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  
•       •       •

7882 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 10:48:02 AM  

HBK: There should be a safety class or maybe a range safety certification process to be able to purchase a gun. It's really just too easy.


This is kind of like saying that simply going to school makes you smart. No, no matter how much you try to force people to learn and do something, some will not. Besides, gun accidents are a very minor problem. More people die in 2 days of alcohol related death than those that die all year from gun accidents.
 
2013-01-20 10:49:24 AM  

kapaso: 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?


It isnt always clear if a gun death was a purposeful suicide or an accident.
 
2013-01-20 11:18:30 AM  

Kome: About 2,500,000 people are injured in motor vehicle collisions per year. About 30,000 fatalities. Survivability rate of 99.9988% 98.8%

.
 
2013-01-20 11:19:53 AM  

HBK: There should be a safety class or maybe a range safety certification process to be able to purchase a gun. It's really just too easy.



People with mental illnesses would be able to pass your safety classes without much of a problem at all, just like they can pass driver's ed classes or get high school diplomas. And yet, the random nut jobs will still be able to commit their mass shootings while law abiding citizens are spending their time jumping through all of your hoops.

Next!
 
2013-01-20 11:22:26 AM  

3StratMan: Obama? Did I say Obama? NO, I didn't farking say Obama! I was referring to most of the Left and a large majority of Farkers. Those are the ones who truly believe that no one in this country should be able to own firearms, for any reason. That is their wish, deep down, but that pesky little thing called "The Second Amendment" keeps them from getting their wish.


Personally, I get a significantly different impression.
 
2013-01-20 11:25:21 AM  

DoctorCal: Kome: About 2,500,000 people are injured in motor vehicle collisions per year. About 30,000 fatalities. Survivability rate of 99.9988% 98.8%.


And yet we don't look at car injuries and fatalities, throw up our hands and say, "well car crashes are going to happen no matter what, nothing we can do, any laws are pointless."

No, the government regulates the shiat out of cars, largely to reduce the number and severity of injuries and deaths. Licensing (subject to revocation), registration, mandatory insurance, mandatory inspections, mandated safety features, etc etc.

If guns are as innocuous as cars, let's treat guns the same way we do cars. Regulate the shiat out of them.
 
2013-01-20 11:33:44 AM  

knight_on_the_rail: well yes, i demand that someone should justify owning a gun if they're in an organized gun race and they kill some spectators. or if an illegal gun racer shot up a school bus. or because a drunk gun owner killed a group of teenagers in another car. oh wait, cars have nothing to do with guns, and if you're using that as a parallel then you're being dishonest and you know it. i keep lurking in these gun threads and all i see over and over is a bunch of guys who like guns trying to justify their ownership of them without ever providing any solid reasons apart from "i like them" or using a skewed supreme court decision in which the conservative majority went out of their way to stick it to the other side.

so my opinion is this, grow the fark up. i like things that are illegal and other people do too, but quit farking whining when people have a problem with it because idiot farks use that thing that you like to do awful things. you may be responsible about your hobby, but if one can measure your sanity by gauging the shrillness of your defense then let me tell you, you're being unjustifiably traditional and unjustifiably ridiculous.


You're the one being dishonest. Guns are things, property, like cars, airplanes, hot water heaters, furnaces, power tools, hand tools, baseball bats, and countless other items. It is -you- who want to see them differently because you want to tell other people what they may and may not own. Key to that at this time is to single out firearms as some sort of magical property that turns people into killers. But in the end this is about those who want to control other people. It won't stop at guns and guns haven't been the only thing people like yourself want to deny other people. This control freakish need to make other people live the way you want them to live is absurd. It's the same mentality that's behind HOAs. To force conformity. Any excuse to do so will be used. So you don't like guns, don't own one, but that's where your power stops.

Oh, and for your information, I don't own a gun. Why? I have no particular interest in them. But unlike you I can recognize that allowing control freaks such as yourself even greater precedent with guns can then result in even greater restrictions on my life and things I do have an interest in. So you can stuff your attempted slander up where the sun doesn't shine. Your government school conditioned notion of group punishment is also absurd. Well Johnny did a bad thing now everyone else has to suffer the punishment and there will be no recess for a week. People are responsible for their actions and the actions of one person are not justification for punishment of everyone who can be remotely gathered into a group. You sound like one of these extreme anti-car nutjobs who thinks everyone should take transit. I gather you probably tattle to the HOA on your neighbors as well.
 
2013-01-20 11:36:43 AM  

Doc Daneeka: way south: edmo: TwowheelinTim: This is to be expected.

But why do we have to allow it?

We allow everyone their rights even though a handful will always abuse them.

In this case it isn't abuse so much as accident.
Millions of guns were being handled across the nation at thousands of events. The number of accidents is beyond insignificant.

/more people likely had traffic accidents on the way to the gun show.
/but since we aren't talking about car bans, we "allow" these incidents to happen.

If you really want to make an analogy to cars and car accidents (as so many gun rights people do), let's do that.

And let's start by pointing out that:
1) In order to use a car, you have to be licensed by the government, certifying that you have been trained to use it, passing a government-administered test. This license must be renewed periodically.
2) Every car you own and use must be registered with the government. This registration must be renewed periodically.
3) Car drivers are required to show both their license an their registration when requested to do so by a police officer.
4) The government mandates that you carry an insurance policy on each car you own and use, in the event that your car is involved in an accident and becomes damaged, or harms others and damages their property.
5) the government requires that each car you have registered be pass an inspection periodically to ensure it is operating properly and meets government standards.

If you really want to say guns are no different than cars, fine. Let's start by putting these five things in place for guns. I think that would be a great thing. Then I will fully support your guns-cars analogy.


I'm not drawing a parallel with cars based on some perceived constitutional right to drive on public roads being equal to your right to to own a weapon for defense.
I'm drawing a parallel based on accident rates.
Because the argument being bantered around is that guns are too dangerous to own safely. This argument is based on a firearm accident rate that is absurdly low when compared to other tools, cars, bathtubs, or any of a dozen other seemingly safe things we use on a regular basis.

If you buy the argument that guns are too dangerous to be used safely then you better prepare yourself for that bubble wrap suit the government is going to recommend next. You'll be needing a license just to use the crapper without a safety camera pointed at your ass.

/The only reason this headline is even blog worthy is because the guy writing it has an absurd agenda.
 
2013-01-20 11:39:12 AM  
So, where's the line?

Assault Weapons? (However they're defined)
Fully automatic rifles?
RPGs?
Should your crack head neighbor be allowed to own a nuclear bomb?

Seriously, where's the line?

And can we stop the auto death/gun death false equivelancy? When's the last time an automobile related death/injury occured just by starting the car (assuming you're not a mob boss)? Per TFA, a "responsible" gun owner injured THREE people just by picking up his gun!
While we're at it, let's end the knife/plane/fire/golf club/duct tape false equivelancies, as well. Every other item used in a crime has SEVERAL other uses. Guns have ONE. Stop lying to yourself and others by claiming you only bought it to shoot targets. That's right up there with the "I didn't inhale" argument. Another lie you can stop telling is how you bought your big, shiny, infinitely modifiable AR-15 for hunting. You bought it because you think it makes you look cool. Kinda like claiming your shiny new Ferrari is for fetchin' groceries.
Snark aside, I'm really curious why so many gun owners are against having to register. I know, I know, it's only *other* people that do crazy shiat with their guns. I'm a safe driver but I still have to register and insure my vehicle. Why should you be allowed to purchase the ability to kill quickly and efficiently without having to prove you're still safe, sane and responsible once a year?
Lastly, how is it you can tell me how infinitesimally small my chances of being involved in a gun related death or gun related violence (0.0036% someone above posted) and in the same breath claim you *NEED* your gun for protection from the big, bad world out there?

/not advocating taking away ALL THE GUNZ!1!!
//think you should have to prove your responsibility in owning a single-purpose implement of death
 
2013-01-20 11:46:17 AM  

fusillade762: Fubini: As far as I know, there have only ever been two psycho-spree-shootings that have ever involved an "assault weapon," and both of them happened this year.

Here ya go.

[assets.motherjones.com image 630x400]

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America


Mother Jones has matured a bit since their inception.
 
2013-01-20 11:56:04 AM  

maelstrom0370: Lastly, how is it you can tell me how infinitesimally small my chances of being involved in a gun related death or gun related violence (0.0036% someone above posted) and in the same breath claim you *NEED* your gun for protection from the big, bad world out there?


Because they're liars?

Seriously, at this point no rational person can think the millions of gun nuts arguing that anything is too much are anything but complete idiots or unapologetic liars. There's just not any other option.
 
2013-01-20 11:57:16 AM  

Znuh: insanely powerful weapon, which the AR-15 is


By what metric?  It's one of the smaller bullets.  It's got a reasonably fast muzzle velocity, but not particularly special, and weapons that are genuinely regarded as among the most powerful (the .50 cal sniper rifle) are significantly slower.  It's semi-automatic, but so are most weapons these days.

So what makes it particularly powerful?
 
2013-01-20 12:05:52 PM  

vygramul: Znuh: insanely powerful weapon, which the AR-15 is

By what metric?  It's one of the smaller bullets.  It's got a reasonably fast muzzle velocity, but not particularly special, and weapons that are genuinely regarded as among the most powerful (the .50 cal sniper rifle) are significantly slower.  It's semi-automatic, but so are most weapons these days.

So what makes it particularly powerful?


Mr. Creosote would like a word....

/it'sjustawaferthinmint.jpg
 
2013-01-20 12:15:21 PM  

vygramul: Znuh: insanely powerful weapon, which the AR-15 is

By what metric?  It's one of the smaller bullets.  It's got a reasonably fast muzzle velocity, but not particularly special, and weapons that are genuinely regarded as among the most powerful (the .50 cal sniper rifle) are significantly slower.  It's semi-automatic, but so are most weapons these days.

So what makes it particularly powerful?


They are extremely powerful because he's ignorant and easily falls for propaganda. That's why.
 
2013-01-20 12:16:40 PM  

Dimensio: Allen. The end.: Dimensio: My AR-15 rifle could be used for hunting and in fact some hunters do use AR-15 pattern rifles, however I do not hunt at all and I use the rifle only for target shooting; should it be confiscated from me?

Then they are not hunters. An AR-15 vs. a deer? Even a bear? Come on, what they hell are they hunting, Godzilla?

As I never claimed that an AR-15 is a suitable firearm for hunting deer or bears, your reference to such animals is irrelevant. Your claim that hunters who use AR-15 pattern rifles "are not hunters" is an appeal to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.


I wasn't talking caliber, I was talking repetition of fire. And sorry, but I am unfamiliar with the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.
 
2013-01-20 12:22:46 PM  

way south: I'm not drawing a parallel with cars based on some perceived constitutional right to drive on public roads being equal to your right to to own a weapon for defense.
I'm drawing a parallel based on accident rates.
Because the argument being bantered around is that guns are too dangerous to own safely. This argument is based on a firearm accident rate that is absurdly low when compared to other tools, cars, bathtubs, or any of a dozen other seemingly safe things we use on a regular basis.


Where are the figures published that prove that more people are killed by the inappropriate use of a bathtub than by firearms?
 
HBK
2013-01-20 12:38:55 PM  

3StratMan: HBK: There should be a safety class or maybe a range safety certification process to be able to purchase a gun. It's really just too easy.

People with mental illnesses would be able to pass your safety classes without much of a problem at all, just like they can pass driver's ed classes or get high school diplomas. And yet, the random nut jobs will still be able to commit their mass shootings while law abiding citizens are spending their time jumping through all of your hoops.

Next!


I wasn't addressing statistically insignificant mass shootings.
 
2013-01-20 12:42:40 PM  

Allen. The end.: I wasn't talking caliber, I was talking repetition of fire. And sorry, but I am unfamiliar with the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.


But plenty of hunters use an autoloading gun. What's the difference? Magazine size?
 
2013-01-20 12:54:31 PM  
I read an article the other day about all the safety features that gun manufacturers could put into guns but don't. They are not required to put them in and they would make the guns a bit more expensive so, unless their competition also put them in, it would put them at a disadvantage.

Of course this same analogy works for cars. If the government didn't recognize the great risk they pose and had not set safety standards we would not have seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc. It costs money to design and implement all these features so no one company will do it unless their competition is forced to do it as well.

People seem to be under the impression that if gun ownership is not as unsafe as possible, for the owners and everyone else, then the 2nd amendment has been violated. It is a bullshiat argument.
 
2013-01-20 01:01:59 PM  

Farking Canuck: People seem to be under the impression that if gun ownership is not as unsafe as possible, for the owners and everyone else, then the 2nd amendment has been violated. It is a bullshiat argument.


And if you point out the fact that every other right we recognize comes with a commensurate set of responsibilities they just pull up the bullshiat argument of "but you don't have to have a permit to speak!" as if everybody is so stupid as they are to believe that different problems don't have different solutions.

It really is amazing how such an irrational and ignorant group of people have managed to become such a powerful force in American politics when virtually every single one of their arguments is so incredibly simple-minded that a small child would feel embarrassed to rely on it.
 
2013-01-20 01:02:22 PM  

Kome: No, you didn't. You were straight up comparing injuries from firearms to all motor vehicle collisions, whether an injury resulted or not.


I specifically said I was comparing accidents-to-accidents, not injuries-to-injuries. The problem is that any "accident" with a firearm results in an injury, while not all car accidents do result in injuries. If your number of 2,500,000 injuries per year is correct then you can just cut the risk of car injuries by 1/4 and you still find that guns aren't particularly more dangerous.

Second, I was specifically comparing the number of ACCIDENTAL gun fatalities and injuries. I got my gun fatality data from CDC mortality data, and assumed there were 20 times that number of total injuries (though someone upthread claimed it was closer to only 5 times as many injuries) to get a total of 10,000 total accidental firearms injuries. (To see the data yourself, look up "accidental discharge of firearms" versus "assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms")

You can't throw intentional gun misuse (criminal homicide) in with accidental misuse when comparing the risk of accidental injury or death.
 
2013-01-20 01:03:13 PM  

Farking Canuck: I read an article the other day about all the safety features that gun manufacturers could put into guns but don't. They are not required to put them in and they would make the guns a bit more expensive so, unless their competition also put them in, it would put them at a disadvantage.

Of course this same analogy works for cars. If the government didn't recognize the great risk they pose and had not set safety standards we would not have seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc. It costs money to design and implement all these features so no one company will do it unless their competition is forced to do it as well.



You'd think there would be a market for these things without it being mandated.
 
2013-01-20 01:05:54 PM  

fusillade762: Haliburton Cummings: give up. go green. do yourself in.

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x441]


exactly


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/20/albuquerque-shooting-2013-ne w -mexico-teenager_n_2516424.html
 
2013-01-20 01:14:41 PM  

Wulfman: Farking Canuck: I read an article the other day about all the safety features that gun manufacturers could put into guns but don't. They are not required to put them in and they would make the guns a bit more expensive so, unless their competition also put them in, it would put them at a disadvantage.

Of course this same analogy works for cars. If the government didn't recognize the great risk they pose and had not set safety standards we would not have seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc. It costs money to design and implement all these features so no one company will do it unless their competition is forced to do it as well.


You'd think there would be a market for these things without it being mandated.


Some guns do implement some safety features but it is inconsistent and tends to be on higher end models.
 
2013-01-20 01:17:51 PM  
I have a proposal. I already buy a hunting and fishing permit every year. Costs about $70, but I can legally hunt and fish for pretty much anything not on an endangered species list. The bulk of this money goes towards wildlife research and management, habitat preservation, and parks management. All of which benefit everybody that doesn't hate animals or camping or being outdoors.

Now, I am pretty much against licensing, so instead of another license, how about say, a 2% tax on firearms and ammo, with the proceeds generated being earmarked for use to study the causes of violent crime, fund law enforcement efforts in high crime areas, and mental health care. The more expensive "black" guns would generate more taxes for this fund.

Everybody wins!
 
2013-01-20 01:17:56 PM  

DoctorCal: Kome: About 2,500,000 people are injured in motor vehicle collisions per year. About 30,000 fatalities. Survivability rate of 99.9988% 98.8%.


Bah, what a silly error. Thanks for the correction. Guess I forgot to multiply by 100 when doing the calculation. =P

Fubini: I specifically said I was comparing accidents-to-accidents, not injuries-to-injuries.


There's what you said, and then there's what you actually did. Regardless of what you said, what you did was compared those who were injured from accidents related to firearm discharge to all accidents related to motor vehicle collisions regardless of any injury. That is an invalid comparison.

The problem is that any "accident" with a firearm results in an injury, while not all car accidents do result in injuries. If your number of 2,500,000 injuries per year is correct then you can just cut the risk of car injuries by 1/4 and you still find that guns aren't particularly more dangerous.

Untrue. A pistol or rifle can accidentally fire without hitting anyone. But it is telling that you think that firearms are so dangerous.

Second, I was specifically comparing the number of ACCIDENTAL gun fatalities and injuries. I got my gun fatality data from CDC mortality data, and assumed there were 20 times that number of total injuries (though someone upthread claimed it was closer to only 5 times as many injuries) to get a total of 10,000 total accidental firearms injuries. (To see the data yourself, look up "accidental discharge of firearms" versus "assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms")

You can't throw intentional gun misuse (criminal homicide) in with accidental misuse when comparing the risk of accidental injury or death.


Actually, you can. At the end of the day, dead is dead, and hospitalized is hospitalized. The proportional cost of human life by firearms in a much greater than the cost of human life by automobiles.
 
2013-01-20 01:21:46 PM  
 
2013-01-20 01:26:35 PM  

Farking Canuck: I read an article the other day about all the safety features that gun manufacturers could put into guns but don't. They are not required to put them in and they would make the guns a bit more expensive so, unless their competition also put them in, it would put them at a disadvantage.


Manuel safeties are a good thing, but I'm beginning to think people rely on them TOO much, as if a safety switch is a good replacement for common sense and proper gun handling.

As for myself, I have a pistol with no external safety (Walther PPQ). I live in an apartment with no children, but if I had kids I would not keep a pistol on my nightstand as I do now, ESPECIALLY a gun with no manual/external safety
 
2013-01-20 01:29:14 PM  

Allen. The end.: I wasn't talking caliber, I was talking repetition of fire.


Repetition of fire is probably important if you're hunting bears.  But I'd want a much larger caliber than .223.
 
2013-01-20 01:32:37 PM  
Media never reports how many people have been run over at bulldozer shows.

Media never reports how many people drown at swim meets.

Media never reports how many people come down with aids, std's, etc. at porn conventions.

Media never reports political affiliations of Democrat mayors charged with bribery crimes.

But let someone at a gun show have a little mishap and it's all over the news.
 
2013-01-20 01:39:05 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: The Second Amendment you don't know;
The founders' original intent was as much about regulating firearm possession as enabling it

suck it gun nuts...


That's pretty tortured logic.  Add it to the list.

Stupid assertions of the second amendment's intent:

To prevent Hessians from disarming militias
To ensure militias could continue their slave-hunting mission
To ensure militias wouldn't be disarmed by the feds in case someone invades the United States
To ensure the feds could force Quakers to bear arms
 
2013-01-20 02:14:47 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: It really is amazing how such an irrational and ignorant group of people have managed to become such a powerful force in American politics when virtually every single one of their arguments is so incredibly simple-minded that a small child would feel embarrassed to rely on it.


To be fair, the gun control groups are losing favor, but I'll agree that their arguments are incredibly simple minded and children who use them should be ashamed.
 
2013-01-20 02:21:48 PM  

Pick: But let someone at a gun show have a little mishap and it's all over the news.


gunappreciationday-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com

/only cuz it's hilarious
//got the message, "loud and clear"
///yr idjits
 
2013-01-20 02:46:50 PM  

Frank N Stein: Farking Canuck: I read an article the other day about all the safety features that gun manufacturers could put into guns but don't. They are not required to put them in and they would make the guns a bit more expensive so, unless their competition also put them in, it would put them at a disadvantage.

Manuel safeties are a good thing, but I'm beginning to think people rely on them TOO much, as if a safety switch is a good replacement for common sense and proper gun handling.

As for myself, I have a pistol with no external safety (Walther PPQ). I live in an apartment with no children, but if I had kids I would not keep a pistol on my nightstand as I do now, ESPECIALLY a gun with no manual/external safety


Please tell me it's not loaded when it's in the night stand.
 
2013-01-20 02:59:03 PM  

Robert Farker: Please tell me it's not loaded when it's in the night stand.


Nothing more worthless than an unloaded gun.
 
2013-01-20 02:59:07 PM  

Robert Farker: Frank N Stein: Farking Canuck: I read an article the other day about all the safety features that gun manufacturers could put into guns but don't. They are not required to put them in and they would make the guns a bit more expensive so, unless their competition also put them in, it would put them at a disadvantage.

Manuel safeties are a good thing, but I'm beginning to think people rely on them TOO much, as if a safety switch is a good replacement for common sense and proper gun handling.

As for myself, I have a pistol with no external safety (Walther PPQ). I live in an apartment with no children, but if I had kids I would not keep a pistol on my nightstand as I do now, ESPECIALLY a gun with no manual/external safety

Please tell me it's not loaded when it's in the night stand.


Please tell me it is. Doesn't have to be chambered though. If you have enough time to grab it out of the nightstand, chambering a round isn't too time consuming. Even still, the gun has internal safeties. Only fires when you pull the trigger. Period.

Own a PS99. Walther lower with S&W chamber to fit a 45.
 
2013-01-20 03:00:54 PM  

spacelord321: Robert Farker: Frank N Stein: Farking Canuck: I read an article the other day about all the safety features that gun manufacturers could put into guns but don't. They are not required to put them in and they would make the guns a bit more expensive so, unless their competition also put them in, it would put them at a disadvantage.

Manuel safeties are a good thing, but I'm beginning to think people rely on them TOO much, as if a safety switch is a good replacement for common sense and proper gun handling.

As for myself, I have a pistol with no external safety (Walther PPQ). I live in an apartment with no children, but if I had kids I would not keep a pistol on my nightstand as I do now, ESPECIALLY a gun with no manual/external safety

Please tell me it's not loaded when it's in the night stand.

Please tell me it is. Doesn't have to be chambered though. If you have enough time to grab it out of the nightstand, chambering a round isn't too time consuming. Even still, the gun has internal safeties. Only fires when you pull the trigger. Period.

Own a PS99. Walther lower with S&W chamber to fit a 45.


I keep it unchambered
 
2013-01-20 03:04:23 PM  

Frank N Stein: spacelord321: Robert Farker: Frank N Stein: Farking Canuck: I read an article the other day about all the safety features that gun manufacturers could put into guns but don't. They are not required to put them in and they would make the guns a bit more expensive so, unless their competition also put them in, it would put them at a disadvantage.

Manuel safeties are a good thing, but I'm beginning to think people rely on them TOO much, as if a safety switch is a good replacement for common sense and proper gun handling.

As for myself, I have a pistol with no external safety (Walther PPQ). I live in an apartment with no children, but if I had kids I would not keep a pistol on my nightstand as I do now, ESPECIALLY a gun with no manual/external safety

Please tell me it's not loaded when it's in the night stand.

Please tell me it is. Doesn't have to be chambered though. If you have enough time to grab it out of the nightstand, chambering a round isn't too time consuming. Even still, the gun has internal safeties. Only fires when you pull the trigger. Period.

Own a PS99. Walther lower with S&W chamber to fit a 45.

I keep it unchambered


Either way, I trust you, and I don't even know you. How the fark does that work!?!

; )
 
2013-01-20 03:06:29 PM  
It's two guys, at two gun shows, of hundreds of gun shows that happen every weekend of the year.

So, obviously this is representative....of what exactly? Oh, yeah. The liberal media and desperate liberals.
 
2013-01-20 03:12:09 PM  

Frank N Stein: spacelord321: Robert Farker: Frank N Stein: Farking Canuck: I read an article the other day about all the safety features that gun manufacturers could put into guns but don't. They are not required to put them in and they would make the guns a bit more expensive so, unless their competition also put them in, it would put them at a disadvantage.

Manuel safeties are a good thing, but I'm beginning to think people rely on them TOO much, as if a safety switch is a good replacement for common sense and proper gun handling.

As for myself, I have a pistol with no external safety (Walther PPQ). I live in an apartment with no children, but if I had kids I would not keep a pistol on my nightstand as I do now, ESPECIALLY a gun with no manual/external safety

Please tell me it's not loaded when it's in the night stand.

Please tell me it is. Doesn't have to be chambered though. If you have enough time to grab it out of the nightstand, chambering a round isn't too time consuming. Even still, the gun has internal safeties. Only fires when you pull the trigger. Period.

Own a PS99. Walther lower with S&W chamber to fit a 45.

I keep it unchambered


Probably relatively safe then. If it were me I would have the clip out. It still doesn't guarantee the chamber is empty though.
 
2013-01-20 03:13:57 PM  

3StratMan: 3 idiots do something stupid with guns, therefore we should take away everyones right to own firearms?

Shiat, with that logic, we a should immediately take away everyone's right to vote after electing farkwads that spend the country into a $16 trillion dollar debt, happily guts our military into damn near laughing stock status, and pretty much spits on the constitution daily.

Oh wait, I forgot... It's OK, since it's YOUR guys doing it. And "but but but but Bush".


You military has been a laughing stop for a long time, but not because of budget cuts. Because they are poorly trained, clueless, and likely to fark up more than they fix, despite having some of the best equipment and most money of any military in the world.
 
2013-01-20 03:14:46 PM  
i.imgur.com

save me guntard save me!

look at that weasel...no wonder he needs a gun...
 
2013-01-20 03:15:55 PM  

Robert Farker: Probably relatively safe then. If it were me I would have the clip out. It still doesn't guarantee the chamber is empty though.


No, no it doesn't. But I safety check it every couple of days or so.
 
2013-01-20 03:19:11 PM  

barneyfifesbullet: It's two guys, at two gun shows, of hundreds of gun shows that happen every weekend of the year.

So, obviously this is representative....of what exactly? Oh, yeah. The liberal media and desperate liberals.


It's representative that there are some people out there who are irresponsible with guns. It's nothing new, we knew that already and it does not reflect either way on the ones who are responsible.

I think we do need to start prosecuting more accidents though. I'm not arguing to punish someone for a genuine zero negligence accident but you need to spend a little time in jail if you hurt someone. If a hunter kills a person he mistook for an animal he needs to be in prison at least 1 year. Maybe not 10 but at least 1.
 
2013-01-20 03:28:24 PM  

Iplaybass: 3StratMan: 3 idiots do something stupid with guns, therefore we should take away everyones right to own firearms?

Shiat, with that logic, we a should immediately take away everyone's right to vote after electing farkwads that spend the country into a $16 trillion dollar debt, happily guts our military into damn near laughing stock status, and pretty much spits on the constitution daily.

Oh wait, I forgot... It's OK, since it's YOUR guys doing it. And "but but but but Bush".

You military has been a laughing stop for a long time, but not because of budget cuts. Because they are poorly trained, clueless, and likely to fark up more than they fix, despite having some of the best equipment and most money of any military in the world.


It's almost as if you can give any idiot a gun and he/she becomes a force for protection/opression. That is the power of the gun. It all depends on the hands that hold it.
 
2013-01-20 03:37:55 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 767x724]"School hires armed security guard in wake of Sandy Hook shooting. Guard promptly forgets gun in washroom"

save me guntard save me!

look at that weasel...no wonder he needs a gun...


Mostly, security guards are people that you don't want armed - they are low wage workers unqualified to be policemen but want to be.

One company I worked for had armed security guards until they screwed up too many times and had their guns taken away. Many of the incidents did happen in the bathroom - a guard shooting a mirror practicing quick draws, a guard's gun going off when he dropped his pants at the toilet, etc.

The actual job of a guard hardly ever involves violence which means there is no on the job experience. You really don't want to give a violent weapon to some dude whose entire day is spent just standing around.
 
2013-01-20 03:38:22 PM  

HairBolus: spacelord321: 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.

Your thinking is why there are so many gun nut morons around who think that a gun will make them safe while without extensive training - it only makes them more dangerous both to themselves and others around them. A gun does not instantly turn somebody into a tough guy but it can instantly turn someone into a dangerous idiot.


I take the good with the bad. You're assigning labels to people you don't know doesn't make me scared of my fellow humans.
 
2013-01-20 03:51:40 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: 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?


It started out as a joke on SA in 2008. Here's an interview with him from a couple of years ago. He's got a pretty good sense of humor about it.
 
2013-01-20 03:52:49 PM  

Darth Macho: pedrop357: Everyone is innocent of a crime until they're guilty of one.

From the archives:
pedrop357 2009-05-16 04:44:57 PM

What I was getting at is there are a lot more bad cops then fellow cops and their supporters like to admit. Enough of them that perhaps the profession of police officer doesn't deserve this reputation of trustworthiness and integrity that it's been given.

The odds simply don't support the idea that there are only 2 or 3 bad cops in a department of 400 or 4000, and those two or three somehow manage to end up on the same shift responding to the same incident.

...

The million dollar question is why or how should people trust that a police officer they encounter is not possibly abusive, dceptive, or homicidal? Why should police be trusted more then security guards, paramedics, gun store owners, librarians, or any other profession?

Your opinions don't seem very consistent.


Are you suggesting that librarians are murderers in general?
 
2013-01-20 03:53:15 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: The Second Amendment you don't know;
The founders' original intent was as much about regulating firearm possession as enabling it

suck it gun nuts...


Wow, an article completely devoid of citations. You're one of those "I saw it on the internet, so it's true" people, it seems.
 
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