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  
•       •       •

10741 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 10:59:28 AM

HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.


A ban on all beer and liqueur isn't an alcohol ban, you can still drink rubbing alcohol. So.. for you, nothing would be different.
 
2013-01-18 11:00:27 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.


No. I am saying that the debate itself is useless. It is a waste of time, energy, and distracts folks who get themselves all twisted up with stats and statistics and verbiage, that does nothing to address the real issues. That we allow ourselves, as a nation, to get distracted, because it's easier than dealing with the larger issues.

You can ascribe all you want to my motives, but let's be clear: gun control is bait and switch, and it gets folks hett up, on both sides, over details that do NOTHING to address the real problems. In part, because folks realize that there is profit still to be made on these problems, and there is a great deal of time, effort and cash still to be extracted from folks in the meantime. The problem is crime. The fastest way to cut down on crime is NOT fast, or easy, and that is why folks look to banner issues like gun control, because it's easier to do something, than something useful.

I'm sorry that you feel looking at the issue with a degree of perspective seems offensive at some level, but to be quite honest, we have already wasted far too much money and effort on details that do nothing to address the real issues. They're harder, and that makes them much less attractive, because it's not quite so easy to come up with pithy slogans or wrap oneself in the flag or use the issue to jump start a campaign, but at some point we need to look at the hard issues, as opposed to efforts that are just band aids, while ignoring the real wounds.

Limiting sales to felons, I have no problems with. Cripes, let's actually fund the ATF and let them do their job, and prosecute folks who make illegal sales--yes, the folks who actually supply the illegal arms, as opposed to the folks purchasing them on the DL much in the same way we need to come down on the folks who hire illegal labor, as opposed to just looking at illegal immigrants will do far more to limit said actions. But at the same time, maybe we should insist on steering the conversation away from the symptoms, and demand action on the reasons we have woes with crime in this country instead of just looking to throw folks in jail and waste time and effort and money so that we can reduce the actual issues? Gun control, as a debate, is akin to constantly looking to change out the tube, while leaving the thorn in the damn tire...
 
2013-01-18 11:00:53 AM

Rawhead Rex: 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...


The store manager would be will within his rights to ask the man to leave the store. And if the guy is causing other customers concern (rightly or wrongly) it's up to the manager to decide if the man can continue to shop or be asked to leave. No need for disarming. Just walk up and say "sir, you're welcome to shop here, but not while carrying your weapons".
 
2013-01-18 11:01:22 AM

Robert Farker: 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.


STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN!!!

/strawman
 
2013-01-18 11:01:29 AM

n0nthing: There's nothing redeemable about this guy's actions and he's an embarrassment to all level-headed and responsible gun owners. Simply because you have the right (or permission) to do something, doesn't mean you should -- that's part of being a grown-up.

To those that attempt to justify his actions by suggesting he had one or more of the firearms with him and did not want to leave them unattended in his car -- sorry. Firearm responsibility includes planning where you will be traveling with them.

The idea that he was armed to this degree of personal protection is also laughable. An obvious weekend warrior, suited up with his tactical gear, and loaded for bear. At best this guy did this because, "Damn't I'm allowed to and people will see the light if I just show them the way." At worst he was doing this for attention and/or to intimidate.

Regardless, all that he accomplished was making any number of people feel uncomfortable (and yes, I do feel equally uncomfortable around *any* armed individual(s) in such settings especially if they are armed to this degree), and reinforcing that there are a large number of asshats who legally own firearms.

/gun owner
//anti gun-control legislation
///blah blah blah


Thank you.

I was always taught that flashing guns to strangers (and sometimes even friends) is rude.

Guns make some people uncomfortable. Better or worse, thats.just the way it is. Its not your job to change that. Unless you're sure that having the gun out in the open for no reason at all won't scare anyone, doing so is inconsiderate.

Dont even get me started on the people who find any excuse to list every piece in their arsenal. "Yes, I get it. You own guns. It's not a huge accomplishment."
 
2013-01-18 11:01:32 AM

Xenomech: larrynightmarehotmail.com:


FTFY

[i46.tinypic.com image 600x467]

/*so* wrong


Dammit.
 
2013-01-18 11:01:50 AM

James F. Campbell: 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.


What we need to do is ban straw purchases. Oh, wait, they're already a federal felony.
 
2013-01-18 11:02:26 AM

HotWingConspiracy: 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.


Since there have been several instances of unlicensed drunk drivers killing people, I have the following "common sense" proposals to prevent this from happening. Every car must have an ignition interlock on it. Period.
Your tank is limited to 5 gallons of gas from now on. You will be charged with a misdemeanor if you are caught with a car that holds more than that. Since most people drive less than 40 miles a day, it's only a minor inconvenience to have to stop for gas more often and will prevent long distance drunk driving trips. In adition, when you to to get gas, they will run your license to verify it is valid and that you currently have insurance. If it is determined you don't, you can not buy gas and you will be arrested. If you are caught making a gasoline "straw purchase, you will be arrested and charged.
You will have to retake your road test yearly to demonstrate proficiency operating a vehicle. There will be a charge for this, naturally.

Since you are apparently very concerned about saving lives, you surely have no problem with this, correct?
 
2013-01-18 11:03:20 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

A ban on all beer and liqueur isn't an alcohol ban, you can still drink rubbing alcohol. So.. for you, nothing would be different.


You came in here just to post that tribute to analogy failure?
 
2013-01-18 11:03:33 AM

SocraticIrony: 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?


No but they probably shouldn't be terrified of cars.
 
2013-01-18 11:04:44 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?


Or at least you wish
 
2013-01-18 11:05:31 AM

CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: 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?

No but they probably shouldn't be terrified of cars.


That was nonsensical.
 
2013-01-18 11:05:59 AM

hubiestubert: Gun control is a useless debate. Because it addresses nothing but the tools used in the commission of crimes, and does nothing to alleviate the reasons and conditions that folks turn to those crimes in the first place. It is essentially slapping a band aid over a suppurating wound and figuring so long as it's covered, it's cool, right?


Well, here's the other thing: We already have a whole lot of the "tools" used in the commission of crimes, enough for every adult in America to own at least one. Should there not be discussion of maybe, say, halving the number? That would still leave over 100 million of the "tools" available for those that want them, at the very least.

I do agree with you on all the economic issues, however. The big bump in mass killings happened right about the time the productivity/wage gap began to spiral out of control. If we cure the economic instability, we cure a lot of the factors that lead to the sort of hopelessness that leads to mass killings...including the so-called "mental problems" that some like to deflect to.

But another problem, I think, is that we are the most polarized we've ever been, and the amount of people who can't change their minds on any issue is at an all-time high. Everyone has their own version of what America is, and woe betide anyone who thinks differently. This is a country where the "libertarians" want to "be free", and want to impose their "freedoms" onto everyone else, whether they like it or not. It's not that change is hard; it's that change is a business, and anyone who wants to change you is horning in on your business of trying to change them.
 
2013-01-18 11:06:21 AM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: 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.

Since there have been several instances of unlicensed drunk drivers killing people, I have the following "common sense" proposals to prevent this from happening. Every car must have an ignition interlock on it. Period.
Your tank is limited to 5 gallons of gas from now on. You will be charged with a misdemeanor if you are caught with a car that holds more than that. Since most people drive less than 40 miles a day, it's only a minor inconvenience to have to stop for gas more often and will prevent long distance drunk driving trips. In adition, when you to to get gas, they will run your license to verify it is valid and that you currently have insurance. If it is determined you don't, you can not buy gas and you will be arrested. If you are caught making a gasoline "straw purchase, you will be arrested and charged.
You will have to retake your road test yearly to demonstrate proficiency operating a vehicle. There will be a charge for this, naturally.


I look forward to your local representative proposing this.

Since you are apparently very concerned about saving lives, you surely have no problem with this, correct?

Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.
 
2013-01-18 11:07:04 AM

SocraticIrony: CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: 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?

No but they probably shouldn't be terrified of cars.

That was nonsensical.


Some jokes are like that.
 
2013-01-18 11:07:35 AM

aevert: First thing I noticed. Way to make us other AR owner look bad, douche.


Why? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are inanimate objects. Guns are tool. Are you afraid that the gun will go all Chucky, come to life and shoot the guy next to him?

/Gun owner and shooter.
//Never cover anything with the muzzle you ain't ready to kill.
 
2013-01-18 11:07:45 AM

hinten: betelgeux: I am a gun owner, a recreational shooter, and a supporter of responsible gun owners. This guy is an jackass attention whore, by his own admission. This taking place in Ogden, Utah is probably why it wasn't blown into a big deal.

CSB, I was in BK one Sunday afternoon and some fugitive recovery types showed up, badges hanging around their necks, thigh holsters, they paraded around the BK letting everybody know they were packing. I finished my meal and left, not afraid of the fire arms, but I was certainly not wanting to be in an environment where those hillbillies felt they had to flaunt their firepower.


You say that as if that's an actual thing.


You sound stupid.
 
2013-01-18 11:07:59 AM

CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: 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?

No but they probably shouldn't be terrified of cars.

That was nonsensical.

Some jokes are like that.


Some people are like that.
 
2013-01-18 11:10:06 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.

It kind of was


Came for the mindless phallus=gun comparison, leaving satisfied.
 
2013-01-18 11:10:33 AM

SocraticIrony: 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?


Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?
 
2013-01-18 11:10:34 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.


lolwut?

How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?
 
2013-01-18 11:10:49 AM

illannoyin: HindiDiscoMonster: crab66: If you feel the need to carry a rifle while you shop you are not a Real American defending our freedoms.


You are a giant farking paranoid asshole with a small penis who is trying to show how tough you are.

[www.biography.com image 402x402]

/please continue...

Please stop repeating this lie. A few of us actually do understand Freud.

In General Introduction to Psychoanalysis , Freud wrote, "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

Freud is specifically making reference to the male phallus with his use of the word "weapon", as his Tenth Lecture on the subject of dreams labels swords, sabers, pistols and rifles as symbols of the male gentalia. A fear of a weapon, in a dream, mind you, simply suggests a neurosis towards the male phallus. For instance, if a female were to have a dream in which a man with a gun startled her, it would point towards an innate fear of sex, and perhaps lead to the discovery of said fear.

The quote has nothing to do with firearms. It is merely a comment on dreams and symbolism.

As far as sexual maturity, he basically proposed humans as sexual beings from birth, and that along with the body, ones sexuality matures as well. Except many people get stuck at a developmental stage of sexuality rather than continue to mature.

Freud decided pretty much everything was about sex. But he also had a nasty coke habit too so, you might want to take his ideas with a grain of salt. Almost all of his theories are regarded as wrong these days anyway.


Also...

Fark just after 9/11 - "After an emotional tragedy rushing to enact legislation that infringes on our rights but does little to nothing to actually keep us safe is wrong. The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are incredibly low."

Fark now - "In the wake of such an emotional tragedy we must rush to enact legislation that infringes on the rights of legal gun owners but does little to nothing to actually keep us safe. Despite the odds of being killed in a mass shooting are incredibly low.."

The selective application of outrage over the erosion of constitutional rights is hypocritical. I know, welcome to fark.

/ I am in no way suggesting the guy in TFA is anything but a giant paranoid a-hole. I won't speculate about the size of his penis
// If you see a Guy with a rifle in public don't take any chances. Run away and call the cops!


That was awesome.
 
2013-01-18 11:11:34 AM

SocraticIrony: CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: CADMonkey79: SocraticIrony: 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?

No but they probably shouldn't be terrified of cars.

That was nonsensical.

Some jokes are like that.

Some people are like that.


Obviously.
 
2013-01-18 11:12:31 AM

SocraticIrony: 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?


What does a mechanic know about running a car company?


/Think, McFly! Think!
 
2013-01-18 11:13:13 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.

lolwut?


It means body count isn't the only concern.

How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?

I'd say it was ill considered at best.
 
2013-01-18 11:13:25 AM
The first step in performing a mass shooting in a public place is to walk into a public place with some guns. Not that I'd ever be in JC Penny, but I would have left if I saw that guy there. Not run screaming, not call the cops... I'd just go somewhere else in the mall for a bit.
 
2013-01-18 11:13:35 AM

HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

A ban on all beer and liqueur isn't an alcohol ban, you can still drink rubbing alcohol. So.. for you, nothing would be different.

You came in here just to post that tribute to analogy failure?


Yes, HWC, we get it, every analogy that highlights the idiocy of your position, isn't a valid analogy. You sound like a 4 year old who declares himself the winner of every board game because he can't handle losing. And just like every 4 year old who does that, he can't explain why.
 
2013-01-18 11:13:55 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 pictured there are also active-duty soldiers in a war zone.

Do you live in a war zone? Are rockets descending on you house? Has anyone set a car bomb off in your neighborhood? Any surrounding countries attempt to invade in you lifetime? In a surprise attack over the holidays?

Great, NOW STFU
 
2013-01-18 11:14:03 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: MaudlinMutantMollusk: This About That: Now, if his dick was hanging out, he would have been arrested.

It kind of was

Came for the mindless phallus=gun comparison, leaving satisfied.


No rational gun control debate is complete without a good small dick joke.

/The dude in the article probably did have a small dick though.
 
2013-01-18 11:15:05 AM

kingoomieiii: violentsalvation: GAT_00: Seriously?  This is how we're all supposed to be safe?  Because I don't know about you, but I worry when rifles are casually carried around.  It implies you expect to use it.

Nothing he is doing is safe. If a couple homies rushed him at the counter there they'd take him down and easily make off with his weapons. Take him down, put his own pistol in his face, and take the AR. This guy is a retard and he is making himself a target. This defines irresponsible gun ownership.

[digboston.com image 375x300]

/This is the facepalm of coded racial language


LOLSAYWHUT? Know quite a few homies who are white.

How do you get dressed in the morning when you think in stereotypes & memes? Really curious.
 
2013-01-18 11:16:14 AM

muck4doo: How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?


I feel the same way I do about the current administration doing it as I did about the last administration doing it.
 
2013-01-18 11:16:52 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 ...


i think i am in love. since i am already married, can i vote for you? nevermind, you are obviously too intelligent to be a politician.

//live in UT, all for requiring registration - not for banning
//the level of derp in this state is truly mind numbing sometimes, but i still love living here.
 
2013-01-18 11:18:24 AM
Even some gun advocates agree that carrying a high powered rifle into a busy store wasn't appropriate.
Sorry buy no gun guy that knows wtf he's talking about would call that a "high power" rifle. The writer is using shills...... again.
 
2013-01-18 11:19:05 AM

IlGreven: The big bump in mass killings happened right about the time the productivity/wage gap began to spiral out of control.


That would definitely explain it, but do you have any evidence to back that up?
 
2013-01-18 11:19:45 AM

GUTSU: SocraticIrony: 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?

Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?


...just because I don't know how to shoot a gun doesn't mean I don't know that guns are dangerous, especially in the wrong hands (like mine). Hell, I'd say I know as much about gun safety as some people know about safe sex (especially those in "abstinence-only" states...where teen pregnancies are high.) All I'm saying is, I had to be put through an education course, including safety, to get a license to drive a car. Couldn't this be a minimum point for someone to be able to operate a firearm?
 
2013-01-18 11:20:08 AM

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.

lolwut?

How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?


Reagan did it with Iran and Iraq, and we see how peaceful they are now. More guns definitely made those places safe. So why would anyone have a problem with it?
 
2013-01-18 11:20:18 AM
TommyymmoT [TotalFark] Smartest Funniest
2013-01-18 12:36:58 AM

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?

Keep holding your breath Hyperbole-Man
 
2013-01-18 11:20:58 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Since you are apparently very concerned about saving lives, you surely have no problem with this, correct?

Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.


HotWingConspiracy: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: 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.

Since there have been several instances of unlicensed drunk drivers killing people, I have the following "common sense" proposals to prevent this from happening. Every car must have an ignition interlock on it. Period.
Your tank is limited to 5 gallons of gas from now on. You will be charged with a misdemeanor if you are caught with a car that holds more than that. Since most people drive less than 40 miles a day, it's only a minor inconvenience to have to stop for gas more often and will prevent long distance drunk driving trips. In adition, when you to to get gas, they will run your license to verify it is valid and that you currently have insurance. If it is determined you don't, you can not buy gas and you will be arrested. If you are caught making a gasoline "straw purchase, you will be arrested and charged.
You will have to retake your road test yearly to demonstrate proficiency operating a vehicle. There will be a charge for this, naturally.

I look forward to your local representative proposing this.

Since you are apparently very concerned about saving lives, you surely have no problem with this, correct?

Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nati ...


Well, the totality of the impact of automobile fatalities and injuries isn't limited to drunk drivers either.
The arguments do tend to look a little stupid when someone uses the same logic on a different topic though, doesn't it? Are you saying you would be okay with these 'common sense measures?
I forgot to add, we need to ban any car that goes over 65mph. The only reason you "need" one is to break the law.
 
2013-01-18 11:20:59 AM

GUTSU: SocraticIrony: 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?

Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?


My point is that having intimate knowledge of the working parts and practices of a technology doesn't enroll you in some cabal that is destined to dictate that technology. It's rather ironic you use 2 examples of what conservatives do, when comparing it to your conservative cause and say "you don't want it to be like them, do you?!"
 
2013-01-18 11:22:33 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LOLSAYWHUT? Know quite a few homies who are white.


No, stop. Everyone knows what the fark "Homies" means. It means the same thing as "thug" and "urban". I really don't care how your dumb friends refer to themselves.
 
2013-01-18 11:22:55 AM

IlGreven: All I'm saying is, I had to be put through an education course, including safety, to get a license to drive a car. Couldn't this be a minimum point for someone to be able to operate a firearm?


Hear, hear!
 
2013-01-18 11:23:18 AM

IlGreven: hubiestubert: Gun control is a useless debate. Because it addresses nothing but the tools used in the commission of crimes, and does nothing to alleviate the reasons and conditions that folks turn to those crimes in the first place. It is essentially slapping a band aid over a suppurating wound and figuring so long as it's covered, it's cool, right?

Well, here's the other thing: We already have a whole lot of the "tools" used in the commission of crimes, enough for every adult in America to own at least one. Should there not be discussion of maybe, say, halving the number? That would still leave over 100 million of the "tools" available for those that want them, at the very least.

I do agree with you on all the economic issues, however. The big bump in mass killings happened right about the time the productivity/wage gap began to spiral out of control. If we cure the economic instability, we cure a lot of the factors that lead to the sort of hopelessness that leads to mass killings...including the so-called "mental problems" that some like to deflect to.

But another problem, I think, is that we are the most polarized we've ever been, and the amount of people who can't change their minds on any issue is at an all-time high. Everyone has their own version of what America is, and woe betide anyone who thinks differently. This is a country where the "libertarians" want to "be free", and want to impose their "freedoms" onto everyone else, whether they like it or not. It's not that change is hard; it's that change is a business, and anyone who wants to change you is horning in on your business of trying to change them.



>>>>>>>This is a country where the "libertarians" want to "be free", and want to impose their "freedoms" onto everyone else, whether they like it or not.

Desiring to remove my nose from the proximity of your fist is an imposition on you?

You are a scary, scary excuse for a human being. That kind of thinking is sick and scary.
 
2013-01-18 11:23:20 AM

GUTSU: Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?


Also, if an old man says that a woman can do what she wants with her vagina, is that not allowed because it came from an old man? Or if a Baptist preacher preached on Sunday and taught actual, empirical science Monday through Friday as a teacher, and never allowed the twain to meet...would he be a bad teacher only because he was a Baptist preacher?

And should we not believe anything we're told about climate change because two non-scientist politicians argue on opposite ends of the debate (Al Gore v. Christopher Monckton)?
 
2013-01-18 11:24:19 AM

IlGreven: GUTSU: SocraticIrony: 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?

Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?

...just because I don't know how to shoot a gun doesn't mean I don't know that guns are dangerous, especially in the wrong hands (like mine). Hell, I'd say I know as much about gun safety as some people know about safe sex (especially those in "abstinence-only" states...where teen pregnancies are high.) All I'm saying is, I had to be put through an education course, including safety, to get a license to drive a car. Couldn't this be a minimum point for someone to be able to operate a firearm?


That was sort my original point. Yes everyone that wants to own a gun should be required to take firearm safety courses. And maybe if everyone,even those that choose not own a gun, went to a basic course there would not be so much irrational fear.
 
2013-01-18 11:24:56 AM

hinten: muck4doo: hinten: muck4doo: Have a flashlight in your house? You scared of the dark, pussy?

Lighting a room is the same as shooting a human being.

Who told you that? Being unprepared is being unprepared. But you go ahead and trust the government to get that flashlight for you.

The government is my representation and I will do everything in my power to have it represent me in such a fashion that it will not have to be prepared in such a fashion myself. It is simply not my job.


Please tell me that was sarcasm...if it isn't then my faith in humanity just died a little.
 
2013-01-18 11:25:17 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LOLSAYWHUT? Know quite a few homies who are white.


Eminem, Vanilla Ice, and Snow don't count.
 
2013-01-18 11:25:29 AM

HotWingConspiracy: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: Oh goodness, are you trying to pigeonhole me? The totality of the impact of gun violence in our nation isn't limited to casualties.

lolwut?

It means body count isn't the only concern.

How do you feel about our current administration running illegal guns to drug cartels in Mexico, just out of curiosity? Cool, or no?

I'd say it was ill considered at best.


Ill considered? Do you know how many Mexicans have died from them? Why are those "ill" considered deaths, and not participants in homicide? How can you seriously take firearms laws from douches that pass illegal weapons to cartels? Do those dead Mexicans not count? Are they just brown people in the wake of a bigger goal? Seriously, I want to know. Again, nothing on you specifically, but i can't even visit my family in Reynosa, Monterrey, or Morelia anymore. How have these drug laws and gun shifting over there helped anyone over there? This administration has given guns to known murderers. No, I'm not going to forgive them for that.
 
2013-01-18 11:25:45 AM

RidgeRunner5: What we need to do is ban straw purchases. Oh, wait, they're already a federal felony.


So we are in agreement that the problem lies with legally purchased guns after all, then.
 
2013-01-18 11:25:57 AM

Farkage: I forgot to add, we need to ban any car that goes over 65mph. The only reason you "need" one is to break the law.


Need to up that a bit, Texas debuts fastest highway speed limit in nation: 85 mph
 
2013-01-18 11:26:42 AM

IlGreven: GUTSU: SocraticIrony: 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?

Would you like old men dictating what women can or can't do with their vaginas? Or maybe have a baptist preacher teaching biology?

...just because I don't know how to shoot a gun doesn't mean I don't know that guns are dangerous, especially in the wrong hands (like mine). Hell, I'd say I know as much about gun safety as some people know about safe sex (especially those in "abstinence-only" states...where teen pregnancies are high.) All I'm saying is, I had to be put through an education course, including safety, to get a license to drive a car. Couldn't this be a minimum point for someone to be able to operate a firearm?


I agree it wouldn't hurt to do that, but to be fair, cars are used by millions of people a day for non-violent and productive means. And by used, actively used and driven, not just owned and sitting in the driveway. Most people don't use their guns on a daily basis, some never use them ever. So if given a choice, car training or gun training, I'd prefer car training. No reason we can't have both of course, but I consider car training to be a higher priority and much more necessary to public safety, so I can't really equivocate the two, even though I am in favor of gun regulation. I do think if something similar to car registration and education was implemented for guns, much less people would buy one.
 
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