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.

(NBC Washington)   Rash of robberies involving guns reported in Washington DC. If only there were some sort of laws in our nation's capital that could prevent this sort of thing   (nbcwashington.com) divider line 239
    More: Obvious, robbery, Washington DC, Sheen Estevez, 6th street  
•       •       •

1065 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jan 2013 at 11:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-13 08:25:28 PM  
Yup, people breaking laws is proof that laws don't work and we should live in anarchy. People break tax laws, so why bother trying? People break gun laws, so why bother trying? People break espionage laws, so why bother with laws against such things...

logic, how does it work?
 
2013-01-13 08:30:22 PM  

GAT_00: Larry Niven is close to approving.


Well, that's either Cloak of Anarchy or the pre-Boosterspice era of organ harvesting / capital punishment for everything. The latter fits better.
 
2013-01-13 08:33:41 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Giltric: If you don't like my stats....go get your own stats on your way to your shine box kiddo.

Louisiana, having among the weakest gun laws of any state, has by far the highest gun-related homicide rate per capita. Or perhaps we could discuss Mississippi, another high-gun-crime, low-gun-restriction state. Or Nevada. Or South Carolina. Or New Mexico. Or Arizona. I stopped checking after the top 10 states for getting killed by guns.

But, no, your tiny little data point in the middle of a state with incredibly lax gun laws probably means that guns aren't part of the problem so we shouldn't even discuss it.

/ now go away and stop being stupid


Well we are comparing Washington DC to Virginia...the place where the democrats...err criminals of Washington DC are getting their firearms, correct?

Maybe I was supposed to get stats from North Kakkalakka?

But regardless..you didn't post any cites cause you were too busy moving them thar goalposts.
 
2013-01-13 08:38:03 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Uranus Is Huge!: I'll register my right to free speech as soon as I can kill a room full of kids with my voice. Every right has restrictions needed for society to function.

Pretty much every spree killer is a direct result of the media fawning over spree killer stories like a child over a new puppy. Since the shooting sprees are the pretext for the push for gun control this time, only seems reasonable to impose similar limits on speech, since it's probably more ultimately responsible for said deaths than the tools used directly.


The media causes spree killing?

I have no response to this. Congratulations.
 
2013-01-13 08:44:47 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uranus Is Huge!: A very, very limited ban on one particular type of firearm "didn't work," therefore any attempt to limit access to firearms is futile.

It is futile, because the only thing left, and the type of gun responsible for the most gun deaths is the handgun, but then you'd be violating people's right of self preservation if you banned it. That means bans are off the table. If the gun grabbers are as smart as they like to tell everyone they are, I'm sure they can find alternatives that keep everyone happy. Surely you don't think there's only a singe solution to the problem.


I guess it's futile as long as people would rather cling to an antiquated document written by a bunch of old white guys that were okay with slavery, than use common sense to create a society where people can feel safe without a firearm.
 
2013-01-13 08:47:09 PM  
Lanza changed magazines frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots from a 30-round magazine, sources said.

Wierd, ran across this today......guess a high cap mag ban wouldn't have done anything either...article was from january 6th so enough time to get real info and not rumor...as far as unnamed sources....probably a cop who doesn;t want to break the blue wall since cops want to outgun everyone else in their quest to become para military units.

Dude wore ear plugs so as to not damage his hearing in the long term....like in the 20 minutes he had left to live before he offed himself.
 
2013-01-13 09:15:29 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: way south: A focus on firearms doesn't give anyone the results they want

No shiat, sherlock. Since it's a multi-faceted problem, a focus on any one thing won't fix it. But as a multi-faceted problem, you need to look at all facets, and one facet of EVERY gun crime is the fact that the asshole got hold of a gun.


It is also a fact that a most gun owners, the people you persist in trying to regulate at every opportunity, are defensive buyers.
Crooks aren't running that eleven billion dollar gun industry. Its the good guys that do most of the buying.
On the slim chance you'll stop one bad guy from getting a gun, you would attack millions of good guys.

The majority of gun owners, just as the majority of the population, are not criminals. They want to protect themselves.
They want security from the same tools used by cops and politicians to secure their own homes.
Guns follow crime, they don't cause it. Gun ownership and shootings are a symptom of a larger disease that is rooted in violence and fear.

Lets just be clear that people don't want to be robbed and stabbed more often then told that this is an improvement.
They want less crime. If you fail at delivering that they'll take matters into their own hands.

You are then behaving like a priest who rages when someone points out that antibiotics work better than prayer.
You deride their abuse of drugs and then You say you want a multifaceted solution... one that includes more facets of prayer.

Others know what works and they'll continue to do it no matter what you say.
The best course of action here is to either learn from your mistakes or get out of the way of those who have.

If you want to reduce the number of guns, you deal with the crime first.
 
2013-01-13 09:59:54 PM  

Mrbogey: PDid: Good stuff from the Washington post. Red states provide crime guns to Blue states


[i.imgur.com image 850x556]

DC has one FFL who was located at the police station. It's almost by definition either everyone using a gun in a crime there has to be a legal buyer or an importer.


Actually, that guy "went out of business." Despite the Heller decision you cannot legally buy a gun in DC or legally transfer it into DC.

For a little bit there after Heller, that guy was making bank by charging outrageous transfer fees and only the rich could afford to transfer a gun legally into DC.
 
2013-01-13 10:01:50 PM  

Lochsteppe: Frank N Stein: NewportBarGuy: OK, how about federal minimum sentence of life in prison for any gun crime whatsoever? No appeal, no parole. Nothing. You do ANY crime with a gun, you go away for life.

You asked for it, there it is.

"But officer, I'm only driving through to go hunting 3 counties over"

"Doesn't matter. THIS county has a law saying all ammunition must be kept separate from firearms when transporting. You have your shotgun shells in the same case as your gun. You're going to jail for life"

Awesome law, NewportBarGuy.

I've always been told that responsible gun owners will voluntarily and proactively research the gun laws of whatever area they're traveling to or through, in order to be sure that they're compliant and respectful. Clearly your fantasy scenario couldn't happen to a responsible gun owner.


I live in a county where its illegal to transport firearms unless you are traveling to or from the range or gunsmith, etc.

So things get confusing if you cross the county line and really need to take a piss.
 
HBK
2013-01-13 10:34:22 PM  

Wenchmaster: carpbrain: FNS . . . I've read the polls that show (bizarrely, in my view) that Americans are still in favor of mostly arbitrary gun ownership . . . I'm sure you know that the US is a huge outlier among civilized nations in this respect . . . still trying to get my head around the problem. I thought that Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/ was relatively insightful. That was a long time ago, and the discussion has not seemed to have moved much since then. Appreciative of any clever insights on the gun issue.

Decibel levels.

The US media can't sell their "journalistic, infotainment-like Art Product" from nuance and rational discussion. They require binary decisions in their endless quest to pander to the lowest common denominator. To that end, the media tends to ignore anyone who might be willing to compromise or who may have a moderate proposal both sides may find interesting. The only people who get air time are those who worship their weapons and those who are pathologically convinced that firearms are somehow manipulating everyone who sees one into becoming a ravening monster bent on slaughter. Since these two groups may be reliably counted upon to deliver sound bites during the six o'clock news, they are presented to the public in general as the only options.

It doesn't help matters that people who might not necessarily be raving gun-grabbers are fond of espousing legislation based on the vaguest understandings of how firearms work, resulting in laws that fail to accomplish anything useful. Opposite these people are the not-necessarily-rabid people who see any attempt to control the sale or possession of firearms as a plot to disarm law-abiding firearms owners. These sort of nuanced differences of opinion could possibly be subject to compromise, were it not for the fanatics at either extreme dominating the public discussion.

When someone who wants to propose legislation adding impediments to civilian firearms o ...


Amongst all the stupid, retarded posts by idiots on both sides of the issue, this post arises. Thank you Wenchmaster, for trying to bring reason to the debate.

/gun owner
//Feels exactly the same as wenchmaster
 
2013-01-13 10:44:48 PM  

Giltric: Empty Matchbook: Peter von Nostrand: Hahahaha. Too funny subs. Everyone knows violence is due to video games and Hollywood. Saint LaPierre said so himself

Seeing as how he hasn't been drummed out of the NRA, I can only assume a majority of their members agree!
Video Games are violent, especially the first person shooters that advertise their games being as real as it gets without actually dying....and that also promote killing more and more people in order to unlock or gain access to higher powered in game weapons to kill more and more people with..they even employ behavioral specialist to design mechanics that keep people playing.....do you disagree?


Never heard that promotion (as real as it gets without dying). And...yeah, they keep people playing...not...killing, what's your point? Because "behavior specialists" have also concluded that video games do not make people any more violent in the long term. And since the same videogames Americans play are exported worldwide without the corresponding increase in violent behavior, oh HAI! It must be something else.

Besides that: your arguments are weirdly vague and also don't really prove any points, so...I guess I won't contradict them? Game makers want people to keep playing their games: Film at 11.
 
2013-01-13 11:10:13 PM  

pueblonative: doglover: SharkInfested: Waiting for the one teabagger who spouts off about taxation to take up the cause of those of us who are actually taxed without representation

America was founded by people who violently opposed taxation without representation. They even rebelled twice after Hamilton tried to tax whiskey.
d.


and both of those rebellions went oh so well for the rebels:

Shays Rebellion


Whiskey Rebellion


There was never a pitched battle with the army.
Alexander Hamilton was shot dead at some point later.
Appalachians STILL don't pay tax on whiskey.
 
2013-01-13 11:14:06 PM  

lordjupiter: Clearly the answer is to let the states decide everything.

Oh wait, the borders aren't secure and one state's laws will cause problems for the neighboring state. I guess we need fences around every state with checkpoints at every entrance so that people can be screened for compliance to the applicable laws.


I guess you never drove to California on one of the Interstate routes.
 
2013-01-13 11:36:12 PM  

The_Sponge: I love it when liberals or leftists talk about personal responsibility. It's a joke.
And why are so many pussified males on the side on gun control?


I love how you guys keep saying that guns have nothing to do with penises and overcompensating, but if a man doesn't want to own a gun, he's "pussified."

Pussies, penises. Nope, no connection.
 
2013-01-14 12:14:22 AM  

Empty Matchbook: Giltric: Empty Matchbook: Peter von Nostrand: Hahahaha. Too funny subs. Everyone knows violence is due to video games and Hollywood. Saint LaPierre said so himself

Seeing as how he hasn't been drummed out of the NRA, I can only assume a majority of their members agree!
Video Games are violent, especially the first person shooters that advertise their games being as real as it gets without actually dying....and that also promote killing more and more people in order to unlock or gain access to higher powered in game weapons to kill more and more people with..they even employ behavioral specialist to design mechanics that keep people playing.....do you disagree?

Never heard that promotion (as real as it gets without dying). And...yeah, they keep people playing...not...killing, what's your point? Because "behavior specialists" have also concluded that video games do not make people any more violent in the long term. And since the same videogames Americans play are exported worldwide without the corresponding increase in violent behavior, oh HAI! It must be something else.

Besides that: your arguments are weirdly vague and also don't really prove any points, so...I guess I won't contradict them? Game makers want people to keep playing their games: Film at 11.


Other countries censor and outright ban video games due to high impact violence...Germany, the UK, Australia etc all do this...

LinkStudies have been done...and show increased activity in the emotional arousal sections of the brain and a decrease of activity in the self control sections of the brain while the gamer plays a violent video game.
A different study was done and shows the same thing happens when you show people violent movies. Now what does that mean to the average person...maybe nothing....but what about the broken humans like the Columbine killers and the Newtown shooter? I mean spree killing is an actual rare phenomenon in the scheme of things...maybe as rare as people acting out on the violence they experience in the video games they play hours upon hours a day, day in and day out.

The gaming industry is a multi billion dollar a year industry...they have their own research results that they pay for.....so depending on the behavior specialists it's nothing to worry about...or it might be a proble depending on who funded the study.
But maybe it is something esle.......maybe its the medication most if not all of these spree killers were on...or maybe a combination of the two farking with peoples brain chemistry and activity.

We have 88 firearms per 100 people.....if the firearm was to blame....what do you think this countries rate of violence would be? Is it low for such a well armed country or is it high?

You don't use behavior specialists to keep people playing games....you use them to get them hooked, like a dealer giving out free samples of crack....games have started using microtransactions as a source of revenue...because people spend even more money than if it was a monthly fee or a retail price for a box off the shelf....because they are hooked.
 
2013-01-14 01:58:21 AM  
Despite all the laws against molesting children, there are still child molesters molesting millions of children every year.

The solution isn't more laws against molesting children. What we really need to do is admit our laws against molesting children don't work and get rid of them altogether.
 
2013-01-14 03:12:26 AM  

NewportBarGuy: OK, how about federal minimum sentence of life in prison for any gun crime whatsoever? No appeal, no parole. Nothing. You do ANY crime with a gun, you go away for life.

You asked for it, there it is.


Problem with "no appeal" is that people get wrongly convicted all of the time. People have died on death row because dirty cops framed them, or prosecutors were so sure that they had the right guy that they didn't follow rules, such as sharing evidence. There have been cases where the prosecution (and the judge) have refused to allow evidence that exonerates the defendant, or have actively buried it. Then, you also have people appealing their case because their lawyer was inept.

Too many innocent people getting convicted for me to even consider the phrase 'No appeal', sorry.
 
2013-01-14 04:28:37 AM  
This whole gun debate has turned me from a flaming liberal to a teabagger (almost). This is farking stupid. The gun control crowd is saying all they want to do is stop people from buying assault weapons and high capacity clips, right? But what they really propose is making some arbitrary list of "mentally defective" persons to put in a database. And then maybe another list of people known to play Grand Theft Auto and maybe downloaded a copy of Natural Born Losers from a .torrent. You have to keep track of these losers and we already have NSA on the job. So lets just change the law from tracking terrorists in Pakistan to Indiana-stan and voila! instant gun control.

Forget about the fact that the current law prohibits about half the American population from owning a firearm because that's about how many people are either in prison, on probation/parole, subject to some kind of restraining order, or just some guy who farked up as a kid by doing something stupid and forfeited his 2nd Amendment rights.

This is bullshiat. There a millions of law abiding Americans who can't even touch a gun or a bullet without the fear of going to prison. While his neighbor, who might be a total jackass gets a pass because he happens to fall into one of the exemptions, and probably had the money to hire a lawyer to be allowed to carry a gun all the time.

Either we all have a right to self defense or not. If not, then these assholes saying they only want to outlaw assault weapons (but really mean they want keep as many people as possible from having a gun as they can) ought to push a farking repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

The way it is now is just wrong. It's like tax reform; you can't fix part of the problem without addressing the entire issue. But they won't, they'll dick around and hurt those on the bottom of the totem pole as usual.

The only really smart thing to do now is buy a gun before it's too late.
 
2013-01-14 05:55:31 AM  

Taylor Mental: what they really propose is making some arbitrary list of "mentally defective" persons to put in a database. And then maybe another list of people known to play Grand Theft Auto and maybe downloaded a copy of Natural Born Losers from a .torrent.


Don't let things like this surprise you.
What people forget is this was a part of the gun control plan from the start. Proponents wanted to make ownership obsolete by piling on more "reasonable" hurdles than you can mount.

Let us scroll back to well before we had a mass shooter of the month issue and remember what gun owners said when the Brady bill and AWB were going into effect: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". It means that if we cut off the path to legal ownership it wont wont stop shootings. People bent on getting weapons will still find a way.

Since then we have made a background check system to determine who the "good people" are. Some places also kept feature bans and waiting periods.
When Adam Lanza was discouraged from getting weapons legally, he went on to murder his own mother and steal hers.

How does the proposed solution to such an issue become "more lists"?
Its because the plan isn't about stopping mayhem, its about getting everyone on a list.

The people never asked for a gun ban, they want to know what we can do to stop crime. They want to hear about the health care, the jobs, and the social reforms.
The new solution became "lets sell gun control as if it was an anti-crime measure because... more lists".

That stll doesn't stop crime.
As a side effect, because people aren't as stupid as politicians think we are:

dl.dropbox.com

/On a side note: "Dear FN: Your SCAR sucks so much that no one wants it. Even in an Apocalypse."
 
2013-01-14 07:51:17 AM  

Jim_Callahan: And we explain the 391 robberies and 93 aggravated assaults in 2009 (the last major statistics collection point) how, exactly, then?

Because on average there's going to be more than one armed crime a day in BC, bans in place or no, four or five of them clustering together at some point in the space of several days isn't a "rash of robberies", it's the inevitable result of statistics and the normal crime rate.

//Source

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I own two guns. A rifle and a handgun. I just think it's beyond idiotic that these people think that the only facet of gun violence in this country that has to be completely off the table is guns.

I really have exactly zero problem getting carded to buy ammo or have to undergo a simple mental health evaluation to buy a goddamn rifle capable of mowing down 30 people in 2 minutes.

Since you don't seem to understand that you're talking about a constitutional right, here's what you're saying converted to a different amendment:

"I own two blogs. A news blog and a politics blog. I just think it's beyond idiotic that these people think that the only facet of starting fights in this country that has to be completely off the table is political speech.

I really have exactly zero problem getting carded to make a post expressing a political opinion or have to undergo a simple mental health evaluation to buy a modem capable of encouraging 30 crazy people to be crazier in 2 minutes."

Free speech registration time!

//Not that there aren't valid arguments regarding trade regulations on firearm, but yours is not one of them.


Fallacy of false equivalency.
 
2013-01-14 09:10:50 AM  

Wooly Bully: doglover: Wooly Bully: The easier it is to get guns, the fewer crimes will be committed with guns! There are people who actually believe this.

I enjoy shooting, but I'm so f*cking sick of "gun people".

Guns are ALREADY saturated.

That ship sailed in 1776. Any criminal who wants a gun in America has a gun already.

Increasing regulations will just make the felony of having an illegal gun more of a felony. Pointless.

That's right! Existing gun laws are a disaster. What kind of an idiot would want to change them?


So if they passed laws saying Pi = 3 or making suicide illegal you think it should stay on the books and be selectively enforced. Made up offences almost never enforced but used by lazy D.A.s to get plea bargains that count on their records as convictions do nothing to reduce crime. There are enough laws on the books that anybody, including you, can be charged and convicted of a felony they didn't even know was a crime. Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assault, any crime of violence you can think of is already a illegal whether it is committed with a gun or a shovel. It is a Federal offence for a prohibited person to attempt, not succeed, to buy a gun. That Federal Law is almost never enforced, why do you think that is? Just like the Sullivan Act, it was passed so it could be used against the "enemies" of a corrupt politician to eliminate competition. Eventually your corrupt and faithless politicians will be replaced by my corrupt and faithless politicians. Don't encourage passing laws you wouldn't want to see selectively enforced by your opposition.
 
2013-01-14 09:13:59 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uranus Is Huge!: A very, very limited ban on one particular type of firearm "didn't work," therefore any attempt to limit access to firearms is futile.

It is futile, because the only thing left, and the type of gun responsible for the most gun deaths is the handgun, but then you'd be violating people's right of self preservation if you banned it. That means bans are off the table. If the gun grabbers are as smart as they like to tell everyone they are, I'm sure they can find alternatives that keep everyone happy. Surely you don't think there's only a singe solution to the problem.

I guess it's futile as long as people would rather cling to an antiquated document written by a bunch of old white guys that were okay with slavery, than use common sense to create a society where people can feel safe without a firearm.


Banning weapons doesn't magically rid the world of criminals. So why would your efforts make anyone feel safer without a firearm? It's amazing to me how comfortably you people spew out these logical fallacies.
 
2013-01-14 09:41:41 AM  

Yakk: PDid: Good stuff from the Washington post. Red states provide crime guns to Blue states


[i.imgur.com image 850x556]

Nonsense, criminals are born with guns, only law abiding citizens purchase them.


Actually it is Blue State Criminals that IMPORT guns from where ever they can find them. No one loads up an 18 wheeler, drives to a Blue state to set up shop on a corner. The Blue states Black Markets pay good prices for guns that the government can't control just like they pay good prices for drugs. The only guns they don't actively seek out are the ones the criminals take with them when they move into a Blue state for the easy pickings and free stuff from the government. The last arrest I've noticed in the news for trafficking guns into a Blue state were a group of Cops importing guns into NYC.
 
2013-01-14 10:19:44 AM  

Giltric: Well we are comparing Washington DC to Virginia...


No, not WE. YOU'RE doing that. I'M not an idiot.

way south: It is also a fact that a most gun owners, the people you persist in trying to regulate at every opportunity, are defensive buyers.


While we're just arbitrarily making up "facts", allow me: the fact is everything you ever said or ever will say is wrong, therefore, I win.

Or was I supposed to keep reading after you decided to start your post out with something you just pulled out of your ass?
 
2013-01-14 10:30:58 AM  

ex-nuke: Don't encourage passing laws you wouldn't want to see selectively enforced by your opposition.


Anything can be abused, therefore everything should be abolished!

Shine on, you crazy diamond.
 
2013-01-14 11:13:01 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uranus Is Huge!: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uranus Is Huge!: A very, very limited ban on one particular type of firearm "didn't work," therefore any attempt to limit access to firearms is futile.

It is futile, because the only thing left, and the type of gun responsible for the most gun deaths is the handgun, but then you'd be violating people's right of self preservation if you banned it. That means bans are off the table. If the gun grabbers are as smart as they like to tell everyone they are, I'm sure they can find alternatives that keep everyone happy. Surely you don't think there's only a singe solution to the problem.

I guess it's futile as long as people would rather cling to an antiquated document written by a bunch of old white guys that were okay with slavery, than use common sense to create a society where people can feel safe without a firearm.

Banning weapons doesn't magically rid the world of criminals. So why would your efforts make anyone feel safer without a firearm? It's amazing to me how comfortably you people spew out these logical fallacies.


There is literally nothing I can say that will make you believe that we would be better off with less firearms. We have fundamental differences that make it impossible to agree. I'm going to stop trying now. Feel free to interpret this as another victory against the gun-grabbers.
 
2013-01-14 11:28:10 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: No, not WE. YOU'RE doing that. I'M not an idiot.


I have a different opinion about that


Giltric
Smartest
Funniest
2013-01-13 04:08:47 PM
Wooly Bully: Vegan Meat Popsicle: The_Sponge: I love all the gun grabbers who want to take away the rights from those of us who live in freedom-loving states.

Freedom means never having to be responsible for anything you do! FREEDOM!

I have relatives in Virginia, and boy, are those mofos free! They're so free, they're the number one exporter of guns used in crimes outside their own incredibly free state. There are people who literally make a living buying guns in VA and selling them on the street in other states. FREEDOM!
Why is crime lower in VA where the gun laws are lax as opposed to DC?
Is everyone commuting to DC tin order to perpetrate crime and mess with the statisticals?


So tell me why crime isn't higher in the state that has lax gun laws and exports guns to other states with strict gun control laws.......you know...as proof you are not an idiot.
I see you spew alot of insults and no substance.....maybe you are just trolling, an idiot, or some paid shill for the Brady Campaign....take your pick.
 
2013-01-14 11:59:44 AM  

Giltric: you are just trolling, an idiot, or some paid shill for the Brady Campaign


This is amazing. I'm all of those things! You're too smart for me, I give up.
 
2013-01-14 12:37:48 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: There is literally nothing I can say that will make you believe that we would be better off with less firearms. We have fundamental differences that make it impossible to agree. I'm going to stop trying now. Feel free to interpret this as another victory against the gun-grabbers.


You could always just show some proof that reducing guns reduces crime. Your side never bothers to do that for some reason. I'd think if you had some form of compelling evidence, you people would be spreading it far and wide.

We both know why you won't show evidence, because you have none. Facts are just not on your side, so your side resorts to emotionalism. And that's fine if you just want to "win", but it's not fine if you care about the truth, and having effective solutions implemented. So, if you people manage to divert the country from an effective solution, and instead impose your gun ban, I'll be right there holding you responsible for the next mass shooting, because there is ample evidence showing that a gun ban will do exactly nothing to change criminal behavior.
 
2013-01-14 12:40:35 PM  

Wooly Bully: Giltric: you are just trolling, an idiot, or some paid shill for the Brady Campaign

This is amazing. I'm all of those things! You're too smart for me, I give up.


So VMP is your alt?

I mean why would you respond to a post directed at him?
 
2013-01-14 12:45:39 PM  

Giltric: Wooly Bully: Giltric: you are just trolling, an idiot, or some paid shill for the Brady Campaign

This is amazing. I'm all of those things! You're too smart for me, I give up.

So VMP is your alt?

I mean why would you respond to a post directed at him?


You were responding to and bolded something I wrote, Mr. Not-a-troll-at-all.
 
2013-01-14 01:04:32 PM  

vartian: Why don't all of you  George Zimmermans stay the fark out of my city? We have enough problems, thank you.


Whatever George Zimmerman is, the debate isn't about him robbing people. TFA, on the other hand, IS about robberies.

But hey, make them guns illegal, and I'm sure those robbers will find a legal method for breaking the law.
 
2013-01-14 01:28:12 PM  

Wooly Bully: Giltric: Wooly Bully: Giltric: you are just trolling, an idiot, or some paid shill for the Brady Campaign

This is amazing. I'm all of those things! You're too smart for me, I give up.

So VMP is your alt?

I mean why would you respond to a post directed at him?

You were responding to and bolded something I wrote, Mr. Not-a-troll-at-all.


I'm actually a paid shill for the NRA. Some of you people really suck at messaging.
 
2013-01-14 04:41:54 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle:
While we're just arbitrarily making up "facts"

( from the Gallup poll, 67% of gun owners say they purchased a weapon to defend against crime) , allow me: the fact is everything you ever said or ever will say is wrong, therefore, I win.

Or was I supposed to keep reading after you decided to start your post out with something you just pulled out of your ass?


No, please continue to refute everyone else's data with facts you pull out of your own ass.
 
2013-01-14 10:40:56 PM  

Giltric: Empty Matchbook: Giltric: Empty Matchbook: Peter von Nostrand: Hahahaha. Too funny subs. Everyone knows violence is due to video games and Hollywood. Saint LaPierre said so himself

Seeing as how he hasn't been drummed out of the NRA, I can only assume a majority of their members agree!
Video Games are violent, especially the first person shooters that advertise their games being as real as it gets without actually dying....and that also promote killing more and more people in order to unlock or gain access to higher powered in game weapons to kill more and more people with..they even employ behavioral specialist to design mechanics that keep people playing.....do you disagree?

Never heard that promotion (as real as it gets without dying). And...yeah, they keep people playing...not...killing, what's your point? Because "behavior specialists" have also concluded that video games do not make people any more violent in the long term. And since the same videogames Americans play are exported worldwide without the corresponding increase in violent behavior, oh HAI! It must be something else.

Besides that: your arguments are weirdly vague and also don't really prove any points, so...I guess I won't contradict them? Game makers want people to keep playing their games: Film at 11.

Other countries censor and outright ban video games due to high impact violence...Germany, the UK, Australia etc all do this...

LinkStudies have been done...and show increased activity in the emotional arousal sections of the brain and a decrease of activity in the self control sections of the brain while the gamer plays a violent video game.
A different study was done and shows the same thing happens when you show people violent movies. Now what does that mean to the average person...maybe nothing....but what about the broken humans like the Columbine killers and the Newtown shooter? I mean spree killing is an actual rare phenomenon in the scheme of things...maybe as rare as people acting ou ...


So what triggered all these people BEFORE videogames? And for that matter: Are you really going to make the argument that a game that looks like the first DOOM could "simulate murder"? You can't even look up or down. Or were there no spree killers BEFORE those? Are you really so interested in gutting the first Amendment to save the Second? Cause the 2nd Amendment's place in the constitution comes up a LOT in these debates, so I'm sorry, but videogames were recently upheld as protected under the first.

Also: UK does not, Germany only censors games developed in Germany, and Australia recently lifted that ban. I also notice you left Canada off your list there, I can't IMAGINE why-Oh wait...could it be that they have comparable numbers of violent games (and guns for that matter) but 1/100 of the violent homicides? You also never did direct me, or anyone, to that "The most realistic you can get without dying" ad campaign that apparently SWEPT the nation while I wasn't looking.
 
2013-01-15 07:33:56 AM  

Empty Matchbook: So what triggered all these people BEFORE videogames? And for that matter: Are you really going to make the argument that a game that looks like the first DOOM could "simulate murder"? You can't even look up or down. Or were there no spree killers BEFORE those? Are you really so interested in gutting the first Amendment to save the Second? Cause the 2nd Amendment's place in the constitution comes up a LOT in these debates, so I'm sorry, but videogames were recently upheld as protected under the first.


Except you do realize that things like violent movies have ratings, and people under certain ages aren't allowed to purchase them, right? The video game ratings are self imposed and there is no law enforcement involved.
 
2013-01-15 10:39:42 AM  

Empty Matchbook: Giltric: Empty Matchbook: Giltric: Empty Matchbook: Peter von Nostrand: Hahahaha. Too funny subs. Everyone knows violence is due to video games and Hollywood. Saint LaPierre said so himself

Seeing as how he hasn't been drummed out of the NRA, I can only assume a majority of their members agree!
Video Games are violent, especially the first person shooters that advertise their games being as real as it gets without actually dying....and that also promote killing more and more people in order to unlock or gain access to higher powered in game weapons to kill more and more people with..they even employ behavioral specialist to design mechanics that keep people playing.....do you disagree?

Never heard that promotion (as real as it gets without dying). And...yeah, they keep people playing...not...killing, what's your point? Because "behavior specialists" have also concluded that video games do not make people any more violent in the long term. And since the same videogames Americans play are exported worldwide without the corresponding increase in violent behavior, oh HAI! It must be something else.

Besides that: your arguments are weirdly vague and also don't really prove any points, so...I guess I won't contradict them? Game makers want people to keep playing their games: Film at 11.

Other countries censor and outright ban video games due to high impact violence...Germany, the UK, Australia etc all do this...

LinkStudies have been done...and show increased activity in the emotional arousal sections of the brain and a decrease of activity in the self control sections of the brain while the gamer plays a violent video game.
A different study was done and shows the same thing happens when you show people violent movies. Now what does that mean to the average person...maybe nothing....but what about the broken humans like the Columbine killers and the Newtown shooter? I mean spree killing is an actual rare phenomenon in the scheme of things...maybe as rare as people ...


Lanza swapped magazines that were half full in favor of fresh mags.....just like people who play call of duty and medal of honor type first person shooters.

Do you play FPS games? Have you ever done that in game?
 
2013-01-15 04:21:48 PM  

Giltric: Lanza swapped magazines that were half full in favor of fresh mags.....just like people who play call of duty and medal of honor type first person shooters.

Do you play FPS games? Have you ever done that in game?


Are you for real?
 
2013-01-15 10:50:13 PM  

Giltric: Empty Matchbook: Giltric: Empty Matchbook: Giltric: Empty Matchbook: Peter von Nostrand: Hahahaha. Too funny subs. Everyone knows violence is due to video games and Hollywood. Saint LaPierre said so himself

Seeing as how he hasn't been drummed out of the NRA, I can only assume a majority of their members agree!
Video Games are violent, especially the first person shooters that advertise their games being as real as it gets without actually dying....and that also promote killing more and more people in order to unlock or gain access to higher powered in game weapons to kill more and more people with..they even employ behavioral specialist to design mechanics that keep people playing.....do you disagree?

Never heard that promotion (as real as it gets without dying). And...yeah, they keep people playing...not...killing, what's your point? Because "behavior specialists" have also concluded that video games do not make people any more violent in the long term. And since the same videogames Americans play are exported worldwide without the corresponding increase in violent behavior, oh HAI! It must be something else.

Besides that: your arguments are weirdly vague and also don't really prove any points, so...I guess I won't contradict them? Game makers want people to keep playing their games: Film at 11.

Other countries censor and outright ban video games due to high impact violence...Germany, the UK, Australia etc all do this...

LinkStudies have been done...and show increased activity in the emotional arousal sections of the brain and a decrease of activity in the self control sections of the brain while the gamer plays a violent video game.
A different study was done and shows the same thing happens when you show people violent movies. Now what does that mean to the average person...maybe nothing....but what about the broken humans like the Columbine killers and the Newtown shooter? I mean spree killing is an actual rare phenomenon in the scheme of things...maybe a ...


You had me on the hook for so long, and then gave me up for THAT line. Still, well played, well riposted, and well trolled, sir.
 
Displayed 39 of 239 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