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  
•       •       •

19310 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:04 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-01-10 02:10:16 PM  
9 votes:

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 02:05:08 PM  
8 votes:
i.imgur.com

go gunmerica go!
2013-01-10 02:05:20 PM  
6 votes:
If all it takes to reset the counter is a new shooting, we'll never have a conversation on gun control.
2013-01-10 02:08:28 PM  
5 votes:

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 02:16:30 PM  
4 votes:
thismodernworld.com
2013-01-10 02:06:19 PM  
4 votes:
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 02:06:03 PM  
4 votes:
But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!
2013-01-10 02:12:26 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:12:09 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:05:59 PM  
3 votes:

HOORAY FOR FREEDOM!




Congratulations, gun nuts, on yet another successful "2nd Amendment solution!"
2013-01-10 02:05:59 PM  
3 votes:
Christ almighty will it ever stop?
2013-01-10 04:36:56 PM  
2 votes:
Alright, since everyone keeps mentioning the AWB, lemme hit you with some knowledge.

This, I repeat, will not stop mass shootings. The original AWB was passed in 1994 and sunset in 2004 and during this time we had:
1999 Columbine, 15 dead 21 injured
1997 North Hollywood Shootout, 2 dead 18 injured (LEO mind you)
1998 Westside Middle School, 5 dead, 10 injured

Let's not forget one of the worst...
VT Shooting 33 dead, 23 injured. With 2 firearms that would perfectly pass the AWB, simply a Glock 19 9mm and Walther 22 .22LR.

It happens and will continue to happen, AWB or not.
2013-01-10 03:22:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:22:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:56:18 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:54:21 PM  
2 votes:

magic_patch: Clearly time to ban schools.


I think it's time to ban America.
2013-01-10 02:24:41 PM  
2 votes:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-01-10 02:23:02 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:22:59 PM  
2 votes:
Hey here's an idea, let's try to help the victims first, then we can talk about gun control....
2013-01-10 02:21:02 PM  
2 votes:

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
2013-01-10 02:18:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:17:31 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:15:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:14:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:13:21 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:12:46 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:12:40 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:12:07 PM  
2 votes:
The conversation for mental health care is still patiently waiting. Your call, America.
2013-01-10 02:11:51 PM  
2 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:11:04 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:09:49 PM  
2 votes:
Was it a "gun free zone"? Why didn't the signs stop the guy?
2013-01-10 02:09:28 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:08:48 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:08:48 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:06:02 PM  
2 votes:
or as we like to call it here, "Commie totalitarian freedom haters v. sociopathic accessories to murder."
gja
2013-01-10 08:33:12 PM  
1 vote:

Dimensio: You are advocating depriving millions of law-abiding citizens of billions of dollars worth of their property without any compensation. Such a measure would result in substantially increased rates of noncompliance as compared to a system where fair compensation were provided, and would create a black market for firearm owners who wished to rid themselves of contraband property but who also wished to receive some compensation for their loss. Your proposal would substantially reduce any possible improved "safety" -- due to the larger rates of noncompliance and the substantial incentive for feeding a black market -- than would a compensation system. As such, you are demonstrably not actually interested in increasing "safety"; your proposal is specifically intended to oppress a class of individuals, which is consistent with authoritarian fascism.


You magnificent bastard, that was one of the most eloquently written posts I have read on this site thus far.
2013-01-10 07:45:29 PM  
1 vote:
I love it how people are assailing the "gun" without assailing the "perpetrator" or the "gun culture" in the U.S.

For those who hate guns, let me advise you as to two movies coming out:

Gangster Squad - lots of gratuitous gun violence! Bad, bad!

Bullet to the Head - movie just like it sounds. Hmmm, "bullet to the head" sounds kinda like gun violence to me...you? Oh, and Kudos for the former 8-year governor of California (you know...Ahnold) who stars in this movie. He must not be against gun violence!

Soooooo...as a society we have to refuse to "dollar vote" for products encouraging a violent message...that would mean NOT buying 50% of the Top 50 videogames of 2012 (25 of 50 had gun violence as a centerpiece). Also 6 of the top 10 television series' (by Nielsen numbers) use gun violence as a central theme.

Oh...and who wants to outlaw shotguns? No shotguns means tragedy averted!

OK, f*ck it...let's watch the TV, movies, play the games...but don't come biatching to me about "gun violence". C'mon! Gun violence built the U.S.A.! Woo-hoo guns!
2013-01-10 05:19:26 PM  
1 vote:

ultimabeam: Man alive, this does not seem that hard to me. It's not a debate that has to be painted in black-and-white.

1) Stringent background checks before a gun can be purchased.
2) Guns that are sufficient for home defense and/or hunting should be legal to own; guns designed specifically to kill (many) people should not.
3) More resources should be devoted to mental health care, since that seems to be a common factor in these types of incidents. I suspect easy access to a gun makes a mentally ill person more likely to commit murder, but I don't have the data to back that up.

"Ban all guns" and "you can't ban any guns at all, slippery slope, plus I might have to rebel against the government" are both pretty extreme viewpoints. Why is everyone in the modern U.S. so afraid of compromise?


1. There already are in place a stringent background check, which utilizes one's social security number to check if they are a violent offender, convicted fellon, or a mental patient. Here is the issue there is nothing that REQUIRES people who have been commited to be registered as such or the people whom deem them unfit to report it. So you have a gap utilizing "patient-provider privilage" to undermind those efforts.

2. All guns are designed to kill.... They are designed to kill any living thing (hunting rifles don't make the deer have a heart attack), the caliber and cartridge define what it is capable of killing. Anything capable of killing a deer is more than capable to kill a man. By your definition we should ban any gun that holds more than one shot, we should go back to non-breach loading weapons. That way they can not be reloaded fast enough to kill more than one thing. The size of the magazine is inheirent to the caliber of the weapon and the size of the weapon. Have you ever seen a glock 17, 33 round magazine? It is twice as long as the gun, it is next to impossible to conceal and makes the weapon harder to manage. High capacity magazines are relative, every gun has its DESIGNED capacity, when you attempt to carry more per ammo in that specified space you create issues. The guy who shot up the mall in OR didn't do as much damage as he could because his 100 round magazine jammed because they are rediculously unreliable. As well when he was attempting to FIX it a man with a conealed carry pointed his gun at the shooter, the shooter saw it ditched his gun and ran off. The man didnt shoot because he saw inoccents behind the shooter, that is the what a RESPONSIBLE gun owner does.

3. Blaming tools for being misused by people whom are unstable is assinine. People do not blame the car of the drunk driver who kills a family, we don't blame ladders for deaths of construction workers, and we do not blame electricity for all the suicide deaths in bathtubs using appliances. We blame those on the person whom commits the act. The tool behind the tool is what is to blame. You are right we need mental health awareness in this country.

You get that under control before you try to take guns. In the mean time I will teach eveyone I can to respect and appreciate firearms for what they are. Education is is key to this as it is to every other issue which deals with ignorance. People are naturally scared of what they do not understand. I have and will continue to teach and convert people out of their fears. I love to shoot because it is a SKILL which has uses.
2013-01-10 05:01:41 PM  
1 vote:

plewis: I love the "These are exactly the same" posts. No they aren't. A folding stock and a pistol grip, that handle further up the barrel, shorter barrel, all this makes the gun more effective and practical in tight quarters, like a school or a movie theater. If they are all the same, why don't we issue mass market hunting rifles to the Troops? It'd be cheaper.


Rifles are subject to federal regulations that define the minimal legal barrel length and minimum overall length for the entire gun. Both rifles meet those requirements. I'm not really sure how a differently shaped grip makes any real difference in regards to lethality. Also, there isn't a "handle further up the barrel". You may be a bit mixed up as the "tactical" one has some mounting rails where one could mount a scope or light.

The "Ranch Rifle" has an overall length of 38 inches while the adjustable-stock version of the "tactical" rifle has a minimum overall length of 34 inches. Do those four inches really make that much of a difference? The barrel length on the "Ranch Rifle" is two inches longer. Is that really significant?

Other than the option for full-auto/select-fire (which is the primary defining issue), the rifles issued to soldiers are very similar to common civilian-legal rifles. Military sniper rifles are essentially the same as many common hunting rifles -- the military's M24 bolt-action sniper rifle is a Remington 700 rifle (a very common civilian hunting rifle), a Leupold scope (a common manufacturer of scopes for the civilian market), and a synthetic stock (such stocks are also quite common with hunters as they resist the effects of moisture).

The Military doesn't do anything for "style" it's all done to enhance the effectiveness of the weapon for the purpose they have in mind, killing people. The only exception to this are things that make the guns cheaper without compromising effectiveness. If a pink gun was more effective, all military guns would be pink. The enhancements that produce the "military style" are there for field of combat effectiveness and if they didn't work, they wouldn't be there.

Sure, I'll agree that the military likes their weapons to be rugged, reliable, easy to maintain, and generally unaffected by the elements. Many civilian firearms have similar features.

The military may have found that having a certain shaped grip makes the rifle easier and more controllable to the user. They may have found that having an adjustable stock makes it easier for differently-sized people to use the firearm or to adjust it when using different shooting positions (such as standing, sitting, or lying prone). Those are all quite desirable things for civilian shooters as well. Why are they a bad thing? Would you prefer that civilians only use firearms that are uncomfortable to use and difficult to operate?

On a personal note, my wife is 5'4 and I'm 6'0" -- when we go to the range we can both shoot the same rifle because it has an adjustable stock so it can be easily adjusted so we can shoot comfortably. She has issues with carpal tunnel and it is uncomfortable for her to hold her wrist in certain positions. The separate grip makes is more comfortable for her to shoot. Such features allow us to participate comfortably in an activity that we both enjoy.

There are some genuine differences between military and civilian firearms: military firearms have either a full-auto or burst-fire function that the widely-available civilian-legal firearms do not. The presence or absence of certain peripheral features like a stock that can be adjusted or a grip that's shaped a certain way don't really make the gun more dangerous.
2013-01-10 04:43:51 PM  
1 vote:

plewis: I love the "These are exactly the same" posts. No they aren't. A folding stock and a pistol grip, that handle further up the barrel, shorter barrel, all this makes the gun more effective and practical in tight quarters, like a school or a movie theater. If they are all the same, why don't we issue mass market hunting rifles to the Troops? It'd be cheaper.


A weapon's size and shape has nothing to do with how it performs. A weapon being shorter does not mean that it shoots faster. We do issue hunting rifles to the Troops, they're called sniper rifles. The M-24 that I used in the Army was just a Remington 700 with the stock replaced and crappier optics than what I can get at BassPro.
2013-01-10 04:43:32 PM  
1 vote:

chuckufarlie: If the govt. decided that the guns were no longer legal and must be turned in, would you comply? If you did not comply, you would not be a law abiding citizen, would you.


There's a difference between criminals who want to be criminals, and people who would otherwise be law abiding but have been turned into criminals by their government. To say that a guy unwilling to give up something that he feels shouldn't be banned is the same and will behave the same as a guy who wants to kill a bunch of kids is pretty damn intellectually dishonest.
2013-01-10 04:41:05 PM  
1 vote:
Man alive, this does not seem that hard to me. It's not a debate that has to be painted in black-and-white.

1) Stringent background checks before a gun can be purchased.
2) Guns that are sufficient for home defense and/or hunting should be legal to own; guns designed specifically to kill (many) people should not.
3) More resources should be devoted to mental health care, since that seems to be a common factor in these types of incidents. I suspect easy access to a gun makes a mentally ill person more likely to commit murder, but I don't have the data to back that up.

"Ban all guns" and "you can't ban any guns at all, slippery slope, plus I might have to rebel against the government" are both pretty extreme viewpoints. Why is everyone in the modern U.S. so afraid of compromise?
2013-01-10 04:36:03 PM  
1 vote:

whidbey: Government is made up of the people. It is not a sinister nefarious evil organization you're making it out to be. Obviously I'm having trouble with your worldview.


I bet your rosy opinion of the federal government was quite different five or six years ago.
2013-01-10 04:35:08 PM  
1 vote:

chuckufarlie: Virtue: Come take them....Cowards

says the moron who has to have a gun to feel like a man. What are you so afraid of that you need to have a gun?


Yep. That's really what everyone with a gun thinks. Including the millions of women who own guns.
2013-01-10 04:31:41 PM  
1 vote:

chuckufarlie: Law abiding citizens would not oppose it.


I'm a law abiding citizen, and I oppose it.
2013-01-10 04:30:54 PM  
1 vote:

whidbey: I'm just as qualified as anyone else who opposes gun violence, F.A.T..


Not when it comes to specifics of what should and shouldn't be banned.

chuckufarlie: not at all. It is just common sense. If the one gun should be banned, then so should the other. They have the same basic performance.


That's a reasonable statement. I don't agree that either should be banned, but you at least can see that they are the same damn weapon.

chuckufarlie: If you do not want to turn in your illegal fire arms, then we can have the FBI come and take them from you.


Ooh, good luck with that one. You'll have even less luck getting rid of the 4th amendment than you will the 2nd.
2013-01-10 04:27:38 PM  
1 vote:

chuckufarlie: You have a problem with the fact that people do not know what guns should be banned and which ones should not.


Not really. Nobody can know everything, and this is a subject that a whole lot of people don't have any interest in. I do however have a problem with people who are ignorant on a subject, know they are ignorant (but think that it somehow doesn't matter) and still try to regulate that thing.

chuckufarlie: That is why we ban guns based on their abilities and performance and not by the way that they look.


Yeah, you'd think. Yet here we are going back and forth with a guy who has a problem with the drapes but not the window.
2013-01-10 04:17:58 PM  
1 vote:
I don't think the problem is guns. I think the problem is American culture.

This isn't going to stop unless you change the culture.

And I don't think that's possible.
2013-01-10 04:04:20 PM  
1 vote:

whidbey: 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.


You've got to be trolling...
2013-01-10 04:04:11 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:57:33 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:52:25 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:51:54 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:40:29 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:36:44 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:34:52 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:30:13 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:17:03 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:12:41 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:59:06 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:58:36 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:58:13 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:54:51 PM  
1 vote:
American society just kind of sucks across the board.
2013-01-10 02:48:35 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:43:42 PM  
1 vote:
trickymoo: 'facts' and 'statistics' realllllyyyy dont farking matter.

I have no words for how stupid that statement is.
2013-01-10 02:37:13 PM  
1 vote:

magic_patch: Clearly time to ban schoolsadults.


FTFY
2013-01-10 02:35:57 PM  
1 vote:

The All-Powerful Atheismo: They did live.


Seriously, that's good news.
2013-01-10 02:35:30 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:34:44 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:34:39 PM  
1 vote:
the braintrust in this thread is gunstoppable.

time to crap.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:31:34 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:31:31 PM  
1 vote:

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
2013-01-10 02:28:41 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:25:50 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:24:32 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:23:18 PM  
1 vote:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:21:03 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:20:48 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:20:25 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:20:22 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:20:13 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:20:12 PM  
1 vote:
Guns give an unfair advantage to people who deserve to get their asses kicked.
2013-01-10 02:18:23 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:18:12 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:17:26 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:17:02 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:16:47 PM  
1 vote:
B-B-But GUNS don't kill people!

/ Sick of this shiat
2013-01-10 02:16:38 PM  
1 vote:
The NRA just released its vision for America's schools in response.

www.notcoming.com
jlt [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:16:30 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:16:17 PM  
1 vote:
18,000 people die in drunk-driving incidents a year. Government, please ban assault cars and assault alcohol TIA.
2013-01-10 02:16:00 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:15:53 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:15:52 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:14:58 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:13:40 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:13:37 PM  
1 vote:
...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 02:13:00 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:12:46 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:12:08 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:11:43 PM  
1 vote:
Think of the children, just don't talk about them.
2013-01-10 02:11:33 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:11:23 PM  
1 vote:
If we only had a guard for each student. A guard armed with a tactical nuke.
2013-01-10 02:11:09 PM  
1 vote:
Lots of gang activity in that area
Here's to hoping it was shiatheads shooting fellow shiatheads
2013-01-10 02:09:56 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:09:10 PM  
1 vote:
If only every student had a gun, this wouldn't have happened.
2013-01-10 02:08:46 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:08:35 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:08:05 PM  
1 vote:
They got the shooter alive.  This means we can find out his connection to the UN/Illuminati/Gnomes of Zurich.
2013-01-10 02:07:51 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:07:06 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:06:39 PM  
1 vote:

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

go gunmerica go!


spoken like a true Amerigun.
2013-01-10 02:06:28 PM  
1 vote:
Clearly time to ban schools.
 
Displayed 112 of 112 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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