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.

(Gawker)   Gun Appreciation Day celebrated with accidental shootings at two different gun shows   (gawker.com) divider line 639
    More: Obvious, Gun Appreciation, North Carolina, shootings, guns  
•       •       •

7881 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 10:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



639 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
 
2013-01-20 12:58:07 AM

Haliburton Cummings: Darth Macho: Proof that a time machine will never, ever be invented.

actually, entropy is that very proof.... time as we understand it only works in one direction...


you can have your multiplex of worlds theory or your stringbean theory, but it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that time travel is a human delusion...sorry..deli-sign...

but dude, never bring a time machine to a gun fight...


You're so smart.
 
2013-01-20 12:58:11 AM

Confabulat: Only a very extreme fringe wants to ban all guns. Most people are rational and are just considering background checks, or a ban on the extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time.


The latter is really just a more artful and misleading way of saying all guns, since all guns can kill a large number of people in a short amount of time.

It's also worth pointing that no one wants any guns really banned. They want the police and federal law enforcement officers to be the ones able to possess 'extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time.' I'm not sure why the police, FBI, etc. should have access to such weaponry if it really exists only to kill a large number of people.
 
2013-01-20 12:58:26 AM

PaLarkin: So what if a couple of people were shot at a couple of gun shows? People get hurt at car races. Do you want to ban the Indy 500 because someone might wreck at the next one?

People get hurt at football games. Let's ban football.

People get hurt at wrestling matches. Let's ban wrestling.

Asshats who text while driving cause wrecks. People who drive while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs kill people every day. Let's ban cars.

People get killed all the time in skydiving accidents. Let's ban sky diving.

People get killed in scuba diving accidents. Let's ban scuba diving.

People get killed in boating accidents. Let's ban boating.

People die on the operating table when something goes wrong. Let's ban surgery.

Every day people die in accidents. Let's ban any activity that can result in a fatal accident.

People commit violent crimes with knives. Let's ban knives.

People commit violent crimes with hammers. Let's ban hammers.

People commit violent crimes with bits of pipe. Let's ban pipe.

People commit violent crimes with rocks. Let's ban rocks.

People commit violent crimes with arrows. Let's ban archery.

People often kill others when they commit arson. Let's ban anything that burns or can be used to start a fire.


85% of the children in the world who die from gunshot wounds die here. Let's ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
 
2013-01-20 12:58:34 AM

Frank N Stein: Haliburton Cummings: Frank N Stein: Confabulat: Only a very extreme fringe wants to ban all guns. Most people are rational and are just considering background checks, or a ban on the extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time.

Are you talking about AR-15s and such?

here we go again...

"that's not an assault rifle duuude..."

That's not what I'm getting at.


i know..but that's where it will go..and then some nutter will get in with "VALIDATE THE POSITION!"
 
2013-01-20 12:58:51 AM
Again, gun people, lighten up a little, you can admit that this is just the tiniest bit funny.

It doesn't mean you are admitting that all guns should be banned. It doesn't mean you are admitting that the NRA is really a Communist organization destined to destroy the USA. It doesn't mean you don't love the Constitution.

But seriously, you have to admit, as far as press goes for Gun Appreciation Day, this is not exactly how you wanted it to play out and it is just slightly humorous.
 
2013-01-20 12:59:05 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I suppose you libtards would feel better if they'd been stabbed at a knife show!?


Last time I was at a trebuchet show....
 
2013-01-20 12:59:40 AM

spacelord321: Haliburton Cummings: Darth Macho: Proof that a time machine will never, ever be invented.

actually, entropy is that very proof.... time as we understand it only works in one direction...


you can have your multiplex of worlds theory or your stringbean theory, but it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that time travel is a human delusion...sorry..deli-sign...

but dude, never bring a time machine to a gun fight...

You're so smart.


i tell myself this all the time
 
2013-01-20 12:59:59 AM

Haliburton Cummings: PaLarkin: So what if a couple of people were shot at a couple of gun shows? People get hurt at car races. Do you want to ban the Indy 500 because someone might wreck at the next one?

People get hurt at football games. Let's ban football.

People get hurt at wrestling matches. Let's ban wrestling.

Asshats who text while driving cause wrecks. People who drive while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs kill people every day. Let's ban cars.

People get killed all the time in skydiving accidents. Let's ban sky diving.

People get killed in scuba diving accidents. Let's ban scuba diving.

People get killed in boating accidents. Let's ban boating.

People die on the operating table when something goes wrong. Let's ban surgery.

Every day people die in accidents. Let's ban any activity that can result in a fatal accident.

People commit violent crimes with knives. Let's ban knives.

People commit violent crimes with hammers. Let's ban hammers.

People commit violent crimes with bits of pipe. Let's ban pipe.

People commit violent crimes with rocks. Let's ban rocks.

People commit violent crimes with arrows. Let's ban archery.

People often kill others when they commit arson. Let's ban anything that burns or can be used to start a fire.

my favorite Prince song ever...


I could kill a human with a toothpick if he stood still long enough. Sometimes, you just have to ask nicely.
 
2013-01-20 01:00:12 AM

Frank N Stein: Haliburton Cummings: Frank N Stein: Confabulat: Only a very extreme fringe wants to ban all guns. Most people are rational and are just considering background checks, or a ban on the extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time.

Are you talking about AR-15s and such?

here we go again...

"that's not an assault rifle duuude..."

That's not what I'm getting at.


What ARE you getting at? I am happily ignorant of guns for the most part, because my penis is of normal size, but i grew up in a hunting family and I can see the use of a gun for that sort of activity.  You could put that in a grey area I think, wiser men that me could sort that out. But there's plenty of other legal weaponry out there that there's no such grey area--they exist only to kill people, and lots of them.
 
2013-01-20 01:00:13 AM
Thanks to The Voice Of Doom This magical link will allow you to read this thread only with the word "gun" changed to "penis" and "weapon" to "genital."

It kind of needs to be seen to be appreciated. Trust me on this.
 
2013-01-20 01:00:22 AM
I prefer Firelegs anyway.
 
2013-01-20 01:00:22 AM

Haliburton Cummings: Frank N Stein: Haliburton Cummings: Frank N Stein: Confabulat: Only a very extreme fringe wants to ban all guns. Most people are rational and are just considering background checks, or a ban on the extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time.

Are you talking about AR-15s and such?

here we go again...

"that's not an assault rifle duuude..."

That's not what I'm getting at.

i know..but that's where it will go..and then some nutter will get in with "VALIDATE THE POSITION!"


Well it's an aside, but yeah, civilian AR-15s are not assault rifles. That's just an easily verifiable fact.
 
2013-01-20 01:00:33 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Would the fact that these are supposed to be people who should know how to handle guns make any difference?


No.

As the gun control crowd loves to crow, nothing is perfect.

If 2 or 3 times as many people showed up, the number of mistakes was bound to go up too. A large gun show day with more people than normal may see something like this.

If we have a thousand guns shows a month in this country and there's two mistakes on the day with the most gun shows, it's a statistical blip.
 
2013-01-20 01:00:49 AM

Confabulat: PaLarkin: The gun control crowd wants to ban guns

Only a very extreme fringe wants to ban all guns. Most people are rational and are just considering background checks, or a ban on the extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time.

Gun nuts and the NRA cannot talk rationally about the topic though, because even these common-sense measures are greeted with "OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS" and other paranoid bullshiat. They can't be reasoned with.


Please define "kill-em-all weaponry that only exists to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time" that are currently legally and readily available to civilians. Describe the specific characteristics of such firearms not present in other firearms. Explain why such firearms should be prohibited entirely, rather than merely restricted so that civilians who demonstrate qualification may be able to possess them while making them less easy to obtain than they are currently.
 
2013-01-20 01:01:14 AM

Coelacanth: 85% of the children in the world who die from gunshot wounds die here. Let's ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.


Why, are those things causing all those deaths?
 
2013-01-20 01:01:24 AM
I only wish this was not too big to post inline, as it pretty much sums up my feelings about this. And I used to love going to gun shows.
 
2013-01-20 01:01:25 AM
Meanwhile, the rest of the civilised is world is sitting at home, enjoying their stable democracies without the need to bear guns, enjoying their peaceful gun-free homes and lives and low murder rates without the need to bear guns. the fact that suicide rates and accidental death rates from fire arms are lower is also a bonus.

Oh, and we're laughing at you America as the idiots amongst you lose their collective shiat from the fact that they may not have complete access to their fetish objects.
 
2013-01-20 01:01:56 AM

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 541x720]


Okay, where do the pictures of this dude come from? I have no idea who he is, but I've been seeing these pics for years. Did he go nuts and kill a bunch of people, or is it just some dude with an apparent gun fetish, or what's the deal?
 
2013-01-20 01:01:59 AM

Confabulat: What ARE you getting at? I am happily ignorant of guns for the most part, because my penis is of normal size, but i grew up in a hunting family and I can see the use of a gun for that sort of activity. You could put that in a grey area I think, wiser men that me could sort that out. But there's plenty of other legal weaponry out there that there's no such grey area--they exist only to kill people, and lots of them.


I'm just saying, if those weapons are "extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time" than why does your local police force carry them in most of there squad cars?
 
2013-01-20 01:02:07 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Every gun show I ever attended required all weapons to have zip-ties run through them to keep the bolt open.


Oh, there you go, being all reasonable and stuff. And yes, every gun show i've been to, for the last 4 decades, also insisted on the same.

A paranoid psycho, such as me (apparently), might dare to suggest that maybe, just maybe, this sudden "hasn't happened in decades and happened twice today" activity is, somehow, staged by outsiders.

And by "outsiders" I mean "anti-gun fascists who suddenly have attacked our events to pretend that they are suddenly an actual problem".
 
2013-01-20 01:02:29 AM

pedrop357: They want the police and federal law enforcement officers to be the ones able to possess 'extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time.' I'm not sure why the police, FBI, etc. should have access to such weaponry if it really exists only to kill a large number of people.


Because we as a society have, for better or worse, entrusted those people to keep order. They are not Joe Six-Pack shooting up his back yard.
 
2013-01-20 01:02:32 AM

quickdraw: Thanks to The Voice Of Doom This magical link will allow you to read this thread only with the word "gun" changed to "penis" and "weapon" to "genital."

It kind of needs to be seen to be appreciated. Trust me on this.


If I tried my drinking game there, I'd die of alcohol poisoning in the 1st 50 posts.
 
2013-01-20 01:02:45 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fortunately, we only lost 219 people today as the price we pay for the freedom to drink alcohol.

eagerly awaiting the typical "THAT'S DIFFERENT!" response from the alcoholics.


No, it's a different discussion. The fallacy you've just been using is called tu-quoque, and it's called 'fallacy' for a reason.
 
2013-01-20 01:03:04 AM

Somacandra: I only wish this was not too big to post inline, as it pretty much sums up my feelings about this. And I used to love going to gun shows.


what was the final score on that?
 
2013-01-20 01:03:16 AM

Dimensio: Please define "kill-em-all weaponry that only exists to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time" that are currently legally and readily available to civilians. Describe the specific characteristics of such firearms not present in other firearms.


To be fair, that is precisely what the old 'assault-weapons ban' did. It spent a lot of ink and paper doing just that.
 
2013-01-20 01:03:44 AM

PaLarkin: The gun control crowd wants to ban guns because criminals use them to kill people and idiots who own one but aren't careful with it cause accidents that hurt or kill people.


The extremists, you mean. Everyone else only wants some regulation, some better training and knowledge of safety, maybe getting rid of the assault-type weapons that you don't reasonably need unless you're a collector or something, because going hunting or protecting your home with a machine gun seems a little extreme. You'll still have pistols and handguns and shotguns and other non-assault-type guns.

But people like you seem to think that any attempt to address and perhaps reduce the amount of gun-based violence and death = "OBAMA AND DA LIBS TAKE ALL MAH GUNZ AWAAAAAAAAAY!!", and thus refuse to think rationally and do anything helpful.
 
2013-01-20 01:04:18 AM

djh0101010: jehovahs witness protection: Every gun show I ever attended required all weapons to have zip-ties run through them to keep the bolt open.

Oh, there you go, being all reasonable and stuff. And yes, every gun show i've been to, for the last 4 decades, also insisted on the same.

A paranoid psycho, such as me (apparently), might dare to suggest that maybe, just maybe, this sudden "hasn't happened in decades and happened twice today" activity is, somehow, staged by outsiders.

And by "outsiders" I mean "anti-gun fascists who suddenly have attacked our events to pretend that they are suddenly an actual problem".


your tinfoil...it's loose
 
2013-01-20 01:04:24 AM

Somacandra: Dimensio: Please define "kill-em-all weaponry that only exists to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time" that are currently legally and readily available to civilians. Describe the specific characteristics of such firearms not present in other firearms.

To be fair, that is precisely what the old 'assault-weapons ban' did. It spent a lot of ink and paper doing just that.


It saved our nation from the scourge of drive by bayonetings
 
2013-01-20 01:04:41 AM

djh0101010: jehovahs witness protection: Every gun show I ever attended required all weapons to have zip-ties run through them to keep the bolt open.

Oh, there you go, being all reasonable and stuff. And yes, every gun show i've been to, for the last 4 decades, also insisted on the same.

A paranoid psycho, such as me (apparently), might dare to suggest that maybe, just maybe, this sudden "hasn't happened in decades and happened twice today" activity is, somehow, staged by outsiders.

And by "outsiders" I mean "anti-gun fascists who suddenly have attacked our events to pretend that they are suddenly an actual problem".


Yes. The gun dealer who shot his longtime friend with a handgun is clearly an outsider, derpy.
 
2013-01-20 01:04:48 AM
God is just punking us now.
 
2013-01-20 01:04:50 AM

Dimensio: Please define "kill-em-all weaponry that only exists to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time" that are currently legally and readily available to civilians. Describe the specific characteristics of such firearms not present in other firearms. Explain why such firearms should be prohibited entirely, rather than merely restricted so that civilians who demonstrate qualification may be able to possess them while making them less easy to obtain than they are currently.


As I said before, I'm pretty ignorant about guns, due to my normal sized penis.

I understand hunting rifles, shotguns, and small handguns.

And that's the ONLY weaponry I should ever need to know about.

Why do you need anything more? Be very specific. What are you needing an arsenal for, other than the penis size issue?
 
2013-01-20 01:04:55 AM

Confabulat: Gun nuts and the NRA cannot talk rationally about the topic though, because even these common-sense measures are greeted with "OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS" and other paranoid bullshiat. They can't be reasoned with.


As you opposed to you overly emotional gun control nuts? You deal entirely in flash, looks, feelings, and good intentions. Your side rejects any sense of perspective, logic, rationality, history, or long term vision. YOU are the impossible ones to reason with.
 
2013-01-20 01:05:08 AM

pedrop357: Confabulat: Only a very extreme fringe wants to ban all guns. Most people are rational and are just considering background checks, or a ban on the extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time.

The latter is really just a more artful and misleading way of saying all guns, since all guns can kill a large number of people in a short amount of time.


No, you can keep the muskets the founding fathers wanted you to have.

It's also worth pointing that no one wants any guns really banned. They want the police and federal law enforcement officers to be the ones able to possess 'extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time.' I'm not sure why the police, FBI, etc. should have access to such weaponry if it really exists only to kill a large number of people.


I can't imagine why, either.
 
2013-01-20 01:05:37 AM

Alonjar: You have a 0.0036% chance of being killed by a firearm, not counting intentional suicide.

SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING.


As opposed to unintentional suicide?
 
2013-01-20 01:05:43 AM

Somacandra: To be fair, that is precisely what the old 'assault-weapons ban' did. It spent a lot of ink and paper doing just that.


No, it banned scary looking guns and had no effect on crime.
 
2013-01-20 01:05:52 AM

Somacandra: Dimensio: Please define "kill-em-all weaponry that only exists to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time" that are currently legally and readily available to civilians. Describe the specific characteristics of such firearms not present in other firearms.

To be fair, that is precisely what the old 'assault-weapons ban' did. It spent a lot of ink and paper doing just that.


I am aware that the now-expired federal "assault weapons ban" defined characteristics, but I was not aware that the defined characteristics in any way transformed otherwise functionally identical firearms into "kill-em-all weaponry that only exists to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time". I do not understand why a Ruger Mini-14 modified with a synthetic stock featuring a pistol grip and a collapsing buttstock would qualify as such a firearm while a Ruger Mini-14 modified with a synthetic stock featuring only a pistol grip and a fixed buttstock would not.
 
2013-01-20 01:06:12 AM

Confabulat: As I said before, I'm pretty ignorant about guns,

due to my normal sized penis.

And if you say it a few more times, you just might convince yourself it's true.
 
2013-01-20 01:06:28 AM

pedrop357: There have been issues at fireworks stores/stands where people have lit off fireworks near by and caused the whole thing to go up in flames in minutes. I guess that means all fireworks stands everywhere are unsafe and we should close them down.

BTW, I bet there are more fireworks strand mishaps on 7/3 and 7/4 than any other day. I bet you could find a few incidents on the same day across this small, minimally populated country of ours and misleadingly tie them together into a trend that proves fireworks sellers are unsafe.

What about the tens of thousands of people who openly carried guns in nearly every state in the country with nary a single reported negligent discharge?


So your argument is that the American firearms society is, at best, equivalent in civicminded virtue and sound judgement as a hastily-erected illegal roadside fireworks kiosk. That's some damning praise.

This was the one day gun rights supporters had to show the nation its best and brightest, a rare moment to present the safer side of responsible ownership. And they shot themselves in the foot (and arm, hand and torso).

It's like the KKK holding a minority tolerance day and still having members say the N-word on camera. Comical evidence that the problem runs a little deeper than surface PR.
 
2013-01-20 01:06:41 AM

Confabulat: Why do you need anything more? Be very specific. What are you needing an arsenal for, other than the penis size issue?


DRiNK!

Why should we be denied anything more? Please be very specific.
 
2013-01-20 01:07:26 AM

quickdraw: Thanks to The Voice Of Doom This magical link will allow you to read this thread only with the word "gun" changed to "penis" and "weapon" to "genital."

It kind of needs to be seen to be appreciated. Trust me on this.


jehovahs witness protection [TotalFark]
2013-01-19 08:35:18 PM

Every penis show I ever attended required all genitals to have zip-ties run through them to keep the bolt open.

/that's some funny shiat right there
 
2013-01-20 01:08:03 AM

Dimensio: I do not understand why a Ruger Mini-14 modified with a synthetic stock featuring a pistol grip and a collapsing buttstock would qualify as such a firearm while a Ruger Mini-14 modified with a synthetic stock featuring only a pistol grip and a fixed buttstock would not.


mmmmmm guntard dirty talk....

lemme get the lotion and you prep your next long winded post about gun minutiae....
 
2013-01-20 01:08:19 AM

pedrop357: Confabulat: Why do you need anything more? Be very specific. What are you needing an arsenal for, other than the penis size issue?

DRiNK!

Why should we be denied anything more? Please be very specific.


Because you live in an otherwise civilized world.
 
2013-01-20 01:08:19 AM

derpy: quickdraw: Thanks to The Voice Of Doom This magical link will allow you to read this thread only with the word "gun" changed to "penis" and "weapon" to "genital."

It kind of needs to be seen to be appreciated. Trust me on this.

jehovahs witness protection [TotalFark]
2013-01-19 08:35:18 PM

Every penis show I ever attended required all genitals to have zip-ties run through them to keep the bolt open.

/that's some funny shiat right there


Haha. I accidentally green arrowed you.
 
2013-01-20 01:09:01 AM

HairBolus: whatshisname: Is there one person in line for that gun show who isn't morbidly obese?

Guns are the GREAT EQUALIZER. You don't have to be fit, athletic,or well coordinated to badly hurt or kill someone. Why go through all the hassle of say learning how to box and staying in shape when all you need is a twitch of your finger on the trigger.


Because you're too young, old, have a disability, or you realize a criminal with a gun can easily put a fit boxer in the grave. Don't confuse other peoples circumstances with your own.
 
2013-01-20 01:09:03 AM

Confabulat: Dimensio: Please define "kill-em-all weaponry that only exists to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time" that are currently legally and readily available to civilians. Describe the specific characteristics of such firearms not present in other firearms. Explain why such firearms should be prohibited entirely, rather than merely restricted so that civilians who demonstrate qualification may be able to possess them while making them less easy to obtain than they are currently.

As I said before, I'm pretty ignorant about guns, due to my normal sized penis.


Your penis is of absolutely no relevance to the current discussion. I do not understand why you felt a compulsion to make reference to it, but your mention of your genitalia is entirely inappropriate.

I understand hunting rifles, shotguns, and small handguns.

And that's the ONLY weaponry I should ever need to know about.

Why do you need anything more? Be very specific.


You did not address my question.

What characteristics, specifically, differentiate a "hunting rifle", "shotgun" or "small handgun" from "kill-em-all weaponry"? Additionally, for what reason do you omit target rifles, used for recreational target shooting, from the list that you have stated?


What are you needing an arsenal for, other than the penis size issue?

Penis size is of absolutely no relevance, and your continued reference to male genitalia suggests a psychological obsession for which you may wish to seek counseling.
 
2013-01-20 01:09:23 AM

Darth Macho: pedrop357: There have been issues at fireworks stores/stands where people have lit off fireworks near by and caused the whole thing to go up in flames in minutes. I guess that means all fireworks stands everywhere are unsafe and we should close them down.

BTW, I bet there are more fireworks strand mishaps on 7/3 and 7/4 than any other day. I bet you could find a few incidents on the same day across this small, minimally populated country of ours and misleadingly tie them together into a trend that proves fireworks sellers are unsafe.

What about the tens of thousands of people who openly carried guns in nearly every state in the country with nary a single reported negligent discharge?

So your argument is that the American firearms society is, at best, equivalent in civicminded virtue and sound judgement as a hastily-erected illegal roadside fireworks kiosk. That's some damning praise.

This was the one day gun rights supporters had to show the nation its best and brightest, a rare moment to present the safer side of responsible ownership. And they shot themselves in the foot (and arm, hand and torso).

It's like the KKK holding a minority tolerance day and still having members say the N-word on camera. Comical evidence that the problem runs a little deeper than surface PR.


No, moron. I'm pointing out that on the most armed, publicly carrying day on record and there were two accidents reported anywhere.

The hundreds of thousands of gun rights supporters who came out today are not responsible for the dumb behavior of 2 people.
 
2013-01-20 01:09:52 AM

ansius: Meanwhile, the rest of the civilised is world is sitting at home, enjoying their stable democracies without the need to bear guns, enjoying their peaceful gun-free homes and lives and low murder rates without the need to bear guns. the fact that suicide rates and accidental death rates from fire arms are lower is also a bonus.

Oh, and we're laughing at you America as the idiots amongst you lose their collective shiat from the fact that they may not have complete access to their fetish objects.


Oh man, the cool kids don't like my jeans. Oh noes.
 
2013-01-20 01:10:05 AM

Kome: Fubini

You are comparing the number of people who were harmed in accidental firearm discharge with the total number of motor vehicle collisions. It would be more appropriate to compare the number of people harmed in an accidental firearm discharge with the number of people injured in motor vehicle collisions? Pace your final claim that your assumptions were reasonable, that one most certainly is not. Additionally, you'd have to factor in the survivability of being harmed in a motor vehicle collision for any comparison to truly be valid in the manner you're aiming for.


I acknowledge each of those points in my post, actually. The census document I cite can be found here, if you want to see for yourself. It's unfortunate that the census data doesn't specifically say whether they're talking about all accidents or only those that result in hospitalizations. They might be estimating all accidents, because certainly there's no way to track them all as there are so many totally negligable accidents that don't seriously hurt anyone.

I made my assumptions to try and most accurately compare accidental injuries vs accidental injuries. But, I would really like to address the points you make above, so instead of comparing injuries versus injuries we can definitely compare deaths versus deaths, because deaths are much more heavily tracked than just injuries.

According to mortality data, roughly 500 people died from firearms accidents in 2009, while there were 35,900 deaths from traffic accidents. We use the same numbers for gun-use-hours and car-use-hours as above, and get the following.

Between a 0.00000012 and 0.00000052 chance of killing yourself or someone else per gun-use-hour, and 0.00000012 chance of a traffic fatality per car-use-hour.

Thus, if you only look at fatality data, guns are somewhere between exactly as dangerous as cars to 4.3 times more dangerous than cars per hour of use. But, recall to get that 4.3 times more dangerous per hour of use I had to assume that all gun owners in America only use their guns for one hour per month. I'll let you decide whether you think that's fair.
 
2013-01-20 01:10:14 AM

Haliburton Cummings: Dimensio: I do not understand why a Ruger Mini-14 modified with a synthetic stock featuring a pistol grip and a collapsing buttstock would qualify as such a firearm while a Ruger Mini-14 modified with a synthetic stock featuring only a pistol grip and a fixed buttstock would not.

mmmmmm guntard dirty talk....

lemme get the lotion and you prep your next long winded post about gun minutiae....


Because knowing wtf you're talking about is a bad thing.
 
2013-01-20 01:10:51 AM

derpy: Because you live in an otherwise civilized world.


Citation needed.

It's not civilized enough for the police to give up even more powerful and/or capable weapons.
 
Displayed 50 of 639 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