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 741
    More: News, Kern County, Taft Union High School, gun controls, counters  
•       •       •

19283 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 741 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report