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.

(KSL Salt Lake City)   Law-abiding citizen carries rifle into department store, minds own business, fails to murder anyone. It might take some effort, but we can all still feel threatened and outraged   (ksl.com) divider line 637
    More: Interesting, KSL, rifles, Riverdale, murders, J.C. Penney  
•       •       •

10744 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2013 at 4:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-18 10:13:36 AM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant? Provide specifics that don't f*ck over us law abiding permit holders with useless feel-good "ban stuff" laws please.


How about we put an RFID chip in every gun that can only be activated by a similar chip installed in every American, and we deactivate their chip's gun-mode when we decide they are dangerous, so they can't get any gun to actually shoot, kind of like in District 13 where the humans can't shoot the alien guns.

/not serious
/not completely serious anyway
 
2013-01-18 10:14:12 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person.

False. I don't believe you're actually reading my posts.

Fair enough. You said a lot of derp in this thread, but I'll let you explain your position now.

Well my Boobies was pointing out that the man that is responsible today might not be tomorrow.

The problem is people, which is why I support background checks, mental health evals, etc.

No more loopholes, no more bullshiat.

So in essence my notion of gun control is access control.

Look, I know you mean well. You don't want to see kids getting killed, and neither do I. It breaks our hearts. When i get attacked(yes, i take attacks on gun owners personally, funny as they may be), I do get nasty back. In the end this gets us nowhere. You know that. I know that. Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.


I don't disagree with any of this.

Where we split is what to do about it. I don't think we're going to find some cure for our societal ills any time soon (dealing with income inequality and making the case for UHC is where I would personally focus), so in the meantime, I have to go with weapons restrictions mixed with tougher enforcement of existing law and closing sales loopholes. What else is there?

A fraction of our population owns 40% of the worlds private firearms. The criminal element obviously benefits from this glut. It just strikes me as absurd.
 
2013-01-18 10:14:56 AM
i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-18 10:15:40 AM
*Attention attention whores*

Just because you can... doesn't mean you should.
 
2013-01-18 10:16:34 AM

muck4doo: Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.



This sort of rational and intelligent discourse has no place here or anywhere gun violence is being discussed!

As a progressive, what really bothers me is when some other progressives go into knee-jerk reaction mode re: gun violence. When the point is made that people could just stab victims or blow them up with explosives if they could not get their hands on guns, the response to that is usually "they can't kill as many people with those kinds of weapons". I think to myself, "why the fark are you not focusing on eradicating the *cause* of this sort of violence rather than just reducing the number of deaths?"

Then I stop and realize that this is just the typical, backwards approach modern society seems to have toward solving most of its social problems: "fixing" the problem from the wrong end.
 
2013-01-18 10:19:25 AM

larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]


That's cute, you think that criminals buy their guns from gun-stores.  And if he had the gun before, how did a background check take it away?
 
2013-01-18 10:21:07 AM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant?


We already do that.

Limiting access to the James Holmes' of the world is my desire. Perhaps it's unrealistic, but there it is.
 
2013-01-18 10:21:16 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person.

False. I don't believe you're actually reading my posts.

Fair enough. You said a lot of derp in this thread, but I'll let you explain your position now.

Well my Boobies was pointing out that the man that is responsible today might not be tomorrow.

The problem is people, which is why I support background checks, mental health evals, etc.

No more loopholes, no more bullshiat.

So in essence my notion of gun control is access control.

Look, I know you mean well. You don't want to see kids getting killed, and neither do I. It breaks our hearts. When i get attacked(yes, i take attacks on gun owners personally, funny as they may be), I do get nasty back. In the end this gets us nowhere. You know that. I know that. Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.

I don't disagree with any of this.

Where we split is what to do about it. I don't think we're going to ...


The guns didn't cause the societal shift, but this new combination is not a good one. Being able to co-exist with these weapons without this stuff happening is becoming less and less possible. If we can't figure out how to fix what is wrong and sick in today's society, then there's only one other option, and that's taking guns out of the equation. I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, but there you go.
 
2013-01-18 10:21:50 AM

hinten: Having less of a tool does not change the amount of usage of that tool? Sure, I get it.



lh3.googleusercontent.com

Reducing the number of arms, without addressing the reasons that folks turn to these arms in the first place is just cosmetic change. The "debate" on gun control is, at its heart, a useless debate.

You want to reduce crime? Really reduce it? Then we need to look at the causes. We need to look at health care, mental health care, economic mobility, opportunity, as well as issues of justice. Until we take a hard look at the causes, we're not doing anything but looking to distract folks, because the real work is hard...
 
2013-01-18 10:22:53 AM

Xenomech: muck4doo: Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.

This sort of rational and intelligent discourse has no place here or anywhere gun violence is being discussed!

As a progressive, what really bothers me is when some other progressives go into knee-jerk reaction mode re: gun violence. When the point is made that people could just stab victims or blow them up with explosives if they could not get their hands on guns, the response to that is usually "they can't kill as many people with those kinds of weapons". I think to myself, "why the fark are you not focusing on eradicating the *cause* of this sort of violence rather than just reducing the number of deaths?"

Then I stop and realize that this is just the typical, backwards approach modern society seems to have toward solving most of its social problems: "fixing" the problem from the wrong end.



Fellow progressive gun owner here. Nicely put. I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.
 
2013-01-18 10:23:43 AM

Xenomech: muck4doo: Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.

This sort of rational and intelligent discourse has no place here or anywhere gun violence is being discussed!

As a progressive, what really bothers me is when some other progressives go into knee-jerk reaction mode re: gun violence. When the point is made that people could just stab victims or blow them up with explosives if they could not get their hands on guns, the response to that is usually "they can't kill as many people with those kinds of weapons". I think to myself, "why the fark are you not focusing on eradicating the *cause* of this sort of violence rather than just reducing the number of deaths?"

Then I stop and realize that this is just the typical, backwards approach modern society seems to have toward solving most of its social problems: "fixing" the problem from the wrong end.


Your argument makes the assumption that people in favor of gun control and gun bans are not also focusing on the root causes of the issues including but not limited to mental health care. This assumption is not valid so neither is your argument. It's yet another strawman.
 
2013-01-18 10:28:42 AM

randomjsa: I don't wear a seat belt because its the law or because I'm just absolutely terrified that at ANY MOMENT I could be in a car accident. I wear one because it could happen and it's better to be prepared than not. When I ride my mountain bike, I wear a helmet not because I'm terrified of falling off and hitting my head... If I was, I wouldn't ride the bike, the helmet is there just in case. If I choose to arm myself, it is not because I'm convinced that there are people out to get me, or because I expect to need to take out a mass murdering psycho, it's because I'm prepared on the extremely unlikely off chance that it's needed. Just like the seat belt. Just like the helmet.


Yes, because having a helmet or a seat belt is exactly the same thing as having a gun. They all have the potential to harm innocent people. Remember when that guy's bike helmet spontaneously fragmented and dozens of people were killed by the shrapnel?
 
2013-01-18 10:29:39 AM

larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]


Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.
 
2013-01-18 10:30:45 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Where we split is what to do about it. I don't think we're going to find some cure for our societal ills any time soon (dealing with income inequality and making the case for UHC is where I would personally focus), so in the meantime, I have to go with weapons restrictions mixed with tougher enforcement of existing law and closing sales loopholes. What else is there?

A fraction of our population owns 40% of the worlds private firearms. The criminal element obviously benefits from this glut. It just strikes me as absurd.


You may find it funny that I'm conservative, but would much rather have UHC than what we have now. That isn't going to solve any of our violence here than other than how our insurance treat gun shot and knife stab wounds when they come in. I blame a lot of this on the drug war, and....well...I won't say the rest for now. What I want to find out is what is it that sickened our society to the point where sickos can go and shoot up a school without thinking twice about it. Like i said before, the semi-automatics have been there for over a century, but this is a recent phenomenon.
 
2013-01-18 10:31:08 AM

CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.


I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.
 
2013-01-18 10:32:18 AM

Robert Farker: CADMonkey79: Robert Farker: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: That's silly, I never said that.

You blame the tool, and not the person. So yes, you did, and you have. You are a scared little man afraid of the new technology out there, and people other than the government having those types of tools . Like I said earlier, you would be the caveman protesting against fire. What made you become a big government tool(yes, you are a tool too.)? Seriously? Is it you don't trust yourself, or just hate other people?

I wish people would realize how silly this argument is. No one actually thinks it's the gun and not the person who is responsible for gun violence. No one blames the tool over the individual. It's a straw man argument.

Then why are the proposing a ban on the tool?

It's obvious they are trying to keep them out of the hands of people who would use them to kill others and commit crimes.


So another law is going to keep a criminal from getting there hands on a gun? Criminals don't tend to abide by laws. Maybe we need 10 more laws or 20.
 
2013-01-18 10:34:56 AM

Robert Farker: Your argument makes the assumption that people in favor of gun control and gun bans are not also focusing on the root causes of the issues including but not limited to mental health care.


If I could see significant evidence to the contrary I would not be making that assumption.

Let's be realistic: the mental health care aspect -- if it's even brought up at all -- always comes up *after* the immediate "we must ban guns!" reaction. It's always an afterthought in the discussion. My point is that banning guns is not an appropriate initial reaction. Mental health -- not weather or not guns should be banned -- should be the *primary focus* of the discussion.
 
2013-01-18 10:35:46 AM

ImpendingCynic: Yes, because having a helmet or a seat belt is exactly the same thing as having a gun. They all have the potential to harm innocent people. Remember when that guy's bike helmet spontaneously fragmented and dozens of people were killed by the shrapnel?


Ha ha! Yeah, that was hilarious!
 
2013-01-18 10:36:46 AM

thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.


Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.
 
2013-01-18 10:38:11 AM
Fella, you're not helping.

Also, that muzzle should be pointed either straight up or straight down, not cocked at a jaunty angle like that.

Instead of being a pain, what you could be doing to help out gun owners everywhere is taking new shooters to the range and letting them see for themselves what goes on there.
 
2013-01-18 10:38:37 AM

Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.


hmm odd, I thought my sarcasm was fairly apparent, may need to adjust the filter.

/Catch and release.
 
2013-01-18 10:38:37 AM

Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.


Ummm....are your arguing with yourself now?
 
2013-01-18 10:40:19 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant?

We already do that.

Limiting access to the James Holmes' of the world is my desire. Perhaps it's unrealistic, but there it is.


I can't help but notice you ignored the "Provide specifics that don't f*ck over us law abiding permit holders with useless feel-good "ban stuff" laws please." part of my post.
 
2013-01-18 10:40:41 AM

hubiestubert: hinten: Having less of a tool does not change the amount of usage of that tool? Sure, I get it.


[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 240x240]

Reducing the number of arms, without addressing the reasons that folks turn to these arms in the first place is just cosmetic change. The "debate" on gun control is, at its heart, a useless debate.

You want to reduce crime? Really reduce it? Then we need to look at the causes. We need to look at health care, mental health care, economic mobility, opportunity, as well as issues of justice. Until we take a hard look at the causes, we're not doing anything but looking to distract folks, because the real work is hard...


How am I missing your point by stating a portion of what you are saying back to you?
You are clearly stating that it is pointless to attempt to limit supplies of the reason for the usage of this device does not get addressed.
I think you are one of those people that wants to be told that you are reasonable for the sake of appearing reasonable and at the same time cutting off the quickest way to decrease the problem.
I am saying that we can pursue both paths easily at the same time and both will slowly be successful at their own pace. I predict that radically limiting the supply will be successful faster than attempting to eradicate the reasons for violence.
 
2013-01-18 10:41:08 AM

TommyymmoT: Eventually, one of those assholes are going to get shot by somebody thinking they're some crazed gunman, because seriously, who brings an AR-15 to the mall?


Pretty much this.  Would have been real ironic if another "good guy with a gun" took him out thinking he was hunting more then bargains at the store.
 
2013-01-18 10:41:29 AM
 
2013-01-18 10:41:57 AM

ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.


Last month I had a tenant come into my office with a gun. I told him to leave immediately. He said he wanted to pay his rent. I said he could as soon as he came back without the weapon. He said he wasn't comfortable leaving it in his car. Fine, come back another day. Rent will be late but, I'll wave the fees. He told me to fark off and I was violating his rights and he would see me in court. Sent a five day notice. Filed a forceable detainer and went to court. He got up and started barking about the 2nd amendment and the judge is like whoa there boy, our only consideration is rent. Got the judgement and he didn't leave. Got a writ of restitution and the constable forced him out. I had to put all his shiat in storage including his guns. There it will sit until he pays me for reasonable storage fees. $25/say seems fair.
 
2013-01-18 10:42:15 AM

hubiestubert: I am a gun owner. I've had a concealed carry--though I don't have one today, because I don't need one--and I used to be a bouncer. That is just background information though. What I learned over the years was that you don't carry a loaded weapon, especially in public, without good reason.

When I was bouncing, I didn't carry, because in a shuffle, you don't want to lose a loaded weapon, not in a crowded club. Even when hunting, I don't load a weapon, until I actually get to the area where I intend to hunt, because of the chance of accidental discharge. Even with a safety on, the best way to prevent accidents with a weapon, even if you are alone or somewhere remote, is to simply not have it loaded. Trip and fall, sudden stop, crash, whatever, things can happen. You reduce that chance by simply removing the possibility of the weapon firing. In amongst people, a LOT can go wrong, and carrying a loaded weapon in public is not the brightest thing. People can grab the weapon, all sorts of things can go wrong. When I did carry, it was because I was dropping off deposits, and it was in Boston, and near the Combat Zone, and I'm glad I did carry, because those were sort of wild and wooly days, and thankfully, I never had fire at people, and never even had to draw on someone. I was mugged when carrying, by a guy with a knife, and the $75 in my wallet wasn't worth shooting someone over, and in the situation, I never felt that I was in danger if I just cooperated--guess I got lucky that I was mugged by a professional, because he even let me keep the wallet.

While I was bouncing, we were offered stun guns, and pepper spray, and as a team we refused, because when you carry a weapon, you have to think of the environment. Pepper spray is sort of indiscriminate, and gassing patrons who aren't involved in a dust up is a bad idea. And dangerous, if someone has respiratory problems or asthma or the like. Stun guns and tasers can be taken, and used on you or someone else, and that is a ...


From this crazy "TAKE YER GUNZ" librul, it would be wonderful if you were the spokesman for sane, responsible gun owners.
 
2013-01-18 10:43:10 AM

CADMonkey79: Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.

Ummm....are your arguing with yourself now?


Is that what the kids are calling it now-a-days?
 
2013-01-18 10:43:13 AM

Xenomech: muck4doo: Nobody wants to see kids getting killed. Mental health is a good start, but I have many questions on how that approach will be taken. Ask for treatment for PSTD? Does that mean vets can't get access to guns? Start banning violence in media? How come there was no problem with it till recently? Guns have been around a long time, and semi-autos for over a century. These types of things didn't start happening until recently(Charles Whitman). Since then there have been too many copy cats. Did you see these tpes of incidents happening in the 50's or 40's? Not much during the 70's. Or 80's. Something is wrong and sick in this society today. It's not my place to say exactly what it is, and neither is it yours. But with dialogue everyone can start to try to figure it out. It's not the guns though. They were there before, they are there now, and will always be. It's like blaming a crime on a hammer, rather than try to figure out what the hell went wrong with the person that used it in a murderous manner.

This sort of rational and intelligent discourse has no place here or anywhere gun violence is being discussed!

As a progressive, what really bothers me is when some other progressives go into knee-jerk reaction mode re: gun violence. When the point is made that people could just stab victims or blow them up with explosives if they could not get their hands on guns, the response to that is usually "they can't kill as many people with those kinds of weapons". I think to myself, "why the fark are you not focusing on eradicating the *cause* of this sort of violence rather than just reducing the number of deaths?"

Then I stop and realize that this is just the typical, backwards approach modern society seems to have toward solving most of its social problems: "fixing" the problem from the wrong end.


It's treating the symptom, and not the disease. Look, I get where their heart is. Something horrible happened, and they want to stop the bleeding rather than search out where the shots are coming from and why. In the end by doing silly things like magazine limitations and other crap like banning scary cosmetics, they haven't accomplished anything. They dressed up the wound rather than find the killer and why he's killing people.
 
2013-01-18 10:44:11 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Where we split is what to do about it. I don't think we're going to find some cure for our societal ills any time soon (dealing with income inequality and making the case for UHC is where I would personally focus), so in the meantime, I have to go with weapons restrictions mixed with tougher enforcement of existing law and closing sales loopholes. What else is there?

A fraction of our population owns 40% of the worlds private firearms. The criminal element obviously benefits from this glut. It just strikes me as absurd.

You may find it funny that I'm conservative, but would much rather have UHC than what we have now. That isn't going to solve any of our violence here than other than how our insurance treat gun shot and knife stab wounds when they come in. I blame a lot of this on the drug war, and....well...I won't say the rest for now. What I want to find out is what is it that sickened our society to the point where sickos can go and shoot up a school without thinking twice about it. Like i said before, the semi-automatics have been there for over a century, but this is a recent phenomenon.


I feel like it's isolation. We're at a point where people being checked out recluses is entirely common. It used to just be that cranky old man up the road that never left his house.

Sense of community has given way to everyone being holed up and talking to each other through monitors...like we're doing. Nobody gets invested in their surroundings anymore and "minding your business" is seen as a virtue. Sometimes somebody's bubble needs to be popped even if some invasion of privacy is employed. They might be able to be talked off a ledge.

I'm speaking in generalities of course.
 
2013-01-18 10:44:46 AM

numbquil: Ilmarinen: numbquil: At this current time, in our country The United States of America, it is not culturally acceptable to walk around with an AR-15 on your back.

When and where has it ever been? You talk as if the US is the exception.

There have been many ages throughout history in which is was perfectly acceptable for a gentleman to carry around the particular arms that were popular at the time whether it be a sword, dagger, or projectile weapon. I said it in that particular manner because I hope that someday it will be culturally acceptable to carry arms in public. Even the scary looking ones. Simply carrying a firearm on your back does not pose a danger to yourself or others around you. Until it becomes acceptable I still consider anyone doing it for shock value to be an asshole.


I bet it's culturally acceptable to carry arms around in Somalia.
 
2013-01-18 10:44:50 AM

Xenomech: Robert Farker: Your argument makes the assumption that people in favor of gun control and gun bans are not also focusing on the root causes of the issues including but not limited to mental health care.

If I could see significant evidence to the contrary I would not be making that assumption.

Let's be realistic: the mental health care aspect -- if it's even brought up at all -- always comes up *after* the immediate "we must ban guns!" reaction. It's always an afterthought in the discussion. My point is that banning guns is not an appropriate initial reaction. Mental health -- not weather or not guns should be banned -- should be the *primary focus* of the discussion.


This thread is about gun control so that is what we are discussing. Neither of us has the ability to accurately determine how much focus people are putting on one thing vs another. Even if I agreed with you that the focus was out of balance it still doesn't address the actual arguments that are being made by those you disagree with.
 
2013-01-18 10:44:51 AM

djkutch: ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.

Last month I had a tenant come into my office with a gun. I told him to leave immediately. He said he wanted to pay his rent. I said he could as soon as he came back without the weapon. He said he wasn't comfortable leaving it in his car. Fine, come back another day. Rent will be late but, I'll wave the fees. He told me to fark off and I was violating his rights and he would see me in court. Sent a five day notice. Filed a forceable detainer and went to court. He got up and started barking about the 2nd amendment and the judge is like whoa there boy, our only consideration is rent. Got the judgement and he didn't leave. Got a writ of restitution and the constable forced him out. I had to put all his shiat in storage including his guns. There it will sit until he pays me for reasonable storage fees. $25/say seems fair.



Sounds like he was out to cause trouble from the start, but dont assume all gun supporters are nut jobs like this guy.
 
2013-01-18 10:47:44 AM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: Please come up with some ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting weapons and I will honestly listen. (I do mean that!)

Limiting access is a good start.

I suppose limiting the access for criminals is what you meant?

We already do that.

Limiting access to the James Holmes' of the world is my desire. Perhaps it's unrealistic, but there it is.

I can't help but notice you ignored the "Provide specifics that don't f*ck over us law abiding permit holders with useless feel-good "ban stuff" laws please." part of my post.


Because everything I would propose you would consider "getting farked over". I told you, laws are designed to deal with a problem but impact everyone.
 
2013-01-18 10:48:40 AM

hinten: hubiestubert: hinten: Having less of a tool does not change the amount of usage of that tool? Sure, I get it.


[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 240x240]

Reducing the number of arms, without addressing the reasons that folks turn to these arms in the first place is just cosmetic change. The "debate" on gun control is, at its heart, a useless debate.

You want to reduce crime? Really reduce it? Then we need to look at the causes. We need to look at health care, mental health care, economic mobility, opportunity, as well as issues of justice. Until we take a hard look at the causes, we're not doing anything but looking to distract folks, because the real work is hard...

How am I missing your point by stating a portion of what you are saying back to you?
You are clearly stating that it is pointless to attempt to limit supplies of the reason for the usage of this device does not get addressed.
I think you are one of those people that wants to be told that you are reasonable for the sake of appearing reasonable and at the same time cutting off the quickest way to decrease the problem.
I am saying that we can pursue both paths easily at the same time and both will slowly be successful at their own pace. I predict that radically limiting the supply will be successful faster than attempting to eradicate the reasons for violence.


So you think banning "assault rifles" is really going to make a difference? The kid a VT used a couple of handguns. If someone is intent on killing they will find away regardless of a law banning a certain "tool". Bans are only going to affect law abiding citizens. The point people are making is without addressing the root cause of the violence nothing is going to change and probably wont even decrease.
 
2013-01-18 10:49:04 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Where we split is what to do about it. I don't think we're going to find some cure for our societal ills any time soon (dealing with income inequality and making the case for UHC is where I would personally focus), so in the meantime, I have to go with weapons restrictions mixed with tougher enforcement of existing law and closing sales loopholes. What else is there?

A fraction of our population owns 40% of the worlds private firearms. The criminal element obviously benefits from this glut. It just strikes me as absurd.

You may find it funny that I'm conservative, but would much rather have UHC than what we have now. That isn't going to solve any of our violence here than other than how our insurance treat gun shot and knife stab wounds when they come in. I blame a lot of this on the drug war, and....well...I won't say the rest for now. What I want to find out is what is it that sickened our society to the point where sickos can go and shoot up a school without thinking twice about it. Like i said before, the semi-automatics have been there for over a century, but this is a recent phenomenon.

I feel like it's isolation. We're at a point where people being checked out recluses is entirely common. It used to just be that cranky old man up the road that never left his house.

Sense of community has given way to everyone being holed up and talking to each other through monitors...like we're doing. Nobody gets invested in their surroundings anymore and "minding your business" is seen as a virtue. Sometimes somebody's bubble needs to be popped even if some invasion of privacy is employed. They might be able to be talked off a ledge.

I'm speaking in generalities of course.


You would be surprised to know we have the same goals, and the same thoughts on what is wrong. Our difference comes in where to place the blame.
 
2013-01-18 10:50:10 AM

Callous: That's cute, you think that criminals buy their guns from gun-stores.


They do. What's cute is that you don't live in reality.

No, wait, that's not cute. It's idiotic and harmful.
 
2013-01-18 10:51:11 AM

cman: I wonder what the reaction was in the 60s when people saw interracial couples holding hands entering businesses.

If you dont fight for rights they tend to disappear.


nopurplewalls.files.wordpress.com

#1. I am pretty sure the NRA will fight for the 2nd amendment well after you and I are gone.
#2. Holding hands and entering businesses has yet to, I think, kill anyone.
#3. Oh I'm sorry my rifle discharged and put a hole in your leg while you were trying to returning something. My bad.
#4. It would have been nice if another gun carrying citizen held him at gun point, telling him to put his guns down. The hilarity that would come from that....Oh the possibilities.
 
2013-01-18 10:51:39 AM
People should only be allowed to carry 6 shot revolvers.

i939.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-18 10:51:51 AM
Signs coming to a store near you.
"No Guns in Store
Thank You"
 
2013-01-18 10:52:13 AM

Baz the Spaz: In some places, like Israel, this is acceptable.

[www.theblaze.com image 600x449]
[frgdr.com image 850x637]
[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Just sayin'....


Everyone carrying weapons in Israel is or has been part of the Israeli Defense Force or is a police or security officer. "Israeli citizens are not allowed to carry guns unless they are serving in the army or working in security-related jobs that require them to use a weapon."

And this is in a country that sees far more terrorism than the U.S.
 
2013-01-18 10:52:39 AM
guys, guys guys. You guys. Guys. Guys.

Guys.

You Guys.

Guys.

Seriously You Guys

You guys, Seriously. LIke Listen to me

You guys

You guys

Didn't You Kow About the Wild Hog Problem at J.C. Penneys?!?1?!!?!/!11!!!!????!

They're everywhere. He NEEDS THAT WEAPON.
 
2013-01-18 10:52:55 AM

hinten: hubiestubert: hinten: Having less of a tool does not change the amount of usage of that tool? Sure, I get it.


[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 240x240]

Reducing the number of arms, without addressing the reasons that folks turn to these arms in the first place is just cosmetic change. The "debate" on gun control is, at its heart, a useless debate.

You want to reduce crime? Really reduce it? Then we need to look at the causes. We need to look at health care, mental health care, economic mobility, opportunity, as well as issues of justice. Until we take a hard look at the causes, we're not doing anything but looking to distract folks, because the real work is hard...

How am I missing your point by stating a portion of what you are saying back to you?
You are clearly stating that it is pointless to attempt to limit supplies of the reason for the usage of this device does not get addressed.
I think you are one of those people that wants to be told that you are reasonable for the sake of appearing reasonable and at the same time cutting off the quickest way to decrease the problem.
I am saying that we can pursue both paths easily at the same time and both will slowly be successful at their own pace. I predict that radically limiting the supply will be successful faster than attempting to eradicate the reasons for violence.


I'm sure you would support putting an ignition interlock in every single vehicle today, and confiscating the vehicles of people that refuse. If you honestly want to save lives, especially children you'd do support this. The leading cause of death for children 15 and under is caused by vehicles.

Won't you think of the children?
 
2013-01-18 10:54:20 AM

Robert Farker: This thread is about gun control so that is what we are discussing.


Robert Farker: Xenomech: Robert Farker: Your argument makes the assumption that people in favor of gun control and gun bans are not also focusing on the root causes of the issues including but not limited to mental health care.

If I could see significant evidence to the contrary I would not be making that assumption.

Let's be realistic: the mental health care aspect -- if it's even brought up at all -- always comes up *after* the immediate "we must ban guns!" reaction. It's always an afterthought in the discussion. My point is that banning guns is not an appropriate initial reaction. Mental health -- not weather or not guns should be banned -- should be the *primary focus* of the discussion.

This thread is about gun control so that is what we are discussing. Neither of us has the ability to accurately determine how much focus people are putting on one thing vs another. Even if I agreed with you that the focus was out of balance it still doesn't address the actual arguments that are being made by those you disagree with.



Oh, here we go...
 
2013-01-18 10:54:44 AM

thaylin: Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.

hmm odd, I thought my sarcasm was fairly apparent, may need to adjust the filter.

/Catch and release.


No,it was apparent, it's just that my sarcasm was less obvious. I was pointing out that just because criminals don't follow the law is not a reason in itself to not make a law in the first place. No one thinks making a law will magically force criminals to comply. Your the only one that stated that claim, albeit sarcastically. It's just another silly strawman argument.
 
2013-01-18 10:55:19 AM

birchman: Rawhead Rex: ThunderPelvis: I'm curious why he wasn't kicked the fark out of the store. There's no way I'd put up with that shiat in my place of business.

A JC Penny's is not YOUR place of business...even if you're the manager...
You're bound by CORPORATE rules and if corporate rules dictate they're ok with Utah's open carry law, then no, biatch...you wouldn't have said shiat to him except, "Will that be all, sir?" as you rang up his order.

I SERIOUSLY doubt JCPenny has a corporate rule stating that. Or any department store for that matter that isn't a sporting goods store. I'm also not sure you understand what a store manager's job is.


So, you're saying a JC Penny's manager's job is to disarm and escort out this guy with an AR15 out of "your" store...

And you're saying you'd have done it.

Who's the internet tough guy now, retail boy?
 
2013-01-18 10:57:11 AM

Xenomech: CADMonkey79: I honestly think if think if the "gun control nuts", would take a basic firearm safety class they irrational fear of guns would disappear and there could be a real dialog about how to curb violent crime.

I sometimes joke that it's like priests mandating what you can and can't do with regards to sex.  If you don't know anything about firearms, you should not be part of the discussion on how to regulate them. The same goes for things like the internet, banking, various industries, whatever.


So you think a mechanic should head a car company?
 
2013-01-18 10:58:20 AM

Farce-Side: Has anybody mentioned that this picture depicts poor muzzle control? Because this picture depicts poor muzzle control. Adjust your shoulder strap, Pudgy, and quit pointing that thing at the dude next you at the counter.


First thing I noticed. Way to make us other AR owner look bad, douche.
 
2013-01-18 10:59:13 AM
i47.tinypic.com
 
Displayed 50 of 637 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report