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
    More: Interesting, KSL, rifles, Riverdale, murders, J.C. Penney  
•       •       •

10772 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2013 at 4:54 AM (3 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
 
2013-01-19 03:19:31 AM  

muck4doo: Bucky Katt: muck4doo: Bucky Katt: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

facepalm. Everything i said about you is correct

ad homming again? shame on you.

You're still stupid? I won't shame you for that, you were just born that way.

Always going with the personal insult instead of actual thought? Yep, that's you. You are SO profound.

You should try being profound sometime. It's hard work. Obama ain't just going to give you that gift no mater what you believe.


Still spewing your retarded bullshiat, I see. How much is Drew paying you?
 
2013-01-19 05:55:37 AM  
Many moons ago I didn't have a car, so relied upon public transportation. I would carry my rifle and a bag with targets and ammunition on the public bus to my shooting club.
No one ever even raised an eyebrow.
(PS - Richmond, VA)
 
2013-01-19 08:52:54 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Regulation is not banning, nor is it taking away all your guns.

There's no legitimate reason to carry an assault weapon with you to the mall when a pistol works just as well.

Look, pro-gun people, many of us are trying to be on your side, but you're not helping yourselves or us with your constant cries of "EVERYONE WANNA TAKE OUR GUNS COMPLETELY AWAY!!" and pulling stunts like this, especially after several mass shootings over a short amount of time.


Not one person said "EVERYONE WANNA TAKE OUR GUNS COMPLETELY AWAY". How about this to put it in perspective (and I have already said what the guy did was stupid):

To protect the residents of the State of Connecticut from the 36,000 annual injuries and 300 annual deaths caused by irresponsible use of automobiles in this state alone, the following laws are now in effect:

Every car must have an ignition interlock on it to prevent it from starting if the driver has consumed any alcohol at all.

Your tank is limited to 3 gallons of gas. You will be arrested and charged 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 or reckless driving rampages.

When you purchase 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 cannot buy gas and you will be arrested. If you are caught making a gasoline "straw purchase, you will be arrested and charged. Your vehicle will be checked to verify it is properly registered and inspected. If it is not, it will be impounded and you will be arrested for possession and operation of an unlawful vehicle.

You will have to retake your road test yearly to demonstrate proficiency operating a vehicle as well as establish an ongoing "need" to retain your license. The fee for this is $130.00.

No vehicle capable of going over 65mph, or ones that can be modified to do so are permitted in the state, as the highest state speed limit is 65 mph.
No cars with more than 150 horsepower are allowed.
Violating either of the above will be a felony.

Out of state drivers licenses are no longer recognized in CT due to differing licensing standards. If you are caught driving in Connecticut with an out of state license, you will be charged with a felony.

Remember, these laws are for the safety of our children and they don't infringe on your rights, so I know you all fully support this
 
2013-01-19 01:10:32 PM  

NightOwl2255: aevert


Say he needs his gun and he grabs it to swing it around and shoulder it, accidentally grabs the trigger and discharges a round into the guy's junk next to him. Unlikely? Very. Possible? Yes.
 
2013-01-19 03:30:57 PM  

aevert: NightOwl2255: aevert

Say he needs his gun and he grabs it to swing it around and shoulder it, accidentally grabs the trigger and discharges a round into the guy's junk next to him. Unlikely? Very. Possible? Yes.


Say all the bullets spontaneously combust. Unlikely? Very. Possible? Yes.
 
2013-01-19 04:23:34 PM  

Farkage: Keizer_Ghidorah: Regulation is not banning, nor is it taking away all your guns.

There's no legitimate reason to carry an assault weapon with you to the mall when a pistol works just as well.

Look, pro-gun people, many of us are trying to be on your side, but you're not helping yourselves or us with your constant cries of "EVERYONE WANNA TAKE OUR GUNS COMPLETELY AWAY!!" and pulling stunts like this, especially after several mass shootings over a short amount of time.

Not one person said "EVERYONE WANNA TAKE OUR GUNS COMPLETELY AWAY". How about this to put it in perspective (and I have already said what the guy did was stupid):

To protect the residents of the State of Connecticut from the 36,000 annual injuries and 300 annual deaths caused by irresponsible use of automobiles in this state alone, the following laws are now in effect:

Every car must have an ignition interlock on it to prevent it from starting if the driver has consumed any alcohol at all.

Your tank is limited to 3 gallons of gas. You will be arrested and charged 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 or reckless driving rampages.

When you purchase 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 cannot buy gas and you will be arrested. If you are caught making a gasoline "straw purchase, you will be arrested and charged. Your vehicle will be checked to verify it is properly registered and inspected. If it is not, it will be impounded and you will be arrested for possession and operation of an unlawful vehicle.

You will have to retake your road test yearly to demonstrate proficiency operating a vehicle as well as establish an ongoing "need" to retain your license. The fee for this is $130.00.

No vehicle capable of going over 65mph, or ones that can ...


Cute, but trying to compare a large machine made for the purpose of transportation with a small device made for the purpose of killing things is becoming old and worn-out, especially when we already have incredibly strict safety regulations on vehicles and the majority of accidents are caused by the human factor.
 
2013-01-19 05:19:00 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: ...
Cute, but trying to compare a large machine made for the purpose of transportation with a small device made for the purpose of killing things is becoming old and worn-out, especially when we already have incredibly strict safety regulations on vehicles and the majority of accidents are caused by the human factor.


Really? There's no law keeping crazy people from driving. My driver's exam consisted of driving a quarter mile down an access road and making a 3 point turn. All I have to do to continue driving is renew my license every decade and keep my insurance paid for. If I get caught driving recklessly I will most likely be allowed to continue driving.. as long as I can afford it. That hardly seems strict.

And speaking of guns being only useful for the purpose of killing.. well.. they still kill a tiny fraction of the people that are killed by the 'only useful for transportation' cars. Cars aren't even designed to kill yet do a better job of killing.
 
2013-01-19 05:34:50 PM  

lewismarktwo: Keizer_Ghidorah: ...
Cute, but trying to compare a large machine made for the purpose of transportation with a small device made for the purpose of killing things is becoming old and worn-out, especially when we already have incredibly strict safety regulations on vehicles and the majority of accidents are caused by the human factor.

Really? There's no law keeping crazy people from driving. My driver's exam consisted of driving a quarter mile down an access road and making a 3 point turn. All I have to do to continue driving is renew my license every decade and keep my insurance paid for. If I get caught driving recklessly I will most likely be allowed to continue driving.. as long as I can afford it. That hardly seems strict.

And speaking of guns being only useful for the purpose of killing.. well.. they still kill a tiny fraction of the people that are killed by the 'only useful for transportation' cars. Cars aren't even designed to kill yet do a better job of killing.


I have a few ideas about how drivers licence testing could be improved but that has nothing to do with gun control. It's a separate issue so I'm not sure why your trying to discuss it here. Why don't you stop wasting time trying to block reasonable gun control measures and actually do something useful?
 
2013-01-19 05:46:34 PM  

Robert Farker: lewismarktwo: Keizer_Ghidorah: ...
Cute, but trying to compare a large machine made for the purpose of transportation with a small device made for the purpose of killing things is becoming old and worn-out, especially when we already have incredibly strict safety regulations on vehicles and the majority of accidents are caused by the human factor.

Really? There's no law keeping crazy people from driving. My driver's exam consisted of driving a quarter mile down an access road and making a 3 point turn. All I have to do to continue driving is renew my license every decade and keep my insurance paid for. If I get caught driving recklessly I will most likely be allowed to continue driving.. as long as I can afford it. That hardly seems strict.

And speaking of guns being only useful for the purpose of killing.. well.. they still kill a tiny fraction of the people that are killed by the 'only useful for transportation' cars. Cars aren't even designed to kill yet do a better job of killing.

I have a few ideas about how drivers licence testing could be improved but that has nothing to do with gun control. It's a separate issue so I'm not sure why your trying to discuss it here. Why don't you stop wasting time trying to block reasonable gun control measures and actually do something useful?


Well, good job assuming my position, but what exactly are 'reasonable gun control measures'? Also, I wasn't the one who compared driving to shooting.
 
2013-01-19 07:23:01 PM  

lewismarktwo: Keizer_Ghidorah: ...
Cute, but trying to compare a large machine made for the purpose of transportation with a small device made for the purpose of killing things is becoming old and worn-out, especially when we already have incredibly strict safety regulations on vehicles and the majority of accidents are caused by the human factor.

Really? There's no law keeping crazy people from driving. My driver's exam consisted of driving a quarter mile down an access road and making a 3 point turn. All I have to do to continue driving is renew my license every decade and keep my insurance paid for. If I get caught driving recklessly I will most likely be allowed to continue driving.. as long as I can afford it. That hardly seems strict.

And speaking of guns being only useful for the purpose of killing.. well.. they still kill a tiny fraction of the people that are killed by the 'only useful for transportation' cars. Cars aren't even designed to kill yet do a better job of killing.


Which of those two are used more often? How many more people are around cars than guns? More people are killed by domestic dogs than by sharks, I wonder why. And how many of those car fatalities were caused by deliberate premeditated murders? When was the last time someone used a car to deliberately cause mass killings?

This is a bullshiat argument meant to deflect and muddy the issue. Stop farking using it and try to actually help.
 
2013-01-19 09:18:44 PM  
Funny thing Farkage, is I kinda like your list of car laws and they would save many more lives than any gun control law. If they have the side effect of increasing usage and investment in public transport, all the better.
 
2013-01-19 09:20:51 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: lewismarktwo: Keizer_Ghidorah: ...
Cute, but trying to compare a large machine made for the purpose of transportation with a small device made for the purpose of killing things is becoming old and worn-out, especially when we already have incredibly strict safety regulations on vehicles and the majority of accidents are caused by the human factor.

Really? There's no law keeping crazy people from driving. My driver's exam consisted of driving a quarter mile down an access road and making a 3 point turn. All I have to do to continue driving is renew my license every decade and keep my insurance paid for. If I get caught driving recklessly I will most likely be allowed to continue driving.. as long as I can afford it. That hardly seems strict.

And speaking of guns being only useful for the purpose of killing.. well.. they still kill a tiny fraction of the people that are killed by the 'only useful for transportation' cars. Cars aren't even designed to kill yet do a better job of killing.

Which of those two are used more often? How many more people are around cars than guns? More people are killed by domestic dogs than by sharks, I wonder why. And how many of those car fatalities were caused by deliberate premeditated murders? When was the last time someone used a car to deliberately cause mass killings?

This is a bullshiat argument meant to deflect and muddy the issue. Stop farking using it and try to actually help.


Help what? Urban gang violence caused by prohibition? Domestic violence as old as civilization itself? Crazy people shooting up schools? Or scary looking guns that can shoot lots of bullets?
 
2013-01-19 11:18:00 PM  

lewismarktwo: Keizer_Ghidorah: lewismarktwo: Keizer_Ghidorah: ...
Cute, but trying to compare a large machine made for the purpose of transportation with a small device made for the purpose of killing things is becoming old and worn-out, especially when we already have incredibly strict safety regulations on vehicles and the majority of accidents are caused by the human factor.

Really? There's no law keeping crazy people from driving. My driver's exam consisted of driving a quarter mile down an access road and making a 3 point turn. All I have to do to continue driving is renew my license every decade and keep my insurance paid for. If I get caught driving recklessly I will most likely be allowed to continue driving.. as long as I can afford it. That hardly seems strict.

And speaking of guns being only useful for the purpose of killing.. well.. they still kill a tiny fraction of the people that are killed by the 'only useful for transportation' cars. Cars aren't even designed to kill yet do a better job of killing.

Which of those two are used more often? How many more people are around cars than guns? More people are killed by domestic dogs than by sharks, I wonder why. And how many of those car fatalities were caused by deliberate premeditated murders? When was the last time someone used a car to deliberately cause mass killings?

This is a bullshiat argument meant to deflect and muddy the issue. Stop farking using it and try to actually help.

Help what? Urban gang violence caused by prohibition? Domestic violence as old as civilization itself? Crazy people shooting up schools? Or scary looking guns that can shoot lots of bullets?


Are you deliberately being an idiot? I hope so, because the alternate is sadder. YES, YOU IMBECILE, TO HELP LOWER THE VIOLENCE AND DEATH. Are you of the mind that "Well, since violence has been around forever, fark doing anything about it"? Is trying to lower it that alien of a concept for you? Jesus.

And before you start with anything, I've posted a list of several things that can be done together that would help in many threads, and only one of them has anything to do with regulating (NOTE: regulating, not banning) guns. So don't try the "panicky liberal only wanting to disarm Americans for the government to tyrannize" bullshiat.
 
2013-01-20 12:47:38 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: ...

Are you deliberately being an idiot? ...


sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/534034_10151130745113531_8 5 1854406_n.jpg
 
2013-01-20 09:10:37 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: "Well, since violence has been around forever, fark doing anything about it"?


That is not an intellectually honest paraphrase.

Violence has been around forever, likewise it's been illegal forever. Adding more laws making X more illegal doesn't help the situation.

Passing a law is the laziest step towards a solution that can possibly be taken, since we already have laws against murder that these crazy people are ignoring. It's a token effort at best, not meant to have any real effect but to appease the outraged nitwits that think more laws for people that already largely ignore them will make a difference.

What will have some effect, is actual work. Better background checks, a better mental health detection system. These are not simply laws, these are functional bodies that can, and do, actively work to avoid future problems.
 
2013-01-20 10:57:58 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Keizer_Ghidorah: "Well, since violence has been around forever, fark doing anything about it"?

That is not an intellectually honest paraphrase.

Violence has been around forever, likewise it's been illegal forever. Adding more laws making X more illegal doesn't help the situation.

Passing a law is the laziest step towards a solution that can possibly be taken, since we already have laws against murder that these crazy people are ignoring. It's a token effort at best, not meant to have any real effect but to appease the outraged nitwits that think more laws for people that already largely ignore them will make a difference.

What will have some effect, is actual work. Better background checks, a better mental health detection system. These are not simply laws, these are functional bodies that can, and do, actively work to avoid future problems.


Very much so. The real work is to curb the reasons that folks turn to violence. And the effort won't just help with gun deaths, but violent crime in general. That means taking away the reasons that folks get desperate, or simply feel trapped to the point of going the route of rats in an overstuffed cage. Those are a LOT harder questions and answers though, and the "gun control" debate is simply a way to look busy, and look like folks are doing something.

There are measures we can take to discourage folks from simply selling guns willy nilly to whatever nutjob wants a gun, for whatever reason. Common sense licensing, and focusing on illegal arms sales--and not just the sort that get hands into organized crime, but the sort of under the counter sales that slide weapons off the observable market is a start. It won't stop many from getting arms, but it will take some of the profit out of it, and slow the supply up. But that's simply a band aid, and until we deal with the reasons that folks are turning to violent crime in the first place, it's only a matter the flavor of crimes committed. We need to have a better conversation about crime, than just the tools used in their commission, but why folks are committing them in the first place.
 
2013-01-20 01:07:35 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Keizer_Ghidorah: "Well, since violence has been around forever, fark doing anything about it"?

That is not an intellectually honest paraphrase.

Violence has been around forever, likewise it's been illegal forever. Adding more laws making X more illegal doesn't help the situation.

Passing a law is the laziest step towards a solution that can possibly be taken, since we already have laws against murder that these crazy people are ignoring. It's a token effort at best, not meant to have any real effect but to appease the outraged nitwits that think more laws for people that already largely ignore them will make a difference.

What will have some effect, is actual work. Better background checks, a better mental health detection system. These are not simply laws, these are functional bodies that can, and do, actively work to avoid future problems.


It's a meaningless argument. We make laws to deter people from doing undesirable actions. No one thinks any law will be 100% effective. No one is trying to say we shouldn't look at mental health. That's another meaningless argument. There is no cure for mental health issues so no matter how good the care is we will still need to do more. Meaningfully gun control measures are not some magic cure all and they were never meant to be.

Irresponsible gun owners like this guy tell me we may actually need legislation to make it illegal to carry anything but a pistol for defense in public outside of special circumstances. It would be sad if that were the case but when gun owners choose to openly carry a completely overpowered weapon that's loaded and not secured in a case, into a crowded mall they give us little choice.
 
2013-01-20 04:54:11 PM  

Robert Farker: No one is trying to say we shouldn't look at mental health.


No one is saying it, but it is the inevitable ending once the wharbargarblers get placated with yet another law. With the outrage-beasts temporarily satedcoontil the next big media panic), the government can and will take the most minimal steps even if it's only sating the loudest of the bunch.

Robert Farker: There is no cure for mental health issues so no matter how good the care is we will still need to do more.


But yeah, mine are "meaningless arguments." OF course it's an impossible goal, but I'd rather see sick people monitored than not, if not confined. The whole mental healthcare has core problems if a healthy person cannot get a sick person help until after they commit a crime, even if it's their own kids. That's a start. No one is asking for a cure for mental illness, but to at least try to make a start of things.

Of course, much of the outrage is gone already, a token gesture made, but nothing actually helpful.

In all reality, a pistol in a hip holster is no less dangerous than a gun across someone's back. Any number of people could, at one time or another do many things to either weapon, to include appropriating them in a moment of distraction.

Sure, the guy's a douche. No less or more than people rationalizing a reduction of rights.
 
2013-01-20 05:08:26 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Robert Farker: No one is trying to say we shouldn't look at mental health.

No one is saying it, but it is the inevitable ending once the wharbargarblers get placated with yet another law. With the outrage-beasts temporarily satedcoontil the next big media panic), the government can and will take the most minimal steps even if it's only sating the loudest of the bunch.

Robert Farker: There is no cure for mental health issues so no matter how good the care is we will still need to do more.

But yeah, mine are "meaningless arguments." OF course it's an impossible goal, but I'd rather see sick people monitored than not, if not confined. The whole mental healthcare has core problems if a healthy person cannot get a sick person help until after they commit a crime, even if it's their own kids. That's a start. No one is asking for a cure for mental illness, but to at least try to make a start of things.

Of course, much of the outrage is gone already, a token gesture made, but nothing actually helpful.

In all reality, a pistol in a hip holster is no less dangerous than a gun across someone's back. Any number of people could, at one time or another do many things to either weapon, to include appropriating them in a moment of distraction.

Sure, the guy's a douche. No less or more than people rationalizing a reduction of rights.



People are not ignoring mental health to the degree you are trying to make it seem. It's a fallacy that even if true doesn't have anything to do with a debate about gun control. It also ignores gun violence that is not caused by mental illness.

The long gun it self isn't anymore dangerous. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The problem is if the gun gets used (by a person), it is more dangerous even if it is being used in self defense.
 
2013-01-20 06:47:36 PM  

Robert Farker: People are not ignoring mental health to the degree you are trying to make it seem.


Of course they are. The populace is largely concerned with netflix and angry birds and WoW. They think it's a shame that a bunch of kids die, and just want something, anything done, so that they can get back to it. The government is obliging.

Nevermind that a LOT more kids die to other things, just never at once and never covered in such a way by the media.(not since people like Nancy Grace had their way with Kasey Anthony and George Zimmerman, at any rate, but those sensationalized cases are few and far between).

Who cares about all of those other deaths by multiple causes, the vast majority of unjust deaths, this is SHOCKING!!!

That's why these discussions only come up once in a while. They disturb the people who'd rather not pay attention to such things, and because of their tendencies they approach the situation uninformed and unsure of what to do, so, to be blunt, they guess, and call it good enough.

Sure, some few do pay attention, even to mental health care / detection of those who are more or less unfit to have the freedom that they do, but the people, by and large, do not. You have a sore misunderstanding of that concept. Typical of someone who only concerns themselves of the news when it hits home, or strikes a cord that makes you pay attention.

Given your naive optimism, this may be a shocking concept. Even of the "concerned" people in this thread and the others like it, many practically forget about it within the day, surely within the week. Even the concern is a token effort, a fleeting temporary thing. Humanity is pretty damn selfish and self involved with little care for the outside world.

On top of that, those few rare people that do remain concerned(unless it is part of their job, IE government / news types)..by definition they are not normal. Hence the tendency for these conversations to be polarized, that's what happens when people have obsessions outside of the norm.

Me? I was simply looking at fark's "recent" tab within my profile, checking all the threads I've been involved in over the past several days. Ask yourself, why are you still in a thread that's right at the closing deadline.
Is it obsession?
Are you simply naive and late to the game?
Are you just throwing out suggestions as a knee-jerk reaction as are the 500+ posts before you?

Personally, I don't care. You sound like a nitwit to me. If that's not what you are intent on putting out there, those are just a few questions you may wish to consider. They are what's known as "rhetorical".
 
2013-01-20 07:04:18 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Of course they are. The populace is largely concerned with netflix and angry birds and WoW. They think it's a shame that a bunch of kids die, and just want something, anything done, so that they can get back to it. The government is obliging.

Nevermind that a LOT...


I agree that the overall attitude toward mental health in the country is relatively poor. There are many complex reasons for this and it's worth discussing but I'm talking about meaningful gun control here. You either want to engage me in debate or you do not. I could run circles around you in a mental health debate but I will not allow you to weasel out of talking about gun control. We need background checks for gun shows and private sales to help prevent the people we do identify as having mental health issues from easily obtaining any weapons they want. You have to hit it from multiple angles as mental health is not the sole cause of gun violence and accidents.
 
2013-01-20 07:14:45 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Robert Farker: People are not ignoring mental health to the degree you are trying to make it seem.

Of course they are. The populace is largely concerned with netflix and angry birds and WoW. They think it's a shame that a bunch of kids die, and just want something, anything done, so that they can get back to it. The government is obliging.

Nevermind that a LOT...



Also, if you look at actual numbers, far more people are injured or killed by gun violence or accidents that are NOT the result of a mentally ill person. I realize that mentally ill people going on a killing spree is scary, but you have to realize that you are more likely to be killed by a criminal with a gun or by an accident than you are to be killed by someone who is mentally ill. Back ground checks at gun shows and for private sales would not stop every criminal from obtaining guns but at least it would help stem the flow.
 
2013-01-20 07:16:41 PM  

Robert Farker: You have to hit it from multiple angles as mental health is not the sole cause of gun violence and accidents.


That all depends on how you want to define mental health. In some schools of thought a simple low IQ is enough to qualify. Desperation, depression, etc. They're all contributing factors.

In other words, mentally healthy people do not murder other people, ergo, only mentally unfit people do.

Or are you going to argue that mentally healthy people do murder others or attempt to?
 
2013-01-20 07:19:18 PM  
Again, beaten by obsessive consecutive postings.

Apparently you do feel that mentally healthy people do murder others. How is that not a sign of mental problems, that these supposedly "healthy" people figure they should murder others?
 
2013-01-20 07:36:04 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Again, beaten by obsessive consecutive postings.

Apparently you do feel that mentally healthy people do murder others. How is that not a sign of mental problems, that these supposedly "healthy" people figure they should murder others?


Happens every day buddy. Your definition of "mentally health" is not clinically valid.
 
2013-01-20 07:40:20 PM  
Guess what else. Once you identify the people who are not "mentally healthy" you need some way to actually prevent them from going out and buying a gun at a gun show or from a private seller.

/consecutive postings FTW!
 
2013-01-20 09:40:13 PM  
Right, because murder is the very symptom of the rational.

Can you give examples of perfectly mentally healthy murderers?
 
2013-01-20 09:43:31 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Right, because murder is the very symptom of the rational.

Can you give examples of perfectly mentally healthy murderers?


We need to stop ignoring the issue of mental health in the country. We already don't do the best job of identifying the most high risk cases and even when we do uncover these people we have no way to stop them from buying guns at gun shows and from private sellers.
 
2013-01-20 09:55:18 PM  
So, your answer is no, you cannot give examples?
 
2013-01-20 10:01:04 PM  

omeganuepsilon: So, your answer is no, you cannot give examples?


I meant what I said when I wasn't going to let you weasel out of a gun control debate.

In addition to people who are mentally ill, felons are prohibited from owning firearms. We have no way to stop them from buying guns at gun shows and from private sellers.
 
2013-01-20 10:05:58 PM  

Robert Farker: I meant what I said when I wasn't going to let you weasel out of a gun control debate.


Then catch me up, what have I said that you are arguing against?

You also said you could argue circles around me when it comes to mental health. Grand claim with a disclaimer that you won't do it here, lets you off the hook for any actual lacking ability.
 
2013-01-20 10:09:07 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Robert Farker: I meant what I said when I wasn't going to let you weasel out of a gun control debate.

Then catch me up, what have I said that you are arguing against?

You also said you could argue circles around me when it comes to mental health. Grand claim with a disclaimer that you won't do it here, lets you off the hook for any actual lacking ability.



If you are in favor of background checks for gun shows and private sellers then I see no disagreement.
 
2013-01-20 10:28:10 PM  
Good deal then. I've got to hit the sack. I'm looking at an early start to a long work week.
 
2013-01-20 10:29:25 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Good deal then. I've got to hit the sack. I'm looking at an early start to a long work week.


Same here
 
2013-01-20 10:38:53 PM  
I'm guessing the thread is near the end anyhow, there's like a 3-4 day limit on these things. I'll have to call you out on a "mental health" discussion some other time.
 
2013-01-20 10:45:28 PM  
EIP if you ever get bored waiting
 
2013-01-21 03:46:50 AM  

OnlyM3: And you can support your hyperbole by showing allll the cases of law abiding gun owners who have


And then you go and list a bunch of things that are non-law abiding.

You didn't think that through, did you?
 
Displayed 37 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 »
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