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.

(NYPost)   State of NY to legal firearms owners, "Register your weapons, it's the law." Legal firearms owners to the State of NY, "Guns? I don't own any guns, and you can't prove it so go fark yourselves"   ( nypost.com) divider line
    More: Hero, New York, civil disobedience, Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland  
•       •       •

17883 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 4:26 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1299 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | » | Newest

 
2013-01-27 02:07:22 PM  

LeGnome: I hope these people understand that the state is more than willing to pry their guns from their cold, dead fingers.


I'd wager some people are willing to make a bigger point than pooping on cop cars.

Soem people take their rights more seriously.
 
2013-01-27 02:20:37 PM  

BronyMedic: You're shooting at a moving target who is firing large quantities of high velocity ammunition in your general direction.


BronyMedic: NOT the same as shooting a moving target that is shooting back at you.


It all depends on the situation. Most crazy shooters don't fire blindly, they pick their shots, adjust, take another shot, adjust. They're not always firing at "me". It's not happening quite the way you make it sound.

Maybe a self-defense shooter wouldn't get the time, or draw attention to himself and become a target, but it isn't a hard and fast rule that it would be impossible to shoot him while he's not looking or otherwise get the drop on him.

Also, as a shooter moves room to room, people not in the first room would have ample time to set up a defense to pop him as he stepped in.

In reality it doesn't always happen within the confines of your apparently limited imagination.
 
2013-01-27 02:23:14 PM  

djh0101010: Way to focus on a minor point while being wrong in every point you make.


At this point, I'm going to go ahead and double-post, and call you out as a fraud, and as someone who is so dedicated to trolling that you're willing to commit a crime to do so.

You do realize that falsely claiming to be an EMT for personal gain is a crime in every state, right?

1) You refer to the National Registry as "Licensure", and have made repeated comments about being a National Registry "Licensed" EMT for the last few days when you have been trolling and insulting me. This is a mistake that no EMT would ever make. Your state licenses EMTs and Paramedics, and more commonly certifies EMT-Bs and First Responders. It's a legal difference in terms that is addressed in the first chapter of an EMT-Basic book and every refresher I've ever sat through. You then accused me of working in NYC when my profile clearly states I work in the south. Your "knowledge" of my profession seems based on clicking the top results in google searches.

2) You have repeatedly avoided questions where I have asked you in what state you're licensed in. You constantly refer to yourself as having been a "volunteer EMT" for the past 12 years, and have insulted me as both being a member of a union, and being a "wage slave" because two of the four jobs I work at pay me. Yet you seem to have no knowledge of the fact that "EMT" is a general level descriptor for EMT-Basic, and that EMT-Basic is the most widely varied scope in the United States of ANY healthcare profession.

3) You have never referred to the profession as EMS. You have always used Emergency Medical Responders (in proper caps even) and National Registry as your point of licensure. No one does this. EMR is a level, more commonly known as first responders, which requires a 40 hour class. Paramedic in the State of Tennessee requires 1500 Hours of Class and Instructional Time at minimum, in addition to clinical time.

4) You can't even use proper terminology in your posts. No one in the EMS Profession calls a Paramedic an EMT - it's a term used by every other healthcare provider as a blanket term. An EMT is an EMT, and a Paramedic is a Paramedic. No one, not even the most rookie first responder - let alone an EMT who's been working the streets for "12 years"

No. You sound like you're either an auxillary wacker who doesn't realize he's being laughed at for posting the way he does, the wife or family member of someone in the emergency medical profession, or someone who's trolling with googled information.

You're still going to be laughed at, but I won't post this in every other thread you ever post if you are willing to tell what your actual level of certification and your state of licensure is.

i23.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-27 02:29:31 PM  

pyrotek85: You don't have to make perfectly aimed shots like you do with paper, and some gun owners do take tactical courses of varying degrees. Plenty of regular people don't seem to have any problem successfully defending themselves, even in a firefight. If you're just trading shots with the creep while you're both hiding behind cover, then good. It gives the cops time to get there, since it took them 20min to respond to Sandy Hook. Better than getting gunned down immediately and letting him proceed on his merry way. Bottom line is you don't need to be as well trained as cops or swat teams, slowing them down (or causing them to kill themselves as many do) can be enough. Worst case, you still get shot and die, so what's the harm in trying?


There's no harm in trying to a certain extent. I'm not chiding you on that. I'm chiding you for your attitude that CCWs can be  The Decider (Trademark Pending) in a shootout, and trying to portray them as potential tactical operators, not as everyday citizens wnating to protect themselves.
 
2013-01-27 02:35:20 PM  

BronyMedic: You sound like you're either an auxillary wacker


And you sound like a pedant with a stick so far up your ass you can taste bark.

This is Fark, not a review board. Lighten up Francis.
 
2013-01-27 02:44:51 PM  
1. The government created the problem of gun violence by enacting legislation to prohibit certain drugs, which funded and incentivized the formation of drug-dealing gangs.

2. The government has been completely ineffective at eliminating these gangs, who are the main component of US gun crimes.

3. Rather than actually address the main component of US gun violence -- drug-dealing gangs -- the Democrats propose to limit my access to firearms, and other similarly-situated gun-owning people, who are disproportionately opposed to Democrats.

These simple facts lead to an inescapable conclusion -- the Left doesn't actually care about gun crimes, preventing deaths, or solving any problems whatsoever, but that their real purpose is to control people who oppose them.
 
2013-01-27 02:47:38 PM  

Phinn: These simple facts lead to an inescapable conclusion -- the Left doesn't actually care about gun crimes, preventing deaths, or solving any problems whatsoever, but that their real purpose is to control people who oppose them.


Really? And the prohibition of drugs is the point you use to support this? The Right of the United States are typically the ones that oppose the legalization of any drug for recreational use. It's typically Democrats or Independents who are the ones who propose laws to decriminalize or legalize.
 
2013-01-27 02:53:45 PM  

BronyMedic: There's no harm in trying to a certain extent. I'm not chiding you on that. I'm chiding you for your attitude that CCWs can be  The Decider (Trademark Pending) in a shootout, and trying to portray them as potential tactical operators, not as everyday citizens wnating to protect themselves.


Where did I suggest that they're the only deciding factor? Any person can be 'the decider' as you put it, it could have been those two faculty members if they had managed to tackle him. You don't need extensive tactical training to do what I described earlier, which is keep the guy busy at very least. Civilians don't have the same responsibilities as police so they don't get or need the same training. Why do you think everyday citizens aren't capable of basic self defense? I'm just getting the impression that you think people are near useless without tactical training, which just isn't the case. It's good to have of course, but I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it sound.
 
2013-01-27 02:56:44 PM  

pyrotek85: Why do you think everyday citizens aren't capable of basic self defense? I'm just getting the impression that you think people are near useless without tactical training, which just isn't the case. It's good to have of course, but I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it sound.


You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not. I'm trying to point out that it's very much shades of gray. About fifty or so of them.
 
2013-01-27 02:57:56 PM  

Oblio13: B. It took the police over twenty minutes to respond. He could have done the same thing with a machete, or any number of things.


Maybe if the victims opened the door for him, and then stood there like mannequins without fighting back.

But in reality, no. If he had a machete, he probably couldn't even force his way into the school. If he did, people would just keep away from him---you can run from a machete---and every time he managed to strike someone he'd be within tackling distance of his victims.

There's a good reason why we don't see any VT shootings or Aurora shootings or Tuscon shootings take place with a machete instead of a firearm---even though a machete is cheaper and easier to acquire.
 
2013-01-27 03:05:41 PM  

BronyMedic: pyrotek85: Why do you think everyday citizens aren't capable of basic self defense? I'm just getting the impression that you think people are near useless without tactical training, which just isn't the case. It's good to have of course, but I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it sound.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not. I'm trying to point out that it's very much shades of gray. About fifty or so of them.


So what point were you making then when you said someone would have to make a lucky shot to take him out? I'm saying it wouldn't take that much luck, that it only requires basic instruction and practice to make good hits at the distances that shootings commonly occur at. You gave me the impression that you'd have to be an extensively trained 'tactical operator' to do that, and I disagree. I know the skill levels of CCW holders will vary, the same as it will cops and of course the criminals themselves. It isn't hard to become proficient though.
 
2013-01-27 03:08:56 PM  

pyrotek85: So what point were you making then when you said someone would have to make a lucky shot to take him out? I'm saying it wouldn't take that much luck, that it only requires basic instruction and practice to make good hits at the distances that shootings commonly occur at. You gave me the impression that you'd have to be an extensively trained 'tactical operator' to do that, and I disagree. I know the skill levels of CCW holders will vary, the same as it will cops and of course the criminals themselves. It isn't hard to become proficient though.


I'm saying that, as the US Military has shown through their research, that an undrilled person will make semi-aimed "spray and pray" shots during a firefight. Even cops are guilty of it. I'm also saying that the suggestion that a single person with a firearm being able to stop a massacre in a crowded place is not a given - look at the Safeway shooting for proof of that. High numbers of CCWs. No one knew who to shoot. CCWs did the right thing, except for one guy who ran in and almost shot the wrong person.

"I was trying to stop the guy" is not an excuse when you kill the two kids he was going to shoot after you before you opened fire.

You're retroactively inserting someone who didn't exist into a situation they were never a part of, and making a statement that if they had been there, X would not have happened. It's conjecture at best.
 
2013-01-27 03:09:47 PM  

BronyMedic: Phinn: These simple facts lead to an inescapable conclusion -- the Left doesn't actually care about gun crimes, preventing deaths, or solving any problems whatsoever, but that their real purpose is to control people who oppose them.

Really? And the prohibition of drugs is the point you use to support this? The Right of the United States are typically the ones that oppose the legalization of any drug for recreational use. It's typically Democrats or Independents who are the ones who propose laws to decriminalize or legalize.


Gee, it's almost as though the Left and the Right are working together, in a kind of dysfunctional but symbiont relationship, with the common denominator being ...

control.
 
2013-01-27 03:18:46 PM  

Alphakronik: I would hope that if any of these guns that "don't exist" are eventually stolen and used in a crime, the original gun owner is charged with the same crimes as the perp.

If the gun is used in a murder, may they be put to death.


There is so much stupid in this thread (see above) that we need a new standard of stupidity.

So if some asshole steals your car, gets shiatfaced, and takes out a crosswalk of kids, you should be put to death? Got it.

The sad thing is I am late getting to this thread so there is no way I can reply to all the inane posts from anti-gunners. I guess I'll just have to cherrypick the ones that are the most absurd. It'll be tough, but I'll manage.
 
2013-01-27 03:20:46 PM  

Xcott: Oblio13: B. It took the police over twenty minutes to respond. He could have done the same thing with a machete, or any number of things.

Maybe if the victims opened the door for him, and then stood there like mannequins without fighting back.

But in reality, no. If he had a machete, he probably couldn't even force his way into the school. If he did, people would just keep away from him---you can run from a machete---and every time he managed to strike someone he'd be within tackling distance of his victims.

There's a good reason why we don't see any VT shootings or Aurora shootings or Tuscon shootings take place with a machete instead of a firearm---even though a machete is cheaper and easier to acquire.



The Hutus and Tootsies in Rwanda collectively bagged more than a million, mostly with machetes.

You could get into almost any kindergarten without much trouble. I pick my kid up from school every afternoon, and even at the height of the hysteria there were always doors opening and closing. Even if there weren't, a rock is all it would take.

Once saw (in a law enforcement training scenario) a demonstration of the damage a man with a knife could do in ten seconds. It was very, very impressive.

I propose a similar demonstration: Get one of those Nerf floaty-noodle thingies, cut it to approximate machete length, burst into a kindergarten, and see how many kids you can smack in the neck in twenty minutes.

On second thought, don't try it, just imagine it next time you pick your kid up. Think you could beat 26?
 
2013-01-27 03:26:02 PM  

Oblio13: Xcott: Oblio13: B. It took the police over twenty minutes to respond. He could have done the same thing with a machete, or any number of things.

Maybe if the victims opened the door for him, and then stood there like mannequins without fighting back.

But in reality, no. If he had a machete, he probably couldn't even force his way into the school. If he did, people would just keep away from him---you can run from a machete---and every time he managed to strike someone he'd be within tackling distance of his victims.

There's a good reason why we don't see any VT shootings or Aurora shootings or Tuscon shootings take place with a machete instead of a firearm---even though a machete is cheaper and easier to acquire.


The Hutus and Tootsies in Rwanda collectively bagged more than a million, mostly with machetes.

You could get into almost any kindergarten without much trouble. I pick my kid up from school every afternoon, and even at the height of the hysteria there were always doors opening and closing. Even if there weren't, a rock is all it would take.

Once saw (in a law enforcement training scenario) a demonstration of the damage a man with a knife could do in ten seconds. It was very, very impressive.

I propose a similar demonstration: Get one of those Nerf floaty-noodle thingies, cut it to approximate machete length, burst into a kindergarten, and see how many kids you can smack in the neck in twenty minutes.

On second thought, don't try it, just imagine it next time you pick your kid up. Think you could beat 26?


A realistic assessment of how many 12 year olds could I beat up

How many five year olds could YOU take in a fight? I got 22. of course, I was willing to pick one up and use him/her as a bat against the others.
 
2013-01-27 03:26:14 PM  

doglover: A lifetime shooting means that, by 18 or so, you're quite good at it. This has always been true and applies to every projectile from the thrown rock to newest gun on the market. Whatever you use, the best of the best spend the most time practicing.


Bull.

Women are better shots, on average, because you don't have to overcome a lifetime of bad habits in order to train them to shoot accurately.
 
2013-01-27 03:27:26 PM  

BronyMedic: CCWs did the right thing, except for one guy who ran in and almost shot the wrong person.


He admitted that he thought the first person he saw holding the gun was the shooter, but he never drew his own gun. Instead he did what you're supposed to do and made sure of his target. He made the right decision and didn't panic and shoot the first possible target he saw. The media grabbed a hold of that and made it sound like he was sweeping the crowd looking for a shooter.

BronyMedic: You're retroactively inserting someone who didn't exist into a situation they were never a part of, and making a statement that if they had been there, X would not have happened. It's conjecture at best.


I'm not inserting anyone, those two faculty members were there and they did have time to do something. I'm saying it's definitely possible they could have stopped him if they were armed, or worst case slowed him down until the police arrived. It's not merely conjecture because citizens have stopped active shooters before, and I'm not suggesting that they would be guaranteed to do so.

John Buck 41: The sad thing is I am late getting to this thread so there is no way I can reply to all the inane posts from anti-gunners. I guess I'll just have to cherrypick the ones that are the most absurd. It'll be tough, but I'll manage.


Harry Knutz had some gems a few pages back lol
 
2013-01-27 04:00:20 PM  

pyrotek85: I'm not suggesting that they would be guaranteed to do so.


But but but That's what Brony WANTS to argue against!!! WHARGARBLE!
 
2013-01-27 04:28:56 PM  
xynix
You have no business talking about gun control because you have no knowledge at all of guns.

But but guns are scawwy! We have to ban everything that might ever be dangerous!
 
2013-01-27 05:04:34 PM  
Silverstaff: My Fellow Liberals,

Gun Control is where the American Liberal tends to Derp out.

Put the Derp down.

You sir are my new hero. That said this is more of a centrist stand but hey that's what we need more common sense and less stupidity from both ends.
 
2013-01-27 05:09:35 PM  

muck4doo: LoneWolf343: pedrop357: BronyMedic: Or you'd die from lead poisoning when the DOE NEST Team decided to raid your house and pop you in the head.

It's always funny how it's anti-gun and/or leftie types who talk like this.

Not nearly as funny as when someone who lives by the gun dies by it.

Lefties think gun deaths are funny, or useful?


When someone is murdered by a gun, it is a preventable tragedy.

When that someone was a pro-gun advocate, it's also a black comedy.
 
2013-01-27 05:14:47 PM  

GoldSpider: Harry Knutz: I don't see a right to privacy in the Constitution, but you seem to be wanting to assert that particular right when it comes to your firearms.

So you're also cool with outlawing abortion then, right?

Actually while it doesn't say specifically privacy the 4th amendment goes a whole hell of a long way to guarantee privacy.
 
2013-01-27 05:41:44 PM  

justtray: BronyMedic: justtray: And how does the black market get their weapons?

Are you starting to get it yet? I know basic economics is hard for many farkers.

From smugglers and overseas suppliers of cheap and effective arms once domestic supplies dry up. For someone who claims to be an expert at economics, you really fail at seeing the natural progression. The Cartels aren't using Chinese knock-offs in Mexico because there is an abundant supply of domestic weapons.

Just as easy as buying one with no paperwork on any street corner. That's why instead of going to dispensory, I always go straight to the drug lords for my pot.

Give it a few moments, I think the point and argument will eventually sink in. Try not to think only using black and white.


CRIMINAL!
 
2013-01-27 05:43:24 PM  

LoneWolf343: When someone is murdered by a gun, it is a preventable tragedy.


Not really. You're looking at it from a perspective of hindsight. What you are positing would require actual foresight.

All we can do is struggle to come up with ways to make it less frequent, but the challenge comes in maintaining freedoms that many many innocent people enjoy.

Ideally, yes, we could stop it completely, lock everyone in solitary confinement, no interaction, no freedom, all goods and services an automated thing. That is an unrealistic goal however.

That doesn't sound very fun however.
 
2013-01-27 06:07:08 PM  

LavenderWolf: djh0101010: BronyMedic: justtray: Way to miss the point. Bravo.

I can see you're a mental lost cause, so I won't be humoring your dishonest arguments and willful ignorance anymore.

You've been rude and condescending, and acting as a pseudo-intellectual superior towards people who disagree with you this entire thread. You have no right to be offended that people would treat you with the same attitude because of it.

Wow, BronyMedic is attacking someone else for being rude and condescending?

That's remarkable. hey Brony, how about you address the topic at hand, rather than just post your usual personal insults?

Short list since your attention span is short: How do you propose to get the criminals to obey the laws you propose? What with them being, you know, criminals and all?

The idea is that once the legal firearms are easily accounted for, tracking the unlawful sale and use of firearms becomes much, much easier.


No it doesn't. People who unlawfully buy guns dot go to gun shops or department stores to buy them, They go to other criminals who unlike the former don't do background checks and likewise will not fill out registration paperwork. You will never track illegal gun sales until after they are used to commit crimes.
Like it or not legislation is not the answer to this. Dealing with the people committing the crimes is. a gun in and of itself does nothing. Its the person behind it that the issue.
 
2013-01-27 06:10:32 PM  

Phinn: BronyMedic: Phinn: These simple facts lead to an inescapable conclusion -- the Left doesn't actually care about gun crimes, preventing deaths, or solving any problems whatsoever, but that their real purpose is to control people who oppose them.

Really? And the prohibition of drugs is the point you use to support this? The Right of the United States are typically the ones that oppose the legalization of any drug for recreational use. It's typically Democrats or Independents who are the ones who propose laws to decriminalize or legalize.

Gee, it's almost as though the Left and the Right are working together, in a kind of dysfunctional but symbiont relationship, with the common denominator being ...

control.



i1121.photobucket.com

HEY! We don't like the way you think!
 
2013-01-27 06:22:04 PM  

omeganuepsilon: LoneWolf343: When someone is murdered by a gun, it is a preventable tragedy.

Not really. You're looking at it from a perspective of hindsight. What you are positing would require actual foresight.

All we can do is struggle to come up with ways to make it less frequent, but the challenge comes in maintaining freedoms that many many innocent people enjoy.

Ideally, yes, we could stop it completely, lock everyone in solitary confinement, no interaction, no freedom, all goods and services an automated thing. That is an unrealistic goal however.

That doesn't sound very fun however.


But if we can save just one life!!
 
2013-01-27 07:00:22 PM  

omeganuepsilon: LoneWolf343: When someone is murdered by a gun, it is a preventable tragedy.

Not really. You're looking at it from a perspective of hindsight. What you are positing would require actual foresight.

All we can do is struggle to come up with ways to make it less frequent, but the challenge comes in maintaining freedoms that many many innocent people enjoy.

Ideally, yes, we could stop it completely, lock everyone in solitary confinement, no interaction, no freedom, all goods and services an automated thing. That is an unrealistic goal however.

That doesn't sound very fun however.


A real "all-or-nothing" person, aren't you? Nobody is saying "ban all guns, period," but we have people throwing hissy fits because a portion of the state doubts that a weapon designed for urban warfare and a 50-round clip is needed to bring down a deer, especially since that rifle was used to kill 20 kids.
 
2013-01-27 07:17:11 PM  

LoneWolf343: Nobody is saying "ban all guns, period," but we have people throwing hissy fits because a portion of the state doubts that a weapon designed for urban warfare and a 50-round clip is needed to bring down a deer, especially since that rifle was used to kill 20 kids.


That portion that thinks it know's what's up can get farked.

Everyone is all fine and well outlawing things that don't pertain to them or things they'd never use, sad fact of democracy.

LoneWolf343: Nobody is saying "ban all guns, period,"... a 50-round clip is needed to bring down a deer


No one is saying a 50 round clip is needed to bring down a deer.
/taste of your own moronic derp

What we all are saying is that restrictions on guns are pointless, criminals won't heed them just as they don't now, and therefore the only impact is on law abiding citizens being further restricted.

It's a shoddy token gesture that only serves as a hassle to legal and honest citizens, and leads to a paper trail that could be abused in the future.

Very parallel to copyright protection on movies and games in how they hassle honest people, yet are easily subverted by the people who choose to ignore them.

What would be helpful is some education and mental healthcare reform. But no, that requires actual work.
 
2013-01-27 07:56:57 PM  

LoneWolf343: but we have people throwing hissy fits because a portion of the state doubts that a weapon designed for urban warfare and a 50-round clip is needed to bring down a deer, especially since that rifle was used to kill 20 kids.


Aren't the gun control people having the overly emotional hissy fit? How dare people fight back against people trying to ban guns for no actual reason!
 
2013-01-27 07:59:44 PM  

omeganuepsilon: What we all are saying is that restrictions on guns driving drunk are pointless, criminals won't heed them just as they don't now, and therefore the only impact is on law abiding citizens being further restricted.


Since criminals will break the law anyway, let's make sure that nothing is well regulated.
 
2013-01-27 08:05:35 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Since criminals will break the law anyway, let's make sure that nothing is well regulated.


You go to jail when caught drunk driving, like you would go to jail for a gun crime. No one is banning certain types of alcohol.
 
2013-01-27 08:14:30 PM  

LoneWolf343: A real "all-or-nothing" person, aren't you? Nobody is saying "ban all guns, period," but we have people throwing hissy fits because a portion of the state doubts that a weapon designed for urban warfare and a 50-round clip is needed to bring down a deer, especially since that rifle was used to kill 20 kids.


Banning the gun used makes about as much sense as banning the car he drove there in.
 
2013-01-27 08:16:14 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: omeganuepsilon: What we all are saying is that restrictions on guns driving drunk are pointless, criminals won't heed them just as they don't now, and therefore the only impact is on law abiding citizens being further restricted.

Since criminals will break the law anyway, let's make sure that nothing is well regulated.


In all your longwinded posts about well regulated militias, you've yet to explain how the government's supposed ability to impose requirements on the militia in any way allows them apply restrictions or other requirements on the people at large ie., people when they're not in the militia or doing militia service.
 
2013-01-27 08:27:25 PM  

LoneWolf343: A real "all-or-nothing" person, aren't you? Nobody is saying "ban all guns, period," but we have people throwing hissy fits because a portion of the state doubts that a weapon designed for urban warfare and a 50-round clip is needed to bring down a deer, especially since that rifle was used to kill 20 kids.



If your governor said "We've learned that on the day before the shooting, Lanza played a violent video game on his mother's HP laptop computer, therefore we're considering a statewide ban on all computers with two or more laptop-style features", would you still be defending the fact that innocent civilians are having their property confiscated due to the crime of another?

On second thought, don't bother answering that, because you're just going to come up with some thinly veiled variation of "but it's different when MY rights are being infringed".
 
2013-01-27 09:03:07 PM  

TheJoe03: demaL-demaL-yeH: Since criminals will break the law anyway, let's make sure that nothing is well regulated.

You go to jail when caught drunk driving, like you would go to jail for a gun crime. No one is banning certain types of alcohol.


Huh, someone I had on ignore replied to me with a logical fallacy, go figure. Glad there are others to catch it.
Thanks Joe.

Regulation =/= limiting capacity/function : hampering already legal users.
 
2013-01-27 09:07:46 PM  

the ha ha guy: If your governor said "We've learned that on the day before the shooting, Lanza played a violent video game on his mother's HP laptop computer, therefore we're considering a statewide ban on all computers with two or more laptop-style features", would you still be defending the fact that innocent civilians are having their property confiscated due to the crime of another?


Maybe if he actually used the computer to murder a couple dozen kids and the adults who tried to stop him. If computers were that lethal, I might expect them to be restricted.

Semiautomatic firearms are under fire right now because they are being used in mass shootings, not because the killers played with them in their free time. Your comparison is inapt for this reason.
 
2013-01-27 09:09:37 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: omeganuepsilon: What we all are saying is that restrictions on guns driving drunk are pointless, criminals won't heed them just as they don't now, and therefore the only impact is on law abiding citizens being further restricted.

Since criminals will break the law anyway, let's make sure that nothing is well regulated.


Try again
 
2013-01-27 09:57:36 PM  

Xcott: way south: Xcott: That's actually what happened in the Tuscon shooting: someone stopped the shooter as he was changing his extended magazine. We know that people rushed the shooter in the Sandy Hook shooting, although we cannot know if he would have been vulnerable when changing magazines.

It's too small an opening.

If it's too small an opening, how did it happen in Tuscon? You're telling me that something that really happened couldn't happen.


I never said it was impossible, just that it is a very small opportunity created by an otherwise arbitrary limit. I've got no idea how many bullets are in his gun or how many guns he has, and being asked to tackle the man is a tall order.
He is likely to screw up any of a dozen reasons but "fewer bullets" wont be one to them. If he's aware of the limit he'll modify his assault to take it into account.

People get away with tackling gunmen because the gunmen do make mistakes, but I don't see a practical way we can force a mistake.
Mandating they change magazines more often in the chance they'll fumble is just wishful thinking. You might as well pray for a double feed jam.

Putting the AWB back into place seems to help democratic politicians far more than its going to help any unfortunate soul caught in this kind of predicament.

If a magazine limit gets put into place, it will be a victory of fear and politics rather than logic.
 
2013-01-27 09:59:25 PM  

Xcott: Semiautomatic firearms are under fire right now because they are being used in mass shootings, not because the killers played with them in their free time.



If that's true, then why have so many lawmakers called for bans on violent video games, often citing mass-murderers as the reason for the ban? Why have they proposed "you must use your real name online" laws to combat anonymous death threats, when carrying out such a threat takes place entirely offline? Why have they called for a ban of P2P networks, when the criminals are the ones who bootleg the movies in the first place?

Like it or not, lawmakers don't care about bans that work, they only care about bans that appease the mob.


Meanwhile, more than 6,000 people were killed last year with handguns alone, but nobody cares about that, because handguns are "good guy guns", unlike the big scary looking "bad guy guns" that are often little more than standard hunting rifles with an added pistol grip.
 
2013-01-27 10:02:05 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Huh, someone I had on ignore replied to me with a logical fallacy, go figure. Glad there are others to catch it.
Thanks Joe.


No problem dude, I just hate bad arguments.
 
2013-01-27 10:16:07 PM  

Xcott: the ha ha guy: If your governor said "We've learned that on the day before the shooting, Lanza played a violent video game on his mother's HP laptop computer, therefore we're considering a statewide ban on all computers with two or more laptop-style features", would you still be defending the fact that innocent civilians are having their property confiscated due to the crime of another?

Maybe if he actually used the computer to murder a couple dozen kids and the adults who tried to stop him. If computers were that lethal, I might expect them to be restricted.



Ah.

Computers (coupled with the intarwebs) are much, MUCH more threatening to Authoritarian Asshats than are firearms.

Expect restrictions to follow soon

/After the guns are outlawed
//Of course
///[CENSORED]
 
2013-01-27 10:19:43 PM  

Amos Quito: Expect restrictions to follow soon


Already been discussed in government. Happens in other countries already. Doesn't China heavily censor what people can access?
 
2013-01-27 11:51:15 PM  

the ha ha guy: If that's true, then why have so many lawmakers called for bans on violent video games, often citing mass-murderers as the reason for the ban? Why have they proposed "you must use your real name online" laws to combat anonymous death threats, when carrying out such a threat takes place entirely offline? Why have they called for a ban of P2P networks, when the criminals are the ones who bootleg the movies in the first place?


"So many" lawmakers? How many lawmakers? Who?

The effort to ban assault rifles and extended magazines is a real thing with a substantial chance of happening---and it has already happened in NY. Outside of a few fainting couches, where are people banning violent video games or online anonymity?

Some loons might be calling for a ban on video games or rock music---people always bring this stuff up in the wake of a shooting---but nobody takes it seriously, because nobody really thinks that rock music is causing or enabling mass shootings. There is a serious effort to restrict firearms, however, because firearms aren't just something the killer was tangentially into; the firearms were the thing he used to do the actual killing.

It's just a silly comparison to say, "ban assault rifles? What if they banned video games?" One of these things was not used in a mass shooting.
 
2013-01-27 11:53:37 PM  

Netrngr: Actually while it doesn't say specifically privacy the 4th amendment goes a whole hell of a long way to guarantee privacy.


"Privacy" is the dumbest word in Constitutional law, for the simple reason that ALL Constitutional rights are a form of privacy.

Calling something a "right to privacy" is redundant -- the only thing it describes is the right to be left alone by the government, some area of life where the government, as much as it and its supporters might want to, does not have the power to interfere.

The right to say what you want, verbally or in print. The right not to have your stuff searched and seized unless there is good reason to suspect a crime has been committed. The right to associate (or not) with others of your own choosing. The right to travel unimpeded. The right to keep and bear arms.

These civil rights are all forms of "privacy" in the sense of some behavior that the government cannot legitimately prevent you from doing.
 
2013-01-27 11:59:31 PM  

Phinn: "Privacy" is the dumbest word in Constitutional law, for the simple reason that ALL Constitutional rights are a form of privacy.


The right to public assembly is a right to privacy?
 
2013-01-28 12:21:51 AM  

GAT_00: Amos Quito: Looking at your profile, I see that you have declined to list all of your personal information - real name, DOB, home and work address, phone number, name of spouse, children (and all of their related info) etc.

That's because I choose not to mix my Internet personality with my actual personality.  They're largely the same, but I'm much more willing to degenerate into open abuse of people on here than I am IRL.  I would never do such a thing in person and I have no wish to associate the two.  It's also the reason I don't go to any Fark meetups.  But first, thanks for giving me a heart attack since I do have my first name hidden and I misread and thought it wasn't.  I've said enough personal information over time that someone dedicated to stalking me could probably figure out who I am.  Second, Fark is not the government, so the rest of your comparison is irrelevant.

violentsalvation: The inherent purpose of registration is to allow for later confiscation.

Seriously, bullshiat.  And in the event your weapons are stolen, the ability to report they were stolen and establish that any following activities committed by someone using them is not your fault is a positive.

xynix: What legitimate reason is there TO register?

See above for one.


You simply report the serial number of the stolen gun. It doesn't need to be "on file" before it's stolen before they can do anything with that information.
 
2013-01-28 12:33:03 AM  

Xcott: online anonymity


You think we have that now? If so you are naive to an extreme. It is but an illusion.

Xcott: where are people banning violent video games


Link

NRA and others have undoubetly tried.

Hillary Clinton promotes law to ban violent video games 2005

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) introduced a bill this week that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
The Supreme Court struck down a similar California law in 2011, ruling that the restriction violated the constitutional right to free speech.
- This year(and previously 2011)

The point is, it's a continual effort that makes the news a lot. Nice of you to pretend that such things don't happen.

The "excuse" is that it empowers parents. The reality is that it removes responsibility from them for judging what their kids can and cannot handle, and carrying out that decision.

Xcott: Phinn: "Privacy" is the dumbest word in Constitutional law, for the simple reason that ALL Constitutional rights are a form of privacy.

The right to public assembly is a right to privacy?


Try not to cherry pick, if you'd read his whole post you'd see what he meant. Plenty enough people here playing dumb, no need to add to that pool.

Phinn: The right not to have your stuff searched and seized unless there is good reason to suspect a crime has been committed.


That's pretty much my problem with requiring registration. It bypasses that whole legal search thing. Ben has a gun, we know he has a gun, more than that, we know the makes and models. If we ever make X illegal, it will be easy as pie to know where the lion's share of them are.

No, imo. The only regulation we need is to ensure firearms are more or less safe to use, IE not likely to blow up in our faces and damage us and those around us. Same regulation that a plethora of consumer items get.

It makes things like saturday night specials and zip guns illegal, and well they should be unless they're mounted on a wall as part of a collection. It's a safety issue, not a rights issue.
 
2013-01-28 01:56:27 AM  

Xcott: Some loons might be calling for a ban on video games or rock music---people always bring this stuff up in the wake of a shooting---but nobody takes it seriously



Under the terms of the proposed "Internet Protection Act", if I said something like "Xcott is a doody head", and you complained to Drew about my insult, he would be legally required to remove my comment unless I told you my real name.

California did have restrictions against violent video games (as omeganuepsilon linked above), though that has since been overturned by the supreme court.

Loons or not, these people are running our country, and imposing their insane bans on the rest of us. The rest of the country might not take them seriously, but that doesn't matter when they literally re-write the law to fit their version of reality.


Xcott: It's just a silly comparison to say, "ban assault rifles? What if they banned video games?" One of these things was not used in a mass shooting.



Fair enough. However, if 38 deaths in a year from one type of is sufficient to impose a ban on that gun, why isn't there a ban on the type of gun that has killed 6000? What specifically makes the gun used in two incidents more dangerous than the gun used in thousands? What makes the rifle, which is impossible to conceal, more dangerous than the tiny handgun that can be carried anywhere and smuggled through almost any checkpoint?

I am actually in favor of an overall gun reform, but only if that reform brings a measurable reduction in the murder rate while still allowing legal gun owners to continue their hobby unimpeded.

But this ban does none of that. It goes after otherwise legal gun owners for no other crime than owning a type of gun that has only been used for murder twice in the past year, while the Democratic lawmakers specifically rejected measures that have been proven to reduce firearm-related crimes.
 
Displayed 50 of 1299 comments


Oldest | « | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | » | Newest


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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