not at all weird that that number ultimately winds up meaning that crime victims defend themselves with a gun more than 100% of the time!

Totally legit!
 
2013-01-10 02:55:51 PM  

Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.

How would the three-hundred million firearms already owned by the public be addressed? How would "rental" firearms available at firearm ranges be addressed? Would law enforcement be required to use such firearms? Does such technology actually exist and, if so, is it reliable?

Existing guns: put a law requiring the bio-trigger lock, and registration of the buyer's print to sell/transfer ownership. Firearm ranges: are already legally responsible for their pieces, so that's not an issue. Law enforcement: not really an issue, cops already get in a world of hurt if they ever lose their gun anyway. Yes the technology exists, and yes it is reliable.

Benefits: protects your kids from being able to use the gun. Prevents thieves from being able to use the gun.

How would a firearm owning parent be able to instruct their children to use firearms?

Why would you exempt law enforcement from such a requirement? Even if a law enforcement agent is "in a world of hurt" following the loss of a firearm, the fact remains that a thief would have an unlocked firearm.

Please provide reference to demonstration of the technology's reliability.

Fingerprint scanners have been around for decades, do I really have to prove they're reliable?


When attached to a firearm, which typically experiences mechanical stress substantially greater than many electronic devices, yes. Fingerprint scanners with which I have worked were often unreliable, sometimes failing to read an authorized user upon an initial scan and sometimes recognizing "false positive" scans which, under the system that you would propose, would result in a firearm owner being criminally liable even if they secured their firearm and it was subsequently stolen and misused.
 
2013-01-10 02:56:18 PM  
Americans might as well just get used to mass shootings and attacks on schools, because sure as shiat no one down there will actually be able to agree on what to do, and so nothing will be done. I have absolute faith that in the another 20 years we'll still be reading about regular mass shooting events in the United States.
 
2013-01-10 02:56:40 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: GUNBELIEVABLE!
GUNHEARD OF!
GUNCANNY VALLEY!
GUNFORGETTABLE!


or more appropriately:
GUNACCOUNTABLE


Yeah, that kid got off scott free.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:06 PM  

whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.


1) It was a shiatty law.  How come firearm deaths have gone down after the ban went away in 2004?

2) The Second Amendment has nothing to do with sportsmen or hunting.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:10 PM  

Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.

How would the three-hundred million firearms already owned by the public be addressed? How would "rental" firearms available at firearm ranges be addressed? Would law enforcement be required to use such firearms? Does such technology actually exist and, if so, is it reliable?

Existing guns: put a law requiring the bio-trigger lock, and registration of the buyer's print to sell/transfer ownership. Firearm ranges: are already legally responsible for their pieces, so that's not an issue. Law enforcement: not really an issue, cops already get in a world of hurt if they ever lose their gun anyway. Yes the technology exists, and yes it is reliable.

Benefits: protects your kids from being able to use the gun. Prevents thieves from being able to use the gun.

How would a firearm owning parent be able to instruct their children to use firearms?

Why would you exempt law enforcement from such a requirement? Even if a law enforcement agent is "in a world of hurt" following the loss of a firearm, the fact remains that a thief would have an unlocked firearm.

Please provide reference to demonstration of the technology's reliability.

Fingerprint scanners have been around for decades, do I really have to prove they're reliable?


When attached to a firearm, which typically experiences mechanical stress substantially greater than many electronic devices, yes. Fingerprint scanners with which I have worked were often unreliable, sometimes failing to read an authorized user upon an initial scan and sometimes recognizing "false positive" scans which, under the system that you would propose, would result in a firearm owner being criminally liable even if they secured their firearm and it was subsequently stolen and misused.

whidbey: kombat_unit: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: You mean it's time to try discussing the need for a decent revised set of gun regulation laws while being bullied by gun enthusiasts spouting a bunch of specs to muddy the discussion.

Yeah I believe I summed that one up correctly.

Yes, those evil gun owners with their 'facts' and 'statistics'. Why can't they argue from emotion and ignorance like reasonable people?

Spot on, Noticeably F.A.T. Wrecked that fool. Here is another piece of shiat that doesn't have time for facts we must not allow a timely and empathetic response to be sidetracked yet again by studies or reports.

First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.


Please describe the characteristics of an "assault weapon". Explain, rationally, why civilian access to such firearms should be prohibited entirely, and not merely further regulated.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:16 PM  

Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.

How would the three-hundred million firearms already owned by the public be addressed? How would "rental" firearms available at firearm ranges be addressed? Would law enforcement be required to use such firearms? Does such technology actually exist and, if so, is it reliable?

Existing guns: put a law requiring the bio-trigger lock, and registration of the buyer's print to sell/transfer ownership. Firearm ranges: are already legally responsible for their pieces, so that's not an issue. Law enforcement: not really an issue, cops already get in a world of hurt if they ever lose their gun anyway. Yes the technology exists, and yes it is reliable.

Benefits: protects your kids from being able to use the gun. Prevents thieves from being able to use the gun.

How would a firearm owning parent be able to instruct their children to use firearms?

Why would you exempt law enforcement from such a requirement? Even if a law enforcement agent is "in a world of hurt" following the loss of a firearm, the fact remains that a thief would have an unlocked firearm.

Please provide reference to demonstration of the technology's reliability.

Fingerprint scanners have been around for decades, do I really have to prove they're reliable?

When attached to a firearm, which typically experiences mechanical stress substantially greater than many electronic devices, yes. Fingerprint scanners with which I have worked were often unreliable, sometimes failing to read an authorized user upon an initial scan and sometimes recognizing "false positive" scans which, under the system that you would propose, would result in a firearm owner being criminally liable even if they secured their firearm and it was subsequently stolen and misused.


Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:24 PM  

EyeballKid: Haliburton Cummings: GoldSpider: Haliburton Cummings: gunstoppable

Now that's a $100 band name right there.

gee thanks. I always thought if i had a band i would call it " Jimmy Gunnut and the ventilated fartknockers" but Gunstoppable is waaay better..

now if i could just find some imaginary musicians to go with my imaginary band....

Your imaginary band will go great with the imaginary supervillain that a bunch of guns would stop.


they could be a crime fighting band of gun toting nutbars singing ted nugent songs about sweet home Guntucky!

i have the first song title!

"get your greasy bullet ridden child off my gun collection you commie!"

nugent..always sounded like what's left after you clean up horseshiat
 
2013-01-10 02:58:13 PM  

jigger: Haliburton Cummings: GUNBELIEVABLE!
GUNHEARD OF!
GUNCANNY VALLEY!
GUNFORGETTABLE!


or more appropriately:
GUNACCOUNTABLE

Yeah, that kid got off scott free.


Scott Free sure gets a lot of sex...
 
2013-01-10 02:58:33 PM  
There's too many people already. Go guns!
 
2013-01-10 02:58:36 PM  

whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.


There's another thing the AWB didn't do.

Anything.
 
2013-01-10 02:58:43 PM  

Cuyose: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Cuyose: Uh, that's exactly how prioritization works.

Only if you're stupid.

Give me your definition of priority then, genius.


pri·or·i·ty
/prīˈôrətē/
Noun

A thing that is regarded as more important than another.
The fact or condition of being regarded or treated as more important.

Synonyms
precedence - preference - precedency - primacy


Or did you mean to ask me to explain to you the process by which competent people choose their priorities, which is what we were talking about before you suddenly decided you also don't know how to use Google?
 
2013-01-10 02:58:58 PM  

WhippingBoy: magic_patch: Clearly time to ban schools.

I think it's time to ban America.


THIS
 
2013-01-10 02:59:01 PM  
Dammit so much. I went to TUHS, class of 2010. I have a friend that was on his way to tutor this morning when he got the news. I know everyone says it, but you really do never expect it to happen to your town. Especially these really small towns where everyone knows each other. Talk to your Congressmen: if you want more guards everywhere (even though TUHS has an on site PO), make him issue a bill. If you want more restrictions on handguns, get on the phones. The worst thing we can do is keep things as is, unless we think this is an acceptable amount of shootings.
 
2013-01-10 02:59:06 PM  

Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.


Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.
 
2013-01-10 02:59:17 PM  

chuckufarlie: Some fire arms have other purposes, but semi and fully automatic rifles do not. They have one purpose and that is to a lot of kill people in a hurry.


That's demonstrably false. Semi-automatic firearms have plenty of non-murdery uses and are frequently used all over the country for perfectly legitimate reasons including recreational target shooting, sport shooting, competitions, and hunting to name but a few. Semi-automatic firearms are the single most popular type of firearm sold in the country and sales continue to increase year-over-year, yet gun-related homicides has been decreasing year-over-year for a while now and is at or near all-time lows. If they could only be used for killing and nothing else those stats would probably look a wee bit different, don't you think?

There's a few hundred thousand perfectly legal full-auto firearms in civilian hands right now and they haven't been used to commit a single crime in decades.

Alcohol has other purposes beyond getting inebriated. In moderation, it can be harmless. People enjoy talking over a drink or two.

Semi-auto firearms has other purposes beyond killing people. Most commonly, they're used for harmless pastimes though, like alcohol, they are occasionally abused by people who violate the law.
 
2013-01-10 03:00:06 PM  
Shooting in California? Homo with a Shotgun.
 
2013-01-10 03:00:12 PM  

SFSailor: Let's put a nationwide tax on all gun-, ammunition- and gun-related items (hearing protection... targets... cases... stupid stickers for your truck... etc). Starts at 5%.


when guns are the actual cause of mental illness, then I might have more sympathy for you.
 
2013-01-10 03:00:48 PM  

Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.


Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.

heypete: chuckufarlie: Some fire arms have other purposes, but semi and fully automatic rifles do not. They have one purpose and that is to a lot of kill people in a hurry.

That's demonstrably false. Semi-automatic firearms have plenty of non-murdery uses and are frequently used all over the country for perfectly legitimate reasons including recreational target shooting, sport shooting, competitions, and hunting to name but a few. Semi-automatic firearms are the single most popular type of firearm sold in the country and sales continue to increase year-over-year, yet gun-related homicides has been decreasing year-over-year for a while now and is at or near all-time lows. If they could only be used for killing and nothing else those stats would probably look a wee bit different, don't you think?

There's a few hundred thousand perfectly legal full-auto firearms in civilian hands right now and they haven't been used to commit a single crime in decades.

Alcohol has other purposes beyond getting inebriated. In moderation, it can be harmless. People enjoy talking over a drink or two.

Semi-auto firearms has other purposes beyond killing people. Most commonly, they're used for harmless pastimes though, like alcohol, they are occasionally abused by people who violate the law.


chuckufarlie has been informed previously that his assertion regarding semi-automatic firearms is false. As such, his continued repetition of the claim is a willful lie.
 
2013-01-10 03:01:14 PM  

chuckufarlie: Some fire arms have other purposes, but semi and fully automatic rifles do not. They have one purpose and that is to a lot of kill people in a hurry. Why do you need to own a gun when its only purpose is to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?

Alcohol has other purposes beyond getting inebriated. In moderation, it can be harmless. People enjoy talking over a drink or two


Some people enjoy shooting a semi or fully automatic weapon. At a shooting range or private property, it is harmless. I thought already that the general public can not own a fully automatic rifle? You can modify an AR-15 sure, but there are already existing bans on certain weapons. I really don't see the harm nor the benefit of enacting a ban on these said weapons.
 
2013-01-10 03:01:17 PM  
I wonder why these people never shoot up hospitals? Scores of helpless, immobile victims ripe for making national news. Couldn't have anything to do with the armed security there...
 
2013-01-10 03:01:38 PM  

CthulhuCalling: SFSailor: Let's put a nationwide tax on all gun-, ammunition- and gun-related items (hearing protection... targets... cases... stupid stickers for your truck... etc). Starts at 5%.

when guns are the actual cause of mental illness, then I might have more sympathy for you.


weakest argument all thread.

100/100 princess internet dumbass award!
 
2013-01-10 03:02:00 PM  
Also, fark the people in comments on the news links: http://i.imgur.com/NKUxk.jpg
 
2013-01-10 03:03:32 PM  

Dimensio: Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.


Because I have no problem with cops & military possessing more reliable weapons than civilians.
 
2013-01-10 03:03:56 PM  
"Innocent people are being shot up because gun nuts have little weeners."

"Innocent people are being killed because too many guns are in the hands of criminals and not law abiding citizens.

No.

People are being blown to smithereens by the same thing that has brought misery, mayhem, poverty, death and destruction to mankind my means of every single technology, useful idea or tin god we've managed to cobble together. User application error. We keep using useful things to do terrible things with.
 
2013-01-10 03:04:01 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.

There's another thing the AWB didn't do.

Anything.


Actually, no, the AWB is a means of acknowledging that certain types of weapons do not belong in this society. And you're fooling yourself if you don't consider that it is a deterrent, that it has kept God knows how many potentially violent people from legally purchasing assault weapons.
 
2013-01-10 03:04:17 PM  

Lexx: Aiyah. Following the news is getting to be emotionally damaging.


Thats why I stopped watching local news, where this shiat used to be seen. Not it goes global instantly.
 
2013-01-10 03:04:49 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
I'd say not. :(
 
2013-01-10 03:05:22 PM  

Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.

Because I have no problem with cops & military possessing more reliable weapons than civilians.


I made no mention of military.

For what reason do you advocate allowing police officers access to firearms more reliable than those owned by civilians?
 
2013-01-10 03:05:26 PM  
A fat, armed pedophile in a rent-a-cop uniform could have prevented this so easily too.

Unless he was on his smoke break, of course.
 
2013-01-10 03:05:35 PM  
Was it a military style assault shotgun?
24.media.tumblr.com

With a high capacity ammo clip?
img.allzip.org
 
2013-01-10 03:06:09 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.

There's another thing the AWB didn't do.

Anything.

Actually, no, the AWB is a means of acknowledging that certain types of weapons do not belong in this society. And you're fooling yourself if you don't consider that it is a deterrent, that it has kept God knows how many potentially violent people from legally purchasing assault weapons.


Please define an "assault weapon". Explain why firearms of such a nature "do not belong in this society", based upon the definition of "assault weapon".
 
2013-01-10 03:06:12 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: I thought already that the general public can not own a fully automatic rifle?


The requirements for owning full-auto guns is pretty strict. The Wikipedia has a pretty decent overview of the requirements.

You can modify an AR-15 sure, but there are already existing bans on certain weapons.

While it's physically possible to modify an AR-15 (or pretty much any other common firearm) to fire full-auto, it's a non-trivial task and exceptionally illegal except in certain, rare situations (e.g. you're a licensed manufacturer producing machine guns for police/military sale). Modifying any gun to fire full-auto is a violation of a whole host of laws and carries, at minimum, a penalty of a $250,000 fine and 10 years in jail.
 
2013-01-10 03:06:31 PM  

vpb: Private_Citizen: If all it takes to reset the counter is a new shooting, we'll never have a conversation on gun control.

I think that's the idea.

jigger: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Because he used a shotgun.

Maybe that's why he got two instead of 28.


See, here's where the capacity of a magazine is irrelevant. Whether a murderer goes into a building with 3- 30 rounds mags, or 10- 10 round mags because anything higher in capacity is illegal, he still can squeeze off as many rounds as he wants if there is nobody there to stop him. By the time the trusty police finally arrive to stop him, the same amount of damage has been done regardless of mag size. Magazine capacity doesn't matter if the shooter can fire at will unimpeded.

So yes, by all means focus on magazine capacity, since having armed guards already on the scene and monitoring who goes in and out would surely be no help at all.
 
2013-01-10 03:07:42 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.

There's another thing the AWB didn't do.

Anything.

Actually, no, the AWB is a means of acknowledging that certain types of weapons do not belong in this society. And you're fooling yourself if you don't consider that it is a deterrent, that it has kept God knows how many potentially violent people from legally purchasing assault weapons.


Yeah...the Clinton ban did wonders for Columbine.

And on a lesser note, the fact that 25 round mags for Ruger 10/22s (used) were selling for $90 under that ban just show how stupid it was.
 
2013-01-10 03:07:44 PM  

3StratMan: By the time the trusty police finally arrive to stop him, the same amount of damage has been done regardless of mag size


Well, except in this case where 2 died instead of 26 because he DIDN'T have an assault rifle with a high-capacity mag.
 
2013-01-10 03:08:17 PM  

chuckufarlie: No, they only have one real purpose.


Your claim is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.
 
2013-01-10 03:08:39 PM  
Can we stop howling and poo flinging long enough to agree that the removal of ANY right from the bill of rights makes it easier for OTHER rights to be removed?

/ oh wait; the 4th amendment isn't worth the paper it is written on; it looks like the 2nd is next. What right after that? Maybe the 1st or 22nd?
 
2013-01-10 03:09:08 PM  
What perks was he running?
 
2013-01-10 03:10:09 PM  

Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.

Because I have no problem with cops & military possessing more reliable weapons than civilians.

I made no mention of military.

For what reason do you advocate allowing police officers access to firearms more reliable than those owned by civilians?


2 reasons:
1 - expensive for governments, they have to buy the guns
2 - I trust them more with firepower than I do civilians; I'm comfortable being around a cop with a holstered gun. I'm sure as shiat not comfortable around a civilian with one.
 
2013-01-10 03:10:49 PM  
www.chicagonow.com
♫The boy JB was a friend of mine
Til I caught him in my car tryin to steal a Alpine
Took him up the street to call a truce
The silly motherfarker pull out a deuce-deuce
Little did he know I had a loaded 12 gauge
One student maimed, LA Times front page♪
 
2013-01-10 03:11:27 PM  

Lexx: 2 - I trust them more with firepower than I do civilians; I'm comfortable being around a cop with a holstered gun. I'm sure as shiat not comfortable around a civilian with one.


Why?

/"Speak of the Devil and he shall appear".
 
2013-01-10 03:11:44 PM  
2 people got shot in a bad part of town? That's not exactly news.


Your so called epidemic is just a higher incidence of media reporting, and we already see the same with child abduction or satanists. Fark of all places should be aware of this
.
 
2013-01-10 03:11:56 PM  

Dimensio: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.

There's another thing the AWB didn't do.

Anything.

Actually, no, the AWB is a means of acknowledging that certain types of weapons do not belong in this society. And you're fooling yourself if you don't consider that it is a deterrent, that it has kept God knows how many potentially violent people from legally purchasing assault weapons.

Please define an "assault weapon". Explain why firearms of such a nature "do not belong in this society", based upon the definition of "assault weapon".


Not going to play your games or jump through your hoops..Let's just get that out of the gate.

I am in favor of reinstating the AWB. Because the type of weapons described in the law are not necessary to be in the hands of a civilian population. As stated, the law does not infringe on the right to bear arms.

I do not see the issue with reinstating the ban, including the magazine clip size item.
 
2013-01-10 03:12:40 PM  

Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.

Because I have no problem with cops & military possessing more reliable weapons than civilians.

I made no mention of military.

For what reason do you advocate allowing police officers access to firearms more reliable than those owned by civilians?

2 reasons:
1 - expensive for governments, they have to buy the guns


How is expense a valid justification for reducing safety? Are you saying that you do not wish for police officers to enjoy the improved safety of biometric locks on their firearms because enabling such safety would be too expensive?


2 - I trust them more with firepower than I do civilians; I'm comfortable being around a cop with a holstered gun. I'm sure as shiat not comfortable around a civilian with one.

I am certain, then, that you will be able to validate your feelings by demonstrating that concealed weapons permit holders commit violent crime at a rate greater than that of police officers. Please do so.
 
2013-01-10 03:12:41 PM  

Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.

Because I have no problem with cops & military possessing more reliable weapons than civilians.

I made no mention of military.

For what reason do you advocate allowing police officers access to firearms more reliable than those owned by civilians?

2 reasons:
1 - expensive for governments, they have to buy the guns
2 - I trust them more with firepower than I do civilians; I'm comfortable being around a cop with a holstered gun. I'm sure as shiat not comfortable around a civilian with one.


Damn. Don't ever visit a gun range...with so many armed civilians, you would piss your pants.
 
2013-01-10 03:14:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: 3StratMan: By the time the trusty police finally arrive to stop him, the same amount of damage has been done regardless of mag size

Well, except in this case where 2 died instead of 26 because he DIDN'T have an assault rifle with a high-capacity mag.


HINT: Murderers will what what ever means they have available to them. Including things that don't shoot.
 
2013-01-10 03:14:10 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: No, they only have one real purpose.

Your claim is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.

It is not a lie. Semi and fully automatic weapons serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people in a short period of time or to do the same to feral hogs. That is what they were designed to do and that is all that they are good for.


What is the purpose of the 2nd amendment?
 
2013-01-10 03:14:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: No, they only have one real purpose.

Your claim is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.

It is not a lie. Semi and fully automatic weapons serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people in a short period of time or to do the same to feral hogs. That is what they were designed to do and that is all that they are good for.


The demonstrable civilian uses of semi-automatic firearms for target shooting and for hunting of animals other than feral hogs demonstrates your claim to be false. As such, your assertion is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.

I am curious: do you suffer a psychological compulsion to lie, or are you lying due to an awareness that your position lacks any actual intellectual merit?
 
2013-01-10 03:14:42 PM  

chuckufarlie: harmless pass times? No, they only have one real purpose.


Except they clearly don't.

They were invented for that purpose and that is the only purpose that they serve.

As I mentioned before, that's demonstrably false. They clearly serve other purposes that do not involve killing.

Any other thing that you do with semi or fully automatic weapons could be accomplished with any other rifle.

Perhaps.

Full-auto guns are pretty much a red herring though, as they're relatively rare and no privately-owned legal one haven't been used in crime in decades. They're about as close to a "non-problem" as it's possible to get. Why are we even discussing them?

According to FBI crime statistics rifles of any type are used in about 3.7% of all gun-related homicide and both the raw number and overall rate has been decreasing for years. Yes, some crime is committed with them, but they're really rarely used for that purpose.

You are just trying to deflect the argument away from your precious guns.

Not at all. I'm simply saying that your point is false: there are plenty of perfectly legitimate, non-killing-related uses for semi-auto rifles and they are in common use all over the country. You might not like them, and that's fair enough, but it's dishonest to say that they have no purpose whatsoever than killing people.
 
2013-01-10 03:14:45 PM  
http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/10/reasons-5-facts-on-guns-and-gun- violence

Not that facts ever stopped stupid liberals from trying to pass ignorant laws that have been repeatedly proven ineffectual.
 
2013-01-10 03:14:58 PM  

Lexx: For what reason do you advocate allowing police officers access to firearms more reliable than those owned by civilians?

2 reasons:
1 - expensive for governments, they have to buy the guns
2 - I trust them more with firepower than I do civilians; I'm comfortable being around a cop with a holstered gun. I'm sure as shiat not comfortable around a civilian with one.

 
2013-01-10 03:15:14 PM  

whidbey: Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."


Well, you refuse to listen to facts and stats, so what else is there?
 
2013-01-10 03:15:27 PM  

whidbey: Not going to play your games or jump through your hoops..Let's just get that out of the gate.


Yeah that didn't end very well for you last night.
 
2013-01-10 03:16:36 PM  

chuckufarlie: iheartscotch: Can we stop howling and poo flinging long enough to agree that the removal of ANY right from the bill of rights makes it easier for OTHER rights to be removed?

/ oh wait; the 4th amendment isn't worth the paper it is written on; it looks like the 2nd is next. What right after that? Maybe the 1st or 22nd?

The right to own fire arms does not have to mean the right to own ANY fire arm. Limiting the type of weapons that people can own is not removing their rights.


Agreed, but the approach you start from makes a large difference in where you draw that line.

/Hint, I don't approach it from hunting or target shooting
 
2013-01-10 03:16:43 PM  

Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.


Sure. Now just pass a law that says the criminals have to use them. Oh, and what about my current guns, do you plan to retrofit them, or just drive around and confiscate them? How do you plan to confiscate the un-smartguns from the criminals? Just trust that they'll obey the law that says to turn them in?

/seeing any problems with your idea yet?
 
2013-01-10 03:17:03 PM  

super_grass: 2 people got shot in a bad part of town? That's not exactly news.


And yet, we allow the notion that "bad parts of town" do and should exist and it's our responsibility to not live in them or go to them. See, ghettos, the thing with ghettos is, ghettos aren't where you live, they are HOW you live. Buildings are ideologically inert. So maybe the problem isn't graffiti and dope and guns. Maybe the problem is how the people who live there define society.
 
2013-01-10 03:17:20 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.

There's another thing the AWB didn't do.

Anything.

Actually, no, the AWB is a means of acknowledging that certain types of weapons do not belong in this society. And you're fooling yourself if you don't consider that it is a deterrent, that it has kept God knows how many potentially violent people from legally purchasing assault weapons.

Please define an "assault weapon". Explain why firearms of such a nature "do not belong in this society", based upon the definition of "assault weapon".

Not going to play your games or jump through your hoops..Let's just get that out of the gate.

I am in favor of reinstating the AWB. Because the type of weapons described in the law are not necessary to be in the hands of a civilian population. As stated, the law does not infringe on the right to bear arms.

I do not see the issue with reinstating the ban, including the magazine clip size item.


If the "ban" is justified, then you should be able to define "assault weapon" meaningfully and provide a rational demonstration that entirely prohibiting civilian access to firearms classified as "assault weapons" (as opposed to simply further regulating, but still allowing, ownership) through reference to the properties definitive of an "assault weapon". By refusing to do so, you are suggesting that your advocacy lacks any rational basis.
 
2013-01-10 03:17:30 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."

Well, you refuse to listen to facts and stats, so what else is there?


You are better off ignoring him....he's a former welfare queen who also loves to toss out stupid accusations of racism.
 
2013-01-10 03:17:32 PM  

The_Sponge: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.

Because I have no problem with cops & military possessing more reliable weapons than civilians.

I made no mention of military.

For what reason do you advocate allowing police officers access to firearms more reliable than those owned by civilians?

2 reasons:
1 - expensive for governments, they have to buy the guns
2 - I trust them more with firepower than I do civilians; I'm comfortable being around a cop with a holstered gun. I'm sure as shiat not comfortable around a civilian with one.

Damn. Don't ever visit a gun range...with so many armed civilians, you would piss your pants.


I love gun ranges. I miss Wade's guns out in Bellevue WA. Doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it.
 
2013-01-10 03:17:57 PM  

whidbey: I am in favor of reinstating the AWB. Because the type of weapons described in the law are not necessary to be in the hands of a civilian population.


Why? What differentiates them from guns that wouldn't be banned?

What criteria would you use for differentiating between banned guns and non-banned guns?
 
2013-01-10 03:19:03 PM  

chuckufarlie: heypete: chuckufarlie: harmless pass times? No, they only have one real purpose.

Except they clearly don't.

They were invented for that purpose and that is the only purpose that they serve.

As I mentioned before, that's demonstrably false. They clearly serve other purposes that do not involve killing.

Any other thing that you do with semi or fully automatic weapons could be accomplished with any other rifle.

Perhaps.

Full-auto guns are pretty much a red herring though, as they're relatively rare and no privately-owned legal one haven't been used in crime in decades. They're about as close to a "non-problem" as it's possible to get. Why are we even discussing them?

According to FBI crime statistics rifles of any type are used in about 3.7% of all gun-related homicide and both the raw number and overall rate has been decreasing for years. Yes, some crime is committed with them, but they're really rarely used for that purpose.

You are just trying to deflect the argument away from your precious guns.

Not at all. I'm simply saying that your point is false: there are plenty of perfectly legitimate, non-killing-related uses for semi-auto rifles and they are in common use all over the country. You might not like them, and that's fair enough, but it's dishonest to say that they have no purpose whatsoever than killing people.

You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.

There is nothing dishonorable in saying that a gun that was designed to kill people serves no other purpose. You cannot use them for hunting unless you are a really bad hunter.

You can tell me that I am wrong all day long, but you have nothing behind that statement to support it.


I can, but you choose to ignore me.
 
2013-01-10 03:19:09 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: No, they only have one real purpose.

Your claim is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.

It is not a lie. Semi and fully automatic weapons serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people in a short period of time or to do the same to feral hogs. That is what they were designed to do and that is all that they are good for.

What is the purpose of the 2nd amendment?


Second Amendment was not drafted just for hunting, or just self defense from an attacker. The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government.
 
2013-01-10 03:19:48 PM  

super_grass: 2 people got shot in a bad part of town? That's not exactly news.


Yes, it's no big deal if any of those people die, amirite?
 
2013-01-10 03:19:51 PM  

djh0101010: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.

Sure. Now just pass a law that says the criminals have to use them. Oh, and what about my current guns, do you plan to retrofit them, or just drive around and confiscate them? How do you plan to confiscate the un-smartguns from the criminals? Just trust that they'll obey the law that says to turn them in?

/seeing any problems with your idea yet?


Oy oy, I covered this already.

Existing guns: ban resale, offer a tax voucher for turning in an old one towards buying a new one.
 
2013-01-10 03:20:33 PM  

chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.


That an activity may be performed both with a semi-automatic rifle and with a "single-shot" rifle does not demonstrate that semi-automatic rifles serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Such a claim is in fact dishonest, and thus you are a liar for issuing it.
 
2013-01-10 03:20:36 PM  

heypete: What criteria would you use for differentiating between banned guns and non-banned guns?


Rapid automated fire effected by a single and sustained pull on the trigger mechanism and having a magazine capacity of greater than nine shots.
 
2013-01-10 03:21:04 PM  

djh0101010: Was it a "gun free zone"? Why didn't the signs stop the guy?


You're right! Let's get rid of all the speed limit signs on the roads because they're not stopping speeders either. Because criminals don't follow laws, right? Hurr hurr!
 
2013-01-10 03:21:17 PM  

chuckufarlie: iheartscotch: Can we stop howling and poo flinging long enough to agree that the removal of ANY right from the bill of rights makes it easier for OTHER rights to be removed?

/ oh wait; the 4th amendment isn't worth the paper it is written on; it looks like the 2nd is next. What right after that? Maybe the 1st or 22nd?

The right to own fire arms does not have to mean the right to own ANY fire arm. Limiting the type of weapons that people can own is not removing their rights.


Try that same theory with abortion rights.
 
2013-01-10 03:21:40 PM  

bunner: And yet, we allow the notion that "bad parts of town" do and should exist and it's our responsibility to not live in them or go to them. See, ghettos, the thing with ghettos is, ghettos aren't where you live, they are HOW you live. Buildings are ideologically inert. So maybe the problem isn't graffiti and dope and guns. Maybe the problem is how the people who live there define society.


RACIST!!
 
2013-01-10 03:22:18 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."

Well, you refuse to listen to facts and stats, so what else is there?


You can spout all the facts you like. You continually miss the argument that is being made.

Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.
 
2013-01-10 03:22:33 PM  

EyeballKid: super_grass: 2 people got shot in a bad part of town? That's not exactly news.


Yes, it's no big deal if any of those people die, amirite?


Well, 62 school age children were murdered in Chicago in 2012. No one here gives a flying fark. 20 white kids get greased and everyone goes nuts. So, yes most people don't care about "those" people.
 
2013-01-10 03:22:38 PM  

vpb: topcon: chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

It's good to see that the gun laws in California and New York and others have had an effect.  We need to expand them and things will improve more.


Except that there is no correlation between stricter gun laws and a lower rate of violent crime and indeed the only correlation seems to be that when gun laws are eased in a given area, the crime rate goes down. Even if you there is no correlation there either, your premise is still sunk and we need to look for other means to reduce the number of mass shooting and other types of violent crime besides than gun control.
 
2013-01-10 03:22:58 PM  

Lexx: 2 - I trust them more with firepower than I do civilians; I'm comfortable being around a cop with a holstered gun. I'm sure as shiat not comfortable around a civilian with one.


That's too bad, because the crime rate for civilians with a CCW permit is lower than that of police officers.
 
2013-01-10 03:23:03 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: No, they only have one real purpose.

Your claim is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.

It is not a lie. Semi and fully automatic weapons serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people in a short period of time or to do the same to feral hogs. That is what they were designed to do and that is all that they are good for.

The demonstrable civilian uses of semi-automatic firearms for target shooting and for hunting of animals other than feral hogs demonstrates your claim to be false. As such, your assertion is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.

I am curious: do you suffer a psychological compulsion to lie, or are you lying due to an awareness that your position lacks any actual intellectual merit?

I am not lying. No real hunter would need a semi-automatic rifle for hunting. If you have to blast away at an animal in the hope that one of the slugs might hit the animal, you are not hunting.


Your use of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy does not retroactively validate your lying.


As for target shooting, that is no excuse to allow them on the streets. Target shooting is just an exercise to improve your aim when you decide to go kill people.

Your ignorance of the nature of recreational target shooting, which is only sometimes intended for practicing at shooting living targets and which is also often performed for competitive purposes or merely as a means of recreation with no other purpose, also does not retroactively validate your lying.
 
2013-01-10 03:23:20 PM  

3StratMan: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: No, they only have one real purpose.

Your claim is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.

It is not a lie. Semi and fully automatic weapons serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people in a short period of time or to do the same to feral hogs. That is what they were designed to do and that is all that they are good for.

What is the purpose of the 2nd amendment?

Second Amendment was not drafted just for hunting, or just self defense from an attacker. The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government.


I totally agree
 
2013-01-10 03:23:32 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: GoldSpider: Haliburton Cummings: gunstoppable

Now that's a $100 band name right there.

gee thanks. I always thought if i had a band i would call it " Jimmy Gunnut and the ventilated fartknockers" but Gunstoppable is waaay better..

now if i could just find some imaginary musicians to go with my imaginary band....


John Lennon and Dimebag Darrel come to mind.
 
2013-01-10 03:23:32 PM  

whidbey: Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.


So you agree that the AWB was mostly a symbolic gesture?
 
2013-01-10 03:24:16 PM  

Dimensio: If the "ban" is justified, then you should be able to define "assault weapon" meaningfully and provide a rational demonstration that entirely prohibiting civilian access to firearms classified as "assault weapons" (as opposed to simply further regulating, but still allowing, ownership) through reference to the properties definitive of an "assault weapon". By refusing to do so, you are suggesting that your advocacy lacks any rational basis.


Whaargarbl much?

Tell me why you are against reinstating the AWB. That's all I need to hear.
 
2013-01-10 03:24:18 PM  

whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."

Well, you refuse to listen to facts and stats, so what else is there?

You can spout all the facts you like. You continually miss the argument that is being made.

Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.


Until your can demonstrate that an "assault weapons ban" is rationally justified, through demonstration based upon the actual characteristics of an "assault weapon", then your advocacy lacks any rational basis and your claims regarding "societal evolution" are intellectually dishonest.
 
2013-01-10 03:24:45 PM  

dr_blasto: Haliburton Cummings: GoldSpider: Haliburton Cummings: gunstoppable

Now that's a $100 band name right there.

gee thanks. I always thought if i had a band i would call it " Jimmy Gunnut and the ventilated fartknockers" but Gunstoppable is waaay better..

now if i could just find some imaginary musicians to go with my imaginary band....

John Lennon and Dimebag Darrel come to mind.


Too soon dude, too soon.
 
2013-01-10 03:25:04 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

So you agree that the AWB was mostly a symbolic gesture?


No. You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.
 
2013-01-10 03:25:06 PM  

bunner: super_grass: 2 people got shot in a bad part of town? That's not exactly news.

And yet, we allow the notion that "bad parts of town" do and should exist and it's our responsibility to not live in them or go to them. See, ghettos, the thing with ghettos is, ghettos aren't where you live, they are HOW you live. Buildings are ideologically inert. So maybe the problem isn't graffiti and dope and guns. Maybe the problem is how the people who live there define society.


Probably. A tone shootings are related to robbery or gang antics, and I suspect the latter is at play here. Reduce poverty and you'll see a decrease in gun crime, and everything else crime.
 
2013-01-10 03:25:55 PM  

kombat_unit: Well, 62 school age children were murdered in Chicago in 2012. No one here gives a flying fark. 20 white kids get greased and everyone goes nuts. So, yes most people don't care about "those" people.


I would suggest the span of time of those murders may serve as a factor. Newtown, CT, is jussssssst a bit smaller than Chicago, and nearly a third of Chicago's number of murdered children in a year were murdered in Newtown in one fell swoop. Not exactly the same.
 
2013-01-10 03:25:56 PM  

GoldSpider: bunner: And yet, we allow the notion that "bad parts of town" do and should exist and it's our responsibility to not live in them or go to them. See, ghettos, the thing with ghettos is, ghettos aren't where you live, they are HOW you live. Buildings are ideologically inert. So maybe the problem isn't graffiti and dope and guns. Maybe the problem is how the people who live there define society.

RACIST!!


ORLY?
 
2013-01-10 03:26:05 PM  

Dimensio: whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."

Well, you refuse to listen to facts and stats, so what else is there?

You can spout all the facts you like. You continually miss the argument that is being made.

Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

Until your can demonstrate that an "assault weapons ban" is rationally justified, through demonstration based upon the actual characteristics of an "assault weapon", then your advocacy lacks any rational basis and your claims regarding "societal evolution" are intellectually dishonest.


Stop bullying, Dimensio. Address the point and stop with the personal attacks.
 
2013-01-10 03:26:46 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.

That an activity may be performed both with a semi-automatic rifle and with a "single-shot" rifle does not demonstrate that semi-automatic rifles serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Such a claim is in fact dishonest, and thus you are a liar for issuing it.

Semi-automatic weapons were designed in a time of war for the expressed purpose of killing a lot of people in a hurry. That was why they were designed and that is the only USEFUL purpose that they serve today.


The original design intent of semi-automatic firearms does not preclude their use for other legitimate uses today.

Attempting to retroactively amend your previous statement with the qualifier "USEFUL", which you did not utilize previously, and using entirely subjective criteria to determine "usefulness", is also intellectually dishonest.
 
2013-01-10 03:28:00 PM  

whidbey: You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.


And I'm sure you can quantify such a claim.
 
2013-01-10 03:28:10 PM  

EyeballKid: super_grass: 2 people got shot in a bad part of town? That's not exactly news.


Yes, it's no big deal if any of those people die, amirite?


It's not in the greater scheme of things unless there is something especially scandalous about it.

If we reported all preventable, negligent, or intentional deaths Fark's headline volume will increase tenfold and we would see nothing but them in the 24 hour news.
 
2013-01-10 03:28:29 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."

Well, you refuse to listen to facts and stats, so what else is there?

You can spout all the facts you like. You continually miss the argument that is being made.

Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

Until your can demonstrate that an "assault weapons ban" is rationally justified, through demonstration based upon the actual characteristics of an "assault weapon", then your advocacy lacks any rational basis and your claims regarding "societal evolution" are intellectually dishonest.

Stop bullying, Dimensio. Address the point and stop with the personal attacks.


You have stated advocacy for an "assault weapons ban". I have requested rational justification for such a "ban", based upon the specific characteristics of an "assault weapon". If you can provide no such justification -- and you have not provided any thus far -- then my assessment of your advocacy as lacking rational justification is factual, and is not a "personal attack".
 
2013-01-10 03:28:42 PM  

chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.


Moving the goalposts.

I never suggested that there was something that only semi-auto rifles can do that non-semi-auto rifles cannot. I'm simply saying that your claim that the only purpose for semi-auto rifles is for killing is false, because people use semi-auto rifles for plenty of non-killing-related uses every day.

There is nothing dishonorable in saying that a gun that was designed to kill people serves no other purpose.

I'm not saying your claim was dishonorable, I'm simply saying that it's wrong and demonstrably so: there are clearly uses of semi-automatic firearms that do not relate to killing.

You cannot use them for hunting unless you are a really bad hunter.

On the contrary, semi-automatic firearms are quite common in hunting and have been so for decades. The Browning BAR, for example, is quite commonly used by hunters, as is the Remington 7400 and 750. Semi-auto shotguns are quite common for hunting ducks and other fowl, as well as for clay pigeon shooting.
 
2013-01-10 03:29:02 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So if the 2nd Amendment guarantees a person's right to own firearms, how is it legal to take away that right for a person with a criminal record?


Because, through due process, a criminal is as a punishment having several rights as citizens curtailed. They also lose the right to vote, have severely curtailed rights to free speech, and even reduced freedom of religion (not a lot of peyote smokers practicing their religion, legally, in prison).
 
2013-01-10 03:30:10 PM  

topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.


Yeah, let's just tell those 26 families in Connecticut to shut the fark up and smile, because overall, gun murders have been dropping for 20 years, so they shouldn't be making a big deal out of it. That makes everything OK, right?

RIGHT?
 
2013-01-10 03:30:13 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: If the "ban" is justified, then you should be able to define "assault weapon" meaningfully and provide a rational demonstration that entirely prohibiting civilian access to firearms classified as "assault weapons" (as opposed to simply further regulating, but still allowing, ownership) through reference to the properties definitive of an "assault weapon". By refusing to do so, you are suggesting that your advocacy lacks any rational basis.

Whaargarbl much?

Tell me why you are against reinstating the AWB. That's all I need to hear.


Prohibiting civilian ownership of a subset of an already rarely criminally misused class of firearms based primarily upon characteristics irrelevant to the actual function of the firearms has never been demonstrated to reduce rates of violent crime. As such, an "assault weapon ban" is no more rationally justified than is a prohibition upon same-sex marriage.
 
2013-01-10 03:31:17 PM  

tricycleracer: Guy used a shotgun.  Probably bought in at Sears.

[media.kickstatic.com image 440x626]


Probably got it at S-Mart.
 
2013-01-10 03:31:22 PM  

super_grass: Reduce poverty and you'll see a decrease in gun crime, and everything else crime.


And, oddly, if you reduce crime in general, you reduce poverty because crime chases money away and the above ground economy heads out to the burbs with manicured lawns and lower incidences of getting your ass shot off while trying to buy a DVD player and a cheeseburger. I think it's safe to say that it is incumbent upon the people who want to decrease poverty in their neighborhoods to reduce crime as a gesture of good faith to state that they are interested in people coming to spend money there.
 
2013-01-10 03:31:58 PM  

stevarooni: Because, through due process, a criminal is as a punishment having several rights as citizens curtailed. They also lose the right to vote, have severely curtailed rights to free speech, and even reduced freedom of religion (not a lot of peyote smokers practicing their religion, legally, in prison).


Or, for another example, are you an atheist/agnostic? Did you break the law under the influence of alcohol? Too bad for your personal beliefs, you'll be forced by a court to accept a tired propaganda that you're powerless to that evil devil alcohol without a magical sky wizard to help you.
 
2013-01-10 03:32:12 PM  

whidbey: No. You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.


It was?
 
2013-01-10 03:32:18 PM  

Carolus99: Dammit so much. I went to TUHS, class of 2010. I have a friend that was on his way to tutor this morning when he got the news. I know everyone says it, but you really do never expect it to happen to your town. Especially these really small towns where everyone knows each other.


Why not? School shootings tend to happen in suburbs and small towns.
 
2013-01-10 03:32:50 PM  

Maestro1701: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

Yeah, let's just tell those 26 families in Connecticut to shut the fark up and smile, because overall, gun murders have been dropping for 20 years, so they shouldn't be making a big deal out of it. That makes everything OK, right?

RIGHT?


My my, those are very large crocodile tears.
 
2013-01-10 03:33:01 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

So you agree that the AWB was mostly a symbolic gesture?

No. You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.


Please explain, specifically, what prohibiting the manufacture for civilian ownership any semi-automatic rifle fed from a hand-removable detachable magazine that possessed two or more of a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash hider or a grenade launcher attachment (bearing in mind that grenade launchers themselves are already restricted and thus were not readily available before the ban) "deterred". Cite data to support a claim of such deterrence.
 
2013-01-10 03:33:11 PM  
They should make this asshole go on a gameshow where he is forced to duel to the death with some demented American Gladiator types for the amusement of all. Just like the last guy who was accused of shooting of innocent people in Bakersfield.
Hopefully with a different ending.

/Who loves you and who do you love?!
 
2013-01-10 03:33:15 PM  

Dimensio: whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."

Well, you refuse to listen to facts and stats, so what else is there?

You can spout all the facts you like. You continually miss the argument that is being made.

Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

Until your can demonstrate that an "assault weapons ban" is rationally justified, through demonstration based upon the actual characteristics of an "assault weapon", then your advocacy lacks any rational basis and your claims regarding "societal evolution" are intellectually dishonest.

Stop bullying, Dimensio. Address the point and stop with the personal attacks.

You have stated advocacy for an "assault weapons ban". I have requested rational justification for such a "ban", based upon the specific characteristics of an "assault weapon". If you can provide no such justification -- and you have not provided any thus far -- then my assessment of your advocacy as lacking rational justification is factual, and is not a "personal attack".


For someone accusing another of "intellectual dishonesty," you sure spend a lot of your posts avoiding what is put to you.

Here is a definition of an assault weapon:

In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.

Now:

What is your objection to reinstating the AWB? Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?
 
2013-01-10 03:33:54 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: CthulhuCalling: SFSailor: Let's put a nationwide tax on all gun-, ammunition- and gun-related items (hearing protection... targets... cases... stupid stickers for your truck... etc). Starts at 5%.

when guns are the actual cause of mental illness, then I might have more sympathy for you.

weakest argument all thread.

100/100 princess internet dumbass award!


you're trying too hard.
potato/10
 
2013-01-10 03:34:39 PM  

KarmicDisaster: tricycleracer: Guy used a shotgun.  Probably bought in at Sears.

[media.kickstatic.com image 440x626]

Probably got it at S-Mart.


So, the victims are prolly primitive screwheads?
 
2013-01-10 03:34:52 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: No, they only have one real purpose.

Your claim is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.

It is not a lie. Semi and fully automatic weapons serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people in a short period of time or to do the same to feral hogs. That is what they were designed to do and that is all that they are good for.

The demonstrable civilian uses of semi-automatic firearms for target shooting and for hunting of animals other than feral hogs demonstrates your claim to be false. As such, your assertion is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.

I am curious: do you suffer a psychological compulsion to lie, or are you lying due to an awareness that your position lacks any actual intellectual merit?

I am not lying. No real hunter would need a semi-automatic rifle for hunting. If you have to blast away at an animal in the hope that one of the slugs might hit the animal, you are not hunting.

Your use of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy does not retroactively validate your lying.


As for target shooting, that is no excuse to allow them on the streets. Target shooting is just an exercise to improve your aim when you decide to go kill people.

Your ignorance of the nature of recreational target shooting, which is only sometimes intended for practicing at shooting living targets and which is also often performed for competitive purposes or merely as a means of recreation with no other purpose, also does not retroactively validate your lying.

I am fully aware of the nature of recreational shooting. I have actually witnessed what you are describing and it has to be one of the stupidest things I have seen. It is a waste of time and powder.


You cannot justify the existence of something because you use it for recreation. While you are out having a good time, one of your ilk is out killing children. Do you believe that your right to have a good time supersedes the rights of those ...


Your appeal to emotion and you baseless accusation of motive for firearm ownership does not alter the fact of your dishonesty. You claimed that semi-automatic firearms serve no legitimate purpose. Your claim is demonstrably false. You therefore lied. You are a liar.
 
2013-01-10 03:36:44 PM  

The_Sponge: 2 - I trust them more with firepower than I do civilians; I'm comfortable being around a cop with a holstered gun. I'm sure as shiat not comfortable around a civilian with one.


Cops are not soldiers. They are civilians.
 
2013-01-10 03:37:19 PM  

Dimensio: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

So you agree that the AWB was mostly a symbolic gesture?

No. You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.

Please explain, specifically, what prohibiting the manufacture for civilian ownership any semi-automatic rifle fed from a hand-removable detachable magazine that possessed two or more of a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash hider or a grenade launcher attachment (bearing in mind that grenade launchers themselves are already restricted and thus were not readily available before the ban) "deterred". Cite data to support a claim of such deterrence.


The best data I found states that the ban was not in effect long enough to see enough of a notable impact.
 
2013-01-10 03:37:35 PM  

jigger: The_Sponge: 2 - I trust them more with firepower than I do civilians; I'm comfortable being around a cop with a holstered gun. I'm sure as shiat not comfortable around a civilian with one.

Cops are not soldiers. They are civilians.


Woops. I farked up the attribution to that quote.
 
2013-01-10 03:37:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: your tax rate is way too low, but I like where you are going.


I don't think it starts too low. I think the only way to move anything forward is to try to be moderate, yet without finicky loopholes. Shouting "200% tax on bullets!" is too easy to fight against. "Assault weapon limits" just lead to what is / isn't one. "Purchase background checks" just leads to some markets requiring them, some not. And "make bullets cost $5000" just gets laughed out of the room. Start with a modest tax -- guns are far from the only interest-specific tax.

But, the use of that revenue is more important than the tax itself.

jigger: [www.themovies.co.za image 600x336]


I missed the meme-o. Do I high-five you or give you the finger?

The_Sponge: Your ideas are bad and you should feel bad.
1) The only time I hear "f*ck you, I got mine"
2) You can take your tax proposal and shove it up your ass.  I already have to pay a 9.2% state sales tax on ammo, and that's enough.


(1) Where did I use FYIGM? While it is the standard MO of the conservative right, that's exactly -not- what I said. While I'm not sure I agree, I can concede the point that, "because fark you, I want one" is a valid reason to own anything. See that? That's a concession to the gun-interested folks. Notice how I didn't say, "you shouldn't have [x] because..."?

(2) And I had to pay ~9% sales tax on a car I *already*owned* when I moved to a new state. I have to pay 6% sales tax on a new gadget for my hobbies. Smokers and drinkers have to pay taxes to participate in their pastimes. Owning a gun is a choice, not a requirement, and gun ownership should require responsibility (isn't that what gun enthusiasts chant? "Responsible gun ownership"?). Sometimes that responsibility is financial, and 5% is a nice -- low -- starting point. A small price to pay to greatly benefit our entire population. You should feel -proud- to pay to support people getting the help they need and an effort to reduce the risk of mass killings.

Tell ya' what -- I'd even throw in rollbacks: For every year we go without two people being killed by guns in a single incident, 1% comes off the tax, with a minimum of 4%. How's that?

CthulhuCalling: when guns are the actual cause of mental illness, then I might have more sympathy for you.


When mentally ill people are able to kill multiple innocent human beings who are just trying to go to [a movie | school | the mall] with a spork, I'll be the first to shout from the rooftops for a new Plastic Cutlery Tax. Fair?
 
2013-01-10 03:38:09 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."

Well, you refuse to listen to facts and stats, so what else is there?

You can spout all the facts you like. You continually miss the argument that is being made.

Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

Until your can demonstrate that an "assault weapons ban" is rationally justified, through demonstration based upon the actual characteristics of an "assault weapon", then your advocacy lacks any rational basis and your claims regarding "societal evolution" are intellectually dishonest.

Stop bullying, Dimensio. Address the point and stop with the personal attacks.

You have stated advocacy for an "assault weapons ban". I have requested rational justification for such a "ban", based upon the specific characteristics of an "assault weapon". If you can provide no such justification -- and you have not provided any thus far -- then my assessment of your advocacy as lacking rational justification is factual, and is not a "personal attack".

For someone accusing another of "intellectual dishonesty," you sure spend a lot of your posts avoiding what is put to you.

Here is a definition of an assault weapon:

In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.

Now:

What is your objection to reinstating the AWB? Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?


Military firearms possess many "features", including stocks, grips, barrels, triggers and sights. The definition that you have stated is so vague that it could hypothetically apply to all firearm models. A proper definition would identify the specific features common to actual military firearms and to civilian "assault weapons", and a rational justification for banning "assault weapons" would be a demonstration of benefit resulting from prohibiting civilian ownership of firearms that possess those features. Thus far, you have provided neither.

I have explained my opposition to a renewed "assault weapons ban" in a previous posting.
 
2013-01-10 03:38:46 PM  
That teacher was farking anazing
 
2013-01-10 03:39:10 PM  

jigger: Carolus99: Dammit so much. I went to TUHS, class of 2010. I have a friend that was on his way to tutor this morning when he got the news. I know everyone says it, but you really do never expect it to happen to your town. Especially these really small towns where everyone knows each other.

Why not? School shootings tend to happen in suburbs and small towns.


I get that statistically you are correct, but it's just hard to imagine being able to gun down someone that, as the town joke goes, you're probably related to somewhere down the line.
 
2013-01-10 03:39:30 PM  

theurge14: djh0101010: Was it a "gun free zone"? Why didn't the signs stop the guy?

You're right! Let's get rid of all the speed limit signs on the roads because they're not stopping speeders either. Because criminals don't follow laws, right? Hurr hurr!


Cops patrol the roads and catch (some of the) people who break the law posted on the sign.

Would you like cops patrolling the schools?
 
2013-01-10 03:39:46 PM  

chuckufarlie: While you are out having a good time, one of your ilk is out killing children.


Pretty sweet trolling, my friend.
 
2013-01-10 03:39:52 PM  

chuckufarlie: You do not give a rat's ass about drunk drivers, you just want to change the subject so you can keep your child killers.


That's what we should do to fix this problem. Apply broad spectrum names to things we hate to make them sound more evil.
Henceforth I decree that
Hammers=Finger Bashers.
Legos=Midnight Foot Barbs
Condoms=Willy Desensitizers
Alarm Clocks=Sleep Ruiners
1 Ply Toilet Paper=Satan Wipes
Coffee Table Legs=Toe Crackers
Pill Safety Bottles=Medicine Deniers
 
2013-01-10 03:39:59 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

So you agree that the AWB was mostly a symbolic gesture?

No. You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.

Please explain, specifically, what prohibiting the manufacture for civilian ownership any semi-automatic rifle fed from a hand-removable detachable magazine that possessed two or more of a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash hider or a grenade launcher attachment (bearing in mind that grenade launchers themselves are already restricted and thus were not readily available before the ban) "deterred". Cite data to support a claim of such deterrence.

That is the loophole that your ilk put into the last legislation in an effort to make it worthless. It is because you did so that I now propose that all rifles that use magazines should be confiscated. If you and your ilk had been willing to bend a little the last time, maybe people would not be pushing for harsher conditions now.


Your proposal is unreasonable, irrational and Unconstitutional. Even attempting to implement it would result in substantial noncompliance, lawsuits, and a necessary expense for compensation to firearm owners who do comply.
 
2013-01-10 03:40:29 PM  

whidbey: What is your objection to reinstating the AWB? Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?


Nobody's arguing that there are certain weapons that are more dangerous than others, and that's why things like grenades, rocket launchers, and machine guns are heavily restricted.

My objection is that there's no real evidence that firearms possessing "certain features similar to those of military firearms" are somehow more dangerous than firearms not having those features. There's no functional difference between this Ruger Mini-14 "Ranch Rifle" (which was not banned under the 1994-2004 federal AWB):

www.ruger.com

and this, which would be banned:

www.ruger.com

Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically. The only difference is the outward physical appearance and some various bits like different-shaped grips and parts made of black plastic instead of wood. These features do not affect how lethal or dangerous the gun is.

You could be consistent by arguing that all semi-automatic firearms should be banned, rather than only ones with certain cosmetic features. Similarly, you could be logically consistent and argue that magazines with a capacity above a certain arbitrary value should not be permitted. I would disagree with such positions, but they're logically consistent. Saying "let's ban certain semi-auto firearms but not others" doesn't really make sense because they are functionally identical.
 
2013-01-10 03:40:59 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: I always thought if i had a band i would call it " Jimmy Gunnut and the ventilated fartknockers" but Gunstoppable is waaay better..


No, Gunstoppable is their first album.
 
2013-01-10 03:41:15 PM  

chuckufarlie: You seem to be under the impression that just because you say something that it is automatically true. That is just plain wrong. It was designed to kill people and that is the only purpose that it serves, no matter what you "think".


Your continued insistence that the "only purpose" of semi-automatic firearms is "killing people" remains false, and you remain a liar for it.

I am curious: do you suffer a psychological compulsion to lie, or are you lying due to an awareness that your position lacks any actual intellectual merit?
 
2013-01-10 03:41:59 PM  
Thanks to the Anti-Gun rhetoric going on, I was able to sell my AR-15 for double what I paid for it and buy 3 more guns with no out of pocket expense.
YAY GUN LAWS!
 
2013-01-10 03:42:02 PM  

Dimensio: What is your objection to reinstating the AWB? Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?

Military firearms possess many "features", including stocks, grips, barrels, triggers and sights. The definition that you have stated is so vague that it could hypothetically apply to all firearm models. A proper definition would identify the specific features common to actual military firearms and to civilian "assault weapons", and a rational justification for banning "assault weapons" would be a demonstration of benefit resulting from prohibiting civilian ownership of firearms that possess those features. Thus far, you have provided neither.

I have explained my opposition to a renewed "assault weapons ban" in a previous posting.


Again, I object to your constant quibbling over semantics. I have the feeling I'm never going to get a "proper definition" out of you.

I really wouldn't be complaining about others' intellectual dishonesty in these threads.
 
2013-01-10 03:42:02 PM  

chuckufarlie: heypete: chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.

Moving the goalposts.

I never suggested that there was something that only semi-auto rifles can do that non-semi-auto rifles cannot. I'm simply saying that your claim that the only purpose for semi-auto rifles is for killing is false, because people use semi-auto rifles for plenty of non-killing-related uses every day.

There is nothing dishonorable in saying that a gun that was designed to kill people serves no other purpose.

I'm not saying your claim was dishonorable, I'm simply saying that it's wrong and demonstrably so: there are clearly uses of semi-automatic firearms that do not relate to killing.

You cannot use them for hunting unless you are a really bad hunter.

On the contrary, semi-automatic firearms are quite common in hunting and have been so for decades. The Browning BAR, for example, is quite commonly used by hunters, as is the Remington 7400 and 750. Semi-auto shotguns are quite common for hunting ducks and other fowl, as well as for clay pigeon shooting.

Not by real hunters. The simple fact that people use them does not mean that they are legitimate weapons for the purpose. How often does any hunter get a chance to fire off a second shot right after the first? If you miss, the game will run off. If you hit it with the first shot, you are just messing up the animal.


Ever been goose or waterfowl hunting? Getting a second shot off quickly is very common.

The Remington 1100 is my semi-auto of choice for that task.
 
2013-01-10 03:43:00 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

So you agree that the AWB was mostly a symbolic gesture?

No. You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.

Please explain, specifically, what prohibiting the manufacture for civilian ownership any semi-automatic rifle fed from a hand-removable detachable magazine that possessed two or more of a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash hider or a grenade launcher attachment (bearing in mind that grenade launchers themselves are already restricted and thus were not readily available before the ban) "deterred". Cite data to support a claim of such deterrence.

The best data I found states that the ban was not in effect long enough to see enough of a notable impact.


Are you saying, then, that your claim that the ban was a "deterrent" was in fact entirely baseless?
 
2013-01-10 03:43:19 PM  

SFSailor: jigger: [www.themovies.co.za image 600x336]

I missed the meme-o. Do I high-five you or give you the finger?


How bout a five finger death punch?
 
2013-01-10 03:43:51 PM  

joness0154: chuckufarlie: heypete: chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.

Moving the goalposts.

I never suggested that there was something that only semi-auto rifles can do that non-semi-auto rifles cannot. I'm simply saying that your claim that the only purpose for semi-auto rifles is for killing is false, because people use semi-auto rifles for plenty of non-killing-related uses every day.

There is nothing dishonorable in saying that a gun that was designed to kill people serves no other purpose.

I'm not saying your claim was dishonorable, I'm simply saying that it's wrong and demonstrably so: there are clearly uses of semi-automatic firearms that do not relate to killing.

You cannot use them for hunting unless you are a really bad hunter.

On the contrary, semi-automatic firearms are quite common in hunting and have been so for decades. The Browning BAR, for example, is quite commonly used by hunters, as is the Remington 7400 and 750. Semi-auto shotguns are quite common for hunting ducks and other fowl, as well as for clay pigeon shooting.

Not by real hunters. The simple fact that people use them does not mean that they are legitimate weapons for the purpose. How often does any hunter get a chance to fire off a second shot right after the first? If you miss, the game will run off. If you hit it with the first shot, you are just messing up the animal.

Ever been goose or waterfowl hunting? Getting a second shot off quickly is very common.


I have seen deer just lift their head and look around when my buddy misses shots. Not often, but it happens. Usually followed with a "Shoot him again, Forrest"
 
2013-01-10 03:44:05 PM  
Sounds like a straight up revenge hit of some sort.

Apart from that, Taft? Man, I tell you if I lived there, getting shot to death might seem like sweet release.

/I blame the internet
//and cable TV
///24 hour coverage
////For you and ME!
 
2013-01-10 03:44:18 PM  

Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.

That an activity may be performed both with a semi-automatic rifle and with a "single-shot" rifle does not demonstrate that semi-automatic rifles serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Such a claim is in fact dishonest, and thus you are a liar for issuing it.

Semi-automatic weapons were designed in a time of war for the expressed purpose of killing a lot of people in a hurry. That was why they were designed and that is the only USEFUL purpose that they serve today.

The original design intent of semi-automatic firearms does not preclude their use for other legitimate uses today.

Attempting to retroactively amend your previous statement with the qualifier "USEFUL", which you did not utilize previously, and using entirely subjective criteria to determine "usefulness", is also intellectually dishonest.



Oh no! you cant target shoot. Cry more.

In before "home defense" is trotted out.
 
2013-01-10 03:44:35 PM  
let's just give everyone 10 guns and solve this once and for all.
 
2013-01-10 03:44:57 PM  

iheartscotch: Can we stop howling and poo flinging long enough to agree that the removal of ANY right from the bill of rights makes it easier for OTHER rights to be removed?

/ oh wait; the 4th amendment isn't worth the paper it is written on; it looks like the 2nd is next. What right after that? Maybe the 1st or 22nd?


The 22nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights.

Also, one non-Bill of Rights amendment has already been repealed, and did not apparently make the process any easier for any others.

Also, I'm not arguing for repeal of the 2nd.

Also, this headline still annoys me.
 
2013-01-10 03:45:19 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: What is your objection to reinstating the AWB? Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?

Military firearms possess many "features", including stocks, grips, barrels, triggers and sights. The definition that you have stated is so vague that it could hypothetically apply to all firearm models. A proper definition would identify the specific features common to actual military firearms and to civilian "assault weapons", and a rational justification for banning "assault weapons" would be a demonstration of benefit resulting from prohibiting civilian ownership of firearms that possess those features. Thus far, you have provided neither.

I have explained my opposition to a renewed "assault weapons ban" in a previous posting.

Again, I object to your constant quibbling over semantics. I have the feeling I'm never going to get a "proper definition" out of you.

I really wouldn't be complaining about others' intellectual dishonesty in these threads.


You have never requested a "proper definition" of any term that I have used. Speculating that you would not receive one is baseless.

Requesting a demonstration that a proposed prohibition is rationally justified is not "quibbling over semantics".
 
2013-01-10 03:45:41 PM  

heypete: Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically.


No, they don't. The pistol grip alone sees to that.

So, out of curiosity, before I commence ignoring everything else you ever say on this particular subject because you've already proven beyond any doubt you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, were you lying just now or do you just not know what you're talking about?
 
2013-01-10 03:45:49 PM  

Relatively Obscure: iheartscotch: Can we stop howling and poo flinging long enough to agree that the removal of ANY right from the bill of rights makes it easier for OTHER rights to be removed?

/ oh wait; the 4th amendment isn't worth the paper it is written on; it looks like the 2nd is next. What right after that? Maybe the 1st or 22nd?

The 22nd amendment isisn't in the Bill of Rights.

Also, one non-Bill of Rights amendment has already been repealed, and did not apparently make the process any easier for any others.

Also, I'm not arguing for repeal of the 2nd.

Also, this headline still annoys me.


FTFM
 
2013-01-10 03:46:04 PM  

Slampig: let's just give everyone 10 guns and solve this once and for all.


You could use an individual mandate and enforce it through the IRS, then it would be constitutional.
 
2013-01-10 03:46:11 PM  

PDid: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.

That an activity may be performed both with a semi-automatic rifle and with a "single-shot" rifle does not demonstrate that semi-automatic rifles serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Such a claim is in fact dishonest, and thus you are a liar for issuing it.

Semi-automatic weapons were designed in a time of war for the expressed purpose of killing a lot of people in a hurry. That was why they were designed and that is the only USEFUL purpose that they serve today.

The original design intent of semi-automatic firearms does not preclude their use for other legitimate uses today.

Attempting to retroactively amend your previous statement with the qualifier "USEFUL", which you did not utilize previously, and using entirely subjective criteria to determine "usefulness", is also intellectually dishonest.


Oh no! you cant target shoot. Cry more.

In before "home defense" is trotted out.


Your statement does not justify chuckufarlie's demonstrable lying.
 
2013-01-10 03:46:38 PM  

chuckufarlie: iheartscotch: Can we stop howling and poo flinging long enough to agree that the removal of ANY right from the bill of rights makes it easier for OTHER rights to be removed?

/ oh wait; the 4th amendment isn't worth the paper it is written on; it looks like the 2nd is next. What right after that? Maybe the 1st or 22nd?

The right to own fire arms does not have to mean the right to own ANY fire arm. Limiting the type of weapons that people can own is not removing their rights.


The right to speech does not have to mean the right to express ANY opinion. Limiting the type of speech that people can say is not removing their rights.

Really? You're going down that road?
 
2013-01-10 03:46:49 PM  

MythDragon: chuckufarlie: You do not give a rat's ass about drunk drivers, you just want to change the subject so you can keep your child killers.

That's what we should do to fix this problem. Apply broad spectrum names to things we hate to make them sound more evil.
Henceforth I decree that
Hammers=Finger Bashers.
Legos=Midnight Foot Barbs
Condoms=Willy Desensitizers
Alarm Clocks=Sleep Ruiners
1 Ply Toilet Paper=Satan Wipes
Coffee Table Legs=Toe Crackers
Pill Safety Bottles=Medicine Deniers


All of which can be used to intentionally cause the immediate demise or injury of any given person when thrown at them. Yess.
 
2013-01-10 03:47:08 PM  

heypete: You could be consistent by arguing that all semi-automatic firearms should be banned, rather than only ones with certain cosmetic features. Similarly, you could be logically consistent and argue that magazines with a capacity above a certain arbitrary value should not be permitted. I would disagree with such positions, but they're logically consistent. Saying "let's ban certain semi-auto firearms but not others" doesn't really make sense because they are functionally identical.


I understand your point, but obviously the top rifle looks like something you would use to hunt elk or deer, and the bottom one looks like something gangbangers might use.

Seems that there should still be some kind of strict regulation detailing what a rifle like your top example should legally be able to do.
 
2013-01-10 03:48:03 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.

And I'm sure you can quantify such a claim.


I'll wait.
 
2013-01-10 03:48:10 PM  

Theburner: I have seen deer just lift their head and look around when my buddy misses shots. Not often, but it happens.


A lot of animals seem to have difficulty understanding "action at a distance" (which isn't really surprising, I suppose, considering that until humans came around something that is far away poses no threat to them until it gets closer): when I was in the army we had deer walking around on the tank gunnery range during live fire exercises. They were completely unconcerned with 120mm projectiles zipping by them or impacting on the berms near them and didn't seem to care much about the loud, flashy, noisy things several hundred meters away.

Of course, range control eventually called a cease fire until they could be chased away. Still, it was really weird to see them not really react at all.
 
2013-01-10 03:48:18 PM  

Slampig: let's just give everyone 10 guns and solve this once and for all.


My luck, when they came to me all they would have left are Hi-Points and Rock Islands.

"Sorry, we are all out of H&K's and Ed Browns, how about some Hi-Points?"
 
2013-01-10 03:48:33 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: heypete: Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically.

No, they don't. The pistol grip alone sees to that.


Please explain how replacement of a wooden stock with a synthetic stock featuring a pistol grip on a Mini-14 rifle causes the firearm to become a different firearm with different function.
 
2013-01-10 03:48:33 PM  

Dimensio: You have never requested a "proper definition" of any term that I have used. Speculating that you would not receive one is baseless.

Requesting a demonstration that a proposed prohibition is rationally justified is not "quibbling over semantics".


Again, I've already made my basic points. Your responses have not addressed them. You're just avoiding the question by insisting on semantic ground rules.
 
2013-01-10 03:49:20 PM  

Aeon Rising: Free speech zones
Gun free zones
Implied consent to search when flying
Asset forfeiture abused
Prisoners forced to work below minimum wage by private corporations
9th amendment is practically all but ignored
The militarization of police following 9/11

And so many on Fark think leaving the only guns in the hands of the 1%, the military, those rich enough to get elected and the police that you respect so much.

So yea, you win. Be proud of your victory.


And yet another school shooting
http://www.tricities.com/news/article_35434f30-00d3-522f-98f1-58f372 59 1713.html
 
2013-01-10 03:50:08 PM  
An armed society may well be a polite society, but it is also a very twitchy society.
 
2013-01-10 03:50:18 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: You have never requested a "proper definition" of any term that I have used. Speculating that you would not receive one is baseless.

Requesting a demonstration that a proposed prohibition is rationally justified is not "quibbling over semantics".

Again, I've already made my basic points. Your responses have not addressed them. You're just avoiding the question by insisting on semantic ground rules.


You have advocated an "assault weapons ban". Thus far, however, you have not only not presented a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted, but you have in fact willfully refused to provide a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted. You have also claimed that a previous "ban" was a deterrent, and then you later admitted that no data actually supported such a claim.

You have demonstrated, substantially, that you are intellectually dishonest, but you have demonstrated no other "point".
 
2013-01-10 03:50:29 PM  

chuckufarlie: joness0154: chuckufarlie: heypete: chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.

Moving the goalposts.

I never suggested that there was something that only semi-auto rifles can do that non-semi-auto rifles cannot. I'm simply saying that your claim that the only purpose for semi-auto rifles is for killing is false, because people use semi-auto rifles for plenty of non-killing-related uses every day.

There is nothing dishonorable in saying that a gun that was designed to kill people serves no other purpose.

I'm not saying your claim was dishonorable, I'm simply saying that it's wrong and demonstrably so: there are clearly uses of semi-automatic firearms that do not relate to killing.

You cannot use them for hunting unless you are a really bad hunter.

On the contrary, semi-automatic firearms are quite common in hunting and have been so for decades. The Browning BAR, for example, is quite commonly used by hunters, as is the Remington 7400 and 750. Semi-auto shotguns are quite common for hunting ducks and other fowl, as well as for clay pigeon shooting.

Not by real hunters. The simple fact that people use them does not mean that they are legitimate weapons for the purpose. How often does any hunter get a chance to fire off a second shot right after the first? If you miss, the game will run off. If you hit it with the first shot, you are just messing up the animal.

Ever been goose or waterfowl hunting? Getting a second shot off quickly is very common.

The Remington 1100 is my semi-auto of choice for that task.

I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but a Remington 1100 is not a rifle. I have been talking about rifles. Do I need to explain to you why a Remington 1100 is not a rifle?


No, I just saw it mentioned.

But there are legitimate uses for semi-auto rifles. Miss on the first shot, quick follow up kill shot if the first shot does not do the job, to name a few. Contrary to popular belief, large game animals do not always fall after the first shot, particularly if the placement ends up being poor. Rather than a slow painful death, a quick follow up shot ends up being more humane.

You even hunt (and lift), bro?
 
2013-01-10 03:50:37 PM  

Dimensio: Vegan Meat Popsicle: heypete: Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically.

No, they don't. The pistol grip alone sees to that.

Please explain how replacement of a wooden stock with a synthetic stock featuring a pistol grip on a Mini-14 rifle causes the firearm to become a different firearm with different function.


You are right, both should be banned.
 
2013-01-10 03:51:20 PM  

chuckufarlie: sugar_fetus: chuckufarlie: iheartscotch: Can we stop howling and poo flinging long enough to agree that the removal of ANY right from the bill of rights makes it easier for OTHER rights to be removed?

/ oh wait; the 4th amendment isn't worth the paper it is written on; it looks like the 2nd is next. What right after that? Maybe the 1st or 22nd?

The right to own fire arms does not have to mean the right to own ANY fire arm. Limiting the type of weapons that people can own is not removing their rights.

The right to speech does not have to mean the right to express ANY opinion. Limiting the type of speech that people can say is not removing their rights.

Really? You're going down that road?

We already limit the type of speech that people can use. Slander, for instance. Inciting a riot, for instance.

Do I need to go on?


I wish you wouldn't. Your boring droning is getting in the way of other, more exciting posts.
 
2013-01-10 03:51:28 PM  

heypete: Theburner: I have seen deer just lift their head and look around when my buddy misses shots. Not often, but it happens.

A lot of animals seem to have difficulty understanding "action at a distance" (which isn't really surprising, I suppose, considering that until humans came around something that is far away poses no threat to them until it gets closer): when I was in the army we had deer walking around on the tank gunnery range during live fire exercises. They were completely unconcerned with 120mm projectiles zipping by them or impacting on the berms near them and didn't seem to care much about the loud, flashy, noisy things several hundred meters away.

Of course, range control eventually called a cease fire until they could be chased away. Still, it was really weird to see them not really react at all.


LMAO... We had one wander onto the 150 yard range about 3 weeks before hunting season opened. Nobody wanted to shoot when the range went hot on the off chance they hit him. Finally one old hillbilly cranked off a .308. The doe looked up, and WALKED off the range. We figured she would be one of the first bagged when the season started.
 
2013-01-10 03:51:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: You seem to be under the impression that just because you say something that it is automatically true. That is just plain wrong. It was designed to kill people and that is the only purpose that it serves, no matter what you "think".

Your continued insistence that the "only purpose" of semi-automatic firearms is "killing people" remains false, and you remain a liar for it.

I am curious: do you suffer a psychological compulsion to lie, or are you lying due to an awareness that your position lacks any actual intellectual merit?

You have yet to provide me with any real use for semi-automatic rifles. What you have proposed so far is less than convincing.


Hunting and recreational target shootings are "uses". Dismissing these "uses" does not validate your position; your dismissal demonstrates only that you are a liar.
 
2013-01-10 03:51:58 PM  

Dimensio: Thus far, however, you have not only not presented a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted, but you have in fact willfully refused to provide a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted.


He went so far as to call the AWB a "huge deterrent", naturally without any data to support such a claim.
 
2013-01-10 03:51:58 PM  

GoldSpider: GoldSpider: whidbey: You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.

And I'm sure you can quantify such a claim.

I'll wait.


So you're really going to deny that having less assault weapons available to the population isn't in itself a deterrent?
 
2013-01-10 03:52:25 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: You seem to be under the impression that just because you say something that it is automatically true. That is just plain wrong. It was designed to kill people and that is the only purpose that it serves, no matter what you "think".

Your continued insistence that the "only purpose" of semi-automatic firearms is "killing people" remains false, and you remain a liar for it.

I am curious: do you suffer a psychological compulsion to lie, or are you lying due to an awareness that your position lacks any actual intellectual merit?

You have yet to provide me with any real use for semi-automatic rifles. What you have proposed so far is less than convincing.


So we ban anything that isn't "useful" in accomplishing a task that is somehow voted as "legitimate?" Recreational drugs, alcohol, tobacco? They don't have positive uses to them yet are legal, but restricted.
 
2013-01-10 03:52:33 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Dimensio: Vegan Meat Popsicle: heypete: Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically.

No, they don't. The pistol grip alone sees to that.

Please explain how replacement of a wooden stock with a synthetic stock featuring a pistol grip on a Mini-14 rifle causes the firearm to become a different firearm with different function.

You are right, both should be banned.


Why?
 
2013-01-10 03:53:08 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: No, they don't. The pistol grip alone sees to that.


How does the pistol grip affect the function of the rifle? It's an ergonomic feature and doesn't have any effect on how lethal the gun is.

So, out of curiosity, before I commence ignoring everything else you ever say on this particular subject because you've already proven beyond any doubt you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, were you lying just now or do you just not know what you're talking about?

I beg your pardon? I wasn't lying: the two rifles are essentially identical in function: both are semi-automatic, both fire the same cartridge at comparable velocities, and both accept detachable magazines. Yes, one has black plastic and a pistol grip but how would that affect the function of the rifle?
 
2013-01-10 03:53:33 PM  

Dimensio: whidbey: Dimensio: You have never requested a "proper definition" of any term that I have used. Speculating that you would not receive one is baseless.

Requesting a demonstration that a proposed prohibition is rationally justified is not "quibbling over semantics".

Again, I've already made my basic points. Your responses have not addressed them. You're just avoiding the question by insisting on semantic ground rules.

You have advocated an "assault weapons ban". Thus far, however, you have not only not presented a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted, but you have in fact willfully refused to provide a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted. You have also claimed that a previous "ban" was a deterrent, and then you later admitted that no data actually supported such a claim.

You have demonstrated, substantially, that you are intellectually dishonest, but you have demonstrated no other "point".


Again, since you have chosen to avoid the discussion, I would not be calling others "intellectually dishonest."
 
2013-01-10 03:53:52 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: heypete: Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically.

No, they don't. The pistol grip alone sees to that.

So, out of curiosity, before I commence ignoring everything else you ever say on this particular subject because you've already proven beyond any doubt you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, were you lying just now or do you just not know what you're talking about?


You sir, are a moron. The *are* the same gun and do function *identically*. Whether you wrap your little dickskinner around a pistol grip or the standard grip changes nothing, shiat for brains. Why don't you move along now and get back to staring out the window with an expression on your face like a farm animal?

/Holy smokes the stupid in this thread is epic.
 
2013-01-10 03:54:02 PM  
I just get home from buying a new guns and now I read this. It puts a damper on my happy mood.
 
2013-01-10 03:54:13 PM  

topcon: chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]


They really need to change that one line to read "Knives and Stabbing Weapons".
 
2013-01-10 03:54:55 PM  

chuckufarlie:
You cannot justify the existence of something because you use it for recreation. While you are out having a good time, one of your ilk is out killing children. Do you believe that your right to have a good time supersedes the rights of those ...


Alcohol?
 
2013-01-10 03:54:58 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Dimensio: You have never requested a "proper definition" of any term that I have used. Speculating that you would not receive one is baseless.

Requesting a demonstration that a proposed prohibition is rationally justified is not "quibbling over semantics".

Again, I've already made my basic points. Your responses have not addressed them. You're just avoiding the question by insisting on semantic ground rules.

You have advocated an "assault weapons ban". Thus far, however, you have not only not presented a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted, but you have in fact willfully refused to provide a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted. You have also claimed that a previous "ban" was a deterrent, and then you later admitted that no data actually supported such a claim.

You have demonstrated, substantially, that you are intellectually dishonest, but you have demonstrated no other "point".

Again, since you have chosen to avoid the discussion, I would not be calling others "intellectually dishonest."


Please justify your accusation that I have "avoided the discussion".
 
2013-01-10 03:55:15 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: GoldSpider: whidbey: You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.

And I'm sure you can quantify such a claim.

I'll wait.

So you're really going to deny that having less assault weapons available to the population isn't in itself a deterrent?


If someone is mad or crazy enough to want to murder somebody or go on a spree, I am pretty sure that restricted access to "assault" weapons is not going to stop that. Another weapon will fill that niche. Running into a room with a shotgun or pistol will have probably the same outcome. I don't own any "assault" weapons or have the desire to.
 
2013-01-10 03:55:26 PM  

whidbey: So you're really going to deny that having less assault weapons available to the population isn't in itself a deterrent?


I'm open to the possibility, but I won't be convinced without proof.
 
2013-01-10 03:56:01 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Dimensio: Vegan Meat Popsicle: heypete: Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically.

No, they don't. The pistol grip alone sees to that.

Please explain how replacement of a wooden stock with a synthetic stock featuring a pistol grip on a Mini-14 rifle causes the firearm to become a different firearm with different function.

You are right, both should be banned.


Ya know, you hand wringers could step up and repeal 2A instead of violating every American's rights. But that would be work and you're lazy.
 
2013-01-10 03:57:18 PM  

whidbey: I understand your point, but obviously the top rifle looks like something you would use to hunt elk or deer, and the bottom one looks like something gangbangers might use.


Fair enough. Still, I think we can both agree that they're essentially the same gun and that the function isn't really affected by its appearance, right?

Seems that there should still be some kind of strict regulation detailing what a rifle like your top example should legally be able to do.

Would you mind explaining what you mean?
 
2013-01-10 03:57:33 PM  

vrax: topcon: chuckufarlie: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

They really need to change that one line to read "Knives and Stabbing Weapons".


That specific title was reserved for homicides committed by T-1000 units. Peaking in 1995, no such murders have occurred since.
 
2013-01-10 03:57:33 PM  

whidbey: I am in favor of reinstating the AWB. Because the type of weapons described in the law are not necessary to be in the hands of a civilian population. As stated, the law does not infringe on the right to bear arms.


And here is the problem. People not knowing what the law actualy banned. People will say they are okay with people having a hunting rifle, but not 'assault weapons'.

Here is a hunting rifle
home.mchsi.com

And here is an assault rifle (according to the ban)
cdn2.armslist.com

According to the ban, one the top one is okay to have, but the bottom 'doesn't belong on the streets in the hands of civilians'
They are the SAME rifle
The only difference one is made with wood, the other plastic. They have different grips, and the bottom one has a stock that adjusts to the user to fit more body types.

Aside from that, they function EXACTLY the same and shoot the same bullet the same number of times.

But yet the bottom one was banned because of how you hold it and because you can adjust the stock to fit your shoulder. That is what you are in favor of banning. How people hold their guns. Did you even know this? Or does banning the scary name 'assault' make you feel better? True 'assault' weapons are already banned. They have been since the 1930's. But people call for a reinstatement of the AWB despite not having ANY idea of that they would be banning.
 
2013-01-10 03:59:00 PM  
It's sort of funny that we're all gearing up to defend, as a militia, our shores from some ostensibly imminent insurrection with all of these milspec cannons and yet, not only do we only manage to shoot each other with them, but that very behavior is what might cause some foreign nation to come over here and start shutting off the stupid. It's like raaaaaiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaain. To the rest of the world, we're a surly redneck who can barely read his own name, seated uncomfortably at the end of the bar, three beers into it, and looking to see who wants to "start some sh*t".
 
2013-01-10 04:00:17 PM  

MythDragon: Aside from that, they function EXACTLY the same and shoot the same bullet the same number of times.

But yet the bottom one was banned because of how you hold it and because you can adjust the stock to fit your shoulder. That is what you are in favor of banning. How people hold their guns. Did you even know this? Or does banning the scary name 'assault' make you feel better? True 'assault' weapons are already banned. They have been since the 1930's. But people call for a reinstatement of the AWB despite not having ANY idea of that they would be banning.


Obviously, they haven't all been banned, and no it's a bit more than just banning the way people hold their guns.
 
2013-01-10 04:00:38 PM  

kombat_unit: Ya know, you hand wringers could step up and repeal 2A instead of violating every American's rights.


Repealing the 2A would merely legalize violating every American's right to keep and bare arms.
 
2013-01-10 04:01:12 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: toomuchmarisa: The My Little Pony Killer: The conversation for mental health care is still patiently waiting. Your call, America.

THIS. Spending 2 minutes on the internet is MORE than enough to hammer home the point that SO MANY people are farked up beyond belief. Seriously, we need to teach children how to deal with emotions... cause a lot of people have VERY serious emotional problems.

[img7.imageshack.us image 266x190]

/scares me to think how many of them also own guns

You know, there's more to the internet than just 4chan.


Actually, I was thinking about Fark when I wrote that :)
 
2013-01-10 04:01:22 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: heypete: Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically.

No, they don't. The pistol grip alone sees to that.

So, out of curiosity, before I commence ignoring everything else you ever say on this particular subject because you've already proven beyond any doubt you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, were you lying just now or do you just not know what you're talking about?


This is the first time I've heard someone say that the shape of the grip changes the function of a weapon.

Heh. Dumb-ass troll.

10/10
 
2013-01-10 04:01:24 PM  

whidbey: MythDragon: Aside from that, they function EXACTLY the same and shoot the same bullet the same number of times.

But yet the bottom one was banned because of how you hold it and because you can adjust the stock to fit your shoulder. That is what you are in favor of banning. How people hold their guns. Did you even know this? Or does banning the scary name 'assault' make you feel better? True 'assault' weapons are already banned. They have been since the 1930's. But people call for a reinstatement of the AWB despite not having ANY idea of that they would be banning.

Obviously, they haven't all been banned, and no it's a bit more than just banning the way people hold their guns.


Please explain, then, what prohibiting the stock shown in the second picture accomplishes.
 
2013-01-10 04:01:25 PM  

whidbey: Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?


Why do you oppose the acknowledgement that 'assault weapons' are not more powerful (or dangerous) than other guns that are not on a ban list, and aren't used to kill as often as those other guns? Or are those just some more irrelevant facts?
 
2013-01-10 04:02:25 PM  

heypete: whidbey: I understand your point, but obviously the top rifle looks like something you would use to hunt elk or deer, and the bottom one looks like something gangbangers might use.

Fair enough. Still, I think we can both agree that they're essentially the same gun and that the function isn't really affected by its appearance, right?

Seems that there should still be some kind of strict regulation detailing what a rifle like your top example should legally be able to do.

Would you mind explaining what you mean?


I'm saying that a hunting rifle should look and perform like your top example, and there should be a legal definition.

It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.
 
2013-01-10 04:02:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: yes, I do hunt. But you would not like my way of hunting. I doubt if you have the skill or the patience for it.

As for your explanations for using semi-automatic rifles for hunting, all you have done is tell me that lots of "hunters" are really bad at it.

Get yourself a muzzle loader and come hunting with me and my friends. We have never needed that second follow up shot as you describe. Either you have no idea what part of the animal you should aim at or you are not capable of actually hitting that spot.

Or you can go bow hunting with us.

You are not hunting when you spray and pray. And yes, you can spray and pray with a semi-automatic weapon.


ah, back to the "no true Scotsman" argument. We've come around full derp.
 
2013-01-10 04:03:14 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?

Why do you oppose the acknowledgement that 'assault weapons' are not more powerful (or dangerous) than other guns that are not on a ban list, and aren't used to kill as often as those other guns? Or are those just some more irrelevant facts?


Answer the question first. Then I might answer yours.
 
2013-01-10 04:03:17 PM  

MythDragon: [www.chicagonow.com image 400x392]
♫The boy JB was a friend of mine
Til I caught him in my car tryin to steal a Alpine
Took him up the street to call a truce
The silly motherfarker pull out a deuce-deuce
Little did he know I had a loaded 12 gauge
One student maimed, LA Times front page♪


Yes but did you cold-smoke his ass?

/As I could see...
 
2013-01-10 04:04:11 PM  

chuckufarlie: sugar_fetus: chuckufarlie: iheartscotch: Can we stop howling and poo flinging long enough to agree that the removal of ANY right from the bill of rights makes it easier for OTHER rights to be removed?

/ oh wait; the 4th amendment isn't worth the paper it is written on; it looks like the 2nd is next. What right after that? Maybe the 1st or 22nd?

The right to own fire arms does not have to mean the right to own ANY fire arm. Limiting the type of weapons that people can own is not removing their rights.

The right to speech does not have to mean the right to express ANY opinion. Limiting the type of speech that people can say is not removing their rights.

Really? You're going down that road?

We already limit the type of speech that people can use. Slander, for instance. Inciting a riot, for instance.

Do I need to go on?


Slander is false. Inciting a riot causes damage. We penalize actions that cause harm to others.

Mere ownership of a firearm causes no damage.

Do I need to go on?
 
2013-01-10 04:04:20 PM