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.

(Sly Oyster)   Twenty years ago Art Spiegelman drew an ironic cover of kids walking into school with guns. Now? "My wish for 2013: let Newtown be remembered as the turning point-I'm hoping that kids with guns can become ironic again"   (slyoyster.com) divider line 234
    More: Sad, Art Spiegelman  
•       •       •

18240 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2013 at 1:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-11 03:14:37 PM  

neversubmit: i.imgur.com


OK, let me take a shot at explaining this.
Yes, 2 hours of violence in a movie DOES influence SOME people. The mentally weak, deranged, and ill. People that are already violent seek out those types of movies, and it's a self-feeding cycle. In fact, most people are probably influenced in some way. Some people are repulsed by it and want nothing to do with violence. But the vast majority of people are not influenced to simply go imitate what they see on the screen. This is because most people know the difference between reality and fantasy, good and bad, right and wrong. The 99.99999% of people who watch them recognize the difference between the outrageous caricatures of humans in a movie, and real humans in real life.
Sure, if a bunch of guys kidnap your daughter and you have a particular set of skills, then maybe a movie would influence you to go use those skills, but otherwise, no.
The Super Bowl commercial is trying to sell you a real-life product - or at the very least make you aware that it exists. The movie is not trying to convince you to go shoot people.
 
2013-01-11 03:14:41 PM  

Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.


I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.
 
2013-01-11 03:15:19 PM  

ronaprhys: Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.

Has anyone demonstrated that his mother was a danger? I believe there's been anecdotal evidence that folks could've known (even arguments that CT's firearm laws are rather strict, so the firearm's could've been seized had anyone notified them of the danger he poised) about him being a nutbag, but his mother (aside from the prepper thing, which isn't a note of anything dangerous) should've been good to go.


I think it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that his mother was a danger, in that she took insufficient precautions to prevent her firearms from falling into the hands of a mentally-disturbed person, no?
 
2013-01-11 03:15:44 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: Elegy: CSB:
I saw Art Spiegleman speak at a university oh, 10 or so years ago now. I was on the student side of the committee that brought him in (although not an important part) so I got to see some of the behind the scenes back and forth.

Spiegleman had it written into his contract that he was 100% allowed to smoke anywhere on campus while he was presenting. During his 1 hour speech, he stood on stage in a packed aditorium and smoked at an alarming rate, using one cigarette to light the next. by the end of the speech, his ashtray - sitting in the podium - had an enormous pile of butts.

He mentioned during his speech that "as I chain smoker in New York I'm normally on house arrest, so it's really nice to be able to get out and about here in the south".

After the speech, we herded him to the Q&A reception. At which he continued to smoke at a ferocious pace, only in a much smaller and more enclosed room. To this day, I'm not sure where he kept pulling the cigarettes from - it was like watching a magic trick. The man must have smoked 3 or 4 packs in 3 or so hours, and the supply never ran out.

After seeing this, I've always thought - as a smoker - that I'll finally know that I've "made it" when, like Art Spiegleman, I can insist in my contract that I can smoke anywhere I want, yet people still want me to come speak bad enough that they'll honor that sort of clause.

It was breathtaking to behold

/quite literally

That was, in fact, a CSB.

/smoking kills tho



Insert a tasteless joke about missing the gas 40 years ago only to smoke himself to death later.
 
2013-01-11 03:18:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: The problem is that when some people think of "gun crime", they see only GUN crime, instead of gun CRIME.

This is a Crime problem that sometimes involves guns. Murder is the problem here, more than the weapon used. It is the INTENT, not the implement. It is also worth noting that overall crime rates are for more correlative to gun crime rates than almost anything else. Over the last decade or two, crime rates in general have been going down, and so, too have gun crime rates.

This is why efforts to limit law-abiding citizens gun ownership is ultimately inneffective. The Assault weapons ban did nothing to stop Columbine and other shootings because anyone who has determined to commit mass-murder is already immune to legal ramifications. You cannot affect people outside of the system by tightening up things inside the system. Further, the overwhelming majority of gun violence is perpetrated with illegal or stolen guns and almost never with 'assault weapons'. Since Sandy Hook, 695 people have been shot to death. (even if you exclude suicides - another conversation) that dwarfs the problem of crazed madmen. The problem has nothing really to do with the shape of the guns or the size of the magazines. These are palliative placebos.

If we are truly trying to reduce gun violence, we should be focusing our efforts squarely on the areas where we can do the most good: attacking illegal guns and closing the gun show loopholes. And frankly, I am becoming increasingly disapointed by people who are way too pre-occupied by the specifics of the sensational murder of affluent white suburbanite children while utterly ambivalent about the far more prevelant problem of poor, inner city brown kids being killed every day
.


That stuff doesn't grab the headlines and generate ad revenue.
 
2013-01-11 03:18:47 PM  

meat0918: Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.

I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.


For one, states need to do a better job of reporting dangerous mental disorders to the NICS. Also, a simple way to allow private sellers to check someone they are selling to.
 
2013-01-11 03:19:26 PM  

numbquil: When congress is considering legislation which may ban citizens from owning a certain item they should at least recognize what it is they are banning. It's a legitimate grievance.


Conservative logic:

Some guy on the Internet says HA HA! LIEBERALS clips are not magazines GOTCHA!!

Therefore Congress does not understand the difference.
 
2013-01-11 03:20:19 PM  

Rapmaster2000: RickN99:

I think the NRA knew that no matter what they suggested, the administration would shoot it down (no pun intended) just because it was the NRA's recommendation. So they make a proposal -- use trained government-employed security officers/cops.

And, of course, the politicians, who are currently being protected by trained government-employed security officers (and their kids go to schools where they are being protected by trained government-employed security officers), think its a terrible, useless idea. Oh, those wacko gunnuts!

It didn't matter what the NRA recommended. Columnists/journalists still claim the gun lobby wants, for all intents and purposed, to arm elementary school kids.

It's simpler than that.  The NRA just needed to propose something so they chose something unlikely, but would probably work.  That's the key.  Technically, it's a workable idea.  Logistically, there's no way it will happen.  But they proposed something that would probably work.  They're "right" in a manner of speaking.

So forget about Obama.  Would any administration advocate this?  Your community could do this right now if they wanted to?  They don't need Obama to make decisions on policing.   I assume you don't live in Obamalibtardland, so why isn't your community proposing to do it?  Probably  because your community leaders aren't about to raise your taxes to pay for it because they know you won't stand for it.


Most school districts around Houston have their own police department and have had them for a while. The one I pay my taxes to has an officer or two in all middle and high schools. I do think it is a good idea and was surprised that it was dismissed so easily by Obama and the press.
 
2013-01-11 03:20:25 PM  

numbquil: When congress is considering legislation which may ban citizens from owning a certain item they should at least recognize what it is they are banning. It's a legitimate grievance. Look at all the "internet is a series of tubes" jokes when the SOPA hearings were going on. It's unprofessional to haphazardly pass legislation that affects millions of people without even knowing what you are talking about.

 
2013-01-11 03:22:02 PM  

meat0918: I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.


I don't think anyone disagrees that we shouldn't attempt to change things for the better. The bigger problem seems to be around what will actually work. Mass shootings like these are a very, very small portion of the problem. Very noticeable and completely horrific, but the actual # of firearm homicides dwarf these. The majority of those are related to gang and drug problems and occur with handguns. Oddly enough, those are all getting ignored at this point due to the visibility of the current incidents and the fact that it's difficult for anyone to care if one gangbanger offs another.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Not just reasonable regulation, as far as I'm concerned. Reasonable regulation that would seem, at face value, to have some chance of impacting the homicide rate coupled with a sunset provision if the legislation fails with severe prohibitions to changing that and moving the goalposts.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.

To me it's less onerous and more useless. It's difficult to see that this would have a measurable impact on the homicide rate. With appropriate restrictions and sunset provisions, I could be persuaded to try it, but since I certainly don't trust politicians to use something like this appropriately, I'm highly-disinclined to accept such a thing.
 
2013-01-11 03:22:03 PM  
I'm amazed that some people have rationalized banning imaginary guns over making real guns a bit harder to get.

It's like saying "The real world doesn't kill people! Dreams kill people!"

anything to make your toys easier to buy eh?
 
2013-01-11 03:23:01 PM  

ronaprhys: Carn: My argument regarding his mother is that since she had a mentally ill person living in her house that should be taken into consideration when she would purchase a gun, ie, it should be restricted. Perhaps not outright disallowed, we could have a "home defense" clause. "Ok, you have a psychotic adult living in your house, you can purchase one shotgun to defend yourself, family and property, but that's it."

How would you enforce that? Was this idiot actually clinically-diagnosed as mentally ill?


It seems like in this case, whether he was clinically diagnosed is a matter of speculation. We could enforce it as part of mandatory licensing. We could say "You need to complete a mandatory safety and aptitude test, as well as psych screening" in order to get a gun license. You need to get a refresher of all three every five years. Part of the background check should include household members although this could be difficult. There could be a national no-buy list and you could check against that list by address. "I'm sorry maam it appears that so and so lives at your address and he has fantasies about bathing in the blood of your neighbors. Can't sell to you."
 
2013-01-11 03:23:59 PM  
frankencj:

Most school districts around Houston have their own police department and have had them for a while. The one I pay my taxes to has an officer or two in all middle and high schools. I do think it is a good idea and was surprised that it was dismissed so easily by Obama and the press.

They put cops in the ghetto high schools in this county for obvious reasons, but we don't have them in my latte-sipping, Volvo-driving hood.  The only reason to have a cop in our neighborhood schools is for incidents like this which have a tiny chance of actually occurring so I can see why we don't staff for it.  I'm not sure why a school would need cops unless it sucks.  Otherwise, it's a waste of money.
 
2013-01-11 03:24:38 PM  

jaytkay: numbquil: When congress is considering legislation which may ban citizens from owning a certain item they should at least recognize what it is they are banning. It's a legitimate grievance.

Conservative logic:

Some guy on the Internet says HA HA! LIEBERALS clips are not magazines GOTCHA!!

Therefore Congress does not understand the difference.


Or we could just use the highly publicized time where an actual legislator got some firearm specifics incorrect. Barrel shrouds, anyone? It's not unwarranted to ask that legislators at least understand what they're attempting to ban.

Of course, you knew that, didn't you?
 
2013-01-11 03:24:47 PM  

Benjamin Stone: ciberido: Benjamin Stone: I BLAME GORILLAZ:

Link

Sure, blame them if that will make you feel good.

I don't, but thanks for linking to "Clint Eastwood." :D


By "that will make you feel good," I was making a reference to Feel Good Inc, but I guess it didn't work :(.
 
2013-01-11 03:25:39 PM  

meat0918: Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.

I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.


To me, requiring a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing isn't unreasonable. Make it be part of getting a gun license and make people renew it every 5 or 10 years. I know many people would be against this.
 
2013-01-11 03:26:04 PM  

meat0918: That stuff doesn't grab the headlines and generate ad revenue.


I know. Which makes it even more disapointing. It's like everyone is demanding that we must move heaven and earth to prevent leprosy by banning armadillos while completely ignoring HIV or breast cancer.
 
2013-01-11 03:27:10 PM  

Carn: It seems like in this case, whether he was clinically diagnosed is a matter of speculation. We could enforce it as part of mandatory licensing. We could say "You need to complete a mandatory safety and aptitude test, as well as psych screening" in order to get a gun license. You need to get a refresher of all three every five years. Part of the background check should include household members although this could be difficult. There could be a national no-buy list and you could check against that list by address. "I'm sorry maam it appears that so and so lives at your address and he has fantasies about bathing in the blood of your neighbors. Can't sell to you."


Would you be willing to accept the same restriction on free speech? A license and mandatory testing? Yes, they're two different things, but both are specifically-enumerated rights in the Constitution.

Again - no argument in making it more difficult for nutjobs to get firearms, but mandatory licensing is a no go.
 
2013-01-11 03:29:14 PM  

Carn: It seems like in this case, whether he was clinically diagnosed is a matter of speculation. We could enforce it as part of mandatory licensing. We could say "You need to complete a mandatory safety and aptitude test, as well as psych screening" in order to get a gun license. You need to get a refresher of all three every five years. Part of the background check should include household members although this could be difficult. There could be a national no-buy list and you could check against that list by address. "I'm sorry maam it appears that so and so lives at your address and he has fantasies about bathing in the blood of your neighbors. Can't sell to you."


Legally, you can't do this. Both HIPPA and ACA protect your medical confidentiality from anyone who is not your health care provider and only with your specific consent. You cannot be forced to have you local gunshop owner privy to whether or not you recieved counselling for grief after your mammy passed away 4 years go.

/and why would you WANT that anyway? This is the problem with approaching legislation from a "them" standpoint.
 
2013-01-11 03:30:05 PM  

ronaprhys: meat0918: I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.

I don't think anyone disagrees that we shouldn't attempt to change things for the better. The bigger problem seems to be around what will actually work. Mass shootings like these are a very, very small portion of the problem. Very noticeable and completely horrific, but the actual # of firearm homicides dwarf these. The majority of those are related to gang and drug problems and occur with handguns. Oddly enough, those are all getting ignored at this point due to the visibility of the current incidents and the fact that it's difficult for anyone to care if one gangbanger offs another.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Not just reasonable regulation, as far as I'm concerned. Reasonable regulation that would seem, at face value, to have some chance of impacting the homicide rate coupled with a sunset provision if the legislation fails with severe prohibitions to changing that and moving the goalposts.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.

To me it's less onerous and more useless. It's difficult to see that this would have a measurable impact on the homicide rate. With appropriate restrictions and sunset provisions, I could be persuaded to try it, but since I certainly don't trust politicians to use something like this appropriately, I'm highly-disinclined to accept such a thing.


I'm more interested in requiring liability insurance as part of a licensing requirement. In lines of the whole gun show loophole. You buy a gun legally then sell at a gun show to some guy who doesn't go through the required stuff and later ends up committing a crime. You are then liable in civil court.
 
2013-01-11 03:30:58 PM  

Carn: meat0918: Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.

I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.

To me, requiring a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing isn't unreasonable. Make it be part of getting a gun license and make people renew it every 5 or 10 years. I know many people would be against this.


A previous diagnosis of a dangerous condition should definitely bar you from access without serious signoffs from 2 or more doctors, but mandatory checks explicitly for the purpose of qualifying for a gun license seem like bait for fraudulent diagnosis mills in both directions.
 
2013-01-11 03:32:03 PM  

Carn: I'm more interested in requiring liability insurance as part of a licensing requirement.


Can you explain why you think liability insurance on a gun (which is readily available currently) would have any affect on reducing gun crime?
 
2013-01-11 03:33:15 PM  

ronaprhys: Carn: It seems like in this case, whether he was clinically diagnosed is a matter of speculation. We could enforce it as part of mandatory licensing. We could say "You need to complete a mandatory safety and aptitude test, as well as psych screening" in order to get a gun license. You need to get a refresher of all three every five years. Part of the background check should include household members although this could be difficult. There could be a national no-buy list and you could check against that list by address. "I'm sorry maam it appears that so and so lives at your address and he has fantasies about bathing in the blood of your neighbors. Can't sell to you."

Would you be willing to accept the same restriction on free speech? A license and mandatory testing? Yes, they're two different things, but both are specifically-enumerated rights in the Constitution.

Again - no argument in making it more difficult for nutjobs to get firearms, but mandatory licensing is a no go.


I'm open to other suggestions in order to enforce this kind of stuff but I can't think of a better way to make everyone do it than licenses.
 
2013-01-11 03:34:00 PM  

ciberido: Benjamin Stone: ciberido: Benjamin Stone: I BLAME GORILLAZ:

Link

Sure, blame them if that will make you feel good.

I don't, but thanks for linking to "Clint Eastwood." :D

By "that will make you feel good," I was making a reference to Feel Good Inc, but I guess it didn't work :(.


The failure is all mine!
 
2013-01-11 03:35:57 PM  

Carn: I'm more interested in requiring liability insurance as part of a licensing requirement. In lines of the whole gun show loophole. You buy a gun legally then sell at a gun show to some guy who doesn't go through the required stuff and later ends up committing a crime. You are then liable in civil court.


Again - no licensing. Second, there is no gun show loophole. What you're referring to is private party sales. No reason to use an inaccurate and pejorative term designed to do nothing more than mislead the public.

As for the end of your statement, the seller would be liable if they had any knowledge that the person they were selling to wasn't eligible to purchase a firearm legally. Now, if there could be an easily and not abusable way to do free NICS checks for a purchase, I might be willing to support that. However, I don't know that this would have any actual impact on the homicide rate - considering that most homicides are related to drugs and gangs. Nor would any of these ideas have stopped any of the current tragedies.
 
2013-01-11 03:36:04 PM  
In the old timey days when my dad was in school kids took guns in on a semi-regular basis. If the guys were going shooting/hunting after school they'd ride their bikes to school with a rifle slung over a shoulder. Once at school they'd check the gun in with the principles office and get it back after class. And yet somehow with this going on there wasn't a single shooting at his school. The school never panicked and went on lock down expelling all the students involved. This was off in BFE Montana.

I'm not going to draw any conclusions from this riveting tale so I'll just finish with the story of the time so and so tied an onion to his belt. Which was the style at the time...........
 
2013-01-11 03:36:14 PM  

hinten: Insert a tasteless joke about missing the gas 40 years ago only to smoke himself to death later.


Spiegelman isn't a holocaust survivor
 
2013-01-11 03:36:37 PM  

jaytkay: numbquil: When congress is considering legislation which may ban citizens from owning a certain item they should at least recognize what it is they are banning. It's a legitimate grievance.

Conservative logic:

Some guy on the Internet says HA HA! LIEBERALS clips are not magazines GOTCHA!!

Therefore Congress does not understand the difference.


Link

When you introduce legislation to ban barrel shrouds, and when asked what a barrel shroud is and you deflect until you finally answer "the pull out stock thing" you don't really help your case.

Look, I'm a gun owner and a gun violence victim. I'm all for a national database for back ground and mental stability check prior to purchase of a weapon. I'm also against high capacity magazines, but feel the number should be a little farther north of 10.

What I don't understand is the banning of military looking semi automatic weapons vs. standing semi automatic hunting rifles. Which has also been confused by those seeking assault rifle legislation.
 
2013-01-11 03:36:46 PM  

Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.


No, I'm not arguing against it. In fact, laws around mental illness is where the solution - as best it can ever be a solution - is going to come from. But I'll bet you any amount of money that you could never get a law that says "You can't own a gun because a relative of yours is insane" to pass Constitutional muster.

If I had to summarize my position it's this: You can't prevent killings by trying to limit the weapons - you have to stop the person who wants to kill.
 
2013-01-11 03:37:02 PM  

Rapmaster2000: frankencj:

Most school districts around Houston have their own police department and have had them for a while. The one I pay my taxes to has an officer or two in all middle and high schools. I do think it is a good idea and was surprised that it was dismissed so easily by Obama and the press.

They put cops in the ghetto high schools in this county for obvious reasons, but we don't have them in my latte-sipping, Volvo-driving hood.  The only reason to have a cop in our neighborhood schools is for incidents like this which have a tiny chance of actually occurring so I can see why we don't staff for it.  I'm not sure why a school would need cops unless it sucks.  Otherwise, it's a waste of money.


FBISD has the money. The school cop is equivalent to the vice-principal/football coach in the old days except now they only do the 'harass the hippie kid' and not the scholastic and sport stuff.
 
2013-01-11 03:38:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Carn: I'm more interested in requiring liability insurance as part of a licensing requirement.

Can you explain why you think liability insurance on a gun (which is readily available currently) would have any affect on reducing gun crime?


First, by being a monetary reminder to everyone forced to carry it to observe their safety precautions at all times. Now, I know some of you are responsible gun owners and already do this, but some people aren't. Second, we're not necessarily trying to prevent crime directly, but imagine your acquaintance or your distant cousin wants to buy a spare gun off you "for protection". If you have liability insurance on that sucker and you're unsure of his motives, you ought to think twice about it. Maybe he's a meth head and is gonna run off and mug somebody or try to rob a convenience store. Previously, what do you care? You're legally allowed to sell it to him and he's the criminal if he commits a crime. But now you've got skin in the game. Maybe I shouldn't let crazy cousin Larry buy my gun.
 
2013-01-11 03:39:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Carn: It seems like in this case, whether he was clinically diagnosed is a matter of speculation. We could enforce it as part of mandatory licensing. We could say "You need to complete a mandatory safety and aptitude test, as well as psych screening" in order to get a gun license. You need to get a refresher of all three every five years. Part of the background check should include household members although this could be difficult. There could be a national no-buy list and you could check against that list by address. "I'm sorry maam it appears that so and so lives at your address and he has fantasies about bathing in the blood of your neighbors. Can't sell to you."

Legally, you can't do this. Both HIPPA and ACA protect your medical confidentiality from anyone who is not your health care provider and only with your specific consent. You cannot be forced to have you local gunshop owner privy to whether or not you recieved counselling for grief after your mammy passed away 4 years go.

/and why would you WANT that anyway? This is the problem with approaching legislation from a "them" standpoint.


It doesn't have to be specific, it can be a generic no-buy list. Flagged by medical provider, then all it is is a name and an address.
 
2013-01-11 03:40:41 PM  

Carn: I'm open to other suggestions in order to enforce this kind of stuff but I can't think of a better way to make everyone do it than licenses.


I believe that, in the VA Tech case, the shooter was known to be mentally ill, yet it hadn't been appropriately reported. I could see something whereby a doctor could, for reasons that cannot in any way, shape or form relate to questions around firearms, have a requirement to report clinically-diagnosed conditions to appropriate authorities. There would have to be a very clear and easy to accomplish appeals process, though. Additionally, there needs to be something there that would prevent them from happily reporting everyone (due to political reasoning, etc). Maybe there'd have to be some sort of clear signs or actions that would clearly make the diagnosis.

Then, if this is all clear, the doc becomes liable if they don't appropriately report.
 
2013-01-11 03:43:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Can you explain why you think liability insurance on a gun (which is readily available currently) would have any affect on reducing gun crime?


Mandatory insurance, not "available" insurance.

The other Farker was suggesting making the straw buyers liable for guns they pass on to criminals.

On paper, most guns are purchased legally. A large number of them are immediately sold illegally.

29 percent of the guns recovered on Chicago's streets between 2008 and the end of March were bought in the Cook County suburb...Two gun stores in suburban Lyons and Riverdale accounted for more than 10 percent of the guns recovered.
 
2013-01-11 03:45:37 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: If I had to summarize my position it's this: You can't prevent killings by trying to limit the weapons - you have to stop the person who wants to kill.


Another stupid maxim the NRA has drilled into impressionable peoples' heads as "truth".

Conservative logic again:
"Adam Lanza would have killed twenty kids with a candlestick if he couldn't get a gun."
 
2013-01-11 03:47:08 PM  

Carn: First, by being a monetary reminder to everyone forced to carry it to observe their safety precautions at all times. Now, I know some of you are responsible gun owners and already do this, but some people aren't. Second, we're not necessarily trying to prevent crime directly, but imagine your acquaintance or your distant cousin wants to buy a spare gun off you "for protection". If you have liability insurance on that sucker and you're unsure of his motives, you ought to think twice about it. Maybe he's a meth head and is gonna run off and mug somebody or try to rob a convenience store. Previously, what do you care? You're legally allowed to sell it to him and he's the criminal if he commits a crime. But now you've got skin in the game.


These hypotheticals are not really the source of most guns used in gun crimes.

Also, once you complete a bill of sale, you are no longer responsible for the gun, insurance or no. Same as with liability insurance on an auto that you sell to your idiot second cousin. If he plows into a family of 6 the day after you sell him your old beater, so long as you have a completed bill of sale, you cannot be held responsible, and your liability insurance is not applicable.

It doesn't work the way you seem to think it will.

Carn: It doesn't have to be specific, it can be a generic no-buy list.


Considering that very few (if any) of these mass shooters had been officially diagnosed with anything by anyone, how would this massive, expensive additional bueracracy reduce the rate of mass murdering madmen?
 
2013-01-11 03:48:47 PM  

Carn: BojanglesPaladin: Carn: I'm more interested in requiring liability insurance as part of a licensing requirement.

Can you explain why you think liability insurance on a gun (which is readily available currently) would have any affect on reducing gun crime?

First, by being a monetary reminder to everyone forced to carry it to observe their safety precautions at all times. Now, I know some of you are responsible gun owners and already do this, but some people aren't. Second, we're not necessarily trying to prevent crime directly, but imagine your acquaintance or your distant cousin wants to buy a spare gun off you "for protection". If you have liability insurance on that sucker and you're unsure of his motives, you ought to think twice about it. Maybe he's a meth head and is gonna run off and mug somebody or try to rob a convenience store. Previously, what do you care? You're legally allowed to sell it to him and he's the criminal if he commits a crime. But now you've got skin in the game. Maybe I shouldn't let crazy cousin Larry buy my gun.


WTF am I reading?

You have the whole ideology of liability insurance for gun ownership screwed.
 
2013-01-11 03:50:03 PM  

moothemagiccow: hinten: Insert a tasteless joke about missing the gas 40 years ago only to smoke himself to death later.

Spiegelman isn't a holocaust survivor


And the holocaust occured 70 years ago.
 
2013-01-11 03:50:11 PM  

ronaprhys: Carn: I'm open to other suggestions in order to enforce this kind of stuff but I can't think of a better way to make everyone do it than licenses.

I believe that, in the VA Tech case, the shooter was known to be mentally ill, yet it hadn't been appropriately reported. I could see something whereby a doctor could, for reasons that cannot in any way, shape or form relate to questions around firearms, have a requirement to report clinically-diagnosed conditions to appropriate authorities. There would have to be a very clear and easy to accomplish appeals process, though. Additionally, there needs to be something there that would prevent them from happily reporting everyone (due to political reasoning, etc). Maybe there'd have to be some sort of clear signs or actions that would clearly make the diagnosis.

Then, if this is all clear, the doc becomes liable if they don't appropriately report.


Sounds good to me.
 
2013-01-11 03:52:53 PM  

jaytkay:
Conservative logic again:
"Adam Lanza would have killed twenty kids with a candlestick if he couldn't get a gun."


Or, he could have bought a case cutter (the weapon of choice on 9/11) or a few sacks of fertilizer and a couple of quarts of motor oil (the weapon of choice in OKC) and done a hell of a lot more damage.

You quite simply cannot eliminate all risk. If somebody wants to cause mayhem, they will. All you can do is try to mitigate the damage by ensuring that the badguys(tm) get put down as quickly as possible.

Everybody seems to get POed at the suggestion of arming such teachers that want to be armed and that meet, say, the training standards in place for police officers. I keep asking folks who oppose such an idea "If you can't trust your child's teacher with a gun, WHY ARE YOU TRUSTING THEM WITH YOUR CHILD?!?!?" They mostly just look at me like I'm nuts.
 
2013-01-11 03:53:16 PM  

jaytkay: The other Farker was suggesting making the straw buyers liable for guns they pass on to criminals.


I agree that "straw buyers" is a problem. But you cannot legally make someone liable for property beyond the point that they complete a sale to someone else. If they were leasing or renting guns, sure. But if you buy a gun from me, then it is your responsibility. period. However, there are rules governing even private sales. You cannot sell to someone you "reasonably" suspect of violent or criminal behavior.

I think that more effort should be made to prosecute straw buyers. Obviously if you are selling 20 guns in a year to people with known criminal records, then you are acting illegally and should be harshly penalized. Too often DAs don't see straw purchase convictions as worthwhile because they have a had burden of proof and are harder to convict. I think that better legislation in this specific area is a good way to reach my goals as stated above.
 
2013-01-11 03:54:14 PM  

CheekyMonkey: dittybopper: Kids with guns? I'm doing my part:

[i47.tinypic.com image 225x319]

Of course, we have a back-up plan, just in case:

[i46.tinypic.com image 480x640]

I don't think you should put those blindfolds on your kids when they're handling dangerous weapons...


My son is in the SAS.
 
2013-01-11 03:56:00 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: jaytkay:
Conservative logic again:
"Adam Lanza would have killed twenty kids with a candlestick if he couldn't get a gun."

Or, he could have bought a case cutter (the weapon of choice on 9/11) or a few sacks of fertilizer and a couple of quarts of motor oil (the weapon of choice in OKC) and done a hell of a lot more damage.

You quite simply cannot eliminate all risk. If somebody wants to cause mayhem, they will. All you can do is try to mitigate the damage by ensuring that the badguys(tm) get put down as quickly as possible.

Everybody seems to get POed at the suggestion of arming such teachers that want to be armed and that meet, say, the training standards in place for police officers. I keep asking folks who oppose such an idea "If you can't trust your child's teacher with a gun, WHY ARE YOU TRUSTING THEM WITH YOUR CHILD?!?!?" They mostly just look at me like I'm nuts.


You are a little nuts.
 
2013-01-11 03:56:27 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: professor_tom:

Only pink guns, with ribbons and pikachu dangling from the trigger guard.

I'll call:

[i135.photobucket.com image 717x269]
You can't see it too well, but the metal is powdercoated a sparkly purple. Oh, yeah...that's a "My Little Pony" assault case in the front.


From the 'site that supplied the picture:

It's not a toy, it's a fully operational AR-15A2 HBAR in 5.56mm that I built for her and had powdercoated.  The furniture is CavArms. The muzzlebreak is blaze orange because Federal law requires that all toy guns have the last 6mm of the barrel painted blaze orange, but there is no Federal or State law in the jurisdiction I reside in that says that real guns can't have blaze orange muzzle devices. Legal loophole and 3 years and 80K+ in legal education FTMFW.The cops I've shown it to have had kittens when they saw the muzzle break.

I'm still trying to figure out if that is hilarious or dangerous. Probably both.
 
2013-01-11 03:57:34 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: You quite simply cannot eliminate all risk.


Wow you DESTROYED that straw man. All those people (in your head) vowing to "eliminate all risk"! You showed them!!
 
2013-01-11 04:00:37 PM  
Well that's awkward.
 
2013-01-11 04:01:27 PM  

jaytkay: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: If I had to summarize my position it's this: You can't prevent killings by trying to limit the weapons - you have to stop the person who wants to kill.

Another stupid maxim the NRA has drilled into impressionable peoples' heads as "truth".

Conservative logic again:
"Adam Lanza would have killed twenty kids with a candlestick if he couldn't get a gun."


Meh. Maybe he would have used an axe or a machete. Both are commonly available, with no waiting period or background checks, and such attacks are devastatingly effective against grade school children.
 
2013-01-11 04:01:53 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Everybody seems to get POed at the suggestion of arming such teachers that want to be armed and that meet, say, the training standards in place for police officers. I keep asking folks who oppose such an idea "If you can't trust your child's teacher with a gun, WHY ARE YOU TRUSTING THEM WITH YOUR CHILD?!?!?" They mostly just look at me like I'm nuts.


I think we should allow a few school to engage in this practice as test sites. Let them self-select, test the efficacy. Remind the red-staters that this means either increased taxes to pay for it or decreased teacher quality. God will sort it all out.
 
2013-01-11 04:04:03 PM  

neversubmit: ringersol: Frank N Stein: "I had a 10/22 as a kid. It was fun to shoot at cans."

I had a totally sweet Trapper Keeper.
It contained my homework and the awesome-to-a-kid doodles I made on my homework.

/ about as relevant
// it *was* totally sweet though
/// my teachers were not amused by the doodles
//// but back then you didn't get detention or expulsion for that sort of thing
// not even for the drawings you probably should not have drawn

When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.

[i.imgur.com image 530x397]


I'm waiting for some elected official to utter the phrase "The Violence Industry".

This will be quickly followed by the government funded "War on Violence".
 
2013-01-11 04:05:01 PM  

give me doughnuts:

I'm still trying to figure out if that is hilarious or dangerous. Probably both.



I'm on pretty good terms with the local cops. One of them, a real "gun nut", had kittens when I told him about the build colors. I pointed out to him that you can buy blaze orange nail polish in most drug stores, for well under $5, and if somebody points something at you that resembles a gun, you MUST treat it as a gun, regardless of the color.

My daughter's AR isn't going to hurt anybody. It lives in a very nice 1900 pound gun safe, and only comes out if she asks to handle it or we're having a range day. He knew and understood this. But I think that seeing it took him aback a bit, and that bit could quite possibly end up saving his life someday.

Besides, it did piss off quite a few people, which was part of the point.
 
Displayed 50 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | 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