Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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  
•       •       •

10757 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2013 at 4:54 AM (2 years 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 12:22:06 PM  
Wait, hold on. Got some drama coming up
 
2013-01-18 12:22:41 PM  

willfullyobscure: Its loaded.


I'm curious, how do you know it was loaded? Apart from the "all guns are loaded all the time" thing.
 
2013-01-18 12:24:15 PM  

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

/This is the facepalm of coded racial language



You can go ahead and fark right off with your pathetic race card, ese.
 
2013-01-18 12:26:17 PM  

James F. Campbell: Befuddled: Let's say I decide to go to the mall. At the same time I'm getting out of my car to walk into the mall I see someone else walking from the parking lot to the mall and he's got a rifle on his shoulder. How am I to know the difference between a bozo who just wants to be an attention whore by walking around with a gun and someone who is intent on killing as many as he can?

THIS. How are we to know?


You don't know, just as the shoppers at the Springfield Mall didn't know.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/justice-story/ms-rambo-kill-spree-ar ti cle-1.1211691
 
2013-01-18 12:30:37 PM  

GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.


And people can still use tasers to defend themselves. Please, do proceed.
 
2013-01-18 12:34:13 PM  

James F. Campbell: Befuddled: Let's say I decide to go to the mall. At the same time I'm getting out of my car to walk into the mall I see someone else walking from the parking lot to the mall and he's got a rifle on his shoulder. How am I to know the difference between a bozo who just wants to be an attention whore by walking around with a gun and someone who is intent on killing as many as he can?

THIS. How are we to know?


Well, one of them will be holding, aiming, and firing a gun.
 
2013-01-18 12:35:47 PM  
Seriously, if I saw a guy walking around Penny's with an assault rifle, I would hope I had the balls to skip over to sporting goods, get a bat, sneak up behind the guy, and crack his skull. I would assume the only reason he brought it there was to kill a bunch of people and just hadn't started shooting yet. I might face assault charges, but I would go to my grave believing I just saved a dozen lives.
 
2013-01-18 12:35:49 PM  

trappedspirit: James F. Campbell: Befuddled: Let's say I decide to go to the mall. At the same time I'm getting out of my car to walk into the mall I see someone else walking from the parking lot to the mall and he's got a rifle on his shoulder. How am I to know the difference between a bozo who just wants to be an attention whore by walking around with a gun and someone who is intent on killing as many as he can?

THIS. How are we to know?

Well, one of them will be holding, aiming, and firing a gun.


And it takes, what? Two or three full seconds to go from one to the other? Why, all the time in the world to escape!
 
2013-01-18 12:36:58 PM  

GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

Yep =) My point exactly. Bikes and horses, hell just having feet and legs allows you to exercise your interstate travel rights. Allowing people to only one 1 handgun and 1 shotgun still allows them their right to bear arms and defend themselves.

I'll throw away 28 or my guns right now if every american vows never to use a motor-vehicle again.


See? This is what I was talking about earlier. Why did you have to tell everyone "28 guns"?

wouldn't "some of my guns" or just "my guns" have been.just as effective? By purposely injecting a high number its just rude bragging. No wonder anti-gun people have such a stereotype of gun owners. Learn some manners and get over yourself. you're not helping.
 
2013-01-18 12:39:13 PM  

NightOwl2255: willfullyobscure: Its loaded.

I'm curious, how do you know it was loaded? Apart from the "all guns are loaded all the time" thing.


Um, it has a magazine racked into it? Only way that gun is not loaded is with the mag out and the breech open. If he was really carrying it somewhere to shoot I would expect him to have a lock on it as well and so would a lot of shooting ranges. Many of them won't even let you in the door unless your firearms are cased.
 
2013-01-18 12:43:45 PM  
I hate to be reminded of my mortality like that, how dare he.
 
2013-01-18 12:55:42 PM  
If you are ever in a situation where you need to defend yourself with a firearm in public there are steps you can take steps to reduce the risk that one of your bullets will inadvertently hit a bystander. One of those steps is to carry a weapon that is not more powerful than necessary. Another potential precaution would be to carry a concealed weapon to prevent you from being the first one to be targeted and killed only to have your own weapon used against others.

So unless people are informed before hand that it is part of a political statement most people instinctively realize that someone who brings an assault rifle to a mall is not making the wisest choices. I know that if I was armed and someone unexpectedly entered a business with a rifle that I would make sure to position myself so that I could take him out before he could fire his weapon. If his hand touches the gun, mine will be out of the holster. Any effort to position the weapon and mine is pointed at him ready to fire until he is disarmed. Anything past that he dies.
 
2013-01-18 12:57:53 PM  
www.dailyraider.com
 
2013-01-18 12:58:36 PM  

hubiestubert: hinten: Best argument for gun control yet. The percentage of gun owners that can make all of what you describe here happen is exceedingly small. Fark is an excellent proof for that. The risk of unqualified people wielding power at the risk of others is too high.
A little bit like the right to vote but I am not willing to give that up yet.

Not really. The problem isn't gun control. In part, idiots like this are "exercising their rights" because of the ridiculousness of the debate on guns.

The difficulty is weapons aren't the real issue. The real issue is crime. BOTH sides of the gun control debate, are concerned with crime. Well, not the NRA, as they are looking to boost sales and memberships, but when we talk about gun control, we are actually talking about crime and accidents. The problem is that folks are focused on the tools, and not the REAL problems.

You want to reduce crime in this country--violent crime that is--then we need to focus on the causes and factors that lead folks down that road. That means taking a hard look at economic policy, economic mobility, education, drug policy, health care both mental and physical, and matters of social justice. Those are really hard issues. Those mean taking a long look in a deep, dark truthful mirror, and no one wants a Big Bowl of Truth in their living room. It invites way too much introspection and it would mean sacrificing some very hard held myths that Americans hold dear. About "opportunity" about "fairness" and about what sort of society that we've created.

It's a lot easier to focus on the tools, and to equate the tools used in these crimes with "freedom" and load the debate with a lot of other crap that means that we can focus on ANYTHING else but the fact that we've pooped in our own dog dish, and not have to face cleaning it up.

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 t ...


This is why I have you greened.

/one of the smartest posts ever
 
2013-01-18 01:00:31 PM  

Rawhead Rex: 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?


I said neither of those things you simpleton.
 
2013-01-18 01:04:00 PM  
I can wander around muttering shiat, piss, fark, damn... over and over again. I can wander around mumbling gibberish and scratching my belly. I can wander around and talk about how the lizard people are trying to abduct me... again. The 1st Amendment protects all of this behavior. Still, I choose not to exercise these rights, lest someone think I'm a lunatic.

I wish this gun-humper had similar feelings about his rights.
 
2013-01-18 01:05:22 PM  
So a citizen is observed doing nothing illegal? Move along and peddle your alarmist idiot derp somewhere else, subby.
 
2013-01-18 01:06:29 PM  

lewismarktwo: I hate to be reminded of my mortality like that, how dare he.


Less reminded of mortality than there are idiots who need attention and seek it in dumb ways.

There are places where arms in the open are common. When you bring arms someplace where they're not needed, all it does is increase scrutiny, attention, and in the case of a loaded weapon that ISN'T being carried safely, it ratchets up the potential for an accident. It is this sort of irresponsible behavior that makes the issues all the muddier.

Carry safely, carry responsibly, and use them in the same fashion. Ultimately, all this sort of thing does is keep the issue talked about, and in the worst way--which was perhaps his goal--and it only pushes off a decent discussion--which may have likewise been his goal...
 
2013-01-18 01:07:33 PM  

violentsalvation: You're not helping, you jackass attention whore.


This.

He could have made exactly the same statement--support for the Second Amendment--by openly carrying just the pistol on his hip. All these folks walking around with semi-automatic rifles are doing more harm than good right now.

The knee-jerk screaming reactions from both sides are ridiculous.
 
2013-01-18 01:12:16 PM  

cman: Different times back then, man.

A white woman walking around holding a black mans hand for the longest timed was extremely unacceptable. There would be people who would assault the couple. Hell, they may have ended up dead.


And it would have been to their benefit if at least one of them were armed to defend off the ignorant attackers. I mean, if the attacker intends to kill them, anyways, you might as well give yourself a chance at survival.
Worst case scenario, you take one of them with you.
 
2013-01-18 01:13:08 PM  

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?


I don't see how it's a useless debate unless I misunderstand what you mean by Gun control. We already do background checks for gun sales in stores don't we? We do this knowing that many criminals will buy guns illegally despite the law. How would adding background checks to private sales be any different? Nobody is trying to say it would stop people who want to buy and sell guns illegally. The goal of the law is to give private owners the incentive to actually check the background of someone they sell to instead of being unsure.
 
2013-01-18 01:16:00 PM  

Z-clipped:
What the hell are you talking about? Attempting to draw a slung or holstered firearm when you've already lost the initiative and are standing at barrel's end is about the quickest way to die I can think of. You're saying THAT's what a highly-trained civilian gun owner is likely to do!? What you're proposing is ridiculous. It presupposes rational behavior on the part of the criminal, and irrational behavior on the part of the victim.


No, I'm saying that is what a criminal fears.
Irrational behavior isn't limited to the crooks side of this equation. They know that, which is why it isn't any more common for them to challenge armed citizens than it is for birds to attack brightly colored snakes.
If I've got to mug several people to make ends meet, picking the visibly armed ones is a quick way to earn a Darwin award.
 
2013-01-18 01:17:36 PM  

sethen320: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

Yep =) My point exactly. Bikes and horses, hell just having feet and legs allows you to exercise your interstate travel rights. Allowing people to only one 1 handgun and 1 shotgun still allows them their right to bear arms and defend themselves.

I'll throw away 28 or my guns right now if every american vows never to use a motor-vehicle again.

See? This is what I was talking about earlier. Why did you have to tell everyone "28 guns"?

wouldn't "some of my guns" or just "my guns" have been.just as effective? By purposely injecting a high number its just rude bragging. No wonder anti-gun people have such a stereotype of gun owners. Learn some manners and get over yourself. you're not helping.


Sorry, I told a bunch of anonymous people on the internet that I have over 28 guns, sorry for having pride in owning firearms. I should have check my privilege.
 
2013-01-18 01:18:19 PM  

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.


Context is everything. Rifles in the wilderness,say? I don't have a problem with that....

It seems really odd to be lugging firearms like that in a populated area, where you aren't target shooting or hunting. A (legally carried) concealed pistol is a smarter way to go, IMHO. If someone really feels the need for one, that is.

/ not really into guns myself, I view them more as tools than a "grown-ups" toy..
// AWs like this guy, and those two in Portland, aren't helping...
 
2013-01-18 01:19:36 PM  

justtray: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

And people can still use tasers to defend themselves. Please, do proceed.


Well to be fair people can still be killed by bikes and horses, maybe together as a society we should regress back to pre-agricultural times. All though we'd still have problems with those long reaching assault clubs.
 
2013-01-18 01:23:15 PM  
 
2013-01-18 01:31:44 PM  

Robert Farker: 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?

I don't see how it's a useless debate unless I misunderstand what you mean by Gun control. We already do background checks for gun sales in stores don't we? We do this knowing that many criminals will buy guns illegally despite the law. How would adding background checks to private sales be any different? Nobody is trying to say it would stop people who want to buy and sell guns illegally. The goal of the law is to give private owners the incentive to actually check the background of someone they sell to instead of being unsure.


Many view it as an abridgement of their rights, not wanting the government to dictate what they can and can not do with their own property.
 
2013-01-18 01:40:45 PM  

NightOwl2255: willfullyobscure: Its loaded.

I'm curious, how do you know it was loaded? Apart from the "all guns are loaded all the time" thing.


Technically, we do not know it is loaded.  But some states do care about the distinction enough to ban carrying rifles in public with magazines in, like VA.
 
2013-01-18 01:41:05 PM  

CADMonkey79: 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.


Who is talking about ARs?
 
2013-01-18 01:44:12 PM  
www.harrystone.net
 
2013-01-18 01:44:15 PM  
People have got to admit that if it wasn't an AR-15, but a chainsaw that was dangling from a sling, we'd all be apprehensive about it, too.  This is why it's not about the gun but about the asshole.
 
2013-01-18 01:45:04 PM  

GUTSU: 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?


I don't know enough about this subject to comment on it. Sorry. I'll take your word for it, you seem like a reasonable fellow.
 
2013-01-18 01:47:18 PM  

hubiestubert: 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 dea ...


Fine.
 
2013-01-18 01:49:07 PM  

hinten: GUTSU: 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?

I don't know enough about this subject to comment on it. Sorry. I'll take your word for it, you seem like a reasonable fellow.


Don't worry friend, after everyone is stripped of their rights everyone will be safe.
 
2013-01-18 01:54:55 PM  

GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

And people can still use tasers to defend themselves. Please, do proceed.

Well to be fair people can still be killed by bikes and horses, maybe together as a society we should regress back to pre-agricultural times. All though we'd still have problems with those long reaching assault clubs.


And you can still be killed by a taser. Whats your point?
 
2013-01-18 01:56:03 PM  

GUTSU: Robert Farker: 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?

I don't see how it's a useless debate unless I misunderstand what you mean by Gun control. We already do background checks for gun sales in stores don't we? We do this knowing that many criminals will buy guns illegally despite the law. How would adding background checks to private sales be any different? Nobody is trying to say it would stop people who want to buy and sell guns illegally. The goal of the law is to give private owners the incentive to actually check the background of someone they sell to instead of being unsure.

Many view it as an abridgement of their rights, not wanting the government to dictate what they can and can not do with their own property.


Is that why the same people are also predominantly pro life?
 
2013-01-18 01:57:49 PM  

GUTSU: hinten: GUTSU: 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?

I don't know enough about this subject to comment on it. Sorry. I'll take your word for it, you seem like a reasonable fellow.

Don't worry friend, after everyone is stripped of their rights everyone will be safe.


Perfect solution fallacy. Also you forgot to be outraged at the patriot act, therefore we can dismiss your selective outrage as disingenuous. In reality, its simply selfishness.
 
2013-01-18 02:04:19 PM  
Only a real @sshole carries a gun like that into a store. Put it in a case. Be mature. These are the kinds of people that need to have their guns taken away because they treat them like toys. And I know, I live in Montana where 90% of the armed people here are idiots, alcoholics or immature pinheads.
 
2013-01-18 02:06:19 PM  

justtray: GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

And people can still use tasers to defend themselves. Please, do proceed.

Well to be fair people can still be killed by bikes and horses, maybe together as a society we should regress back to pre-agricultural times. All though we'd still have problems with those long reaching assault clubs.

And you can still be killed by a taser. Whats your point?


The thing is tasers are a one shot weapon completely inadequate for taking on multiple assailants.
 
2013-01-18 02:07:40 PM  

justtray: GUTSU: Robert Farker: 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?

I don't see how it's a useless debate unless I misunderstand what you mean by Gun control. We already do background checks for gun sales in stores don't we? We do this knowing that many criminals will buy guns illegally despite the law. How would adding background checks to private sales be any different? Nobody is trying to say it would stop people who want to buy and sell guns illegally. The goal of the law is to give private owners the incentive to actually check the background of someone they sell to instead of being unsure.

Many view it as an abridgement of their rights, not wanting the government to dictate what they can and can not do with their own property.

Is that why the same people are also predominantly pro life?


Are you assuming I'm against abortion? I'm not although I do believe the father should have some say in it.
 
2013-01-18 02:10:02 PM  

justtray: GUTSU: hinten: GUTSU: 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?

I don't know enough about this subject to comment on it. Sorry. I'll take your word for it, you seem like a reasonable fellow.

Don't worry friend, after everyone is stripped of their rights everyone will be safe.

Perfect solution fallacy. Also you forgot to be outraged at the patriot act, t ...


I'm also against the patriot act, the TSA and the overreaching of the ATF and their enjoyment of killing dogs. I'm about personal freedom, I don't believe having the government micromanage everyone is a good thing.
 
2013-01-18 02:12:48 PM  

GUTSU: Robert Farker: 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?

I don't see how it's a useless debate unless I misunderstand what you mean by Gun control. We already do background checks for gun sales in stores don't we? We do this knowing that many criminals will buy guns illegally despite the law. How would adding background checks to private sales be any different? Nobody is trying to say it would stop people who want to buy and sell guns illegally. The goal of the law is to give private owners the incentive to actually check the background of someone they sell to instead of being unsure.

Many view it as an abridgement of their rights, not wanting the government to dictate what they can and can not do with their own property.


My argument was that the debate is not useless and I think what you said makes my point. Personal property rights are an important part of the discussion. I understand and agree with the desire to keep the government out of our personal business but at the same time I I'm willing to make the concession for guns.
 
2013-01-18 02:15:24 PM  

Robert Farker: GUTSU: Robert Farker: 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?

I don't see how it's a useless debate unless I misunderstand what you mean by Gun control. We already do background checks for gun sales in stores don't we? We do this knowing that many criminals will buy guns illegally despite the law. How would adding background checks to private sales be any different? Nobody is trying to say it would stop people who want to buy and sell guns illegally. The goal of the law is to give private owners the incentive to actually check the background of someone they sell to instead of being unsure.

Many view it as an abridgement of their rights, not wanting the government to dictate what they can and can not do with their own property.

My argument was that the debate is not useless and I think what you said makes my point. Personal property rights are an important part of the discussion. I understand and agree with the desire to keep the government out of our personal business but at the same time I I'm willing to make the concession for guns.


the problem is that the government doesn't like giving up powers, if you give the government a precedent for controlling the transfer of private property they won't stop at firearms.
 
2013-01-18 02:18:12 PM  

justtray: Is that why the same people are also predominantly pro life?


Well, if we're going to take a term out of its issue-context, why are people who want to limit my firearms choices predominantly pro-choice?

/And why can they find their right to an abortion in the Constitution, but not my right to a gun?
//Inquiring minds want to know!
 
2013-01-18 02:25:47 PM  

hubiestubert: Callous: hubiestubert: Callous: Abacus9: Gyrfalcon: Why do you need an assault rifle to go shopping? No, seriously. Bearing in mind that a weapon is only useful if it is in your hands when you need it, realistically speaking, why do you need a rifle when you're shopping?

What I always find odd is that they always just answer with: "I don't NEED it, but it's my RIGHT to carry it!" Seriously, when did grown adults start acting like this. Doing something just because you can, for no good reason.

Tell me about it.  This shiat really creeps some people out.

[static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 640x480]

Got anything better than insults?

Didn't think so...

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 640x480]


Quit using firefly references! some of us gun nuts are fans of the show, and they used evil guns in the show too! Even assault rifles!
 
2013-01-18 02:36:52 PM  

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.


This thread is not about gun control. This thread is about a guy exercising his open carry rights in an inappropriate place. the fact that the thread has devolved into a debate on gun control just proves the point that we are focusing on the wrong stuff.
 
2013-01-18 02:38:35 PM  

CADMonkey79: 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

So my strawman vs his strawman, which is more of the strawman?
 
2013-01-18 02:40:30 PM  

untaken_name: TommyymmoT: What is it like to live in a state of constant fear?

Ask one of the guys with his hands up:

[www.warsaw-life.com image 467x300]

They weren't allowed to have guns, only officials. So they must have been perfectly safe, right?


Are you ignorant, or just a troll? Also, that picture is from the Warsaw ghetto, a de facto prison where the Jews smuggled in guns and attempted an armed uprising in 1943. Result: 15,000 Jews killed in fighting, another 50,000 shipped off to death camps and fewer than 100 dead Germans.
 
2013-01-18 02:41:36 PM  

GUTSU: sethen320: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

Yep =) My point exactly. Bikes and horses, hell just having feet and legs allows you to exercise your interstate travel rights. Allowing people to only one 1 handgun and 1 shotgun still allows them their right to bear arms and defend themselves.

I'll throw away 28 or my guns right now if every american vows never to use a motor-vehicle again.

See? This is what I was talking about earlier. Why did you have to tell everyone "28 guns"?

wouldn't "some of my guns" or just "my guns" have been.just as effective? By purposely injecting a high number its just rude bragging. No wonder anti-gun people have such a stereotype of gun owners. Learn some manners and get over yourself. you're not helping.

Sorry, I told a bunch of anonymous people on the internet that I have over 28 guns, sorry for having pride in owning firearms. I should have check my privilege.


See, I read 28 guns and thought... Lucky Bugger.
 
2013-01-18 02:45:31 PM  
I find it funny that people spend the time getting concealed weapons permits, special holsters and clothes, just so that they can carry in public without a soccer mom or other gun fearing member of society throwing a fit and calling the five-o.
Then this nitwit carries an AR out into public knowing full well that while a pistol may get second looks or sideways glances, his weapon of choice is almost certain to get what I would call unwanted attention.

Maybe I missed it, but where is the cartwheeling girl on the beach with the "attention whore" tag?
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report