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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

(My Fox Memphis)   And for today's school shooting we have... Atlanta. 14-year old in hospital with gunshot wound to the head, one faculty member injured   (myfoxmemphis.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Carlos Campos, Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta Fire Department, DeKalb County, gunshot wound, elementary schools  
•       •       •

7749 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2013 at 5:50 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
2013-01-31 03:15:31 PM  
With only two victims, I guess we don't have to reset the "mass shooting" clock.
 
2013-01-31 03:19:56 PM  

ox45tallboy: With only two victims, I guess we don't have to reset the "mass shooting" clock.


If only we could find the particle that gives shootings mass.
 
2013-01-31 03:23:38 PM  

Relatively Obscure: If only we could find the particle that gives shootings mass.


The media seems to be identifying that particle as "the third victim", but that's not a great bit of comfort to the loved ones of the first two.
 
2013-01-31 03:26:02 PM  
We should just ban schools.
 
2013-01-31 03:26:09 PM  

ox45tallboy: Relatively Obscure: If only we could find the particle that gives shootings mass.

The media seems to be identifying that particle as "the third victim", but that's not a great bit of comfort to the loved ones of the first two.


Plus it's not very catchy.
 
2013-01-31 03:26:24 PM  
We need to arm all students.
 
2013-01-31 03:29:43 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: We need to arm all students.


only solution.  The only thing that stops a a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun.
 
2013-01-31 03:32:01 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Plus it's not very catchy.


There's a 14-year old kid in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head, and probably a couple of very distraught parents or other family members, and I'm considering making a joke about it because I'm becoming so jaded.

I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?
 
2013-01-31 03:33:11 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: We need to arm all students.


Or, hear me out here, we could amputate all students' arms.  Give 'em back after they graduate.  I bet it's hard to hit things with, like, toe guns and stuff.
 
2013-01-31 03:33:50 PM  

ambassador_ahab: AdolfOliverPanties: We need to arm all students.

only solution.  The only thing that stops a a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun.


So... if LaPierre got his wish, in the best case scenario we would have the same number of victims here.
 
2013-01-31 03:35:43 PM  

ox45tallboy: There's a 14-year old kid in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head, and probably a couple of very distraught parents or other family members, and I'm considering making a joke about it because I'm becoming so jaded.

I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?


Without reducing the availability of weapons.. hell if I know, man.  Uhm.  Tele-schooling?
 
2013-01-31 03:40:23 PM  

Relatively Obscure: ox45tallboy: With only two victims, I guess we don't have to reset the "mass shooting" clock.

If only we could find the particle that gives shootings mass.


I believe that's the "Godless" particle.  If only prayer were allowed in public schools...
 
2013-01-31 03:44:03 PM  

wxboy: If only prayer were allowed in public schools...


Jesus would have used an AR-15 instead of an AK-47 because he was NOT a godless commie.
 
2013-01-31 03:54:09 PM  

ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?


Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.
 
2013-01-31 04:02:04 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.


Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.
 
2013-01-31 04:06:53 PM  

texdent: We should just ban schools.


or give all the kids/teachers there scissors
 
2013-01-31 04:27:24 PM  

jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.


How exactly do you think that would stop things like this from happening?
 
2013-01-31 04:59:07 PM  

EatenTheSun: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

How exactly do you think that would stop things like this from happening?


Never said it would.  But then again how many automobile fatalities have been prevented by having operators restricted/licensed?  You can't say that X or Y would have prevented Z but you can decide that an item whose sole purpose is to destroy should be at least as regulated as many other items in our daily lives.
 
2013-01-31 05:27:04 PM  
This would have been avoided if that hapless faculty member had had a Mossberg to defend himself.....
 
2013-01-31 05:29:47 PM  

ox45tallboy: Relatively Obscure: If only we could find the particle that gives shootings mass.

The media seems to be identifying that particle as "the third victim", but that's not a great bit of comfort to the loved ones of the first two.


Yep, as with serial killers, you need three victims to count.
 
2013-01-31 05:31:32 PM  

ambassador_ahab: AdolfOliverPanties: We need to arm all students.

only solution.  The only thing that stops a a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun.


Like the off-duty armed cop that works as the school resource officer?
 
2013-01-31 05:36:48 PM  
I think all gun threads at Fark should have to suddenly terminate after a 100 comment limit.
 
2013-01-31 05:42:31 PM  

whidbey: I think all gun threads at Fark should have to suddenly terminate after a 100 comment limit.


No one reads any farther than that, they just skip ahead until their comment posts and start reading there.
 
2013-01-31 05:42:53 PM  

ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.


ban this
www.jotdown.es
 
2013-01-31 05:52:14 PM  

robsul82: Yep, as with serial killers, you need three victims to count.


I see the grieving parents of a first or second victim thinking to themselves, "Thank God he's only dead because someone didn't like him, and not because he was a random victim of a mentally unbalanced individual!"

Although to be honest, they might be relieved that they wouldn't have to deal with all the media sensationalism and posturing by political activists shouting all the wrong details about the tragedy for the next decade or six.
 
2013-01-31 05:52:31 PM  
At this point I just sit back and listen the increasingly shrill cries from the gun nuts out there about this God-given right to go on shooting rampages.
 
2013-01-31 05:53:30 PM  
Was an assault rifle used? If no, it's not news worthy.
 
2013-01-31 05:54:15 PM  
1478 since Sandy Hook.

Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks? You are Soft on Crime if you don't support changing the law to change this.
 
2013-01-31 05:55:31 PM  
Atlanta? Says it all right there.
 
Xai
2013-01-31 05:55:34 PM  
If only that guy had a gun, he would have been able to magically deflect the bullet from hitting the back of his head...
 
2013-01-31 05:55:49 PM  

Fark Rye For Many Whores: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

ban this
[www.jotdown.es image 637x277]


If you can't use guns to shoot demon bulls in the face, what's the point of even having them?
 
2013-01-31 05:56:12 PM  

theorellior: At this point I just sit back and listen the increasingly shrill cries from the gun nuts out there about this God-given right to go on shooting rampages.


-10/10
 
2013-01-31 05:56:49 PM  
We should definitely arm teachers, because they are incompetent in every way. So we should trust them with guns. Cut their pay, though, because they don't deserve to be rich of us taxpayers.
 
2013-01-31 05:57:26 PM  
That's it!  I've heard enough.  Tomorrow when my kids go to school each one of them is going to be carrying a handgun in their backpacks for protection.
 
2013-01-31 05:57:29 PM  

The_Sponge: theorellior: At this point I just sit back and listen the increasingly shrill cries from the gun nuts out there about this God-given right to go on shooting rampages.

-10/10


More proof that gun nuts, are in, fact, nuts. Who have guns.
 
2013-01-31 05:57:55 PM  

jchic: EatenTheSun: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

How exactly do you think that would stop things like this from happening?

Never said it would.  But then again how many automobile fatalities have been prevented by having operators restricted/licensed?  You can't say that X or Y would have prevented Z but you can decide that an item whose sole purpose is to destroy should be at least as regulated as many other items in our daily lives.


Why don't you come out to Los Angeles.

You're quite likely to get in an accident with an unlicensed illegal, who usually takes off after the accident so he won't get arrested for being unlicensed and uninsured.

They're deliberately doing something illegal.

As for guns, the cat is out of the bag.  Several more cats will be coming out of the same bag as 3D CNC machining picks up.  Anyone and everyone will be able to print weapons.  Go look around the Internet for plans to the AR-15 and AK-47.  They're out there.  I've seen them.  If you have a copy of the file, you can make one.

If you're upset about violence, well, me too.  But I'm not going to chase my tail with feelgood nonsense that makes no difference at all.

This is a mental health and celebrity issue.  Mental health needs lots and lots and lots of funding.  Second, the press has to be restrained from playing up the celebrity angle.  When they go into 24 hour coverage and turn the shooter into a celebrity, it encourages others.  How many school shooters can you name?  How many victims can you name?  Exactly.
 
2013-01-31 05:58:59 PM  
The NRA could take the money it spends on hookers, blow and lobbying Congressmen and use it to provide discounted gun safes to gunowners with angsty teenage boys.

Or Congress could require all guns sold include a trigger lock.

Or they can make it a misdemeanor for you to have your gun used in a crime so that parents lock it up.
 
2013-01-31 05:59:12 PM  

ghare: The_Sponge: theorellior: At this point I just sit back and listen the increasingly shrill cries from the gun nuts out there about this God-given right to go on shooting rampages.

-10/10

More proof that gun nuts, are in, fact, nuts. Who have guns.


Yeah, I'm a real nut case for calling out an obvious troll.
 
2013-01-31 05:59:16 PM  
Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.

Also; can we admit that guns are inanimate objects that wouldn't function without people?

It isn't a gun control issue; it's a PEOPLE control issue. Until you can ensure that everyone aren't going to become murderous sociopaths; you're just ignoring the actual issue
 
2013-01-31 06:00:02 PM  

iheartscotch: Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.

Also; can we admit that guns are inanimate objects that wouldn't function without people?

It isn't a gun control issue; it's a PEOPLE control issue. Until you can ensure that everyone aren't going to become murderous sociopaths; you're just ignoring the actual issue


You sound like you want to arm criminals and terrorists... why do you hate Family Values and want to be Soft on Crime?
 
2013-01-31 06:00:23 PM  
Do we have to count gang shootings, one-off incidents, and 1 or 2 victims as "school shootings" now? Because it's going to have to big newspaper to serve houston and LA..
 
2013-01-31 06:00:23 PM  
This is just normal; there's no need to do anything, we can't do anything, and even if we did do something it wouldn't achieve anything.
 
2013-01-31 06:00:37 PM  

ghare: The_Sponge: theorellior: At this point I just sit back and listen the increasingly shrill cries from the gun nuts out there about this God-given right to go on shooting rampages.

-10/10

More proof that gun nuts, are in, fact, nuts. Who have guns.


If that is proof to you, you must be simple.
 
2013-01-31 06:00:53 PM  

iheartscotch: Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.

Also; can we admit that guns are inanimate objects that wouldn't function without people?

It isn't a gun control issue; it's a PEOPLE control issue. Until you can ensure that everyone aren't going to become murderous sociopaths; you're just ignoring the actual issue


As much as I hate the "people will commit these crimes with another weapon" defense, this kid could have easily walked up behind the guy and slit his throat. He had the motivation to do so and one of many tools to accomplish it.
 
2013-01-31 06:01:03 PM  

iheartscotch: Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.

Also; can we admit that guns are inanimate objects that wouldn't function without people?

It isn't a gun control issue; it's a PEOPLE control issue. Until you can ensure that everyone aren't going to become murderous sociopaths; you're just ignoring the actual issue


Yeah buh-buh I don't want Obummer to raise my taxes any more. Welfare DEADBEATS.
HURRR.
 
2013-01-31 06:01:35 PM  
When will we wake up and flood the school system with firearms?
 
2013-01-31 06:01:43 PM  
Is it possible that the victims are of a certain... umm...  "demographic" that will allow the the derp brigade to claim this is gang related?

Because based on what I've been reading from the derpers, there is absolutely nothing that can ever be done about gang related shootings, and therefore they don't count.
 
2013-01-31 06:02:00 PM  

Crocoduck: When will we wake up and flood the school system with firearms?


1986
 
2013-01-31 06:02:12 PM  
These shootings were happening all along, they just get news coverage now because of the general level of public outrage.
 
2013-01-31 06:02:19 PM  

iheartscotch: Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.


And here comes the Blame The Media crowd.....
 
2013-01-31 06:03:27 PM  
Gun fetishists agree:  More guns = more safety.  Therefore, infinite number of guns = infinite amount of safety.

MORE GUNS - unless you HATE SAFETY!
 
2013-01-31 06:03:29 PM  
This is not the time to show "Bullet to the Head" in movie theaters.
 
2013-01-31 06:03:42 PM  
I really do not think this is a gun issue, and I am starting to even wonder if its a mental health issue..

I think the counter to this is nothing more then more death. A good plague has not swept threw our culture in a long ass time, so at the moment, we are packed like rats on top of one another going ape shiat and fighting for a tiny little spot of peace in a world full of everyone trying to decide everyone elses business. Maybe if that happened, we could all get breathing room and not go nuthouse on the ones of us left alive.
 
2013-01-31 06:03:55 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: iheartscotch: Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.

Also; can we admit that guns are inanimate objects that wouldn't function without people?

It isn't a gun control issue; it's a PEOPLE control issue. Until you can ensure that everyone aren't going to become murderous sociopaths; you're just ignoring the actual issue

You sound like you want to arm criminals and terrorists... why do you hate Family Values and want to be Soft on Crime?


Message received; no reason or logic in gun threads.

/ it's against teh rooles
 
2013-01-31 06:04:12 PM  

ox45tallboy: Relatively Obscure: Plus it's not very catchy.

There's a 14-year old kid in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head, and probably a couple of very distraught parents or other family members, and I'm considering making a joke about it because I'm becoming so jaded.

I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?


Pre-shoot all the kids. No one wants to shoot a kid that's already been shot.
Freedom isn't free.
 
2013-01-31 06:04:14 PM  

grxymkjbn: Gun fetishists agree:  More guns = more safety.  Therefore, infinite number of guns = infinite amount of safety.

MORE GUNS - unless you HATE SAFETY!


An armed school is a polite school.
 
2013-01-31 06:04:18 PM  

ox45tallboy: Relatively Obscure: Plus it's not very catchy.

There's a 14-year old kid in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head, and probably a couple of very distraught parents or other family members, and I'm considering making a joke about it because I'm becoming so jaded.

I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?


Not going to touch the gun control part, but there is the social and psychological reasons. Giving these shootings less press coverage and media frenzy would be a great step to prevent kids from getting the idea shooting someone in the way to glory/fame/infamy/etc.
 
2013-01-31 06:04:45 PM  
It's a 14 year old boy with the head wound.  There's nothing up there right now anyway but a burning desire to touch boobs and fap.  No big deal.   Let him touch some titties and he'll be on his way inside of a week.
 
2013-01-31 06:05:41 PM  
Isn't this like a daily occurrence in Chicago?
 
2013-01-31 06:05:44 PM  
Because gun free disarmed victim zones work
 
2013-01-31 06:05:50 PM  
According to the article:

In a press conference, Atlanta Public Schools Superintendent Erroll Davis said that there was hope that the student could be released from the hospital on Thursday night.

Either the shooter had very poor aim, or the shooter used a .22LR caliber firearm. Both may be true.

That no other individuals were shot strongly suggests that the injured student was specifically targeted.
 
2013-01-31 06:05:52 PM  

Somaticasual: Do we have to count gang shootings, one-off incidents, and 1 or 2 victims as "school shootings" now? Because it's going to have to big newspaper to serve houston and LA..


Why don't victims of gang shootings count?   Are they less dead?   Or do they have some other "demographic" that makes you think they're worth less than you?
 
2013-01-31 06:06:08 PM  
Take the time to go over Google's archived newspapers.  You'll see this has been going on for decades, except now, the media has an interest in creating outrage.

The same way they tried to create mass hysteria/ outrage with

SARS
H1N1
Mad Cow
AIDS
The 1%

etc

They always troll, because it works every damn time.
 
2013-01-31 06:06:36 PM  
Hrmmm, one student shot and one teacher shot, possibly while trying to protect said student.

You got gun thread in my bully thread!
 
2013-01-31 06:06:39 PM  
Was a gun used in self defense? If not ignore and carry on. Otherwise 'Murica Fark Yeah!!!!
 
2013-01-31 06:06:49 PM  

edmo: iheartscotch: Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.

And here comes the Blame The Media crowd.....


Yeah, stupid freedom of press.
 
2013-01-31 06:07:02 PM  

whidbey: iheartscotch: Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.

Also; can we admit that guns are inanimate objects that wouldn't function without people?

It isn't a gun control issue; it's a PEOPLE control issue. Until you can ensure that everyone aren't going to become murderous sociopaths; you're just ignoring the actual issue

Yeah buh-buh I don't want Obummer to raise my taxes any more. Welfare DEADBEATS.
HURRR.


Ah I see; banana, wildebeest, snorkel. Does that clear up my position?

/ see? I can type random stuff too
 
2013-01-31 06:07:23 PM  
Old and busted: student/teacher sex. New hotness: student/teacher gunfights.

/I know the teacher wasn't shot, but the power of the meme compelled me
 
2013-01-31 06:07:45 PM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Hrmmm, one student shot and one teacher shot, possibly while trying to protect said student.

You got gun thread in my bully thread!


No teachers were shot.
 
2013-01-31 06:07:46 PM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Hrmmm, one student shot and one teacher shot, possibly while trying to protect said student.

You got gun thread in my bully thread!


The article:
That teacher was not shot.
 
2013-01-31 06:07:54 PM  
Atlanta public school + Google images of said school.
 
2013-01-31 06:08:17 PM  

scotchcrotch: edmo: iheartscotch: Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.

And here comes the Blame The Media crowd.....

Yeah, stupid freedom of press.


Freedom of the Press can and is often abused, though.

See: Faux "News"
 
2013-01-31 06:09:22 PM  

edmo: iheartscotch: Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.

And here comes the Blame The Media crowd.....


How is it not a function of media fixation? We're talking about mentally unstable people. Psyco monkey see; psyco monkey do.
 
2013-01-31 06:10:19 PM  

Treygreen13: Zarquon's Flat Tire: Hrmmm, one student shot and one teacher shot, possibly while trying to protect said student.

You got gun thread in my bully thread!

The article:
That teacher was not shot.


Ah, see that's what I get for basing my comment off of earlier radio reports instead of reading the article.

Apologies everyone
 
2013-01-31 06:10:34 PM  

Randomly: The NRA could take the money it spends on hookers, blow and lobbying Congressmen and use it to provide discounted gun safes to gunowners with angsty teenage boys.

Or Congress could require all guns sold include a trigger lock.

Or they can make it a misdemeanor for you to have your gun used in a crime so that parents lock it up.


My Taurus has an integrated trigger lock. Just don't require me to keep it locked in a way that renders it useless for personal or home defense.
 
2013-01-31 06:11:06 PM  

whidbey: Welfare DEADBEATS.



Remember when you were one?
 
2013-01-31 06:11:56 PM  

TheHumanCannonball: Not going to touch the gun control part, but there is the social and psychological reasons. Giving these shootings less press coverage and media frenzy would be a great step to prevent kids from getting the idea shooting someone in the way to glory/fame/infamy/etc.


Seconded. It makes you wonder - what if the media just started giving every school shooter a really insulting nickname.. You probably wouldn't see as many copycat shootings if they thought they were going to be less "BTK" or "VT killer" and more "Poser #72" or "some douche with a gun"
 
2013-01-31 06:12:16 PM  
And for today's school shooting we have... (spins chamber) Atlanta.

Sad...FTFY
 
2013-01-31 06:12:17 PM  
Another day, another shooting.
 
2013-01-31 06:12:18 PM  
false alarm, it was black people, gun grabbers and gun nuts can stand down.
 
2013-01-31 06:12:33 PM  
AdolfOliverPanties

We need to arm all students.
Wow, 3 whole posts before this tired old hyperbole.

Gunowner say: Right to Keep and Bear arms
Hoplophobes Claim we said: You want to own Nuclear weapons!

Gunowner say: Arm guards or trained rational adults to protect schools
Hoplophobes Claim we said: Hand kindergardeners S&W 500's
**bonus points for this one as FARK Hypocrites (aka leftists) bashed the NRA when they called for it, yet ~4 days later when obmessiah called for it they fell to their knees in worship.**
 
2013-01-31 06:14:42 PM  

ph0rk: These shootings were happening all along, they just get news coverage now because of the general level of public outrage.


iheartscotch: Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.


Both of these statements can not be correct.
 
2013-01-31 06:15:54 PM  
ambassador_ahab

>>>> AdolfOliverPanties: We need to arm all students.

only solution. The only thing that stops a a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun.

Well we certainly have seen your plan to work. You wanted bad guys stopped by disarming responsible adults.
So what has stopped "Bad Guys with a gun"? A shiatload of children's bodies. But hey! Now you have the talking points you wanted, so ... Mission Accomplished!
 
2013-01-31 06:15:55 PM  
I ban all of you
 
2013-01-31 06:16:04 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: 1478 since Sandy Hook.

Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks? You are Soft on Crime if you don't support changing the law to change this.


If we can't trust a felon who has served their sentence (including any parole) then we probably shouldn't let them out of prison until we do.

Same with allowing them to vote.  Have any of these recent mass shooters had a criminal record when they committed their crimes?
 
2013-01-31 06:16:31 PM  

OnlyM3: Gunowner say: Arm guards or trained rational adults to protect schools


I see. So you're just going to pretend that a bunch of gun nuts nationwide haven't called for the arming of teachers?
 
2013-01-31 06:17:36 PM  
I don't understand folks who are surprised by the amount of school shootings when the media does such a bang-up job of publicizing it.  Almost glorifying it, in a way.  They make the shooter farking famous with all their reports, and to an ill mind, it could be telling them "this is the answer to my problems".  So another happens, the media hypes it, and the cycle continues.  Guns are a very small part of the problem.  What we should be concerned about is the abysmal work we've been doing in aiding those with mental health problems.  We must get better at detecting such ailments, and helping to treat them as soon as humanly possible.  And the media should stop farking hyping this shiat.
 
2013-01-31 06:18:39 PM  
The news is saying its a flesh wound and the situation possibly evolved out of bullying. The question now is where'd the other kid get the gun? If it is his parents, they need to held accountable.

I had to change the channel - sick of seeing reporters jam microphones in kid's faces.
 
2013-01-31 06:19:14 PM  
Who are the biggest threat to Americans: terrorists, or each other?

www.mindparts.org
 
2013-01-31 06:20:13 PM  

Cornelius Dribble: ph0rk: These shootings were happening all along, they just get news coverage now because of the general level of public outrage.

iheartscotch: Seriously! Stop reporting this shiat! It just spawns copycats.

Both of these statements can not be correct.


I feel what was ment; shootings in general were happening at the same frequency before; but went unreported on.

Where, I said; reporting causes copycats. It's been shown dozens of times that some people see a shooting on the news and seek to emulate that.
 
2013-01-31 06:20:15 PM  

OnlyM3: AdolfOliverPanties

We need to arm all students. Wow, 3 whole posts before this tired old hyperbole.

Gunowner say: Right to Keep and Bear arms
Hoplophobes Claim we said: You want to own Nuclear weapons!

Gunowner say: Arm guards or trained rational adults to protect schools
Hoplophobes Claim we said: Hand kindergardeners S&W 500's
**bonus points for this one as FARK Hypocrites (aka leftists) bashed the NRA when they called for it, yet ~4 days later when obmessiah called for it they fell to their knees in worship.**




Mmm hmm.
 
2013-01-31 06:20:26 PM  
AdolfOliverPanties

Not if you're not in favor of gun control. That shiat needs to be heavily regulated. Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.
We've seen you blame Reagan for the nation's mental health issues, yet you've had 8 years w/ clinton and 4+ with obama. If such a serious issue, why has your party chosen to ignore the issue? Waiting for the body count to get high enough?

So tel us oh enlightened one. How would a background check have stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc...?
 
2013-01-31 06:20:34 PM  
imgboot.com
 
2013-01-31 06:20:47 PM  
Why does this keep happening?
 
2013-01-31 06:21:23 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: 1478 since Sandy Hook.

Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks? You are Soft on Crime if you don't support changing the law to change this.


There was a study that showed that 40% of transfers of firearms didn't take place at a license dealer.  Of that 40%, over 30% was transfers to friends and family.  Furthermore, most of the dealers at gun shows are FFLs, and they will always run background checks, regardless of state.  At the shows I've been to (in a gun friendly state), 1-2% or so of the sellers weren't FFLs, and they sold a very, very small percentage of the guns.

I bought a gun as a gift for my wife to use in self defense.  That would be counted in the 40%, even though I passed a background check, and she could just fine.  I also traded a gun to a friend for another gun.  Despite adding no new guns, and the fact that both of us have CCWs (meaning we passed a more strict background check, including fingerprints), both guns would be included in the 40% as well.

There is no gun show loophole.
 
2013-01-31 06:21:51 PM  
meanwhile, in the real world that is divorced from the ratings whoring 24/7 news channels:

violent crime is near record lows
http://news.discovery.com/human/violent-crime-statistics-120612.htm
 
2013-01-31 06:22:32 PM  
Princess Ryans Knickers

1478 since Sandy Hook.

Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks?

You need to phone in for new talking points. That lie was debunked weeks ago.
// not that the left has ever let little things like facts get in the way of their deranged ramblings.
 
2013-01-31 06:23:08 PM  
If only there had been a policeman with a gun there, then he could have stopped this before it got out of hand!

"The suspect was disarmed and taken into custody by a school resource officer, according to Davis."


Oh...  Well, we should have laws against Middle School children owning guns!!!!
 
2013-01-31 06:24:06 PM  

OnlyM3: **bonus points for this one as FARK Hypocrites (aka leftists) bashed the NRA when they called for it, yet ~4 days later when obmessiah called for it they fell to their knees in worship.**


I'm what you call a "leftist" (in reality I'm probably more of a centrist in a global perspective, but alas), I have no problem having armed police officers in schools.

Makes more sense than having teachers packing heat in the classroom.

But this should NOT be the only take away from these tragic events. That's what the "leftists" were trying to point out.
 
2013-01-31 06:24:22 PM  

libranoelrose: Why does this keep happening?


A culture of war and gun worship.  Well, that's my take on it.  YMMV.
 
2013-01-31 06:25:04 PM  

Click Click D'oh: If only there had been a policeman with a gun there, then he could have stopped this before it got out of hand!

"The suspect was disarmed and taken into custody by a school resource officer, according to Davis."


Oh...  Well, we should have laws against Middle School children owning guns!!!!


I agree, having armed police officers does help.

Is this the only lesson we should be learning from this?
 
2013-01-31 06:25:14 PM  

EatenTheSun: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

How exactly do you think that would stop things like this from happening?


I don't know, but a minor got his hands on a gun and ammunition and brought it to school and shot someone in the head with it. Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.
 
2013-01-31 06:26:24 PM  
Treygreen13

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Hrmmm, one student shot and one teacher shot, possibly while trying to protect said student.

You got gun thread in my bully thread!

The article:
That teacher was not shot.

You're not expecting honesty or literacy from these deranged fools are you?
 
2013-01-31 06:26:33 PM  

OnlyM3: So tel us oh enlightened one. How would a background check have stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc...?


You mean how would this country have benefited from having a uniform system of standards regarding gun ownership if we had enacted policies  decades ago, don't you?
 
2013-01-31 06:26:38 PM  
What? Since she's black it's only "Sad"?  Only white kids get the "Newsflash"?
 
2013-01-31 06:27:14 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.


I like this idea.

But sadly a lot of people won't.
 
2013-01-31 06:28:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mike Chewbacca: Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.

I like this idea.

But sadly a lot of people won't.


Seems fair enough to me.   What would be the objection?
 
2013-01-31 06:29:01 PM  

DittoToo: What? Since she's black it's only "Sad"?  Only white kids get the "Newsflash"?


I just think this whole thing is sad.

We got some wacko holding a kid hostage in Alabama and now this.

I'm just sick of it all. What the fark has happened to this country?
 
2013-01-31 06:29:02 PM  

jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.


You do realize that car insurance is to fix someone else s car if you cause an accident.  (Or pay their medical bills).  It doesn't even remotely decrease the frequency of accidents, so in this case, it's a f*cking "gun fee" plain and simple.
 
2013-01-31 06:29:26 PM  
whidbey

>>> OnlyM3: Gunowner say: Arm guards or trained rational adults to protect schools

I see. So you're just going to pretend that a bunch of gun nuts nationwide haven't called for the arming of teachers?

So you're just going to pretend that the fools I was responding too were saying we called for the arming children?

You're saying no teachers are not "rational adults"?
 
2013-01-31 06:30:14 PM  

The Larch: Somaticasual: Do we have to count gang shootings, one-off incidents, and 1 or 2 victims as "school shootings" now? Because it's going to have to big newspaper to serve houston and LA..

Why don't victims of gang shootings count?   Are they less dead?   Or do they have some other "demographic" that makes you think they're worth less than you?


Different motivations, and they'll require different tactics to counter. A "school shooter" is going for a body count and wants the location to be a heinous as possible. A gang shooting targets a specific individual (possibly individuals), and in this case (possibly, but it's looking like a gang shooting) just happened to be at a school.
 
2013-01-31 06:30:39 PM  

OnlyM3: whidbey

>>> OnlyM3: Gunowner say: Arm guards or trained rational adults to protect schools

I see. So you're just going to pretend that a bunch of gun nuts nationwide haven't called for the arming of teachers?
So you're just going to pretend that the fools I was responding too were saying we called for the arming children?

You're saying no teachers are not "rational adults"?


I think it's a pretty farked up idea to even consider arming teachers myself.

That's a liability waiting to happen.
 
2013-01-31 06:30:48 PM  

Farkage: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

You do realize that car insurance is to fix someone else s car if you cause an accident.  (Or pay their medical bills).  It doesn't even remotely decrease the frequency of accidents, so in this case, it's a f*cking "gun fee" plain and simple.


And? If someone's irresponsibility allowed someone else to be harmed by their firearm, shouldn't the victim be assured their losses will be covered?
 
2013-01-31 06:31:13 PM  
Mike Chewbacca:  I don't know, but a minor got his hands on a gun and ammunition and brought it to school and shot someone in the head with it. Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.

What makes you think they won't?  Every state I know the firearms laws in makes it a crime if a minor gains access to a firearm and hurts themselves or another person.
 
2013-01-31 06:31:16 PM  
I wonder if this the plan: Flood streets with guns, shootings just about every day, so therefore it always be too soon to talk about gun control
 
2013-01-31 06:31:28 PM  

OnlyM3: Princess Ryans Knickers

1478 since Sandy Hook.

Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks?
You need to phone in for new talking points. That lie was debunked weeks ago.
// not that the left has ever let little things like facts get in the way of their deranged ramblings.


Debunked how? Care to point to some actual facts? The 40% comes from the FBI which you can easily find on Google.
 
2013-01-31 06:31:29 PM  
Remember the good-ol'-days when you would get into an argument with someone and you would get your ass thouroughly kicked?  I really miss those days.
 
2013-01-31 06:31:49 PM  

Mrtraveler01: DittoToo: What? Since she's black it's only "Sad"?  Only white kids get the "Newsflash"?

I just think this whole thing is sad.

We got some wacko holding a kid hostage in Alabama and now this.

I'm just sick of it all. What the fark has happened to this country?


I wouldn't be surprised if the loss of decent jobs and lowering of wages while huge corporations continue to profit massively might have something to do with it.

People are basically losing hope despite attempts at social progress.
 
2013-01-31 06:32:05 PM  

ambassador_ahab: wxboy: If only prayer were allowed in public schools...

Jesus would have used an AR-15 instead of an AK-47 because he was NOT a godless commie.


No, he was a Jew so he would likely prefer a Tavor, UZI, or a good old fashioned Desert Eagle.
 
2013-01-31 06:32:09 PM  

whidbey: Mrtraveler01: Mike Chewbacca: Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.

I like this idea.

But sadly a lot of people won't.

Seems fair enough to me.   What would be the objection?


Strict liability, without exception, would be objectionable. A defined minimum and reasonable standard of security which, if followed, renders a firearm owner immune to any liability if that security is bypassed by an unauthorized individual should address any rational objection.
 
2013-01-31 06:32:27 PM  

Kathrin: There is no gun show loophole.


False, NRA's LaPierre stated, and you can find this video on YouTube, to Congress that there IS a gun show loophole.
 
2013-01-31 06:32:41 PM  

OnlyM3: whidbey

>>> OnlyM3: Gunowner say: Arm guards or trained rational adults to protect schools

I see. So you're just going to pretend that a bunch of gun nuts nationwide haven't called for the arming of teachers?
So you're just going to pretend that the fools I was responding too were saying we called for the arming children?

You're saying no teachers are not "rational adults"?


They don't have any business carrying weapons, <B>OnlyM3</B>. For fark's sake.
 
2013-01-31 06:32:53 PM  

Herb Utsmelz

Can-stop-a-badguy-with-a-gun.jpg



Thankfully disarmed victims can... ohh.. wait.
 
2013-01-31 06:33:26 PM  

whidbey: Seems fair enough to me. What would be the objection?


Depends on how he got it. Did his folks/friends make no effort to keep it away from him? Charge them. Did they take reasonable precautions and he still managed to steal it? Leave them alone.
 
2013-01-31 06:34:52 PM  

Dimensio: whidbey: Mrtraveler01: Mike Chewbacca: Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.

I like this idea.

But sadly a lot of people won't.

Seems fair enough to me.   What would be the objection?

Strict liability, without exception, would be objectionable. A defined minimum and reasonable standard of security which, if followed, renders a firearm owner immune to any liability if that security is bypassed by an unauthorized individual should address any rational objection.


If your weapon caused a murder, then YOU should be also held accountable for it.

Guns are not like any other item on this planet.  They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.
 
2013-01-31 06:35:15 PM  
DYK that convicted felons can legally purchase guns in Ohio? This is just one of MANY states that allow it.
 
2013-01-31 06:35:36 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: I wonder if this the plan: Flood streets with guns, shootings just about every day, so therefore it always be too soon to talk about gun control


Not really. Gun violence is going down, and has been for a long time. Reporting, however, has gone up.
 
2013-01-31 06:35:40 PM  

libranoelrose: Why does this keep happening?


Because people are assholes.

I mean, at the end of the day, all we have as a society and a species is to tell ourselves, "Hey, don't do that, it's bad."

People no longer do that.
 
2013-01-31 06:36:02 PM  
Maybe we should start using the Obvious tag for stories about shootings. Or Repeat.
 
2013-01-31 06:36:13 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Seems fair enough to me. What would be the objection?

Depends on how he got it. Did his folks/friends make no effort to keep it away from him? Charge them. Did they take reasonable precautions and he still managed to steal it? Leave them alone.


Disagree, obviously.  If the weapon ended up stolen, then whatever "reasonable precaution"  put in place didn't work.
 
2013-01-31 06:36:23 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Mrtraveler01: Mike Chewbacca: Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.

I like this idea.

But sadly a lot of people won't.

Seems fair enough to me.   What would be the objection?

Strict liability, without exception, would be objectionable. A defined minimum and reasonable standard of security which, if followed, renders a firearm owner immune to any liability if that security is bypassed by an unauthorized individual should address any rational objection.

If your weapon caused a murder, then YOU should be also held accountable for it.

Guns are not like any other item on this planet.  They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.


If a firearm owner secures his firearm in a secure locked storage unit, and a thief breaks into the owner's home, then breaks the locked storage unit and obtains the firearm, holding the firearm owner liable for criminal acts committed with use of the firearm is entirely unreasonable.
 
2013-01-31 06:36:28 PM  

whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.


Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.


How do you make something theft-proof?
 
2013-01-31 06:36:48 PM  

OnlyM3: Treygreen13

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Hrmmm, one student shot and one teacher shot, possibly while trying to protect said student.

You got gun thread in my bully thread!

The article:
That teacher was not shot.
You're not expecting honesty or literacy from these deranged fools are you?


Missed the part where I apologized for getting my information from an earlier news report did you?  Also, does making a joke automatically mean I am opposed to reasonable gun control?
 
2013-01-31 06:39:02 PM  
Mrtraveler01

OnlyM3: **bonus points for this one as FARK Hypocrites (aka leftists) bashed the NRA when they called for it, yet ~4 days later when obmessiah called for it they fell to their knees in worship.**

I'm what you call a "leftist" (in reality I'm probably more of a centrist in a global perspective, but alas), I have no problem having armed police officers in schools.

Makes more sense than having teachers packing heat in the classroom.

Really? Why? Who are the first adults these evil sob's encounter? Why not allow the first person (adult) on scene a chance to save lives? Please remember in your reply, that "training" was part of the proposition.

Lets say we go your way and have 1 cop on every campus. Hell make it two. How hard would it be for some loon to distract those 2 (or just wait till they're wandering in some other location) and have open season?
 
2013-01-31 06:39:18 PM  
If mental health issues were discovered and addressed early and more thoroughly this kind of thing would not happen as much. Oh but providing universal care would be socialist so forget that. Guns don't kill people. Angry, crazy people kill people with whatever weapon they get their hands on.
 
2013-01-31 06:39:25 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?


If the item is something as dangerous as a firearm,  you had better think of something at least 99% effective,
 
2013-01-31 06:39:31 PM  
Isolated incident #1,000,780,987

USA USA USA
 
2013-01-31 06:39:44 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Debunked how? Care to point to some actual facts? The 40% comes from the FBI which you can easily find on Google.


Not quite true as represented.  The 40% number is for all transactions.  40% of gun sales are from private.  Not necessarily at gun shows, and not necessarily to felons.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

There's is the study where the factoid comes from.  Page 6.
 
2013-01-31 06:39:56 PM  
I hate guns, particularly handguns, and I do not think most people should be allowed to own them.
And I'm sorry that this kid got shot.

That being said, having lived through my share of crap from assholes while I was in school, I'm also going to say that my first thought in this case was "I bet the kid that got shot is a huge bully."
 
2013-01-31 06:40:05 PM  

The_Sponge: ghare: The_Sponge: theorellior: At this point I just sit back and listen the increasingly shrill cries from the gun nuts out there about this God-given right to go on shooting rampages.

-10/10

More proof that gun nuts, are in, fact, nuts. Who have guns.

Yeah, I'm a real nut case for calling out an obvious troll.


Part of me was trolling, part of me wasn't. I don't have a problem with guns, shooting or hunting. I do have a problem with nutso people who seem to think a tool designed for taking human life is a holy relic that should be treated with so much fetishistic respect that every other consideration becomes secondary to the Rights of the Gun.
 
2013-01-31 06:40:49 PM  
whidbey

OnlyM3: So tel us oh enlightened one. How would a background check have stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc...?

You mean how would this country have benefited from having a uniform system of standards regarding gun ownership if we had enacted policies decades ago, don't you?

I see you failed to answer the direct question. Care to try again?
 
2013-01-31 06:40:53 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Mike Chewbacca:  I don't know, but a minor got his hands on a gun and ammunition and brought it to school and shot someone in the head with it. Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.

What makes you think they won't?  Every state I know the firearms laws in makes it a crime if a minor gains access to a firearm and hurts themselves or another person.


Oh, I don't know, history, maybe? Robyn Anderson bought Harris and Klebold 3 of the 4 guns used in the Columbine massacre. But because she had no knowledge of her plans, she was never charged with a crime. Mark Manes sold the fourth weapon and some ammo to Klebold and "was charged with one count of unlawfully providing or permitting a juvenile to possess a handgun. Manes was also charged with one count of possession of a dangerous or illegal weapon because he had gone shooting with Klebold and Harris in March 1999 and had shot one of their sawed off shotguns. "
 
2013-01-31 06:40:59 PM  

OnlyM3: Lets say we go your way and have 1 cop on every campus. Hell make it two. How hard would it be for some loon to distract those 2 (or just wait till they're wandering in some other location) and have open season?


So you don't support having police officers stationed on campus?
 
2013-01-31 06:41:13 PM  

Dimensio: Guns are not like any other item on this planet. They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

If a firearm owner secures his firearm in a secure locked storage unit, and a thief breaks into the owner's home, then breaks the locked storage unit and obtains the firearm, holding the firearm owner liable for criminal acts committed with use of the firearm is entirely unreasonable.


Seriously, tell that to the judge and jury.

It's unreasonable to assume that a gun owner would automatically  be immune from responsibility, even in the case of such unlikely events.
 
2013-01-31 06:41:20 PM  

Rufus Lee King: Herb Utsmelz: A culture of war

[ian.macky.net image 850x598]


Change the clothes and weapons and here we are.
 
2013-01-31 06:41:41 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Farkage: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

You do realize that car insurance is to fix someone else s car if you cause an accident.  (Or pay their medical bills).  It doesn't even remotely decrease the frequency of accidents, so in this case, it's a f*cking "gun fee" plain and simple.

And? If someone's irresponsibility allowed someone else to be harmed by their firearm, shouldn't the victim be assured their losses will be covered?


Yep.  Sue them, just like what happens now.  Do you own a hammer or club?  Maybe you should get insurance just in case.  After all, I don't know you or what you're capable of...
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-mor e- people-than-rifles-shotguns/
 
2013-01-31 06:41:49 PM  

atomicmask: I really do not think this is a gun issue, and I am starting to even wonder if its a mental health issue..

I think the counter to this is nothing more then more death. A good plague has not swept threw our culture in a long ass time, so at the moment, we are packed like rats on top of one another going ape shiat and fighting for a tiny little spot of peace in a world full of everyone trying to decide everyone elses business. Maybe if that happened, we could all get breathing room and not go nuthouse on the ones of us left alive.


Well, when you gleefully encourage people to use chemical weapons on their own population on the virtue that brown people dying doesn't really matter a comment like this doesn't really shock people.
 
2013-01-31 06:41:54 PM  

The Larch: Somat


Ignoring the fact you're just trolling for racism, no. Their lives are no less as meaningful, but the intent is usually to kill one or more specific gang members in gang shootings- not over 20 random kids that just got killed for showing up that day because of one twisted spree shooter.
 
2013-01-31 06:42:17 PM  

texdent: We should just ban schools.


But if we ban schools then only fish will have schools. And don't think for a minute they won't use them.
 
2013-01-31 06:43:42 PM  

ambassador_ahab: AdolfOliverPanties: We need to arm all students.

only solution.  The only thing that stops a a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun.



The other effective solution is to throw waves of children at the bad guy till he runs out of bullets. Brannigans war strategy for children.
i4.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-31 06:44:05 PM  

OnlyM3: whidbey

OnlyM3: So tel us oh enlightened one. How would a background check have stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc...?

You mean how would this country have benefited from having a uniform system of standards regarding gun ownership if we had enacted policies decades ago, don't you?
I see you failed to answer the direct question. Care to try again?


I did answer it.

You didn't care for the answser.

If we had had a longtime system of standards for gun owners for decades,  neither incident might have even happened.

Gun enthusiasts and the NRA have made sure we haven't had one, and are now suffering as a society because of those efforts.
 
2013-01-31 06:44:19 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: Guns are not like any other item on this planet. They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

If a firearm owner secures his firearm in a secure locked storage unit, and a thief breaks into the owner's home, then breaks the locked storage unit and obtains the firearm, holding the firearm owner liable for criminal acts committed with use of the firearm is entirely unreasonable.

Seriously, tell that to the judge and jury.


As the unreasonable measure that you advocate is not law, no judge nor jury need be told anything.


It's unreasonable to assume that a gun owner would automatically  be immune from responsibility, even in the case of such unlikely events.

Holding the owner of a dangerous item liable for harm caused in part by negligence of the owner liable is reasonable. Holding the owner of a dangerous item liable for harm caused in spite of reasonable efforts to secure the item is not reasonable. Only an authoritarian fascist would endorse such a measure.
 
2013-01-31 06:44:26 PM  
Mind you that I have the same stance that the NRA has in that they think we should have police officers stationed on campus.

They never said anything about arming teachers.

So a "leftist" "Fark Hypocrite" like me is actually on board with the NRA on this. Why aren't you?
 
2013-01-31 06:44:42 PM  
It appears to an outsider that firearms are somewhat of a sacred cow to many US citizens, and you get a very visceral reaction if you even hint that greater control is needed.

We have these sacred cows in Canada too, but they tend to be relatively harmless. Such as hockey, the French Language and Tim Hortons coffee.

Sacred cows make the best burgers.
 
2013-01-31 06:44:46 PM  
I don't want the TSA in the schools.
 
2013-01-31 06:45:08 PM  

ox45tallboy: With only two victims, I guess we don't have to reset the "mass shooting" clock.


Yup, routine school shooting. Need more guns to get up to "mass shooting" levels.
 
2013-01-31 06:45:23 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: OnlyM3: Princess Ryans Knickers

1478 since Sandy Hook.

Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks?
You need to phone in for new talking points. That lie was debunked weeks ago.
// not that the left has ever let little things like facts get in the way of their deranged ramblings.

Debunked how? Care to point to some actual facts? The 40% comes from the FBI which you can easily find on Google.


Lie.

The 40% falsehood is from a single poorly-conducted survey from before background checks were even in place under the Brady Act.  It included transactions between immediate family members, dealers buying from the public and from other dealers, and several other situations that can only be construed as "loopholes" with extraordinary intellectual dishonesty.

The actual figure for the type of transactions you're trying to represent is significantly less than 10%.

But I know you're not concerned with the whole "facts" thing... just emotions.  Like panic and fear.
 
2013-01-31 06:46:02 PM  

TheHumanCannonball: ox45tallboy: Relatively Obscure: Plus it's not very catchy.

There's a 14-year old kid in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head, and probably a couple of very distraught parents or other family members, and I'm considering making a joke about it because I'm becoming so jaded.

I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not going to touch the gun control part, but there is the social and psychological reasons. Giving these shootings less press coverage and media frenzy would be a great step to prevent kids from getting the idea shooting someone in the way to glory/fame/infamy/etc.


That would also take the heat off the NRA... So no thanks.
 
2013-01-31 06:46:07 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: It appears to an outsider that firearms are somewhat of a sacred cow to many US citizens, and you get a very visceral reaction if you even hint that greater control is needed.

We have these sacred cows in Canada too, but they tend to be relatively harmless. Such as hockey, the French Language and Tim Hortons coffee.

Sacred cows make the best burgers.


The most politically vocal firearm rights advocates oppose any new regulation related to firearms.

The most politically vocal gun control advocates oppose any new regulation that does not ban some currently legally available class of firearm.

Neither of those extremes are actually reasonable.
 
2013-01-31 06:47:23 PM  

Farkage: Mike Chewbacca: Farkage: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

You do realize that car insurance is to fix someone else s car if you cause an accident.  (Or pay their medical bills).  It doesn't even remotely decrease the frequency of accidents, so in this case, it's a f*cking "gun fee" plain and simple.

And? If someone's irresponsibility allowed someone else to be harmed by their firearm, shouldn't the victim be assured their losses will be covered?

Yep.  Sue them, just like what happens now.  Do you own a hammer or club?  Maybe you should get insurance just in case.  After all, I don't know you or what you're capable of...
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-mor e- people-than-rifles-shotguns/


Better yet, file a claim with their firearm insurer and get your bills covered immediately without having to hire a lawyer. Also, your quote conveniently leaves out handguns.
 
2013-01-31 06:47:31 PM  

Mrtraveler01: DittoToo: What? Since she's black it's only "Sad"?  Only white kids get the "Newsflash"?

I just think this whole thing is sad.

We got some wacko holding a kid hostage in Alabama and now this.

I'm just sick of it all. What the fark has happened to this country?


Whats happened Since when? What point in our history was better?
 
2013-01-31 06:47:51 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Princess Ryans Knickers: Debunked how? Care to point to some actual facts? The 40% comes from the FBI which you can easily find on Google.

Not quite true as represented.  The 40% number is for all transactions.  40% of gun sales are from private.  Not necessarily at gun shows, and not necessarily to felons.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

There's is the study where the factoid comes from.  Page 6.


So you don't deny that 40% had no background checks and that by refusing to close this loophole that you are helping to arm gangsters?
 
2013-01-31 06:48:20 PM  

Dimensio: Day_Old_Dutchie: It appears to an outsider that firearms are somewhat of a sacred cow to many US citizens, and you get a very visceral reaction if you even hint that greater control is needed.

We have these sacred cows in Canada too, but they tend to be relatively harmless. Such as hockey, the French Language and Tim Hortons coffee.

Sacred cows make the best burgers.

The most politically vocal firearm rights advocates oppose any new regulation related to firearms.

The most politically vocal gun control advocates oppose any new regulation that does not ban some currently legally available class of firearm.

Neither of those extremes are actually reasonable.


I know. I've given up.

Guess we're just all going to have to get used to these shootings happening on a routine basis. Because we can't get anything done in this farking country anymore.

/sorry, this whole debate has made me want to go into my angry dome
 
2013-01-31 06:49:01 PM  

Farkage: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

You do realize that car insurance is to fix someone else s car if you cause an accident.  (Or pay their medical bills).  It doesn't even remotely decrease the frequency of accidents, so in this case, it's a f*cking "gun fee" plain and simple.


Gun fee? Good!
 
2013-01-31 06:49:16 PM  

whidbey: If the item is something as dangerous as a firearm, you had better think of something at least 99% effective,


So you're willing to concede at least 1% fallibility, yet you still want 100% liability?

/Just for the sake of argument let's ignore the fact that the SCOTUS agrees with me and not you.
 
2013-01-31 06:49:17 PM  

Dimensio: It's unreasonable to assume that a gun owner would automatically be immune from responsibility, even in the case of such unlikely events.

Holding the owner of a dangerous item liable for harm caused in part by negligence of the owner liable is reasonable. Holding the owner of a dangerous item liable for harm caused in spite of reasonable efforts to secure the item is not reasonable.</I>


Again your "reasonable efforts"  failed, and someone died because of it.

Only an authoritarian fascist would endorse such a measure.
 Because allowing the legal system to determine if the gun owner is liable or not constitutes endorsing "authoritarian fascism."


Yeah, you're out of arguments again, Dimensio.

Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.
 
2013-01-31 06:49:41 PM  

whidbey: OnlyM3: whidbey

OnlyM3: So tel us oh enlightened one. How would a background check have stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc...?

You mean how would this country have benefited from having a uniform system of standards regarding gun ownership if we had enacted policies decades ago, don't you?
I see you failed to answer the direct question. Care to try again?

I did answer it.

You didn't care for the answser.

If we had had a longtime system of standards for gun owners for decades,  neither incident might have even happened.

Gun enthusiasts and the NRA have made sure we haven't had one, and are now suffering as a society because of those efforts.


Sure.  Okay, so in your mind, that will stop psychos from killing people?  Especially when stuff like this is freely available all over the internet with a 2 second Google search?
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/june2007/imhv3.pdf

Or this?
http://thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/Expedient-Homemade-Firearms-Vol-II-PA -L uty.pdf

Yeah, better make it tougher for the law abiding people like me to legally buy something.  That should fix it.
 
2013-01-31 06:49:46 PM  

Mrtraveler01

I think it's a pretty farked up idea to even consider arming teachers myself.

That's a liability waiting to happen.

So "Stack o dead kids" > "slim possibility of a liability suit".

Where are your priorities man?

Armed cops are a liability issue as well, but -as much as I despise l.e. and believe it needs an overhaul- a necessity.
 
2013-01-31 06:49:51 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?


Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...
 
2013-01-31 06:50:08 PM  

HeWhoHasNoName: The 40% falsehood is from a single poorly-conducted survey from before background checks were even in place under the Brady Act. It included transactions between immediate family members, dealers buying from the public and from other dealers, and several other situations that can only be construed as "loopholes" with extraordinary intellectual dishonesty.

The actual figure for the type of transactions you're trying to represent is significantly less than 10%.


Odd since someone else further up the thread from you provided the 40% and he, also, was claiming I was wrong. Funnily he had supporting documentation... and you don't.
 
2013-01-31 06:50:09 PM  
I think the best solution that has been offered is to create safety adaptations at schools (and other public buildings) that can at least come close to matching the fire safety code, but against violence.

There are a lot of good suggestions out there for making public buildings inherently more secure against violence, like we make them inherently more secure against fire.

Do you have a fire-extinguisher in your home? Do you have an attacker-extinguisher?
 
2013-01-31 06:50:51 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: If the item is something as dangerous as a firearm, you had better think of something at least 99% effective,

So you're willing to concede at least 1% fallibility, yet you still want 100% liability?

/Just for the sake of argument let's ignore the fact that the SCOTUS agrees with me and not you.


They're not gods, either.  The SCOTUS "agreed" with segregation for decades.   It took sensible progressive efforts to overturn previous decisions.
 
2013-01-31 06:50:57 PM  

highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...


They tried to do this in the 1990s, NRA worked hard to prevent it.
 
2013-01-31 06:51:05 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: It's unreasonable to assume that a gun owner would automatically be immune from responsibility, even in the case of such unlikely events.

Holding the owner of a dangerous item liable for harm caused in part by negligence of the owner liable is reasonable. Holding the owner of a dangerous item liable for harm caused in spite of reasonable efforts to secure the item is not reasonable.</I>

Again your "reasonable efforts"  failed, and someone died because of it.

Only an authoritarian fascist would endorse such a measure.
 Because allowing the legal system to determine if the gun owner is liable or not constitutes endorsing "authoritarian fascism."


Yeah, you're out of arguments again, Dimensio.

Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.


I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.
 
2013-01-31 06:51:34 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: That would also take the heat off the NRA... So no thanks.


Poor baby, better have a glass of warm milk...
 
2013-01-31 06:51:39 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Oh, I don't know, history, maybe? Robyn Anderson bought Harris and Klebold 3 of the 4 guns used in the Columbine massacre. But because she had no knowledge of her plans, she was never charged with a crime. Mark Manes sold the fourth weapon and some ammo to Klebold and "was charged with one count of unlawfully providing or permitting a juvenile to possess a handgun. Manes was also charged with one count of possession of a dangerous or illegal weapon because he had gone shooting with Klebold and Harris in March 1999 and had shot one of their sawed off shotguns. "


Heh.  I just looked up Colorados law and they don't have a law against providing a firearm to a minor...  Score one for messed up.  Didn't know Colorados laws.

Georgia does have one though.  It's a 3 to 5 felony.
 
2013-01-31 06:51:44 PM  

OnlyM3: So "Stack o dead kids" > "slim possibility of a liability suit".

Where are your priorities man?


You can't do the same thing with armed police officers?
 
2013-01-31 06:52:10 PM  
I was driving through Oakland last night and saw a flickering light up ahead and a large crowd of black people. I slowed down because I'm nosy. They were standing next to a fence with a sheet that had photos and artificial flowers pinned to it and were putting candles on the sidewalk next to the fence.

phark you, NRA.  Thanks so much fo all of those unmonitored gun sales you so cherish. That way all the petty burglars in Oakland and the suburbs around it have unfettered access to a plentiful number of guns that turn a simple pissing contest into a deadly shooting match.
 
2013-01-31 06:52:23 PM  

Farkage: whidbey: OnlyM3: whidbey

OnlyM3: So tel us oh enlightened one. How would a background check have stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc...?

You mean how would this country have benefited from having a uniform system of standards regarding gun ownership if we had enacted policies decades ago, don't you?
I see you failed to answer the direct question. Care to try again?

I did answer it.

You didn't care for the answser.

If we had had a longtime system of standards for gun owners for decades,  neither incident might have even happened.

Gun enthusiasts and the NRA have made sure we haven't had one, and are now suffering as a society because of those efforts.

Sure.  Okay, so in your mind, that will stop psychos from killing people?  Especially when stuff like this is freely available all over the internet with a 2 second Google search?
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/june2007/imhv3.pdf

Or this?
http://thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/Expedient-Homemade-Firearms-Vol-II-PA -L uty.pdf

Yeah, better make it tougher for the law abiding people like me to legally buy something.  That should fix it.


How would background checks stop "law-abiding people" from legally buying firearms?

Be specific.
 
2013-01-31 06:52:26 PM  

highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...


How will you convince police agencies to adopt such firearms? Please demonstrate that such triggering systems are effective and that they are infallibly reliable.
 
2013-01-31 06:52:32 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: So you don't deny that 40% had no background checks and that by refusing to close this loophole that you are helping to arm gangsters?


1) Nice goalpost moving

2) How do you close it? I sincerely doubt criminals are just going to say "I'm willing to commit the crimes of buying while being a felon (plus whatever other crime I was going to commit with the gun), but ignoring a background check? I'm not going there. I'm a felon, not the devil."
 
2013-01-31 06:53:06 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...

They tried to do this in the 1990s, NRA worked hard to prevent it.


Of course, because it's too expensive for gun manufactures to design/make.

But i bet the NRA used some phony baloney excuse on how it would infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights or some other stupid BS.
 
2013-01-31 06:53:39 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...

They tried to do this in the 1990s, NRA worked hard to prevent it.


What "biometric trigger locks" existed in the 1990s?
 
2013-01-31 06:53:44 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Farkage: Mike Chewbacca: Farkage: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

You do realize that car insurance is to fix someone else s car if you cause an accident.  (Or pay their medical bills).  It doesn't even remotely decrease the frequency of accidents, so in this case, it's a f*cking "gun fee" plain and simple.

And? If someone's irresponsibility allowed someone else to be harmed by their firearm, shouldn't the victim be assured their losses will be covered?

Yep.  Sue them, just like what happens now.  Do you own a hammer or club?  Maybe you should get insurance just in case.  After all, I don't know you or what you're capable of...
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-mor e- people-than-rifles-shotguns/

Better yet, file a claim with their firearm insurer and get your bills covered immediately without having to hire a lawyer. Also, your quote conveniently leaves out handguns.


My point stands since one of the jumping up and down screaming points is we have to ban "assault weapons", which are rifles by the way.  That's all they are.
 
2013-01-31 06:54:11 PM  

jchic: Never said it would. But then again how many automobile fatalities have been prevented by having operators restricted/licensed? You can't say that X or Y would have prevented Z but you can decide that an item whose sole purpose is to destroy should be at least as regulated as many other items in our daily lives.


We do know that guns being regulated as they are now are involved in around 8800 homicides, 18000 suicides, while cars which are very regulated are involved in around 32,000+ deaths.  Hmmm,..

Suicides are at around the same rate in this country as countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia, despite those countries have very strict gun control.

Does this mean the cars/guns comparison is allowed?
 
2013-01-31 06:54:46 PM  

ox45tallboy: robsul82: Yep, as with serial killers, you need three victims to count.

I see the grieving parents of a first or second victim thinking to themselves, "Thank God he's only dead because someone didn't like him, and not because he was a random victim of a mentally unbalanced individual!"

Although to be honest, they might be relieved that they wouldn't have to deal with all the media sensationalism and posturing by political activists shouting all the wrong details about the tragedy for the next decade or six.


your igorance is part of the problem. you watch way too much Law & Order. every 3 episodes is a mentally ill person run amuck, death & destruction. well check the statistics sunshine. because in realityville it's not that way. please don't feed the stupid monster. people living with mental illness have it hard enough without false blame for the majority of horrendous crime in America.
 
2013-01-31 06:55:02 PM  

Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.


You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.
 
2013-01-31 06:55:54 PM  
DYK:

17 states of 50 regulate private firearm sales at gun shows
Only 7 require background checks on all gun sales.

No background check, no guns. Simple, effective protection of YOUR family and keeping weapons out of the hands of felons.
 
2013-01-31 06:56:02 PM  

pedrop357: jchic: Never said it would. But then again how many automobile fatalities have been prevented by having operators restricted/licensed? You can't say that X or Y would have prevented Z but you can decide that an item whose sole purpose is to destroy should be at least as regulated as many other items in our daily lives.

We do know that guns being regulated as they are now are involved in around 8800 homicides, 18000 suicides, while cars which are very regulated are involved in around 32,000+ deaths.  Hmmm,..

Suicides are at around the same rate in this country as countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia, despite those countries have very strict gun control.

Does this mean the cars/guns comparison is allowed?


You are mistaken. Suicide rates of Japan, South Korea and Australia are higher than suicide rates in the United States of America.
 
2013-01-31 06:56:46 PM  
This is good news for the gun grabbers.
 
2013-01-31 06:56:54 PM  
Mrtraveler01 [TotalFark] Smartest Funniest
2013-01-31 06:40:59 PM

OnlyM3: Lets say we go your way and have 1 cop on every campus. Hell make it two. How hard would it be for some loon to distract those 2 (or just wait till they're wandering in some other location) and have open season?

So you don't support having police officers stationed on campus?

I'm leery of police officers on campus for numerous reasons. If however they are limited in what they're allowed to do ( i.e. not allowed to talk to or interact w/ students ) I could hold my nose and support it.
 
2013-01-31 06:57:01 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: So you don't deny that 40% had no background checks and that by refusing to close this loophole that you are helping to arm gangsters?


Stretch Armstrong is having a rough day.

All I said, and all you derive from that is that when that report was published, 60% of all gun transactions were conducted with a background check, which by extension means that 40% were not.  Ergo, that information does not support the claim that 40% of felons get their guns from gun shows, where background check are not performed.
 
2013-01-31 06:57:03 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...

They tried to do this in the 1990s, NRA worked hard to prevent it.


If Police departments refuse to use it because it isn't 100% reliable, I don't want it either.  And by the way, that is the reason Police departments don't want it.  Cops get show with their own guns too.
 
2013-01-31 06:57:07 PM  

NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT GUN CONTROL!

 
2013-01-31 06:57:56 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property


I have made no such insistence. I have stated only that such liability must be mitigated when reasonable security measures are implemented. I cannot be held liable for injuries caused by a thief who steals my automobile and causes injury with it if I have taken reasonable measures to prevent theft of my automobile; I am requesting a standard no different for firearms. Your claim is therefore a lie.

Is your position so devoid of merit that you are incapable of justifying it without lying?
 
2013-01-31 06:58:01 PM  

highendmighty: Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.


When they come up with one as reliable as the rest of my gun, I'll consider it. Until then I'm not going to decrease the reliability of something I may need to protect my life. You also will need to have them at a reasonable cost, SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that laws that unreasonably increase the cost of gun ownership are de facto bans as they keep poor people from being able to afford them.
 
2013-01-31 06:58:06 PM  

Dimensio: highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...

How will you convince police agencies to adopt such firearms? Please demonstrate that such triggering systems are effective and that they are infallibly reliable.



There is technology for it.  And your argument is guns are otherwise infallible devices?  Never been a misfire?  Never been a bullet caught in the barrel?  Never had a safety jam?
 
2013-01-31 06:58:11 PM  

jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.


Because licenses and insurance have done so much to stop the unlicensed and uninsured drivers out there that there isn't a specific line on all auto insurance forms for 'uninsured driver.'
 
2013-01-31 06:58:15 PM  

OnlyM3: Princess Ryans Knickers

1478 since Sandy Hook.

Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks?
You need to phone in for new talking points. That lie was debunked weeks ago.
// not that the left has ever let little things like facts get in the way of their deranged ramblings.


They also include suicides, while ignoring countries with similar suicide rates and much stricter gun control.
 
2013-01-31 06:58:19 PM  
Wow, this thread was supposed to be shut down 93 comments ago.  Scandalous.
 
2013-01-31 06:58:50 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.


No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.
 
2013-01-31 06:59:11 PM  

atomicmask: I really do not think this is a gun issue, and I am starting to even wonder if its a mental health issue..

I think the counter to this is nothing more then more death. A good plague has not swept threw our culture in a long ass time, so at the moment, we are packed like rats on top of one another going ape shiat and fighting for a tiny little spot of peace in a world full of everyone trying to decide everyone elses business. Maybe if that happened, we could all get breathing room and not go nuthouse on the ones of us left alive.


Maybe this is the new plague?
 
2013-01-31 06:59:26 PM  

ox45tallboy: Relatively Obscure: Plus it's not very catchy.

There's a 14-year old kid in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head, and probably a couple of very distraught parents or other family members, and I'm considering making a joke about it because I'm becoming so jaded.

I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?


we could close all the schools.
 
2013-01-31 06:59:52 PM  

whidbey: Wow, this thread was supposed to be shut down 93 comments ago.  Scandalous.


STFU or get out.
 
2013-01-31 06:59:54 PM  

highendmighty: Dimensio: highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...

How will you convince police agencies to adopt such firearms? Please demonstrate that such triggering systems are effective and that they are infallibly reliable.


There is technology for it.


Then you should be able to provide reference to it. Please do so.

Additionally, how will police be convinced to adopt such technology?


  And your argument is guns are otherwise infallible devices?  Never been a misfire?  Never been a bullet caught in the barrel?  Never had a safety jam?

Previous malfunctions of my carry firearm were corrected through proper cleaning. The firearm has functioned reliably since.
 
2013-01-31 07:00:00 PM  

ox45tallboy: With only two victims, I guess we don't have to reset the "mass shooting" clock.


Nah.  He couldn't aim worth a flip.
 
2013-01-31 07:00:07 PM  

whidbey: Farkage: whidbey: OnlyM3: whidbey

OnlyM3: So tel us oh enlightened one. How would a background check have stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc...?

You mean how would this country have benefited from having a uniform system of standards regarding gun ownership if we had enacted policies decades ago, don't you?
I see you failed to answer the direct question. Care to try again?

I did answer it.

You didn't care for the answser.

If we had had a longtime system of standards for gun owners for decades,  neither incident might have even happened.

Gun enthusiasts and the NRA have made sure we haven't had one, and are now suffering as a society because of those efforts.

Sure.  Okay, so in your mind, that will stop psychos from killing people?  Especially when stuff like this is freely available all over the internet with a 2 second Google search?
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/june2007/imhv3.pdf

Or this?
http://thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/Expedient-Homemade-Firearms-Vol-II-PA -L uty.pdf

Yeah, better make it tougher for the law abiding people like me to legally buy something.  That should fix it.

How would background checks stop "law-abiding people" from legally buying firearms?

Be specific.


I have nothing against background checks and I've never said otherwise.  I was referring to some of the other retarded proposals.
 
2013-01-31 07:00:38 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: highendmighty: Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.

When they come up with one as reliable as the rest of my gun, I'll consider it. Until then I'm not going to decrease the reliability of something I may need to protect my life. You also will need to have them at a reasonable cost, SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that laws that unreasonably increase the cost of gun ownership are de facto bans as they keep poor people from being able to afford them.


I hear your SCOTUS argument - and I am not an anti-gun guy.  I love guns.  The government has subsidised so much crap over the decades, I think this, at least, would be worth some subsidy money.
 
2013-01-31 07:01:08 PM  

muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.


He is also violent. He advocated beating a restaurant owner to death solely because the restaurant owner engaged in an unpopular (but legal) business practice.
 
2013-01-31 07:01:43 PM  

Click Click D'oh: gun shows, where background check are not performed.


Depends on the show. I'm unsure about other states, but in CO it's illegal for anyone (including private buyers/sellers) to transfer any gun without a check at a gun show, or on the property (to prevent private deals on the floor then making the sale in the parking lot).
 
2013-01-31 07:01:47 PM  

ox45tallboy: Relatively Obscure: Plus it's not very catchy.

There's a 14-year old kid in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head, and probably a couple of very distraught parents or other family members, and I'm considering making a joke about it because I'm becoming so jaded.

I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools


Most likely. The biggest problem is discussing it. When both sides can maturely discuss the issue without going into complete hyperbolic bullshiat, than it might be possible. Sadly, we're not there yet.
 
2013-01-31 07:02:01 PM  

iheartscotch: It isn't a gun control issue; it's a PEOPLE control issue. Until you can ensure that everyone aren't going to become murderous sociopaths; you're just ignoring the actual issue


The same day as the Sandy Hook shooting a kid in a school in China went on a knife rampage and injured like 22 kids. INJURED them. Of course that's terrible, but luckily he didn't have a gun with which to completely destroy them as happened in Sandy Hook.

It's a people issue and a gun control issue.
 
2013-01-31 07:02:05 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Princess


17 states out of 50 regulate private gun sales. Guess where most of those occurred?
 
2013-01-31 07:02:09 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.


So if a criminal breaks into your locked garage, steals your car and kills someone with it, you go to jail because f*ck you.  That's what you're saying?
 
2013-01-31 07:02:37 PM  

img.photobucket.com 
It's ok libs, I'll keep your daughters safe.



Also, told ya so.
 
2013-01-31 07:02:41 PM  

OnlyM3: Mrtraveler01

OnlyM3: **bonus points for this one as FARK Hypocrites (aka leftists) bashed the NRA when they called for it, yet ~4 days later when obmessiah called for it they fell to their knees in worship.**

I'm what you call a "leftist" (in reality I'm probably more of a centrist in a global perspective, but alas), I have no problem having armed police officers in schools.

Makes more sense than having teachers packing heat in the classroom.
Really? Why? Who are the first adults these evil sob's encounter? Why not allow the first person (adult) on scene a chance to save lives? Please remember in your reply, that "training" was part of the proposition.

Lets say we go your way and have 1 cop on every campus. Hell make it two. How hard would it be for some loon to distract those 2 (or just wait till they're wandering in some other location) and have open season?


If guns save lives, how many have you saved or personally witnessed as saved? I have medical training - First Aid, CPR, AED, First Responder, Lifeguard Trainer, and Emergency Tracheotomy. I've used it twice, both times in a situation where someone was in peril (anaphylactic shock and a distressed child struggling to stay above water, in that order). I don't own a gun, and I'm a liberal.

If you've fired a gun at a human being with the sole purpose of saving the lives of people around you less than 2 times, then I'm winning that race. There are better means to save a life than carrying a projectile launcher.
 
2013-01-31 07:02:45 PM  
whidbey

OnlyM3: whidbey

OnlyM3: So tel us oh enlightened one. How would a background check have stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc...?

You mean how would this country have benefited from having a uniform system of standards regarding gun ownership if we had enacted policies decades ago, don't you?
I see you failed to answer the direct question. Care to try again?

I did answer it.

You didn't care for the answser.

If we had had a longtime system of standards for gun owners for decades, neither incident might have even happened.

No, that's a lie, those firearms were sold via background checks and later taken by thieves. You're proving how uninformed and silly your side is. You throw out a "solution" that won't have any real affect. Lie about prior incidents and hope nobody calls you on it.

Well. You've been called on it.
 
2013-01-31 07:02:50 PM  

highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...


Anyone know how to root a Glock 17?
 
2013-01-31 07:03:16 PM  

pedrop357: OnlyM3: Princess Ryans Knickers

1478 since Sandy Hook.

Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks?
You need to phone in for new talking points. That lie was debunked weeks ago.
// not that the left has ever let little things like facts get in the way of their deranged ramblings.

They also include suicides, while ignoring countries with similar suicide rates and much stricter gun control.


Gun violence is gun violence. Jesus would not approve.
 
2013-01-31 07:03:21 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: No background check, no guns. Simple, effective protection of YOUR family and keeping weapons out of the hands of felons.


How do you suggest it be implemented?  The NICS system came to a crashing halt recently with requests from FFL dealers.  How would it handle the uptick in private sales?  How would private sales even be able access it since a FFL number is needed to access the system?
 
2013-01-31 07:03:23 PM  

highendmighty: There is technology for it. And your argument is guns are otherwise infallible devices? Never been a misfire? Never been a bullet caught in the barrel? Never had a safety jam?


That guns are not infallible in no way justifies deliberately adding things that can significantly reduce its reliability rate.
 
2013-01-31 07:03:23 PM  

Dimensio: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

He is also violent. He advocated beating a restaurant owner to death solely because the restaurant owner engaged in an unpopular (but legal) business practice.


He is my IHOP buddy, so I know he better not be messing with IHOP.
 
2013-01-31 07:03:40 PM  

Dimensio: You are mistaken. Suicide rates of Japan, South Korea and Australia are higher than suicide rates in the United States of America.


Probably misquoted statistic. I think I've seen the numbers that suicide by gun is higher in America than pretty much all other countries. That's also where they get the huge number of "gun related deaths" in a lot of quotes.

Studies have shown that if guns are taken away from a group, it lowers suicides by gun in that group.
http://gsoa.feinheit.ch/media/medialibrary/2010/12/Lubin_10.pdf

I'm going to avoid any overgeneralization of that for how that could apply to the whole of USA.
 
2013-01-31 07:03:41 PM  

whidbey: Wow, this thread was supposed to be shut down 93 comments ago.  Scandalous.


Ahhhh....But this is a legitimate thread, and therefore expected.
 
2013-01-31 07:04:04 PM  

pedrop357: OnlyM3: Princess Ryans Knickers

1478 since Sandy Hook.

Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks?
You need to phone in for new talking points. That lie was debunked weeks ago.
// not that the left has ever let little things like facts get in the way of their deranged ramblings.

They also include suicides, while ignoring countries with similar suicide rates and much stricter gun control.


Also, the numbers are ONLY for the US. Unlike some of the drunk driving claims posted here.
 
2013-01-31 07:05:36 PM  
whidbey
How would background checks stop "law-abiding people" from legally buying firearms?

Be specific.
What you're trying now is called moving the goal post. You made a claim. You were called on it. You have shown you are incapable of supporting your claim, even when given multiple chances. So now you try to change the argument and throw the burden onto your opponent. Debates don't work that way.
 
2013-01-31 07:06:42 PM  

muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.


I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.
 
2013-01-31 07:06:57 PM  
Whidbey, where did the gun weilding IHOP touch you?

/Hope it wasn't anywhere special
 
2013-01-31 07:06:58 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: 17 states out of 50 regulate private gun sales. Guess where most of those occurred?


You aren't even forming full coherent sentences anymore.
 
2013-01-31 07:07:17 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: [img.photobucket.com image 800x600] 
It's ok libs, I'll keep your daughters safe.

Also, told ya so.


Are those Diamond "Strike Anywhere" matches by the ammo?  That's not very safe . . .
 
2013-01-31 07:07:33 PM  
highendmighty
Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms. It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use. Expensive? Yes. More valuable than innocent human lives? We've spent more money on less noble causes...
even those clowns on mythbusters were able to circumvent biometric locks. Care to try for a real world, non-sci-fi answer?
 
2013-01-31 07:07:43 PM  

Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.


Mind you, I'm not well versed in gun laws to see how a law like this can be designed without negatively impacting people whose guns are stolen but it's worth a shot.
 
2013-01-31 07:08:01 PM  

Dimensio: No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

He is also violent. He advocated beating a restaurant owner to death solely because the restaurant owner engaged in an unpopular (but legal) business practice.


I'm starting to wonder if you either have no sense of humor or you are suffering from some sort of personality disorder that would take such a colloquial expression that much to heart.

Either way, you're agreeing with a known troll who has a history of disrupting threads.
 
2013-01-31 07:08:10 PM  
So is the guarantee to a green just submit a story about a shooting, or does it have to be a school shooting.  Let me know.

...crap's getting old....
 
2013-01-31 07:08:25 PM  

highendmighty: And your argument is guns are otherwise infallible devices?


Mine isn't. My argument is that the current crop of (affordable) biometric devices are more fallible than my guns, which are pretty farking reliable. If you can give me a device that 1) doesn't reduce my gun's current reliability and 2) is at a reasonable cost and 3) isn't easily defeated*, I'll take it. Until then, it's not happening.

*I'm less worried about someone taking my gun off my person than I am them taking it from my safe. If all it takes is two minutes with a screwdriver to bypass it, you really haven't done much to improve the situation, it'll still be a target for theft.
 
2013-01-31 07:08:27 PM  
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 80 percent of state inmates purchased guns from family, friends, a street buy or an illegal source. Those guns don't grow on trees. ATF trafficking investigations show that many of them come from trafficking from gun shows.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloo ph ole#Harlow

Gun shows are a major trafficking channel according to ATF, with an average of 130 guns trafficked per investigation, and over 25,000 firearms trafficked in total over one 17-month period alone http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloop h ole#ATF

Bush Attorney General Gonzales:  "...gun shows are a marketplace for felons and other prohibited persons to buy firearms from unlicensed sellers without background checks "
 
2013-01-31 07:08:51 PM  
What? No NEWS tag?
Damn FARK libs, you're slippin'.
 
2013-01-31 07:09:05 PM  

boomm: Dimensio: You are mistaken. Suicide rates of Japan, South Korea and Australia are higher than suicide rates in the United States of America.

Probably misquoted statistic. I think I've seen the numbers that suicide by gun is higher in America than pretty much all other countries. That's also where they get the huge number of "gun related deaths" in a lot of quotes.

Studies have shown that if guns are taken away from a group, it lowers suicides by gun in that group.
http://gsoa.feinheit.ch/media/medialibrary/2010/12/Lubin_10.pdf

I'm going to avoid any overgeneralization of that for how that could apply to the whole of USA.


Wow.  You completely missed the point.

Suicides by gun go down when people are deprived of guns?  What a farking shock!

Now the big question is, did they simply find another way to kill themselves?  If they did, then they simply substituted methods and no progress has been made in SAVING LIVES.  Gun control is not supposed to be an end unto itself.

If you only care about suicides where a gun was used and don't care if they switch to something else, then you are part of the problem
 
2013-01-31 07:10:25 PM  

Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.


Serial numbers can be taken out.
 
2013-01-31 07:10:34 PM  
The cat's out of the bag in the US when it comes to guns. There's a shiatload of them and they're not going away. No amount of background checks, registration or anything else is going to stop some psycho from shooting up a place if he really needs to.

It is pretty retarded though that we have all these background check laws and anyone can walk into a gun show and buy anything they want with no ID check whatsoever. I'm not saying the background checks help but if you're going to have them, don't leave such an obvious loophole.

Buy all the guns you want just shut up about the second amendment and how people have guns to protect themselves from the government. If Hilary Clinton wants in, she's coming in and no amount of assault rifles you bought at the Brandon Gun Expo is going to stop that. Enjoy your toys but don't act like you're some last line of defense against the oppressive State.
 
2013-01-31 07:10:55 PM  

OnlyM3: whidbey
How would background checks stop "law-abiding people" from legally buying firearms?

Be specific. What you're trying now is called moving the goal post. You made a claim. You were called on it. You have shown you are incapable of supporting your claim, even when given multiple chances. So now you try to change the argument and throw the burden onto your opponent. Debates don't work that way.


I've actually been quite consistent in my arguments here.

You clearly don't want this country to have any kind of uniform standards in place regarding firearms.   My point was that if we had, neither Columbine nor Sandy Hook might have occurred.

This is not "moving goalposts, this is you attempting to avoid the point altogether.
 
2013-01-31 07:10:58 PM  

OnlyM3: whidbey

OnlyM3: whidbey

OnlyM3: So tel us oh enlightened one. How would a background check have stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc...?

You mean how would this country have benefited from having a uniform system of standards regarding gun ownership if we had enacted policies decades ago, don't you?
I see you failed to answer the direct question. Care to try again?

I did answer it.

You didn't care for the answser.

If we had had a longtime system of standards for gun owners for decades, neither incident might have even happened.
No, that's a lie, those firearms were sold via background checks and later taken by thieves. You're proving how uninformed and silly your side is. You throw out a "solution" that won't have any real affect. Lie about prior incidents and hope nobody calls you on it.

Well. You've been called on it.


It's a hypothetical situation. By definition, it can't be a lie because it's based on something that didn't happen in the first place. This is what I mean by saying that we're not mature enough to discuss this situation. We still care more about "scoring points" than doing anything about children getting shot.
 
2013-01-31 07:10:59 PM  

Dimensio: highendmighty: Dimensio: highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...

How will you convince police agencies to adopt such firearms? Please demonstrate that such triggering systems are effective and that they are infallibly reliable.


There is technology for it.

Then you should be able to provide reference to it. Please do so.

Additionally, how will police be convinced to adopt such technology?


  And your argument is guns are otherwise infallible devices?  Never been a misfire?  Never been a bullet caught in the barrel?  Never had a safety jam?

Previous malfunctions of my carry firearm were corrected through proper cleaning. The firearm has functioned reliably since.


Nothing mechanical is 100% reliable, not even your sparkling clean guns. (and i'm glad it didn't fail for you at a time when you might need it most). I will defer to your argument that the smart gun idea is not 100% there yet, but again, it's on the cusp and a little bit of time and money invested in such a prospect would save countless lives - not necessarily immediately, but in the very near future.  I'm thinking of a long-term, reasonable solution to a large part of a problem in a time when off-the-cuff ass-pulling-out-of seems to be the flavor of the day. (and i apologize for the mixing of metaphors).
 
2013-01-31 07:11:20 PM  
Just wait until the tinfoil brigade finds out all the most recent shooters were home-schooled.
[horseteeteethed_chick.jpeg]
 
2013-01-31 07:11:22 PM  

TommyDeuce: Are those Diamond "Strike Anywhere" matches by the ammo? That's not very safe . . .


Why?
 
2013-01-31 07:11:33 PM  

Mugato: . No amount of background checks, registration or anything else is going to stop some psycho from shooting up a place if he really needs to.


Why bother?

Why bother with airbags, food safety, vaccines, safety checks on airplanes, car safety, etc... someone is going to die anyway.
 
2013-01-31 07:12:17 PM  

Farkage: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

So if a criminal breaks into your locked garage, steals your car and kills someone with it, you go to jail because f*ck you.  That's what you're saying?


No,  you are saying that a gun should be equated with an automobile.  Which has nothing to do with my point.
 
2013-01-31 07:12:40 PM  
This sort of gun violence is inevitable when one has a large, heavily armed populace.  Can we all agree on one thing, though....that even more guns, more people armed at schools, cops, soldiers, etc. will solve all of these problems?  It's simple math, people.  Arm everyone and this will somehow sort itself out.
 
2013-01-31 07:12:47 PM  

Mugato: It is pretty retarded though that we have all these background check laws and anyone can walk into a gun show and buy anything they want with no ID check whatsoever. I'm not saying the background checks help but if you're going to have them, don't leave such an obvious loophole.


Citation needed.

Dealer sales, which are the overwhelming majority of gun sales at gun shows, ALWAYS require a background check.  If you want to ban all private sales, have the guts to come right out and call for it.  Don't hide behind "gun shows".

Gun shows do not have any special laws that exempt sales there vs other places.
 
2013-01-31 07:12:56 PM  

muck4doo: Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.

Serial numbers can be taken out.


And giant meteors can fall on your house tomorrow. Just because something can happen doesn't mean it always does.
 
2013-01-31 07:13:09 PM  

Mugato: The cat's out of the bag in the US when it comes to guns. There's a shiatload of them and they're not going away. No amount of background checks, registration or anything else is going to stop some psycho from shooting up a place if he really needs to.

It is pretty retarded though that we have all these background check laws and anyone can walk into a gun show and buy anything they want with no ID check whatsoever. I'm not saying the background checks help but if you're going to have them, don't leave such an obvious loophole.

Buy all the guns you want just shut up about the second amendment and how people have guns to protect themselves from the government. If Hilary Clinton wants in, she's coming in and no amount of assault rifles you bought at the Brandon Gun Expo is going to stop that. Enjoy your toys but don't act like you're some last line of defense against the oppressive State.


Why bother with a gun, people are just going to shoot you anyway.
 
2013-01-31 07:13:55 PM  

whidbey: OnlyM3: whidbey
How would background checks stop "law-abiding people" from legally buying firearms?

Be specific. What you're trying now is called moving the goal post. You made a claim. You were called on it. You have shown you are incapable of supporting your claim, even when given multiple chances. So now you try to change the argument and throw the burden onto your opponent. Debates don't work that way.

I've actually been quite consistent in my arguments here.

You clearly don't want this country to have any kind of uniform standards in place regarding firearms.   My point was that if we had, neither Columbine nor Sandy Hook might have occurred.

This is not "moving goalposts, this is you attempting to avoid the point altogether.


No, this is you being your usual stupid self, comrade.
 
2013-01-31 07:13:58 PM  
We should make a law where it's illegal to have a gun at school.  That'll fix it.
 
2013-01-31 07:14:19 PM  

OnlyM3: whidbey

OnlyM3: whidbey

OnlyM3: So tel us oh enlightened one. How would a background check have stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc...?

You mean how would this country have benefited from having a uniform system of standards regarding gun ownership if we had enacted policies decades ago, don't you?
I see you failed to answer the direct question. Care to try again?

I did answer it.

You didn't care for the answser.

If we had had a longtime system of standards for gun owners for decades, neither incident might have even happened.
No, that's a lie, those firearms were sold via background checks and later taken by thieves. You're proving how uninformed and silly your side is. You throw out a "solution" that won't have any real affect. Lie about prior incidents and hope nobody calls you on it.

Well. You've been called on it.


Not really. You still have this irrational fear of having a nationwide system in place to determine how firearms are obtained by the public.

I submit that the NRA and the other gun lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of firearms as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.
 
2013-01-31 07:14:34 PM  
NO kills?

Son, I am dissapoint.
 
2013-01-31 07:15:01 PM  

pedrop357: Now the big question is, did they simply find another way to kill themselves?


Read the link, maybe? The researchers believe that there was not a noticeable increase in suicide by other method.

But, there are other problems you could point out. You can proceed with calm.

For example, the access to the weapon was temporary (just the weekend leave), and it doesn't represent the prevention or failures beyond the weekend leave situation.
 
2013-01-31 07:15:11 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 80 percent of state inmates purchased guns from family, friends, a street buy or an illegal source. Those guns don't grow on trees. ATF trafficking investigations show that many of them come from trafficking from gun shows.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloo ph ole#Harlow

Gun shows are a major trafficking channel according to ATF, with an average of 130 guns trafficked per investigation, and over 25,000 firearms trafficked in total over one 17-month period alone http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloop h ole#ATF

Bush Attorney General Gonzales:  "...gun shows are a marketplace for felons and other prohibited persons to buy firearms from unlicensed sellers without background checks "


Holy crap, you're citing the f'ing Brady campaign?  The same group that got busted talking about how many "Children" are killed each year by guns until they got called out for classifying anyone under the age of 26 as a 'child' and including people the Police shot during the commission of a crime?  Really?
 
2013-01-31 07:16:10 PM  

whidbey: I submit that the NRA and the other gun lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of firearms as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.


I submit that the ACLU and the other speech lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of books and magazines as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.
 
2013-01-31 07:16:54 PM  

RevMercutio: muck4doo: Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.

Serial numbers can be taken out.

And giant meteors can fall on your house tomorrow. Just because something can happen doesn't mean it always does.


Yes, giant meteors falling on my house and criminals scratching out serial numbers on illegally purchased guns have the same absolute chance of happening.

/This is why most people don't take you gun grabbing tards seriously.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:07 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier

CPR, AED, First Responder, Lifeguard Trainer, and Emergency Tracheotomy. I've used it twice, both times in a situation where someone was in peril (anaphylactic shock and a distressed child struggling to stay above water, in that order). I don't own a gun, and I'm a liberal.

If you've fired a gun at a human being with the sole purpose of saving the lives of people around you less than 2 times, then I'm winning that race. There are better means to save a life than carrying a projectile launcher.
So by your argument, if we find a person who has had your training and not saved anyone than their efforts are wasted?

So your claim is since I -one person out of millions- have thankfully never had to discharge my weapon than all guns are useless for defense? I've never driven my car to NY. Does that mean cars aren't needed in NY State?

You're free to google up the thousands of times firearms are used by non-cops to save lives. I posted a list of 7 or so just this month -including examples with "AR15 style firearms"- in another thread yesterday, so it shouldn't be to hard for you to find.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:21 PM  

whidbey: Farkage: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

So if a criminal breaks into your locked garage, steals your car and kills someone with it, you go to jail because f*ck you.  That's what you're saying?

No,  you are saying that a gun should be equated with an automobile.  Which has nothing to do with my point.


You're saying you should be held responsible for what someone does with your property even when you've taken steps to secure it.  In other words, what I said was dead on.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:24 PM  

Farkage: Princess Ryans Knickers: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 80 percent of state inmates purchased guns from family, friends, a street buy or an illegal source. Those guns don't grow on trees. ATF trafficking investigations show that many of them come from trafficking from gun shows.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloo ph ole#Harlow

Gun shows are a major trafficking channel according to ATF, with an average of 130 guns trafficked per investigation, and over 25,000 firearms trafficked in total over one 17-month period alone http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloop h ole#ATF

Bush Attorney General Gonzales:  "...gun shows are a marketplace for felons and other prohibited persons to buy firearms from unlicensed sellers without background checks "

Holy crap, you're citing the f'ing Brady campaign?  The same group that got busted talking about how many "Children" are killed each year by guns until they got called out for classifying anyone under the age of 26 as a 'child' and including people the Police shot during the commission of a crime?  Really?


Attack the source... also known as having no argument or supporting facts to defend their position. AKA Fail.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:41 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: I submit that the NRA and the other gun lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of firearms as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.

I submit that the ACLU and the other speech lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of books and magazines as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.


Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:44 PM  

OnlyM3: highendmighty
Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms. It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use. Expensive? Yes. More valuable than innocent human lives? We've spent more money on less noble causes... even those clowns on mythbusters were able to circumvent biometric locks. Care to try for a real world, non-sci-fi answer?


Are you serious?  Mythbusters said it isn't possible, ergo ???
You are assuming I am taking a "do it today" position, talking like a politician who thinks if you can't do it now,  it won't matter for the future.  It's called investing resources into something that will matter for generations, not whether or not implementing a half-assed plan today would make a half-assed difference tomorrow.
Everything is science fiction - that's how we develop technology; and, the truth is, there are multiple  smart gun technologies on the verge of working as reliably as the existing mechanisms.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:56 PM  
A paraprofessional suffered minor injuries when she was trampled by students who had heard the gunshot
 
DAFUG?
 
2013-01-31 07:18:34 PM  

whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.


Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.
 
2013-01-31 07:18:48 PM  

Farkage: No, you are saying that a gun should be equated with an automobile. Which has nothing to do with my point.

You're saying you should be held responsible for what someone does with your property even when you've taken steps to secure it. In other words, what I said was dead on.


I am talking about a GUN.  Which someone OWNS and was stolen.

Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?
 
2013-01-31 07:19:25 PM  

pedrop357: I submit that the ACLU and the other speech lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of books and magazines as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.


Magazines, I can see.
What about round clips?
 
2013-01-31 07:19:33 PM  

whidbey: I am talking about a GUN. Which someone OWNS and was stolen.

Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?


You're a farking moron if you can't understand the usefulness of parallels and analogies.
 
2013-01-31 07:21:01 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.


Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.
 
2013-01-31 07:21:20 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: HeWhoHasNoName: The 40% falsehood is from a single poorly-conducted survey from before background checks were even in place under the Brady Act. It included transactions between immediate family members, dealers buying from the public and from other dealers, and several other situations that can only be construed as "loopholes" with extraordinary intellectual dishonesty.

The actual figure for the type of transactions you're trying to represent is significantly less than 10%.

Odd since someone else further up the thread from you provided the 40% and he, also, was claiming I was wrong. Funnily he had supporting documentation... and you don't.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-l ot t#

That link includes the .pdf to the original survey - which was less than 300 samples, and was conducted more than two decades ago, at a point in time prior to changes in federal law about how gun sales were conducted.  Ignoring for a moment that less than 300 samples is dubiously small for the subject in question, that data is two decades and a significant change in federal law out of date.

So yes.  I DO have documentation.  You can choose to ignore it or try and wave your arms around and call it spin or propaganda or whatever excuse I'm sure you'll trot out to try and salvage your argument, but the fact of the matter is that analysis of the data by people more familiar with the details of the laws and activities in question at the time the data was collected have determined the "40%" figure is factually inaccurate as a representation of "overall gun sales without background checks".

Continue to present it as such at your own imperilment of what little credibility you have left.
 
2013-01-31 07:21:27 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.


You're talking to whidbey. Authoritarian extraordinaire.
 
2013-01-31 07:21:31 PM  

muck4doo: RevMercutio: muck4doo: Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.

Serial numbers can be taken out.

And giant meteors can fall on your house tomorrow. Just because something can happen doesn't mean it always does.

Yes, giant meteors falling on my house and criminals scratching out serial numbers on illegally purchased guns have the same absolute chance of happening.

/This is why most people don't take you gun grabbing tards seriously.


Not a gun grabber. Try again.
 
2013-01-31 07:21:40 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.


Bullshiat.

We are talking about GUNS.  Not anything else.   If you can't discuss the actual topic, then I have no use for you.
 
2013-01-31 07:22:03 PM  

whidbey: Farkage: No, you are saying that a gun should be equated with an automobile. Which has nothing to do with my point.

You're saying you should be held responsible for what someone does with your property even when you've taken steps to secure it. In other words, what I said was dead on.

I am talking about a GUN.  Which someone OWNS and was stolen.

Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?


I'm talking about your CAR.  Which (in this argument) you OWN and was STOLEN.  Obviously you should go to jail if someone gets hurt as a result of how the thief uses it.
Honestly, what is the difference here?  Are you to be held responsible for your property or not?
 
2013-01-31 07:22:12 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.



The right of the people is not limited by the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-01-31 07:22:39 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: I am talking about a GUN. Which someone OWNS and was stolen.

Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?

You're a farking moron if you can't understand the usefulness of parallels and analogies.


Ah personal attacks.

The hallmark of a weak argument.
 
2013-01-31 07:22:44 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks? You are Soft on Crime if you don't support changing the law to change this.


Sorry Princess, but false and misleading statements are false and misleading. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show. Source

And has already been pointed out upthread, the 40% figure is not painting an accurate picture. It includes a lot more than sales made at gun shows.

Lastly, your "often no background checks" statement is patently false and uninformed.
 
2013-01-31 07:22:55 PM  

highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...


When such a system is 100% reliable and effective, fine, feel free to mandate it. Not 99.99999999999999% Even a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that it could prevent my gun from going off when I pull the trigger is unacceptable. You can test it on guns issued to federal agents, police officers, and military until its all nailed down. Until then you can pound sand, it has absolutely no place on my carry arm.
 
2013-01-31 07:23:08 PM  

muck4doo: pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.

You're talking to whidbey. Authoritarian extraordinaire.


I know.  He's in asshole 'grey 1'  for me, but it's nice to see how far he's willing to go with his BS.
 
2013-01-31 07:23:52 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: False, NRA's LaPierre stated, and you can find this video on YouTube, to Congress that there IS a gun show loophole.


It's not a "loophole", any more than buying a used car privately is a "used car loophole".

With cars, you can go through a dealer (who states tend to regulate fairly strictly), or you buy from an individual.  Because the individuals aren't regularly in the business of selling cars, they don't have to go through the large amount of red tape that people who do it for a living do.  This is fortunate, as it would place a rather large burden on them.  The alternative would be to force individuals to sell all cars through dealers, which would be ridiculous.

Likewise, businesses that sell things regularly are required to have business licenses, meet zoning and code requirements, collect taxes, etc.  Individuals who sell their old goods infrequently aren't required to do so - they are private sellers, selling private property, not as a business.  Requiring everyone on eBay to go through a "licensed reseller" is also ridiculous, and poses an undue burden for sellers.

Guns are the same way.  If you regularly sell guns, you are a business, and are regulated like one.  You have to register with the federal government, deal with all city/state/federal laws, regulations, and taxes, and run background checks.  If you are an individual who occasionally sells, trades, or gifts property, this is a rather large burden to go through.  Requiring everyone who ever transfers a gun to go through a licensed dealer is also ridiculous, and poses an undue burden.

I have a CCW.  I have a friend who also has a CCW.  We own a security company together.  We've both been through strict background checks.  There is no sensible reason for the two of us to have to use a dealer to trade firearms to each other, yet we're part of the so-called "loophole".  Parents shouldn't need to use a dealer to give a firearm for hunting or target practice to their child, especially after they have already gone through a background check themselves to purchase the firearm.

The number one way criminals get guns (per ATF, 1994)  is through straw purchases - someone who can pass a background check buying them from someone who won't.  The next largest source is by corrupt firearms dealers.  Another source is illegal sellers who resell guns that were stolen or purchased by straw purchasers.

Yes, an insignificant percentage of sales at gun shows are private sales that don't require a background check.  The selection is generally poor, and the dealers themselves are fairly hard to find.  Unlike a lot of the talking heads, I've specifically gone to gun shows to try to find private parties and see what they have for sale.  It's not a loophole, and it's not the problem.
 
2013-01-31 07:23:57 PM  

whidbey: Ah personal attacks.

The hallmark of a weak argument.


I know.  I figured I need a weak argument against some who only seems to understand and formulate weak arguments.
 
2013-01-31 07:24:00 PM  

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.


The right of the people is not limited by the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment.


Really? Oddly Supreme Court Justice Scalia disagreed with you. You know him right? The ultra right wing strict Constutionalist?
 
2013-01-31 07:24:16 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Farkage: Princess Ryans Knickers: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 80 percent of state inmates purchased guns from family, friends, a street buy or an illegal source. Those guns don't grow on trees. ATF trafficking investigations show that many of them come from trafficking from gun shows.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloo ph ole#Harlow

Gun shows are a major trafficking channel according to ATF, with an average of 130 guns trafficked per investigation, and over 25,000 firearms trafficked in total over one 17-month period alone http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloop h ole#ATF

Bush Attorney General Gonzales:  "...gun shows are a marketplace for felons and other prohibited persons to buy firearms from unlicensed sellers without background checks "

Holy crap, you're citing the f'ing Brady campaign?  The same group that got busted talking about how many "Children" are killed each year by guns until they got called out for classifying anyone under the age of 26 as a 'child' and including people the Police shot during the commission of a crime?  Really?

Attack the source... also known as having no argument or supporting facts to defend their position. AKA Fail.


Wow... You fail here.  I don't go to Fox News for data on Global Warming and I don't go to the Brady Campaign for data on firearms.  There are more reliable sources that aren't provably full of sh*t on the issue.  And no, I don't go to the NRA either.  Nice to see you cherry pick your fake statistics though.
 
2013-01-31 07:24:20 PM  

Farkage: Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?

I'm talking about your CAR. Which (in this argument) you OWN and was STOLEN. Obviously you should go to jail if someone gets hurt as a result of how the thief uses it.
Honestly, what is the difference here? Are you to be held responsible for your property or not?


Because a car is not a weapon.

You are clearly misunderstanding my comment to mean ALL property.    Yes, in this case, a gun is a piece of property which the owner should be held accountable for, no matter what.

Saying "he did his best to secure it" is a defense that should be heard in a courtroom.
 
2013-01-31 07:24:22 PM  
handgun

So naturally let's ban AR15's
 
2013-01-31 07:24:32 PM  

whidbey: pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.

Bullshiat.

We are talking about GUNS.  Not anything else.   If you can't discuss the actual topic, then I have no use for you.


That's our authoritarian whidbey. He whittles away at the Constitution one amendment at a time,
 
2013-01-31 07:24:34 PM  

iq_in_binary: highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...

When such a system is 100% reliable and effective, fine, feel free to mandate it. Not 99.99999999999999% Even a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that it could prevent my gun from going off when I pull the trigger is unacceptable. You can test it on guns issued to federal agents, police officers, and military until its all nailed down. Until then you can pound sand, it has absolutely no place on my carry arm.


Your gun is not 100% reliable.
 
2013-01-31 07:24:41 PM  

texdent: We should just ban schools.


Funny/sad thing is, I've had a teabagger argue with me that we should just scrap public schools altogether.  Reasons included:
1) Kids these days don't want to learn anyway, so why waste our money on their ungrateful asses?
(as if kids have ever understood the value of education or appreciated what it takes for society to raise them)

2) Those kids would be better off going into the workforce right away, rather than waste all those years learning things they won't use anyway.  Then, by the time they would have just been finishing high school, they will own their own business!
(because nothing says "successful business owner" like someone who can't do basic arithmetic, read, write, and missed out on all the social development that comes from interacting with peers in school)

3) Our schools are falling behind those in several other countries anyway, so let's stop wasting money on these teachers and administrators, because anything but further decreasing of funding is rewarding them for failing our children.
(perfect solution fallacy, where would modern conservatives be without it.)

4) {When asked why he is so against using similar approaches that these more successful countries use to get better results, with less money, than U.S. schools}  SOSHULIZM!!!! MURIKAN ACCEPTIONALIZM!!!!
 
2013-01-31 07:25:01 PM  
Is this thread cross posted the Mole tab or something?
 
2013-01-31 07:25:10 PM  

Biner: Princess Ryans Knickers: Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks? You are Soft on Crime if you don't support changing the law to change this.

Sorry Princess, but false and misleading statements are false and misleading. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show. Source

And has already been pointed out upthread, the 40% figure is not painting an accurate picture. It includes a lot more than sales made at gun shows.

Lastly, your "often no background checks" statement is patently false and uninformed.


So you deny that the vast majority of private gun sales (which are unregulated) are done at gun shows and only 7 states bother to regulate?
 
2013-01-31 07:25:24 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.

Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.


Now I know you're a troll.

Well played, though.  Masterful, even.  We must do this more often.
 
2013-01-31 07:25:37 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: Ah personal attacks.

The hallmark of a weak argument.

I know.  I figured I need a weak argument against some who only seems to understand and formulate weak arguments.


My argument stands.

Gun owners should be held accountable for their property.

So far, I have not heard a reasonable counter to that.
 
2013-01-31 07:25:39 PM  

RevMercutio: muck4doo: RevMercutio: muck4doo: Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.

Serial numbers can be taken out.

And giant meteors can fall on your house tomorrow. Just because something can happen doesn't mean it always does.

Yes, giant meteors falling on my house and criminals scratching out serial numbers on illegally purchased guns have the same absolute chance of happening.

/This is why most people don't take you gun grabbing tards seriously.

Not a gun grabber. Try again.


Meteor grabber?
 
2013-01-31 07:26:31 PM  
Which makes more sense....?

Locking up all teenage boys?
Banning "Assault Rifles"?

Banning "Assault Rifles" will prevent less than 1% of school shootings, but locking up all teenage boys will prevent 98% of school shootings.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

For our children's safety, we MUST lock up all teenage boys.
 
2013-01-31 07:26:50 PM  

whidbey: Bullshiat.

We are talking about GUNS. Not anything else. If you can't discuss the actual topic, then I have no use for you.


In other words, the discussion terms are to be set by you and you want to control them as much as possible so as to render any argument but yours to be invalid.
 
2013-01-31 07:26:56 PM  

Kathrin: It's not a "loophole", any more than buying a used car privately is a "used car loophole".


 A loophole that the NRA lobbied (bribed) heavily to get into place in order to not hurt sales.
 
2013-01-31 07:26:56 PM  
And the witch hunt continues! This is not news.

Oh and guess what? The shooter was stopped by an armed guard! OMG! The horror of having armed guards in schools!
 
2013-01-31 07:27:00 PM  

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.


The right of the people is not limited by the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment.


I got your back on this one!
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
 
2013-01-31 07:27:37 PM  
Update: Armed officer working at middle school disarmed suspect, says chief. But remember, guns are always bad and the NRA was crazy to suggest more armed guards at schools.
 
2013-01-31 07:27:37 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 80 percent of state inmates purchased guns from family, friends, a street buy or an illegal source. Those guns don't grow on trees. ATF trafficking investigations show that many of them come from trafficking from gun shows.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloo ph ole#Harlow

Gun shows are a major trafficking channel according to ATF, with an average of 130 guns trafficked per investigation, and over 25,000 firearms trafficked in total over one 17-month period alone http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloop h ole#ATF

Bush Attorney General Gonzales:  "...gun shows are a marketplace for felons and other prohibited persons to buy firearms from unlicensed sellers without background checks "


Citing the Brady Campaign is about as asinine as pulling a cite from Conservapedia, just so you know.

Even the director of the FBI doesn't want anything to do with their blatant bullshiat.
 
2013-01-31 07:27:42 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Attack the source...


The source in this case is demonstrably dishonest.
 
2013-01-31 07:27:48 PM  

Farkage: Wow... You fail here. I don't go to Fox News for data on Global Warming and I don't go to the Brady Campaign for data on firearms. There are more reliable sources that aren't provably full of sh*t on the issue. And no, I don't go to the NRA either. Nice to see you cherry pick your fake statistics though.


I'm sorry, did you say you got nothing?
 
2013-01-31 07:28:13 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.


The right of the people is not limited by the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment.

Really? Oddly Supreme Court Justice Scalia disagreed with you. You know him right? The ultra right wing strict Constutionalist?


He never said that the well regulated militia clause in any way limits the right of the people, nor did anyone else who concurred in the two modern firearm cases.

Nice try though.
 
2013-01-31 07:28:18 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: Bullshiat.

We are talking about GUNS. Not anything else. If you can't discuss the actual topic, then I have no use for you.

In other words, the discussion terms are to be set by you and you want to control them as much as possible so as to render any argument but yours to be invalid.


Hey, don't be too harsh on my jack booted little friend there. We both enjoy IHOP.
 
2013-01-31 07:28:31 PM  

pedrop357: Mugato: It is pretty retarded though that we have all these background check laws and anyone can walk into a gun show and buy anything they want with no ID check whatsoever. I'm not saying the background checks help but if you're going to have them, don't leave such an obvious loophole.

Citation needed.

Dealer sales, which are the overwhelming majority of gun sales at gun shows, ALWAYS require a background check.  If you want to ban all private sales, have the guts to come right out and call for it.  Don't hide behind "gun shows".

Gun shows do not have any special laws that exempt sales there vs other places.


I bought a gun at a a gun show with no ID. A friend of mine bought one at a separate gun show with no ID. It's pretty well known that gun shows don't do background checks. Closing that loop hole is even part of the proposed gun control bill.
 
2013-01-31 07:29:13 PM  

muck4doo: RevMercutio: muck4doo: RevMercutio: muck4doo: Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.

Serial numbers can be taken out.

And giant meteors can fall on your house tomorrow. Just because something can happen doesn't mean it always does.

Yes, giant meteors falling on my house and criminals scratching out serial numbers on illegally purchased guns have the same absolute chance of happening.

/This is why most people don't take you gun grabbing tards seriously.

Not a gun grabber. Try again.

Meteor grabber?


Only if I get sweet superpowers.
 
2013-01-31 07:30:02 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Kathrin: It's not a "loophole", any more than buying a used car privately is a "used car loophole".

 A loophole that the NRA lobbied (bribed) heavily to get into place in order to not hurt sales.


So you're saying that Congress in 1968 and  again in 1993 went out of their way to focus on only dealer sales because the NRA bribed them to?

You really need to read the history of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and read the reasoning given for the laws and provisions included within it.
 
2013-01-31 07:30:07 PM  

whidbey: Farkage: Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?

I'm talking about your CAR. Which (in this argument) you OWN and was STOLEN. Obviously you should go to jail if someone gets hurt as a result of how the thief uses it.
Honestly, what is the difference here? Are you to be held responsible for your property or not?

Because a car is not a weapon.

You are clearly misunderstanding my comment to mean ALL property.    Yes, in this case, a gun is a piece of property which the owner should be held accountable for, no matter what.

Saying "he did his best to secure it" is a defense that should be heard in a court


A car is a piece of property capable of causing tremendous damage as well.  I guess we can work that out if I'm on a jury listening to you whine about how it got stolen from your locked garage by an unlicensed felon though.  Have a nice time with the legal fees.
 
2013-01-31 07:30:59 PM  
whidbey

You clearly don't want this country to have any kind of uniform standards in place regarding firearms. My point was that if we had, neither Columbine nor Sandy Hook might have occurred.

This is not "moving goalposts, this is you attempting to avoid the point altogether.

You argued background checks would have prevented columbine

I countered that shooting involved firearms purchased through background checks, thus refuting your point.

You then attempted to move the goal-post by stating (and I quote)
How would background checks stop "law-abiding people" from legally buying firearms?


Again, that's not how debates work.

YOU made the claim.
YOU were proven Wrong.

You don't get to now put the burden on me for your failure to honestly and correctly address a position you put forward.

You're trying to change the argument and that's just not how debates work. You made a claim You were proven wrong. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders as you made the claim.

The only question now remaining, is if your initial incorrect statement of facts was due to (best case) ignorance or (worst case) blatant lying. If it's the former, you can be dismissed as simply ignorant of the topic at hand. If the latter, you're simply a political hack trying to score points by fabrication. Neither puts you in a positive light.
 
2013-01-31 07:31:02 PM  

whidbey: My argument stands.

Gun owners should be held accountable for their property.

So far, I have not heard a reasonable counter to that.


You want them to be responsible for their property in a manner and to a degree that is unprecedented anywhere else if you want them to be responsible for thefts from secured containers.
 
2013-01-31 07:31:11 PM  

Farkage: Mike Chewbacca: Farkage: Mike Chewbacca: Farkage: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

You do realize that car insurance is to fix someone else s car if you cause an accident.  (Or pay their medical bills).  It doesn't even remotely decrease the frequency of accidents, so in this case, it's a f*cking "gun fee" plain and simple.

And? If someone's irresponsibility allowed someone else to be harmed by their firearm, shouldn't the victim be assured their losses will be covered?

Yep.  Sue them, just like what happens now.  Do you own a hammer or club?  Maybe you should get insurance just in case.  After all, I don't know you or what you're capable of...
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-mor e- people-than-rifles-shotguns/

Better yet, file a claim with their firearm insurer and get your bills covered immediately without having to hire a lawyer. Also, your quote conveniently leaves out handguns.

My point stands since one of the jumping up and down screaming points is we have to ban "assault weapons", which are rifles by the way.  That's ...


No it doesn't, because that's not the point I brought up.
 
2013-01-31 07:31:34 PM  

RevMercutio: muck4doo: RevMercutio: muck4doo: RevMercutio: muck4doo: Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.

Serial numbers can be taken out.

And giant meteors can fall on your house tomorrow. Just because something can happen doesn't mean it always does.

Yes, giant meteors falling on my house and criminals scratching out serial numbers on illegally purchased guns have the same absolute chance of happening.

/This is why most people don't take you gun grabbing tards seriously.

Not a gun grabber. Try again.

Meteor grabber?

Only if I get sweet superpowers.


You got my vote
 
2013-01-31 07:32:47 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: DYK that convicted felons can legally purchase guns in Ohio? This is just one of MANY states that allow it.


It depends on the felony.  Sometimes, felons can get their rights restored, too.  Ohio doesn't feel that someone guilty of willful failure to file tax returns, or computer trespass (for example) needs to have their gun rights taken away.

"Ohio Revised Code ("R.C.") Section 2923.13 creates a state weapons disability for anyone who (1) is a fugitive from justice; (2) is under indictment for or has been convicted of any  offense of violence;[1] (3) has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense of violence; (4) is under indictment for or has been convicted of any offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse; (5) has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been an offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse; (6) is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic; or (7) is under adjudication of mental incompetence, has been adjudicated as a mental defective, has been committed to a mental institution, has been found by a court to be a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order,[2] or is an involuntary patient other than one who is a patient only for purposes of observation.[3] State weapons disabilities can be relieved in one of two ways: by court order or by an unconditional pardon from the Governor. "
 
2013-01-31 07:33:32 PM  

OnlyM3: whidbey

You clearly don't want this country to have any kind of uniform standards in place regarding firearms. My point was that if we had, neither Columbine nor Sandy Hook might have occurred.

This is not "moving goalposts, this is you attempting to avoid the point altogether.
You argued background checks would have prevented columbine

I countered that shooting involved firearms purchased through background checks, thus refuting your point.

You then attempted to move the goal-post by stating (and I quote)
How would background checks stop "law-abiding people" from legally buying firearms?

Again, that's not how debates work.

YOU made the claim.
YOU were proven Wrong.

You don't get to now put the burden on me for your failure to honestly and correctly address a position you put forward.

You're trying to change the argument and that's just not how debates work. You made a claim You were proven wrong. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders as you made the claim.

The only question now remaining, is if your initial incorrect statement of facts was due to (best case) ignorance or (worst case) blatant lying. If it's the former, you can be dismissed as simply ignorant of the topic at hand. If the latter, you're simply a political hack trying to score points by fabrication. Neither puts you in a positive light.


Seriously, can you stop a meteor? I am interested more in meteor stopping power.
 
2013-01-31 07:33:43 PM  

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.


The right of the people is not limited by the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment.

Really? Oddly Supreme Court Justice Scalia disagreed with you. You know him right? The ultra right wing strict Constutionalist?

He never said that the well regulated militia clause in any way limits the right of the people, nor did anyone else who concurred in the two modern firearm cases.

Nice try though.


Scalia, while speaking to FOX News:

"I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," he said. "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities. "
 
2013-01-31 07:34:20 PM  
whidbey

I submit that the NRA and the other gun lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of firearms as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.
So now you've run around in circles and still proven nothing. Your post here is the same as your initial post.

You made the same claim above, yet when challenged to prove your proposition would have solved this problem you -through ignorance or flat out lies- presented false information.
 
2013-01-31 07:35:00 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Princess Ryans Knickers: Attack the source...

The source in this case is demonstrably dishonest.


Is it? They point to the actual studies and governmental reviews on the governmental sites. What do you got?
 
2013-01-31 07:35:03 PM  
While all you tards are sitting there talking guns, there are billions of meteors out there aiming for your house.
 
2013-01-31 07:35:04 PM  

Mugato: I bought a gun at a a gun show with no ID. A friend of mine bought one at a separate gun show with no ID. It's pretty well known that gun shows don't do background checks. Closing that loop hole is even part of the proposed gun control bill.


So you bought from private individuals.  You can do that anywhere.

Gun shows don't do background checks because gun shows don't sell guns.  Gun shows are places where individuals companies set up displays and sell according to the law-. Dealers, which are the vast, overwhelming majority of the hundred or so shows I've attended, have to do background checks no matter where they sell.   Under federal law, private people have never had to do paperwork and never had to perform background checks anywhere they sell, except in a small number of states that require all sales to go through a dealer or (misguidedly) require private sales at gun shows (but not in other places) to undergo background checks.
 
2013-01-31 07:35:50 PM  

highendmighty: iq_in_binary: highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...

When such a system is 100% reliable and effective, fine, feel free to mandate it. Not 99.99999999999999% Even a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that it could prevent my gun from going off when I pull the trigger is unacceptable. You can test it on guns issued to federal agents, police officers, and military until its all nailed down. Until then you can pound sand, it has absolutely no place on my carry arm.

Your gun is not 100% reliable.


Which is exactly why introducing a system that will in any conceivable way add to the chances of the gun failing to fire is completely unreasonable.

When you have a system that is 100% reliable, then we can talk about putting it on my gun.

And for your information, my carry gun, so far, 4500+ rounds in, has yet to have a single failure to fire, failure to eject, or other malfunction that I didn't either purposefully cause or emulate for training purposes.

I also built the thing from scratch, which has something to do with it.
 
2013-01-31 07:36:23 PM  

texdent: We should just ban schools.


If we ban schools only criminals will have schools
 
2013-01-31 07:36:41 PM  

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: Kathrin: It's not a "loophole", any more than buying a used car privately is a "used car loophole".

 A loophole that the NRA lobbied (bribed) heavily to get into place in order to not hurt sales.

So you're saying that Congress in 1968 and  again in 1993 went out of their way to focus on only dealer sales because the NRA bribed them to?

You really need to read the history of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and read the reasoning given for the laws and provisions included within it.


Yes, the NRA before 1980 did support gun control efforts. That doesn't change their actions in 1993 and later. But then again they did support the Universal Background Check in 1999... before the blah man got into office.
 
2013-01-31 07:37:00 PM  
Move along.  Nothing to see here.  It's just blah people problems.  It'll be out of the news by tomorrow.
 
2013-01-31 07:37:07 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Scalia, while speaking to FOX News:

"I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," he said. "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities. "


I don't see him claiming the 'well regulated militia' portion of the 2nd amendment as allowing that particular view (which is actually counter to the view expressed by the SCOTUS in US v Miller)
 
2013-01-31 07:37:27 PM  

muck4doo: While all you tards are sitting there talking guns, there are billions of meteors out there aiming for your house.


grumpycat_good.jpg
 
2013-01-31 07:37:42 PM  
highendmighty


the truth is, there are multiple smart gun technologies on the verge of working as reliably as the existing mechanisms.
so you're admitting reliable "smart gun tech" does not exist today. So your side is demanding we use a solution that does not exist.
Why not demand we all be vaccinated against AIDS while you're at it.
 
2013-01-31 07:38:20 PM  

muck4doo: OnlyM3: whidbey

You clearly don't want this country to have any kind of uniform standards in place regarding firearms. My point was that if we had, neither Columbine nor Sandy Hook might have occurred.

This is not "moving goalposts, this is you attempting to avoid the point altogether.
You argued background checks would have prevented columbine

I countered that shooting involved firearms purchased through background checks, thus refuting your point.

You then attempted to move the goal-post by stating (and I quote)
How would background checks stop "law-abiding people" from legally buying firearms?

Again, that's not how debates work.

YOU made the claim.
YOU were proven Wrong.

You don't get to now put the burden on me for your failure to honestly and correctly address a position you put forward.

You're trying to change the argument and that's just not how debates work. You made a claim You were proven wrong. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders as you made the claim.

The only question now remaining, is if your initial incorrect statement of facts was due to (best case) ignorance or (worst case) blatant lying. If it's the former, you can be dismissed as simply ignorant of the topic at hand. If the latter, you're simply a political hack trying to score points by fabrication. Neither puts you in a positive light.

Seriously, can you stop a meteor? I am interested more in meteor stopping power.


I'm not. A nice meteor-borne E.L.E. would be a welcome change.
 
2013-01-31 07:38:51 PM  

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: Scalia, while speaking to FOX News:

"I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," he said. "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities. "

I don't see him claiming the 'well regulated militia' portion of the 2nd amendment as allowing that particular view (which is actually counter to the view expressed by the SCOTUS in US v Miller)


Funny, let's see what else he says:


""Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," Scalia asserted. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." "
 
2013-01-31 07:39:10 PM  

OnlyM3: whidbey

I submit that the NRA and the other gun lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of firearms as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem. So now you've run around in circles and still proven nothing. Your post here is the same as your initial post.

You made the same claim above, yet when challenged to prove your proposition would have solved this problem you -through ignorance or flat out lies- presented false information.


You realize you are talking to "skookum", right? Why anyone takes whidbey/skookum tard seriously is a mystery to me.
 
2013-01-31 07:39:37 PM  
Victims shot.  STILL ALIVE
 
2013-01-31 07:39:50 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: Kathrin: It's not a "loophole", any more than buying a used car privately is a "used car loophole".

 A loophole that the NRA lobbied (bribed) heavily to get into place in order to not hurt sales.

So you're saying that Congress in 1968 and  again in 1993 went out of their way to focus on only dealer sales because the NRA bribed them to?

You really need to read the history of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and read the reasoning given for the laws and provisions included within it.

Yes, the NRA before 1980 did support gun control efforts. That doesn't change their actions in 1993 and later. But then again they did support the Universal Background Check in 1999... before the blah man got into office.


Uh huh.  They supported something 14 years ago and then changed their minds a few years later, which is somehow related to the 'blah man' coming into office.  Not sure what a blah man is.
 
2013-01-31 07:40:36 PM  
OnlyM3:

So your claim is since I -one person out of millions- have thankfully never had to discharge my weapon than all guns are useless for defense? I've never driven my car to NY. Does that mean cars aren't needed in NY State?

You're free to google up the thousands of times firearms are used by non-cops to save lives. I posted a list of 7 or so just this month -including examples with "AR15 style firearms"- in another thread yesterday, so it shouldn't be to hard for you to find.


I never claimed that guns are worthless. I said there are better ways to save lives than guns. There is a noticeable difference. Some basic google work can find lots of examples of people with far more training than I saving lives in medicine.

Medical awareness requires certification from a respected authority, training on the appropriateness of use, training on avoiding liability (as long as I am acting within my knowledge base and not on duty as a professional than I am not liable under Indiana's Good Samaratin Law - individual results may vary), and the authority I have to use that training can be removed from me if I acted in a negligent manner.

A gun does not have mandatory safety training. There is no mandatory safety and appropriateness classes to take. There is no mandatory course for limiting liability. And people suspected of misconduct with a firearm (like shooting it into the air) do not have it taken from them.

If you look at deaths per 1000 Americans (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm ), the stuff I can stop affects children in the highest proportions (drowning, anaphalaxis). At 3782 deaths from drowning and 252 from discharge of firearms - undetermined intent, I stand by my words. Unless you have some insight into how to break down deaths from firearms into homicide vs self defense vs shot when cat stepped on the trigger. Because the CDC doesn't do that.
 
2013-01-31 07:40:37 PM  

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: Kathrin: It's not a "loophole", any more than buying a used car privately is a "used car loophole".

 A loophole that the NRA lobbied (bribed) heavily to get into place in order to not hurt sales.

So you're saying that Congress in 1968 and  again in 1993 went out of their way to focus on only dealer sales because the NRA bribed them to?

You really need to read the history of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and read the reasoning given for the laws and provisions included within it.

Yes, the NRA before 1980 did support gun control efforts. That doesn't change their actions in 1993 and later. But then again they did support the Universal Background Check in 1999... before the blah man got into office.

Uh huh.  They supported something 14 years ago and then changed their minds a few years later, which is somehow related to the 'blah man' coming into office.  Not sure what a blah man is.


http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/01/rick_santorum_say s_ hes_against.html
 
2013-01-31 07:40:55 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: So you don't deny that 40% had no background checks and that by refusing to close this loophole that you are helping to arm gangsters?


The study was from 1994.  The background check law went into effect February 28, 1994.  Almost all of the guns in the survey didn't have background checks, because it wasn't the law to do so.

Besides, it's 40% of transfers, not 40% of sales.  Over 75% of that 40% was friends and family.  Only 4.3% of the guns in the survey were bought at gun shows or flea markets, and the vast majority of sales at gun shows involve background checks today.  To use that study for any modern conclusions is intellectually dishonest.

If you look at where  criminals get their guns from, it's straw purchases, crooked dealers, and thefts.  More background checks at gun shows won't make a significant difference, and will place an undue burden on private sellers.
 
2013-01-31 07:41:00 PM  

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: Kathrin: It's not a "loophole", any more than buying a used car privately is a "used car loophole".

 A loophole that the NRA lobbied (bribed) heavily to get into place in order to not hurt sales.

So you're saying that Congress in 1968 and  again in 1993 went out of their way to focus on only dealer sales because the NRA bribed them to?

You really need to read the history of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and read the reasoning given for the laws and provisions included within it.

Yes, the NRA before 1980 did support gun control efforts. That doesn't change their actions in 1993 and later. But then again they did support the Universal Background Check in 1999... before the blah man got into office.

Uh huh.  They supported something 14 years ago and then changed their minds a few years later, which is somehow related to the 'blah man' coming into office.  Not sure what a blah man is.


Let me ask you something... if it had been a black man who had shot up all those white kids and teachers in Newtown would you be against or for a change in law? I already know the answer because I live in a deeply Southern, racist town and the answer is YES.
 
2013-01-31 07:41:28 PM  

whidbey: I think all gun threads at Fark should have to suddenly terminate after a 100 comment limit.


Once it goes over 100 I just scroll through and look for red/blue/yellow stripes
 
2013-01-31 07:41:58 PM  
Anyway, was fun arguing with you guys but I need to hit the sack, prepping for a Fitness model show!!
 
2013-01-31 07:42:03 PM  

jchic: EatenTheSun: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

How exactly do you think that would stop things like this from happening?

Never said it would.  But then again how many automobile fatalities have been prevented by having operators restricted/licensed?  You can't say that X or Y would have prevented Z but you can decide that an item whose sole purpose is to destroy should be at least as regulated as many other items in our daily lives.


Very well put and I totally agree. Unfortunately, some people conflate any attempt at regulation with a total gun grab. That mentality makes about as much sense to me as protesting over renewing my driver's license because the big, scary government really just wants to take my car away.
 
2013-01-31 07:42:04 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: ""Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," Scalia asserted. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." "


yep, he's going down the path of "rights aren't' unlimited", which is still not being derived from the "well regulated militia" clause as you implied when you said this: Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.
 
2013-01-31 07:42:07 PM  

Kathrin: Princess Ryans Knickers: DYK that convicted felons can legally purchase guns in Ohio? This is just one of MANY states that allow it.

It depends on the felony.  Sometimes, felons can get their rights restored, too.  Ohio doesn't feel that someone guilty of willful failure to file tax returns, or computer trespass (for example) needs to have their gun rights taken away.

"Ohio Revised Code ("R.C.") Section 2923.13 creates a state weapons disability for anyone who (1) is a fugitive from justice; (2) is under indictment for or has been convicted of any  offense of violence;[1] (3) has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense of violence; (4) is under indictment for or has been convicted of any offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse; (5) has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been an offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse; (6) is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic; or (7) is under adjudication of mental incompetence, has been adjudicated as a mental defective, has been committed to a mental institution, has been found by a court to be a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order,[2] or is an involuntary patient other than one who is a patient only for purposes of observation.[3] State weapons disabilities can be relieved in one of two ways: by court order or by an unconditional pardon from the Governor. "


If it's a crime that is punishable (not was punished, but could have been) by more than 1 year in prison, the person is still prohibited under federal law, and there is currently no recourse for that because Congress refuses to fund the office at the BATF that handles federal rights restoration for individuals prohibited due to criminal convictions.
 
2013-01-31 07:42:09 PM  

pedrop357: Mugato: I bought a gun at a a gun show with no ID. A friend of mine bought one at a separate gun show with no ID. It's pretty well known that gun shows don't do background checks. Closing that loop hole is even part of the proposed gun control bill.

So you bought from private individuals.  You can do that anywhere.

Gun shows don't do background checks because gun shows don't sell guns.  Gun shows are places where individuals companies set up displays and sell according to the law-. Dealers, which are the vast, overwhelming majority of the hundred or so shows I've attended, have to do background checks no matter where they sell.   Under federal law, private people have never had to do paperwork and never had to perform background checks anywhere they sell, except in a small number of states that require all sales to go through a dealer or (misguidedly) require private sales at gun shows (but not in other places) to undergo background checks.



Okay so I guess you know more than the people who drafted the gun control law.
 
2013-01-31 07:44:12 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Let me ask you something... if it had been a black man who had shot up all those white kids and teachers in Newtown would you be against or for a change in law? I already know the answer because I live in a deeply Southern, racist town and the answer is YES.


I'd still be against it.  I'm not sure how the sentiment in YOUR deeply Southern, racist town relates to whether I would be for or against a change in the law.
 
2013-01-31 07:44:34 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Anyway, was fun arguing with you guys but I need to hit the sack, prepping for a Fitness model show!!


Is this the new "gym in 26 minutes"?
 
2013-01-31 07:45:31 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: Very well put and I totally agree. Unfortunately, some people conflate any attempt at regulation with a total gun grab. That mentality makes about as much sense to me as protesting over renewing my driver's license because the big, scary government really just wants to take my car away.


Except that vehicle registration has never been used , or proposed to be used, for vehicle confiscation.  Gun registration HAS in the US been used for confiscation, and proposals have been floated around periodically.
 
2013-01-31 07:45:32 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: So you deny that the vast majority of private gun sales (which are unregulated) are done at gun shows and only 7 states bother to regulate?


Not around here.  Far more guns sell through the local classifieds than through private sellers at the local gun shows.
 
2013-01-31 07:47:05 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: A loophole that the NRA lobbied (bribed) heavily to get into place in order to not hurt sales.


Uh, what sales are you talking about?

Manufacturers have to sell to dealers, dealers have to do background checks.  If anything, the used market hurts sales of new guns.
 
2013-01-31 07:47:07 PM  
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier

I never claimed that guns are worthless. I said there are better ways to save lives than guns.
Since this is the only line in your off topic rambling that has anything to do with the topic at hand, it will be the only one I address.

A firearm is only 1 tool i the toolbox. Nobody here -that I've seen- is opposing any of your medical options for saving life once a person is injured -completely OFF TOPIC btw- . We however have a preventative tool at our disposal that shall not be taken from us.

Your support of limiting options is as silly as saying ONLY CPR should be allowed, but no blood transfusions.
 
2013-01-31 07:47:16 PM  

Mugato: Okay so I guess you know more than the people who drafted the gun control law.


I don't, nor do I have to.  I have read it though and seen how they went out of their way to define dealers, and by extension the group of people covered under the law(s).  Had they intended for all sales to be subject to paperwork, they could have done so easily in 1968.  Had they wanted all sales to be subject to background check, they could have done so in 1993.
 
2013-01-31 07:48:35 PM  

Securitywyrm: Because licenses and insurance have done so much to stop the unlicensed and uninsured drivers out there that there isn't a specific line on all auto insurance forms for 'uninsured driver.'


Funny thing about that.

Last summer some dumb biatch made a left turn out of a parking lot right in front of me. I didn't have time to stop, and I hit her. My car was totalled, her car was damaged enough that it was pouring gasoline everywhere. I had a severely sprained ankle with an avulsion fracture. Turns out, the lady didn't have insurance. She got a $277 ticket for failing to yield the right of way and a $500 ticket for driving without insurance. She's also going to lose her license for three years because of Washington's Financial Responsibility Law (my insurer is suing her to recover the money they paid out to me through my uninsured motorist insurance). So because this driver was irresponsible and a) caused an accident and b) was uninsured, she's losing her driver's license for 3 years, and when she DOES finally get a car again, she'll be paying out the nose for auto insurance. There's not reason whatsoever that there shouldn't be a similar penalty for gun owners who are negligent.
 
2013-01-31 07:48:55 PM  
It's getting to the point where nobody seems to feel anything or mourn anymore, they just start yelling at each other.
 
2013-01-31 07:49:45 PM  
ts4.mm.bing.net
 
2013-01-31 07:50:48 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: OnlyM3:

So your claim is since I -one person out of millions- have thankfully never had to discharge my weapon than all guns are useless for defense? I've never driven my car to NY. Does that mean cars aren't needed in NY State?

You're free to google up the thousands of times firearms are used by non-cops to save lives. I posted a list of 7 or so just this month -including examples with "AR15 style firearms"- in another thread yesterday, so it shouldn't be to hard for you to find.

I never claimed that guns are worthless. I said there are better ways to save lives than guns. There is a noticeable difference. Some basic google work can find lots of examples of people with far more training than I saving lives in medicine.

Medical awareness requires certification from a respected authority, training on the appropriateness of use, training on avoiding liability (as long as I am acting within my knowledge base and not on duty as a professional than I am not liable under Indiana's Good Samaratin Law - individual results may vary), and the authority I have to use that training can be removed from me if I acted in a negligent manner.

A gun does not have mandatory safety training. There is no mandatory safety and appropriateness classes to take. There is no mandatory course for limiting liability. And people suspected of misconduct with a firearm (like shooting it into the air) do not have it taken from them.

If you look at deaths per 1000 Americans (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm ), the stuff I can stop affects children in the highest proportions (drowning, anaphalaxis). At 3782 deaths from drowning and 252 from discharge of firearms - undetermined intent, I stand by my words. Unless you have some insight into how to break down deaths from firearms into homicide vs self defense vs shot when cat stepped on the trigger. Because the CDC doesn't do that.


Rates are per 100,000. I correct myself.
 
2013-01-31 07:51:15 PM  

Mike Chewbacca:

I don't know, but a minor got his hands on a gun and ammunition and brought it to school and shot someone in the head with it. Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.


Something like this maybe?

§ 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD.

A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a
readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal
negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person
knew or should have known the child would gain access.

"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON
AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE
LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."
 
2013-01-31 07:52:14 PM  

Kathrin

If you look at where criminals get their guns from, it's straw purchases, crooked dealers, and thefts. More background checks at gun shows won't make a significant difference, and will place an undue burden on private sellers.
Excellent post. Simple and to the point.
+1

The pro background check side has been given multiple chances to support checks but so far have only come up with data that is easily shown to be false.

Typical panicked -not thought out- reaction. DO SOMETHING. it doesn't have to work, just dooooo something!
 
2013-01-31 07:52:50 PM  

brap: It's getting to the point where nobody seems to feel anything or mourn anymore, they just start yelling at each other.


This. Exactly this.

And could someone please clue me in as to why half these idiots are using this thread to debate semi-automatic rifles and dead children when the incident involved a hand gun one and slightly wounded kid?
 
2013-01-31 07:53:52 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Biner: Princess Ryans Knickers: Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks? You are Soft on Crime if you don't support changing the law to change this.

Sorry Princess, but false and misleading statements are false and misleading. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show. Source

And has already been pointed out upthread, the 40% figure is not painting an accurate picture. It includes a lot more than sales made at gun shows.

Lastly, your "often no background checks" statement is patently false and uninformed.

So you deny that the vast majority of private gun sales (which are unregulated) are done at gun shows and only 7 states bother to regulate?


The vast majority of private guns sales do not happen at gun shows. They happen between two private parties, and not at the shows. And to repeat my key point: Convicted criminals purchase 0.7 percent of their guns at gun shows. Gun show sales have very little to do with gun crime. (Which is dropping BTW, despite the media's attempts to make us think otherwise.)

You've never actually been to a gun show, have you? The majority of gun show sales (don't have the figures handy and I'm not going to do any more of your research for you) are conducted by licensed dealers, who do indeed run a background check on all prospective purchasers. Re-read the DOJ report I linked to earlier and you'll see the majority of criminals are getting their guns either from "Friends or family" or from "Street/illegal source".
 
2013-01-31 07:54:09 PM  

TerminalEchoes: brap: It's getting to the point where nobody seems to feel anything or mourn anymore, they just start yelling at each other.

This. Exactly this.

And could someone please clue me in as to why half these idiots are using this thread to debate semi-automatic rifles and dead children when the incident involved a hand gun one and slightly wounded kid?


Because there's an agenda to be pushed.  We rarely heard about single events like this before, now anything involving a gun is farking News Flash.

We saw this crap after 9/11 with everything remotely related to terrorism, death, airplanes, etc. being front page news...
 
2013-01-31 07:54:16 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: if it had been a black man who had shot up all those white kids and teachers in Newtown would you be against or for a change in law?


Why do you feel the need to inject race into this?

Yes, some racists don't like it when black people have guns.  Case in point - laws passed to disarm the black panthers.

That doesn't mean anyone in favor of the right to keep and bear arms is racist.
 
2013-01-31 07:55:22 PM  

OnlyM3: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier

I never claimed that guns are worthless. I said there are better ways to save lives than guns. Since this is the only line in your off topic rambling that has anything to do with the topic at hand, it will be the only one I address.

A firearm is only 1 tool i the toolbox. Nobody here -that I've seen- is opposing any of your medical options for saving life once a person is injured -completely OFF TOPIC btw- . We however have a preventative tool at our disposal that shall not be taken from us.

Your support of limiting options is as silly as saying ONLY CPR should be allowed, but no blood transfusions.


A preventative tool. So the threat of someone else having a gun stops violence? Does that mean my reputation as an American Red Cross lifeguard stops drowning?

Guns are not to be taken away completely. We both agree that no one in this thread (myself included) supports that opinion. Guns DO need to be seriously regulated, and the lack of proper regulation/enforcement of existing regulations is a significant problem for a society already drawn to violent imagery and the glorification of said imagery.
 
2013-01-31 07:55:42 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Last summer some dumb biatch made a left turn out of a parking lot right in front of me. I didn't have time to stop, and I hit her. My car was totalled, her car was damaged enough that it was pouring gasoline everywhere. I had a severely sprained ankle with an avulsion fracture. Turns out, the lady didn't have insurance. She got a $277 ticket for failing to yield the right of way and a $500 ticket for driving without insurance. She's also going to lose her license for three years because of Washington's Financial Responsibility Law (my insurer is suing her to recover the money they paid out to me through my uninsured motorist insurance). So because this driver was irresponsible and a) caused an accident and b) was uninsured, she's losing her driver's license for 3 years, and when she DOES finally get a car again, she'll be paying out the nose for auto insurance. There's not reason whatsoever that there shouldn't be a similar penalty for gun owners who are negligent.


It comes down to the Second Amendment saying we have the right to bear arms, but nowhere does it say we have to be responsible with them. And now, of course, exact wording applies.

You can fill in your own reasons why anyone who would have a problem with making us more responsible with them.
 
2013-01-31 07:55:59 PM  

EatenTheSun: Mike Chewbacca:

I don't know, but a minor got his hands on a gun and ammunition and brought it to school and shot someone in the head with it. Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.

Something like this maybe?

§ 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD.

A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a
readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal
negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person
knew or should have known the child would gain access.

"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON
AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE
LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."


Stricter than that. Longer prison sentence and permanent loss of the right to own or handle a firearm.
 
2013-01-31 07:56:16 PM  
Mike Chewbacca:

I don't know, but a minor got his hands on a gun and ammunition and brought it to school and shot someone in the head with it. Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this?

It is illegal. Sadly we have several examples of cops allowing exactly that and then having the state let them off Scott free.
 
2013-01-31 07:56:57 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Mike Chewbacca: Last summer some dumb biatch made a left turn out of a parking lot right in front of me. I didn't have time to stop, and I hit her. My car was totalled, her car was damaged enough that it was pouring gasoline everywhere. I had a severely sprained ankle with an avulsion fracture. Turns out, the lady didn't have insurance. She got a $277 ticket for failing to yield the right of way and a $500 ticket for driving without insurance. She's also going to lose her license for three years because of Washington's Financial Responsibility Law (my insurer is suing her to recover the money they paid out to me through my uninsured motorist insurance). So because this driver was irresponsible and a) caused an accident and b) was uninsured, she's losing her driver's license for 3 years, and when she DOES finally get a car again, she'll be paying out the nose for auto insurance. There's not reason whatsoever that there shouldn't be a similar penalty for gun owners who are negligent.

It comes down to the Second Amendment saying we have the right to bear arms, but nowhere does it say we have to be responsible with them. And now, of course, exact wording applies.

You can fill in your own reasons why anyone who would have a problem with making us more responsible with them.


I forgot that part. shiat.
 
2013-01-31 07:57:19 PM  

OnlyM3: Gunowner say: Arm guards or trained rational adults to protect schools
Hoplophobes Claim we said: Hand kindergardeners S&W 500's
**bonus points for this one as FARK Hypocrites (aka leftists) bashed the NRA when they called for it, yet ~4 days later when obmessiah called for it they fell to their knees in worship.**


But he called them "resource officers". Makes a difference, you know.
 
2013-01-31 07:57:24 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Securitywyrm: Because licenses and insurance have done so much to stop the unlicensed and uninsured drivers out there that there isn't a specific line on all auto insurance forms for 'uninsured driver.'

Funny thing about that.

Last summer some dumb biatch made a left turn out of a parking lot right in front of me. I didn't have time to stop, and I hit her. My car was totalled, her car was damaged enough that it was pouring gasoline everywhere. I had a severely sprained ankle with an avulsion fracture. Turns out, the lady didn't have insurance. She got a $277 ticket for failing to yield the right of way and a $500 ticket for driving without insurance. She's also going to lose her license for three years because of Washington's Financial Responsibility Law (my insurer is suing her to recover the money they paid out to me through my uninsured motorist insurance). So because this driver was irresponsible and a) caused an accident and b) was uninsured, she's losing her driver's license for 3 years, and when she DOES finally get a car again, she'll be paying out the nose for auto insurance. There's not reason whatsoever that there shouldn't be a similar penalty for gun owners who are negligent.


There is a 'similar penalty for gun owners who are negligent.' It's hard jail-time for negligently discharging a firearm.
 
2013-01-31 07:58:52 PM  

Biner: Princess Ryans Knickers: Biner: Princess Ryans Knickers: Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks? You are Soft on Crime if you don't support changing the law to change this.

Sorry Princess, but false and misleading statements are false and misleading. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show. Source

And has already been pointed out upthread, the 40% figure is not painting an accurate picture. It includes a lot more than sales made at gun shows.

Lastly, your "often no background checks" statement is patently false and uninformed.

So you deny that the vast majority of private gun sales (which are unregulated) are done at gun shows and only 7 states bother to regulate?

The vast majority of private guns sales do not happen at gun shows. They happen between two private parties, and not at the shows. And to repeat my key point: Convicted criminals purchase 0.7 percent of their guns at gun shows. Gun show sales have very little to do with gun crime. (Which is dropping BTW, despite the media's attempts to make us think otherwise.)

You've never actually been to a gun show, have you? The majority of gun show sales (don't have the figures handy and I'm not going to do any more of your research for you) are conducted by licensed dealers, who do indeed run a background check on all prospective purchasers. Re-read the DOJ report I linked to earlier and you'll see the majority of criminals are getting their guns either from "Friends or family" or from "Street/illegal source".


The issue is the lack of a universal background check law. EVERYONE should have to pass a background check regardless of the circumstances of the sale. Also, if you're a seller and you fail to properly perform a background check and the buyer shouldn't have been able to buy a gun from you, you should have to spend 10 years in prison.
 
2013-01-31 07:59:15 PM  

pedrop357: TerminalEchoes: brap: It's getting to the point where nobody seems to feel anything or mourn anymore, they just start yelling at each other.

This. Exactly this.

And could someone please clue me in as to why half these idiots are using this thread to debate semi-automatic rifles and dead children when the incident involved a hand gun one and slightly wounded kid?

Because there's an agenda to be pushed.  We rarely heard about single events like this before, now anything involving a gun is farking News Flash.

We saw this crap after 9/11 with everything remotely related to terrorism, death, airplanes, etc. being front page news...


Yep, pretty much. I'd love to slap the mods of this website for greenlighting this crap. If anyone is pushing an agenda, it's them.
 
2013-01-31 08:00:35 PM  

Securitywyrm: Mike Chewbacca: Securitywyrm: Because licenses and insurance have done so much to stop the unlicensed and uninsured drivers out there that there isn't a specific line on all auto insurance forms for 'uninsured driver.'

Funny thing about that.

Last summer some dumb biatch made a left turn out of a parking lot right in front of me. I didn't have time to stop, and I hit her. My car was totalled, her car was damaged enough that it was pouring gasoline everywhere. I had a severely sprained ankle with an avulsion fracture. Turns out, the lady didn't have insurance. She got a $277 ticket for failing to yield the right of way and a $500 ticket for driving without insurance. She's also going to lose her license for three years because of Washington's Financial Responsibility Law (my insurer is suing her to recover the money they paid out to me through my uninsured motorist insurance). So because this driver was irresponsible and a) caused an accident and b) was uninsured, she's losing her driver's license for 3 years, and when she DOES finally get a car again, she'll be paying out the nose for auto insurance. There's not reason whatsoever that there shouldn't be a similar penalty for gun owners who are negligent.

There is a 'similar penalty for gun owners who are negligent.' It's hard jail-time for negligently discharging a firearm.


Except for the insurance part, of course. It took me 3 weeks to get the money for my totaled vehicle. I just got a pain and suffering check last week, six months after the accident. Without insurance, I'd have had to wait years while it trudged through our terribly slow civil court system.
 
2013-01-31 08:01:51 PM  

HeWhoHasNoName: Princess Ryans Knickers: OnlyM3: Princess Ryans Knickers

1478 since Sandy Hook.

Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks?
You need to phone in for new talking points. That lie was debunked weeks ago.
// not that the left has ever let little things like facts get in the way of their deranged ramblings.

Debunked how? Care to point to some actual facts? The 40% comes from the FBI which you can easily find on Google.

Lie.

The 40% falsehood is from a single poorly-conducted survey from before background checks were even in place under the Brady Act.  It included transactions between immediate family members, dealers buying from the public and from other dealers, and several other situations that can only be construed as "loopholes" with extraordinary intellectual dishonesty.

The actual figure for the type of transactions you're trying to represent is significantly less than 10%.

But I know you're not concerned with the whole "facts" thing... just emotions.  Like panic and fear.


Wow. Neither side can actually include a cite to save their life. It's like two trolls making sweet troll love, a pure expression of mama's basement douche waddiness to restore your faith in the internets.
 
2013-01-31 08:03:24 PM  

The_Sponge: theorellior: At this point I just sit back and listen the increasingly shrill cries from the gun nuts out there about this God-given right to go on shooting rampages.

-10/10


ummm yea that it
 
2013-01-31 08:03:43 PM  

TerminalEchoes: pedrop357: TerminalEchoes: brap: It's getting to the point where nobody seems to feel anything or mourn anymore, they just start yelling at each other.

This. Exactly this.

And could someone please clue me in as to why half these idiots are using this thread to debate semi-automatic rifles and dead children when the incident involved a hand gun one and slightly wounded kid?

Because there's an agenda to be pushed.  We rarely heard about single events like this before, now anything involving a gun is farking News Flash.

We saw this crap after 9/11 with everything remotely related to terrorism, death, airplanes, etc. being front page news...

Yep, pretty much. I'd love to slap the mods of this website for greenlighting this crap. If anyone is pushing an agenda, it's them.


Their agenda is page hits. How many comments do these threads get?
 
2013-01-31 08:04:37 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: EatenTheSun: Mike Chewbacca:

I don't know, but a minor got his hands on a gun and ammunition and brought it to school and shot someone in the head with it. Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.

Something like this maybe?

§ 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD.

A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a
readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal
negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person
knew or should have known the child would gain access.

"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON
AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE
LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."

Stricter than that. Longer prison sentence and permanent loss of the right to own or handle a firearm.


Then I suggest you petition the members of your state legislature.
 
2013-01-31 08:05:13 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Yep, pretty much. I'd love to slap the mods of this website for greenlighting this crap. If anyone is pushing an agenda, it's them.


I don't think greenlighting something is an endorsement of the articles content but if you're giving out free slaps, sign me up.  It would save me a fortune on dominatrix fees.
 
2013-01-31 08:06:57 PM  

skinink: Who are the biggest threat to Americans: terrorists, or each other?

[www.mindparts.org image 279x425]



If anything, Sandy Hook should've taught us that terrorism doesn't exist in America.  If there were terrorists, they would be doing a Sandy Hook every week.  One autistic kid is able to kill more people in a day than terrorists have in 6 or 7 years.  (Counting that shooting at that army base as a terrorist attack because the bad guy was mooslems.)
 
2013-01-31 08:08:17 PM  
Just where would a complete coward go to shoot innocent people?  hmmm

moonbattery.com
 
2013-01-31 08:10:10 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: TerminalEchoes: pedrop357: TerminalEchoes: brap: It's getting to the point where nobody seems to feel anything or mourn anymore, they just start yelling at each other.

This. Exactly this.

And could someone please clue me in as to why half these idiots are using this thread to debate semi-automatic rifles and dead children when the incident involved a hand gun one and slightly wounded kid?

Because there's an agenda to be pushed.  We rarely heard about single events like this before, now anything involving a gun is farking News Flash.

We saw this crap after 9/11 with everything remotely related to terrorism, death, airplanes, etc. being front page news...

Yep, pretty much. I'd love to slap the mods of this website for greenlighting this crap. If anyone is pushing an agenda, it's them.

Their agenda is page hits. How many comments do these threads get?


That's a good point. Do page hits = revenue for them?
 
2013-01-31 08:11:14 PM  

clane: Just where would a complete coward go to shoot innocent people?  hmmm

[moonbattery.com image 267x400]


Great analogy.  If only those goldfish were armed.

Please tell me you're being koi.
 
2013-01-31 08:14:51 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Their agenda is page hits. How many comments do these threads get?


Comments ain't paying the dry-cleaning bills if that's what you're asking, Chewy.
 
2013-01-31 08:16:47 PM  

brap: Mike Chewbacca: Their agenda is page hits. How many comments do these threads get?

Comments ain't paying the dry-cleaning bills if that's what you're asking, Chewy.


Repeat page visits are though, if I'm to believe that banner at the top of my screen. (I disable it on the threads I want to comment on.)
 
2013-01-31 08:18:39 PM  

EatenTheSun: Mike Chewbacca: EatenTheSun: Mike Chewbacca:

I don't know, but a minor got his hands on a gun and ammunition and brought it to school and shot someone in the head with it. Maybe we should hold the owner of the gun and ammo at least partially responsible for this? Maybe then people will be a little more careful with their guns.

Something like this maybe?

§ 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD.

A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a
readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal
negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person
knew or should have known the child would gain access.

"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON
AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE
LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."

Stricter than that. Longer prison sentence and permanent loss of the right to own or handle a firearm.

Then I suggest you petition the members of your state legislature.


Actually, funny you should say something like that, several of my friends and I have come up with a response to the gun violence problem, and we're in the process of writing it up so we can present it to our local governmental representatives. It includes mandatory universal background checks, firearm insurance requirements, and strict penalties for gun negligence. It does not include an assault weapons ban, because most guns used in crimes are handguns.
 
2013-01-31 08:19:08 PM  
School shootings are a lot more news worthy and get a lot more attention than dying children in Syria, even if no one is killed. It's the sad and painful truth. The news agencies aren't non-profit or state run agencies who are out there to tell the news, they are out there to MAKE MONEY. Nothing gets attention like 2 batcrap crazy people on the hypnotoad screen arguing over who gets to play with the toy that goes bang. So of course they're going to push for MORE controversy and blow it out of proportion. Sadly our politics are affected more by who's more popular and mass hysteria and not common sense with logical and non-panic driven thinking.

Cars kill more people than guns, even hospital medical errors kill more people than guns. Outlawing guns isn't going to keep crazy people from killing people, it's just going to force them to use more destructive methods. Want an example? Timothy McVeigh couldn't get "assault weapons" because there was an assault weapon ban in effect. What does he do instead? Kills a hell of a lot more people and blows up an entire building, killing more children than the shooter in CT.

Guns are just the controversial topic of 2013, because the media knows it makes them lots and lots of money, not because they've suddenly become more destructive or dangerous. Kids get behind the wheel without a license and kill people every day - does it make the national news? Not unless it's an attractive blonde girl. Because it's not nearly as controversial.

Don't succumb to the media's money making machine, make your own RATIONAL and educated decisions.
 
2013-01-31 08:21:44 PM  
Also, just an afterthought, something like 50% of the "gun deaths" statistics are suicides. You can't say the same thing about cars and medical errors. Take that little bit of food for thought while you're going batcrap crazy for the media's financial enjoyment.
 
2013-01-31 08:21:52 PM  

brax33: School shootings are a lot more news worthy and get a lot more attention than dying children in Syria, even if no one is killed. It's the sad and painful truth. The news agencies aren't non-profit or state run agencies who are out there to tell the news, they are out there to MAKE MONEY. Nothing gets attention like 2 batcrap crazy people on the hypnotoad screen arguing over who gets to play with the toy that goes bang. So of course they're going to push for MORE controversy and blow it out of proportion. Sadly our politics are affected more by who's more popular and mass hysteria and not common sense with logical and non-panic driven thinking.

Cars kill more people than guns, even hospital medical errors kill more people than guns. Outlawing guns isn't going to keep crazy people from killing people, it's just going to force them to use more destructive methods. Want an example? Timothy McVeigh couldn't get "assault weapons" because there was an assault weapon ban in effect. What does he do instead? Kills a hell of a lot more people and blows up an entire building, killing more children than the shooter in CT.

Guns are just the controversial topic of 2013, because the media knows it makes them lots and lots of money, not because they've suddenly become more destructive or dangerous. Kids get behind the wheel without a license and kill people every day - does it make the national news? Not unless it's an attractive blonde girl. Because it's not nearly as controversial.

Don't succumb to the media's money making machine, make your own RATIONAL and educated decisions.


When was the last time someone successfully set off a bomb in the US?
 
2013-01-31 08:23:41 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 80 percent of state inmates purchased guns from family, friends, a street buy or an illegal source. Those guns don't grow on trees. ATF trafficking investigations show that many of them come from trafficking from gun shows.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloo ph ole#Harlow

Gun shows are a major trafficking channel according to ATF, with an average of 130 guns trafficked per investigation, and over 25,000 firearms trafficked in total over one 17-month period alone http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloop h ole#ATF


The reason your citations are useless isn't that they're from the Brady Campaign, it's that you're claiming the ATF says something and linking to the Brady Campaign saying the ATF says something. Want to site the ATF? They need to be your reference.

(That said, a history of factually inaccurate statements is a very good reason to automatically require verification of new claims from a particular source.)
 
2013-01-31 08:24:30 PM  

brax33: Also, just an afterthought, something like 50% of the "gun deaths" statistics are suicides. You can't say the same thing about cars and medical errors. Take that little bit of food for thought while you're going batcrap crazy for the media's financial enjoyment.


So we shouldn't be upset by gun suicides? I have an old friend whose cousin killed herself with a shotgun. She was 16. Should we not be upset by that? It's very, very likely she wouldn't have killed herself if she hadn't had access to a tool that is so darned good at killing.
 
2013-01-31 08:25:13 PM  

Surpheon: HeWhoHasNoName: Princess Ryans Knickers: OnlyM3: Princess Ryans Knickers

1478 since Sandy Hook.

Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks?
You need to phone in for new talking points. That lie was debunked weeks ago.
// not that the left has ever let little things like facts get in the way of their deranged ramblings.

Debunked how? Care to point to some actual facts? The 40% comes from the FBI which you can easily find on Google.

Lie.

The 40% falsehood is from a single poorly-conducted survey from before background checks were even in place under the Brady Act.  It included transactions between immediate family members, dealers buying from the public and from other dealers, and several other situations that can only be construed as "loopholes" with extraordinary intellectual dishonesty.

The actual figure for the type of transactions you're trying to represent is significantly less than 10%.

But I know you're not concerned with the whole "facts" thing... just emotions.  Like panic and fear.

Wow. Neither side can actually include a cite to save their life. It's like two trolls making sweet troll love, a pure expression of mama's basement douche waddiness to restore your faith in the internets.


And you apparently can't read.  I provided a link to the analysis of the study that is the source of the flawed "40%" claim in a slightly later post.

PRK (besides being a great troll) didn't bother trying to refute it.
 
2013-01-31 08:27:29 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Securitywyrm

:she's losing her driver's license for 3 years, and when she DOES finally get a car again, she'll be paying out the nose for auto insurance. There's not reason whatsoever that there shouldn't be a similar penalty for gun owners who are negligent.

There is a 'similar penalty for gun owners who are negligent.' It's hard jail-time for negligently discharging a firearm.

Except for the insurance part, of course. It took me 3 weeks to get the money for my totaled vehicle. I just got a pain and suffering check last week, six months after the accident. Without insurance, I'd have had to wait years while it trudged through our terribly slow civil court system.


Maybe that's why the health insurance mandate was so important. Now everyone has to have insurance to provide coverage for operating a person or family in public.

If you want people to carry a license for operating a gun in public (operating a car on private land requires nothing) check the CCW requirements. This stuff you demand exists. As for operator's insurance, you'll probably see it some day as the precedence for insurance mandates explodes.
 
2013-01-31 08:29:47 PM  
NRA released new plans today to place motivational shooting-prevention signs in schools across America.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-31 08:34:12 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: brax33: Also, just an afterthought, something like 50% of the "gun deaths" statistics are suicides. You can't say the same thing about cars and medical errors. Take that little bit of food for thought while you're going batcrap crazy for the media's financial enjoyment.

So we shouldn't be upset by gun suicides? I have an old friend whose cousin killed herself with a shotgun. She was 16. Should we not be upset by that? It's very, very likely she wouldn't have killed herself if she hadn't had access to a tool that is so darned good at killing.


Should you be upset by them? Sure - Should you say all suicide is bad? Absolutely not. If you've ever watched someone suffer the painful slow, inevitable death of cancer you'll see that suicide should never be disallowed.

What would have made a lot more sense with your friend's cousin would have been more responsible parents and a better mental health system. All the current gun laws being looked at wouldn't have stopped that girl from killing herself with a shotgun. You can't magic away all the guns in the world. Its through responsible gun ownership, responsible parenting, and a responsible mental health system that you're going to stem the problems going on, even if guns didn't exist.

Very few of the kids that killed themselves last year used guns. Are you saying that kids who want to kill themselves wont do it if they find a gun? If you're driven to killing yourself you're going to figure out how to do it gun or not.
 
2013-01-31 08:36:26 PM  

brax33: Mike Chewbacca: brax33: Also, just an afterthought, something like 50% of the "gun deaths" statistics are suicides. You can't say the same thing about cars and medical errors. Take that little bit of food for thought while you're going batcrap crazy for the media's financial enjoyment.

So we shouldn't be upset by gun suicides? I have an old friend whose cousin killed herself with a shotgun. She was 16. Should we not be upset by that? It's very, very likely she wouldn't have killed herself if she hadn't had access to a tool that is so darned good at killing.

Should you be upset by them? Sure - Should you say all suicide is bad? Absolutely not. If you've ever watched someone suffer the painful slow, inevitable death of cancer you'll see that suicide should never be disallowed.

What would have made a lot more sense with your friend's cousin would have been more responsible parents and a better mental health system. All the current gun laws being looked at wouldn't have stopped that girl from killing herself with a shotgun. You can't magic away all the guns in the world. Its through responsible gun ownership, responsible parenting, and a responsible mental health system that you're going to stem the problems going on, even if guns didn't exist.

Very few of the kids that killed themselves last year used guns. Are you saying that kids who want to kill themselves wont do it if they find a gun? If you're driven to killing yourself you're going to figure out how to do it gun or not.


I'm not trying to magic all the guns away. I'm trying to force people to actually be responsible with their guns since they won't do it on their own.

Also, my dad and my father in law both died from cancer within 2 months of each other. Thanks for the reminder.
 
2013-01-31 08:37:06 PM  

Mocknews: NRA released new plans today to place motivational shooting-prevention signs in schools across America.

[i.imgur.com image 356x536]


TPM says that is true.
 
2013-01-31 08:40:31 PM  

Farkage: whidbey: Farkage: Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?

I'm talking about your CAR. Which (in this argument) you OWN and was STOLEN. Obviously you should go to jail if someone gets hurt as a result of how the thief uses it.
Honestly, what is the difference here? Are you to be held responsible for your property or not?

Because a car is not a weapon.

You are clearly misunderstanding my comment to mean ALL property.    Yes, in this case, a gun is a piece of property which the owner should be held accountable for, no matter what.

Saying "he did his best to secure it" is a defense that should be heard in a court

A car is a piece of property capable of causing tremendous damage as well.  I guess we can work that out if I'm on a jury listening to you whine about how it got stolen from your locked garage by an unlicensed felon though.  Have a nice time with the legal fees.


No, actually a car is nothing like a gun.   You keep insisting on using this weak argument.
 
2013-01-31 08:41:36 PM  

OnlyM3: whidbey

I submit that the NRA and the other gun lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of firearms as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem. So now you've run around in circles and still proven nothing. Your post here is the same as your initial post.

You made the same claim above, yet when challenged to prove your proposition would have solved this problem you -through ignorance or flat out lies- presented false information.


In other words, you don't care to discuss the actual topic, but wave a flag on the play as a delay tactic.

How surprising.
 
2013-01-31 08:42:16 PM  
Just wanted to point out that so far the anti gun folks have proposed

Background checks that crime stats show would not address the issue
Background checks that would not have prevented these shootings
Technological answers that they admit do not exist

Yet have refused to address the actual issue (mental health) and chosen to go after a symptom rather than looking for a cure.
 
2013-01-31 08:45:18 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Biner: Princess Ryans Knickers: Biner: Princess Ryans Knickers: Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks? You are Soft on Crime if you don't support changing the law to change this.

Sorry Princess, but false and misleading statements are false and misleading. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show. Source

And has already been pointed out upthread, the 40% figure is not painting an accurate picture. It includes a lot more than sales made at gun shows.

Lastly, your "often no background checks" statement is patently false and uninformed.

So you deny that the vast majority of private gun sales (which are unregulated) are done at gun shows and only 7 states bother to regulate?

The vast majority of private guns sales do not happen at gun shows. They happen between two private parties, and not at the shows. And to repeat my key point: Convicted criminals purchase 0.7 percent of their guns at gun shows. Gun show sales have very little to do with gun crime. (Which is dropping BTW, despite the media's attempts to make us think otherwise.)

You've never actually been to a gun show, have you? The majority of gun show sales (don't have the figures handy and I'm not going to do any more of your research for you) are conducted by licensed dealers, who do indeed run a background check on all prospective purchasers. Re-read the DOJ report I linked to earlier and you'll see the majority of criminals are getting their guns either from "Friends or family" or from "Street/illegal source".

The issue is the lack of a universal background check law. EVERYONE should have to pass a background check regardless of the circumstances of the sale. Also, if you're a seller and you fail to properly perform a background check and the buyer shouldn't have been able to buy a gun from you, you should have to spend 10 years in prison.


The problem I'm seeing with that is it's 1) practically unenforceable, and 2) will only be followed by people willing to obey the law.

I'd like to see stats for how many of those private transactions were made by people who were already aware that the gun was going to a criminal. I suspect the answer to that is "most of them" and those are transactions that you can't stop with your universal check law.
 
2013-01-31 08:47:34 PM  

OnlyM3: Just wanted to point out that so far the anti gun folks have proposed

Background checks that crime stats show would not address the issue
Background checks that would not have prevented these shootings
Technological answers that they admit do not exist

Yet have refused to address the actual issue (mental health) and chosen to go after a symptom rather than looking for a cure.


Background checks are just part of the solution.   Obviously another part concerns weapons security.
 
2013-01-31 08:48:07 PM  

OnlyM3: Just wanted to point out that so far the anti gun folks have proposed

Background checks that crime stats show would not address the issue
Background checks that would not have prevented these shootings
Technological answers that they admit do not exist

Yet have refused to address the actual issue (mental health) and chosen to go after a symptom rather than looking for a cure.


Have you ever considered that "the anti gun folks" (whatever that means) may not be a servant that comes running to change you bedpan everytime you have a moist brainfart?
 
2013-01-31 08:48:18 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Stricter than that. Longer prison sentence and permanent loss of the right to own or handle a firearm.


Children are vulnerable to home invasions, etc. just like adults, and there have been a number of cases where non-adults have defended themselves or their families with firearms.

When children drown in the parent's pool because the parents didn't teach them to swim, punish the parents for their negligence.  Having access to firearms doesn't automatically mean the parents are negligent.
 
2013-01-31 08:49:24 PM  

jchic: EatenTheSun: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

How exactly do you think that would stop things like this from happening?

Never said it would.  But then again how many automobile fatalities have been prevented by having operators restricted/licensed?  You can't say that X or Y would have prevented Z but you can decide that an item whose sole purpose is to destroy should be at least as regulated as many other items in our daily lives.


You make it sound like guns actually played a role in choosing their own targets.

The sole purpose of a gun is a controlled environment in which the resultant energy of combustion can be controlled and focused on a projectile and guide that projectile in a repeated direction.  It is the initiator of that combustion that decides upon the type of target and must, through a combination of sight and skill, orchestrate the direction in which the projectile is to take.

Hammers are tools designed to drive a nail as efficiently using available force, guns are a tool who's function is to direct a projectile using the energy of combustion.  How these tools are used and whether these tools are used properly is a decision belonging strictly to the user of these tools.
 
2013-01-31 08:54:57 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: When was the last time someone successfully set off a bomb in the US?


You don't live in the SouthWest, do you?
 
2013-01-31 09:01:56 PM  

whidbey: Farkage: whidbey: Farkage: Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?

I'm talking about your CAR. Which (in this argument) you OWN and was STOLEN. Obviously you should go to jail if someone gets hurt as a result of how the thief uses it.
Honestly, what is the difference here? Are you to be held responsible for your property or not?

Because a car is not a weapon.

You are clearly misunderstanding my comment to mean ALL property.    Yes, in this case, a gun is a piece of property which the owner should be held accountable for, no matter what.

Saying "he did his best to secure it" is a defense that should be heard in a court

A car is a piece of property capable of causing tremendous damage as well.  I guess we can work that out if I'm on a jury listening to you whine about how it got stolen from your locked garage by an unlicensed felon though.  Have a nice time with the legal fees.

No, actually a car is nothing like a gun.   You keep insisting on using this weak argument.


Then replace car with knife.  It is a weapon.  Period.  You know what I'm getting at and you pretend my point is irrelevant because it makes your proposal work against you and make you look foolish.  The problem is your 'logic'.  By your argument, you are either responsible for someone breaking the law with your property regardless of how well you have it secured, except that only applies to guns because it is a different kind of dead.
Lock up your knives.  They have been used for killing since long before guns existed and they are stealthy too, and if someone gets one from your house, have fun in court.
 
2013-01-31 09:02:24 PM  
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier

Guns are not to be taken away completely. We both agree that no one in this thread (myself included) supports that opinion. Guns DO need to be seriously regulated, and the lack of proper regulation/enforcement of existing regulations is a significant problem for a society already drawn to violent imagery and the glorification of said imagery.
Yet the only legislation your side has put forward does ban entire classes of firearms completely.

Including long used hunting shotguns, and WWII relics.

In the mean time you have to fact the fact that the current administration -who is as you well know the law enforcement branch of the fed- :
1) Was actively undermining the current background check system allowing guns to go to prohibited persons

2) Is on record saying they just don't have the time to enforce existing gun laws.

If your side isn't serious about enforcing what IS on the books now, what makes you think these new restrictions will be some panacea?
 
2013-01-31 09:03:08 PM  

pedrop357: Except that vehicle registration has never been used , or proposed to be used, for vehicle confiscation.


Well, that's just wrong.
 
2013-01-31 09:04:03 PM  

clowncar on fire: jchic: EatenTheSun: jchic: AdolfOliverPanties: ox45tallboy: I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?

Not if you're not in favor of gun control.  That shiat needs to be heavily regulated.  Background checks and attention toward mental health are a necessity.

It won't stop these things from happening, but it could dramatically lower their frequency.

Or at least regulate guns at least as much as you do cars.  Licenses and insurance.

How exactly do you think that would stop things like this from happening?

Never said it would.  But then again how many automobile fatalities have been prevented by having operators restricted/licensed?  You can't say that X or Y would have prevented Z but you can decide that an item whose sole purpose is to destroy should be at least as regulated as many other items in our daily lives.

You make it sound like guns actually played a role in choosing their own targets.

The sole purpose of a gun is a controlled environment in which the resultant energy of combustion can be controlled and focused on a projectile and guide that projectile in a repeated direction.  It is the initiator of that combustion that decides upon the type of target and must, through a combination of sight and skill, orchestrate the direction in which the projectile is to take.

Hammers are tools designed to drive a nail as efficiently using available force, guns are a tool who's function is to direct a projectile using the energy of com ...


Don't listen to him!  Guns whisper murder to their owners and kill with a pull of the trigger.  Ammunition's just a patsy! A PATSY!!!
 
2013-01-31 09:05:10 PM  

ox45tallboy: Relatively Obscure: Plus it's not very catchy.

There's a 14-year old kid in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head, and probably a couple of very distraught parents or other family members, and I'm considering making a joke about it because I'm becoming so jaded.

I'm not in favor of gun control, but this is just getting ridiculous. Is there any solution out there which:

1.) Doesn't force everyone to hand in all of their guns
2.) Doesn't put kids further at risk by putting more guns in schools

and

3.) At least lowers the frequency and number of victims of gun violence.

I know there is no magic solution which will eliminate it, but how can we at least reduce it enough so that I'm not tempted to make jokes about a 14-year-old kid fighting for his life after being shot in the head while at school, exactly where he's supposed to be?


Literally anything that's actually been proposed by the gun-control side, actually...

/Nobody ever proposed 1. Ever.
 
2013-01-31 09:07:21 PM  
So as PeMex blows, you farks sit around and laugh?
 
2013-01-31 09:08:08 PM  
Or we just continue to let you whine impotently.
 
2013-01-31 09:10:26 PM  

Farkage: No, actually a car is nothing like a gun. You keep insisting on using this weak argument.

Then replace car with knife. It is a weapon. Period.

</I>

Bullshiat.


<I>You know what I'm getting at and you pretend my point is irrelevant because it makes your proposal work against you and make you look foolish. </I>

It's hardly foolish.  If anything, I can't believe the lengths some of you would go to give a gun owner special rights regarding a dangerous weapon, and then claim he's off the hook because he was unable to secure it.

<I>The problem is your 'logic'. By your argument, you are either responsible for someone breaking the law with your property regardless of how well you have it secured, except that only applies to guns because it is a different kind of dead.
Lock up your knives. They have been used for killing since long before guns existed and they are stealthy too, and if someone gets one from your house, have fun in court.
</I>

We are talking about guns. No other example has the history or the legal definition of what we are talking about.  Knives are not anywhere close to the same issue, or deliver anything close to the same impact.

You, like many of the gun enthusiasts in these threads who believe your rights are absolute, fail when asked to examine these kinds of concerns. You either brush them off, or attempt to downplay or distract from the actual issues.
 
2013-01-31 09:11:10 PM  
In case anyone else gives a shiat about the child who was shot today, the good news is his injury is not life threatening and he may be doing well enough to be released from the hospital this evening.
 
2013-01-31 09:12:27 PM  
whidbey

Background checks are just part of the solution.
your fighting a game you already lost

Until you can show how background checks would have stopped the shootings you claimed background checks would have stopped you have no ammo.