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.

(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 915
    More: Sad, Carlos Campos, Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta Fire Department, DeKalb County, gunshot wound, elementary schools  
•       •       •

7737 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2013 at 5:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 915 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report