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.

(Talking Points Memo)   It looks like nobody is buying the 'gun control' they're selling, so they're re-branding it as 'gun safety'   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 266
    More: Asinine, Brady Campaign, gun safety, Biden  
•       •       •

2206 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-11 05:24:04 PM  
Just slow the firing rate so that no gun fires faster than a muzzle-loader.

That would take a lot of the frivolity out of guns.  Hunters would improve their marksmanship.  Target shooters would learn patience.  Fewer people shot, and fewer fatalities.

You could still have all the bells & whistle you wish, i. e., 90-round mags, full-auto, silencers.

There would be no need to regulate parts and types of guns.
 
2013-01-11 05:25:04 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I think guns should be as regulated as cars and driver's licenses. Tests, background checks, classes, check-ups, renewals for classes and licenses...the whole thing.


You had to get a background check to get a driver's license? And have check-ups? Wow.
 
2013-01-11 05:25:47 PM  

Kazan: Lando Lincoln: Kazan: the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".

Nor does it say that citizens are allowed to only bear certain arms, depending on what the government feels would be appropriate for them to have.

it's almost as if it left that up to the legislature or something.


Up until some limits on govt power were provided in Miller and Heller.
 
2013-01-11 05:26:18 PM  

Lando Lincoln: So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.


So you are saying this law would have a negligible effect on law-abiding citizens? Why are you so against it then?
 
2013-01-11 05:26:30 PM  

Glancing Blow: I've read perhaps 5,000 gun-comments on Fark in the last month or so. Not one person has proposed an action that would have prevented people from randomly killing other people. Perhaps the only actionable item that might deminish school shootings is to seek out an stop bullying in schools, though I do not know how.

Twenty killers a year would be about .00000007% of the population. Ferreting them out is, in my judgment, impossible.

Guns will always be accessible as long as there people with street-drug habits. I had two brothers-in-law who were druggies who regularly offered to sell me stolen guns; I wouldn't even let them know where their sister and I lived.


And you can add yourself to the list of proposing actions that would have prevented people from randomly killing other people. Because not only didn't you even try, but you're using "there will always be guns" and "there will always be crazies" as reasons not to. It probably would've been better had you not said anything at all.

/"There will always be someone with a gun" is not an argument against gun legislation any more than "there will always be drunks behind the wheel" is an argument against DUI laws.
 
2013-01-11 05:26:53 PM  

make me some tea: EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Penis control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Penis safety is pretty simple. Treat every penis like it is loaded. Don' t point a penis at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.

Don't give penises to crazy people.
Don't give penises to people with criminal records.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.


See what I mean? Now its a much more entertaining thread.
 
2013-01-11 05:27:17 PM  
Can we all agree to dial back the wild hysteria a notch until there's a plan on the table from the administration?
 
2013-01-11 05:27:57 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Just slow the firing rate so that no gun fires faster than a muzzle-loader.

That would take a lot of the frivolity out of guns.  Hunters would improve their marksmanship.  Target shooters would learn patience.  Fewer people shot, and fewer fatalities.

You could still have all the bells & whistle you wish, i. e., 90-round mags, full-auto, silencers.


...yes, I'm sure those fully-automatic muskets will fly off store shelves.
 
2013-01-11 05:28:13 PM  

quickdraw: make me some tea: EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Penis control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Penis safety is pretty simple. Treat every penis like it is loaded. Don' t point a penis at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.

Don't give penises to crazy people.
Don't give penises to people with criminal records.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.

See what I mean? Now its a much more entertaining thread.


WHAT HAVE YOU BEPENIS?
 
2013-01-11 05:29:19 PM  

give me doughnuts: Uranus Is Huge!: dr-shotgun: Well, since it's the only ban that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table.

Perhaps the point is that banning things is a historically stupid strategy for dealing with social issues?

Since it worked so well for alcohol when we tried it.
Since it worked for abortions before Row v. Wade.
Since it works so well for drugs now.
Since gun bans have worked so well where they have been implemented in Europe.

How is a ban gonna work with 320 million firearms already in private hands, all of which will be grandfathered in? Or how will it work when 3D printing technology will make it easy for anyone to print a huge capacity magazine at home in a couple of years?

Bans never actually produce the results those calling for them intend. This issue is no different.

Alcohol is very heavily taxed and regulated.
Abortion access is at an all time low. It is also very heavily regulated.
Prescription drugs are heavily regulated and access is limited. Where I live, weed will soon be regulated by the state.

There are only a few people arguing for bans. How about joining the grownups who want to talk about solution that WILL work?

Because none of them are talking.


Thanks for contributing... and with such biting snark.
 
2013-01-11 05:29:34 PM  

LasersHurt: Can we all agree to dial back the wild hysteria a notch until there's a plan on the table from the administration?


...Know how I know you don't know why the gun nuts are hysterical?

/Hint: They don't care what plan is on the table, it means Obammer's gun take are gunz.
 
2013-01-11 05:31:31 PM  

lennavan:
WHAT HAVE YOU BEPENIS?


Frakin keyboard kill! +1 intarwebs to you!
 
2013-01-11 05:34:07 PM  

IlGreven: LasersHurt: Can we all agree to dial back the wild hysteria a notch until there's a plan on the table from the administration?

...Know how I know you don't know why the gun nuts are hysterical?

/Hint: They don't care what plan is on the table, it means Obammer's gun take are gunz.


I know what plan Fienstien proposes.
 
2013-01-11 05:36:08 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Heraclitus: "Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Let me explain something to you and Jon Stewart. Gun magazines are very simple devices. They are a box with a spring in it, and a base for the spring to push against. To change a 5-round magazine into a 30-round magazine would require one to make the box longer and to replace the spring with a bigger spring.

So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.


So force them to make the illegal modification. like the $300 modification to turn an AR-15 into an M-16. It would still prove intent.

If some one is sick and just picks up what evers lying around its one thing. Modifying all of your weapons to increase killing capacity is another.
 
2013-01-11 05:40:26 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: way south: Uranus Is Huge!: Actually, how about an amendment sort of like the 21st? Turn over firearms regulation to state and local governments. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

Enthusiasts, please note that the words 'ban' and 'confiscate' appear nowhere in my post.

This should jibe well with the libertarian leanings of many of you.

/rubs hands together, waits for cognitive dissonance posts, hopes lib gun owners stay quiet.

I'd actually be ok with this, since its not much different to what is happening now.
Catch is you've got to abide by your own states decisions and not blame the guys next door if it doesn't work out.

/looking at you, New York.

No buying guns on Sunday before noon in the south?


If they so desire, isn't that your proposal?
Every state makes their own rules.
My suggestion is that every state abide by the decisions of their neighbors.
No passing the buck if these rule changes don't pan out. No pulling a Bloomberg, blaming the guys next door, and asking for more federal laws.

Thing is, I know how this goes. I grew up in the Virgin Islands. We kept adding gun laws to deal our violence problem and the result so far has been violence and lots of gun laws.
The list of hoops we jump through would make Feinstein blush and the results would make the rest of America cringe. We average about fifty murders for a population of less than two hundred thousand, with no gun culture or NRA to blame.

There is more to the crime problem than a weapons ban can control and, if your proposal were put in place, I'd expect most folks to understand that when they see it happen.

...but I also know how prohibitionists think.
When their big idea doesn't pan out its time to find a scapegoat. It's never the idea that is wrong.

So I'm perfectly fine with a states rights solution and putting my own beliefs on the line, but only so long as we both respect that line later on.
 
2013-01-11 05:43:10 PM  

LasersHurt: Can we all agree to dial back the wild hysteria a notch until there's a plan on the table from the administration?


That would be fine by me but when both gun and control activists are trying to win a messaging war before any proposed law is even put forth neither side will unilaterally disarm.
 
2013-01-11 05:43:49 PM  

Heraclitus: Lando Lincoln: Heraclitus: "Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Let me explain something to you and Jon Stewart. Gun magazines are very simple devices. They are a box with a spring in it, and a base for the spring to push against. To change a 5-round magazine into a 30-round magazine would require one to make the box longer and to replace the spring with a bigger spring.

So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.

So force them to make the illegal modification. like the $300 modification to turn an AR-15 into an M-16. It would still prove intent.

If some one is sick and just picks up what evers lying around its one thing. Modifying all of your weapons to increase killing capacity is another.


two 10-round magazines + $8.00 roll of duct tape = 20 round mag, Vietnam Edition.
 
2013-01-11 05:44:06 PM  
We don't want to take your guns, we just want to keep you from having them!
 
2013-01-11 05:45:47 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: dletter: One thing I'd like to know though. The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.

Actually the 2nd amendment empowers the government to use the militia to fight off insurrections and threats.  Kind of the opposite of what these yahoos think it means.


This new attack from the left that the 2nd amendment was to quell citizen protests is utterly hilarious. Shay Rebellion, Shay Rebellion! The 2nd amendment was in direct response to the Shay Rebellion! Don't listen to any actual documents at the time, it was put in the constitution to allow the Federal Government to attack citizens!

Utterly hilarious. Stupid. but hilarious.
 
2013-01-11 05:46:17 PM  

lennavan: quickdraw: make me some tea: EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Penis control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Penis safety is pretty simple. Treat every penis like it is loaded. Don' t point a penis at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.

Don't give penises to crazy people.
Don't give penises to people with criminal records.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.

See what I mean? Now its a much more entertaining thread.

WHAT HAVE YOU BEPENIS?


I have only bepenis to fight
 
2013-01-11 05:46:56 PM  

GAT_00: Considering that this is a push to make the country safer, that makes perfect sense.


Pool kill more children than guns. It is a time to ban all pools to make this country safer.

Obesity is a leading killer, time to ban McDonalds, it is time to make this country safer.

People don't die in low speed accidents, time to make the national speed limit 15 mph, to make this country safer.
 
2013-01-11 05:47:07 PM  

Saiga410: LasersHurt: Can we all agree to dial back the wild hysteria a notch until there's a plan on the table from the administration?

That would be fine by me but when both gun and control activists are trying to win a messaging war before any proposed law is even put forth neither side will unilaterally disarm.


Well, shiat, right?
 
2013-01-11 05:50:53 PM  

quickdraw: lennavan: quickdraw: make me some tea: EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Penis control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Penis safety is pretty simple. Treat every penis like it is loaded. Don' t point a penis at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.

Don't give penises to crazy people.
Don't give penises to people with criminal records.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.

See what I mean? Now its a much more entertaining thread.

WHAT HAVE YOU BEPENIS?

I have only bepenis to fight


userserve-ak.last.fm

Penis it
 
2013-01-11 05:51:03 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Just slow the firing rate so that no gun fires faster than a muzzle-loader.


How? Wouldn't any mechanical solution be trivially modifiable, either by removing the limiting part or simply grinding some key part away so it doesn't have any effect? Same thing with an electronic solution. How would this work with the ~300 million guns currently on the private market? I'm not being snarky or anything.

Assuming it could work, applied to all guns, and couldn't be bypassed, wouldn't that really limit potential defensive uses of firearms? I mean, a criminal could show up with a friend or two or more than one gun, but someone defending themselves would have to fire and wait, say, 20 seconds before the gun would let them shoot back. A lot could happen in that time.

I'm actually impressed that a new idea has been proposed in a Fark gun thread, even though I'm not really sure if it'd be such a good idea.
 
2013-01-11 05:56:23 PM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: dr-shotgun: I'll have that conversation. Let's ban them!

Now you go.

Go for it. I invite you to try. Start a PAC, collect donations and make your single issue a one line amendment to the constitution that repeals the 2nd Amendment.

Buy a really nice Arc'teryx jacket. They are super warm and durable. Your gonna need it for how far out in the wild your going to be.

Wait I thought you wanted to have a discussion? I thought I had the huevosTM to discuss a ban that you complained none of us libby libs had.

And we don't need to repeal the second amendment, we just need the court to overturn Heller roe v wade.

you sound like a fundie


I...wow, you just Kerrigan'd me. I am rethinking my rhetorical stance on how I approach Heller. Thank you, CPennypacker, for bringing this to light so I didn't have to fall on the grenade. I'm with you, but I think this was a good point.
 
2013-01-11 05:57:02 PM  
Government, wonderful government. Is there any problem they can't fix?

Just give them a little more of our money, a little more of our freedom, and they will (promise to) solve all our problems.

And if that doesn't work, give them a little more.
 
2013-01-11 06:04:22 PM  

another cultural observer: Heraclitus: Lando Lincoln: Heraclitus: "Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Let me explain something to you and Jon Stewart. Gun magazines are very simple devices. They are a box with a spring in it, and a base for the spring to push against. To change a 5-round magazine into a 30-round magazine would require one to make the box longer and to replace the spring with a bigger spring.

So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.

So force them to make the illegal modification. like the $300 modification to turn an AR-15 into an M-16. It would still prove intent.

If some one is sick and just picks up what evers lying around its one thing. Modifying all of your weapons to increase killing capacity is another.

two 10-round magazines + $8.00 roll of duct tape = 20 round mag, Vietnam Edition.


Yup, and a 10 round mag is about 8 rounds more than you need if you know what your doing.
 
2013-01-11 06:07:22 PM  

GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.


Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.
 
2013-01-11 06:11:17 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.


Too much gun is not an answer for a lack of training. If she knows she's a bad shot she should be packing Buckshot.
 
2013-01-11 06:12:51 PM  

IlGreven: Glancing Blow: I've read perhaps 5,000 gun-comments on Fark
And you can add yourself to the list of proposing actions that would have prevented people from randomly killing other people. Because not only didn't you even try, but you're using "there will always be guns" and "there will always be crazies" as reasons not to. It probably would've been better had you not said anything at all.
/"There will always be someone with a gun" is not an argument against gun legislation any more than "there will always be drunks behind the wheel" is an argument against DUI laws.


I try very hard not to respond to silly people, or to people who mangle what I state to advance their own beliefs. You can parse my comments any way you wish. Let me try to present my point more simply:

I have no idea what legislation would be effective in preventing this random gun violence. I would support any that could.

I think the numbers of people who perpetrate these crimes are so small and so unpredictable that I can't image what actions could detect and prevent them for acting. I would support any that would.

I think that there are factors, such as readily available stolen weapons, that make the task of coming up with a solution secondary to the solution causing the large number of gun thefts (no, I see no need for a citation here) to be controlled or minimized. If there were solution I would support them.

You'll note that I repeatedly say that I cannot see or imagine, not that there aren't any solutions.

Lastly, your bigoted position that "It probably would've been better had you not said anything at all" is without merit, and frankly reduces my ability to take you seriously.
 
2013-01-11 06:13:38 PM  

Saiga410: Kazan: Lando Lincoln: Kazan: the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".

Nor does it say that citizens are allowed to only bear certain arms, depending on what the government feels would be appropriate for them to have.

it's almost as if it left that up to the legislature or something.

Up until some limits on govt power were provided in Miller and Heller.


a real example of judicial activism
 
2013-01-11 06:14:26 PM  

quickdraw: make me some tea: EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Penis control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Penis safety is pretty simple. Treat every penis like it is loaded. Don' t point a penis at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.

Don't give penises to crazy people.
Don't give penises to people with criminal records.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.

See what I mean? Now its a much more entertaining thread.


Lulz
 
2013-01-11 06:21:14 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.


I guess you're right. We should give her a tactical nuke. After all, she needs unlimited firepower.
 
2013-01-11 06:23:56 PM  

GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

I guess you're right. We should give her a tactical nuke. After all, she needs unlimited firepower.


Chainsaw vaginas. It's the only way they'll ever be safe.
 
2013-01-11 06:23:59 PM  

EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Gun safety is pretty simple. Treat every gun like it is loaded. Don' t point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.


Don't forget the part about locking up your guns so that other people, like, say, an unstable child, cannot use your guns against you and others.
 
2013-01-11 06:43:26 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

I guess you're right. We should give her a tactical nuke. After all, she needs unlimited firepower.

Chainsaw vaginas. It's the only way they'll ever be safe.


And, they could get work as pencil sharpeners.
 
2013-01-11 07:18:03 PM  

GameSprocket: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

I guess you're right. We should give her a tactical nuke. After all, she needs unlimited firepower.

Chainsaw vaginas. It's the only way they'll ever be safe.

And, they could get work as pencil sharpeners.


Chainsaw Vaginas would be a great name for a band!
 
2013-01-11 07:20:40 PM  

hubiestubert: No matter how you brand it, either side of the gun control debate is bait and switch.

We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

But we won't. Instead folks are going to conflate the tools themselves as both cause and solution to crime. And very little will be done to address the real issue of crime in this country, and a lot of lobbyists will pocket cash on both sides of this uselessly vitriolic debate...


That is pretty much how America handles everything. Bandaid the problem and never resolve the root cause. Way to much money in Bandaids for it ever to change.
 
2013-01-11 07:24:21 PM  

Heraclitus: GameSprocket: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

I guess you're right. We should give her a tactical nuke. After all, she needs unlimited firepower.

Chainsaw vaginas. It's the only way they'll ever be safe.

And, they could get work as pencil sharpeners.

Chainsaw Vaginas would be a great name for a band!


They would wind up in a Russian jail.
 
2013-01-11 07:28:47 PM  

Heraclitus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

Too much gun is not an answer for a lack of training. If she knows she's a bad shot she should be packing Buckshot.


I did't think this was hard to understand. People don't know how panicky they'll get when they actually have to shoot someone. It's not something the average person is going to train for, hell, even cops with all their training, and those in the military who are deliberately conditioned to learn to kill often falter or shake uncontrollably when it comes time to shoot someone. THAT AFFECTS YOUR ACCURACY. So go ahead and pretend that everyone should be steady as a surgeon when confronted for their life, at least we all know for certain how little you know about reality.
 
2013-01-11 07:40:52 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Heraclitus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

Too much gun is not an answer for a lack of training. If she knows she's a bad shot she should be packing Buckshot.

I did't think this was hard to understand. People don't know how panicky they'll get when they actually have to shoot someone. It's not something the average person is going to train for, hell, even cops with all their training, and those in the military who are deliberately conditioned to learn to kill often falter or shake uncontrollably when it comes time to shoot someone. THAT AFFECTS YOUR ACCURACY. So go ahead and pretend that everyone should be steady as a surgeon when confronted for their life, at least we all know for certain how little you know about reality.


Or how good of a shot I actually am.

dumbass

So your argument is that everyone should have a tactical nuke to protect themselves because they dont know how they would react under pressure?

You know how I know you have no firearms training?
 
2013-01-11 07:45:45 PM  
Gun safety? Treat all guns as if they are loaded, never point you gun where you don't want to shoot. ta da
 
2013-01-11 07:58:41 PM  
Gun control will NEVER work!
But I'm sure if we give the War on Drugs just a LIIIIIITTLE more time, it'll start working any minute now.....
Any minute now....
Aaaaaaany minute.... NOW?
 
2013-01-11 08:11:31 PM  

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Gun control will NEVER work!
But I'm sure if we give the War on Drugs just a LIIIIIITTLE more time, it'll start working any minute now.....
Any minute now....
Aaaaaaany minute.... NOW?


But you've got it all wrong. Marijuana isn't habit forming like guns are.
 
2013-01-11 08:23:33 PM  

Heraclitus: Or how good of a shot I actually am.

dumbass


I'm the dumbass? We're talking about a woman who shot a guy 5 times, not you. Can you not follow a conversation?

Heraclitus: So your argument is that everyone should have a tactical nuke to protect themselves because they dont know how they would react under pressure?


Yes, that's exactly what my argument is. NUKES FOR EVERYONE!!!! That exactly the same thing as allowing everyone to have standard magazines found in guns today. When you have to resort to such hyperbole, you've surely lost.

Heraclitus: You know how I know you have no firearms training?


lol, you don't.
 
2013-01-11 08:54:47 PM  
You know the gun control advocates are losing when they have to start lying and straining their arguments.

Two weeks ago they were boasting of how they're going to get bans on semi-autos. Then they started saying they're not going to ban them per se but make it harder for some to get. Now they're claiming no one ever talked about banning or restricting them... but gee golly we need some regulations to stop the crazies.

Gun control supporters are the biggest group of liars alive.
 
2013-01-11 09:03:00 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I did't think this was hard to understand. People don't know how panicky they'll get when they actually have to shoot someone. It's not something the average person is going to train for, hell, even cops with all their training, and those in the military who are deliberately conditioned to learn to kill often falter or shake uncontrollably when it comes time to shoot someone. THAT AFFECTS YOUR ACCURACY. So go ahead and pretend that everyone should be steady as a surgeon when confronted for their life, at least we all know for certain how little you know about reality.


Cops on average have an awful accuracy in police shootings. Amadou Diallo was shot at 41 times at intemediate range and only 19 bullets hit him.

I don't know why people think bullets and criminals have a 1:1 ratio for lethality. It's not like the movies where 1 hit equals a sudden lethal drop.
 
2013-01-11 09:12:02 PM  
So which is more dangerous?

A 16 Y/O cheerleader with an M-20 or a 28 Y/O Marine Corps Sgt. with a 9.mm Glock?

Take your time...
 
2013-01-11 09:27:28 PM  

Heraclitus: So which is more dangerous?

A 16 Y/O cheerleader with an M-20 or a 28 Y/O Marine Corps Sgt. with a 9.mm Glock?

Take your time...


Help me out here a little. The only M-20 I am familiar with is a WWII era recoiless rifle...
 
2013-01-11 09:29:43 PM  

Heraclitus: So which is more dangerous?

A 16 Y/O cheerleader with an M-20 or a 28 Y/O Marine Corps Sgt. with a 9.mm Glock?

Take your time...


Who's stronger? Thor or the Hulk?
 
Displayed 50 of 266 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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