Enh. Then NFL is at least making an effort.
They're not having much measurable success and getting a lot of flak from all sides, but at least they're trying.

wait, so you're telling me that highly profitable industries will ignore negative costs of business so long as those costs are externalized? you don't say!

I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.

I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.

No industry will ever reform without regulation unless the reformation itself will increase profits. There isn't a corporation out there that wouldn't gladly murder a million people (especially if they're people off in some third world shiat hole) if they thought there was no chance of getting caught and the murders would lead to an increase of profits. They are completely amoral.

maxalt: I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.

A killer, a spiller, and a thriller

If a person wants to play football and receive all the money and accolades leave him the fark alone. Don't watch football if you don't like the idea of people KNOWINGLY getting hurt. I don't like soccer I think it's a sissy sport, but there are more people being hurt in soccer each year than football so stop soccer, oh yea boxing, wrestling, MMA, dirt bike racing, auto racing, ski jumping, sky diving, driving a car, walking in downtown any major city. I know lets wrap everyone and everything in bubble wrap and hide in the closet.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: maxalt: I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.

Wow you are Mr Creative.

maxalt: If a person wants to play football and receive all the money and accolades leave him the fark alone.

Head injuries are just the price we pay to have the greatest sport in the world.

maxalt: I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.

 So more regulation is needed?

I'm gonna go with "this is what happens when raw capitalism isn't tempered by level heads."

This article has something for everyone to biatch about. Should be good. Off to make popcorn.

edmo: maxalt: I worked in the oil industry, pollution monitoring and control since 1984. Believe me the oil industry is regulated beyond belief. Oil spills like the one in the Gulf last year will be in court for years and cost BP close to ½ trillion Euros. Of course they will just pass the cost on to us, and trial lawyers will become ultra rich. If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule. EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored. As for guns over 250,000,000 are in the hands of private citizens and ≈ 15000 are used for harm, (more than half from the drug war) about 0.00006% of all privately owned guns are used in crime. So I suspect that the author of the article is full of something odoriferous and has an ax to grind.

 So more regulation is needed?

Nope

This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.

maxalt:  I don't like soccer I think it's a sissy sport,
And Football is for morons who just want to see bodies collide in an unorganized mess.

/likes both
//Football has as much tactical/strategic depth as Soccer has ferocity

Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.

It already sucks for anyone willing to read that sentence.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.

It already sucks for anyone willing to read that sentence.

Your vote is counted.

I see this will probably become another derpfest gun thread. Carry on.

If we took away sports, what would dumb people do for a living?  There are only so many jobs at Wal-Mart.

cameroncrazy1984: You're right. Laws never did anything. Ever. Why do we even have them?

The problem is nothing being proposed, outside of perhaps even more funding to states to include adjudication of being mentally unfit into NICS, which is fine by the NRA, will do fark all of anything to solve gun violence.

Better health care might help while not intruding on anybody's rights.  Revisiting poverty would be a good idea, and not intrude on anybody's rights.

Anti-gun legislation is a lot like anti-abortion legislation.  It has nothing to do with actually fixing anything, just making it harder to access a constitutional right.  One politician doesn't think I have any need a magazine that can hold more than 7 rounds and another idiot thinks nobody should get a 3rd trimester abortion.  They're both idiots that likely have no real understanding of the issues they're trying to legislate.  Just doing SOMETHING to make their constituents happy.  Won't fix anything and might actually make matters worse, but hey, they're doing SOMETHING.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread will suck for anyone wiling to sacrifice the rights of the lawful for the idea that they can legislate criminals into being lawful.

It already sucks for anyone willing to read that sentence.

Your vote is counted.

Congratulations, you're a dumbass.

Sucks when you forget what alt you're logged in as

Livingroom: And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain.

Last time I checked, the US Constitution says nothing at all about guns. It does, however, have some words about the subject of "arms", which is short for "armaments". Would you care to clarify how nuclear weapons are not armaments? Because I do seem to remember some kind of Cold War which very strongly involved "arms races" of building more and better nuclear weapons than the other guy.

Or would you care to explain why we could be sane enough as a society to ignore the literal words of the 2nd amendment in order to restrict access to such destructive armaments, but for some reason we are absolutely forbidden coming up with sane regulations with sane restrictions on access to smaller arms?

And, please notice, I said "sane regulations" and "sane restrictions". I clearly did not say BAN ALL THE GUNS!!!!! I also did not say that such regulations or restrictions would SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS!!!!!

So please don't frame any responses as if I had.

Well, that was embarrassing. Must be some wives typing up in here.

GAT_00: *peeks in thread*

http://i.imgur.com/D3lTC.gif

I laughed way too hard at that.

mamoru: Last time I checked, the US Constitution says nothing at all about guns. It does, however, have some words about the subject of "arms", which is short for "armaments". Would you care to clarify how nuclear weapons are not armaments?

Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use.   Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.

On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

... protects abortion?

jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

As for the rest...
jbuist: Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use. Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.

So... if we can make a good, sane distinction for one type of armament, why can we not come up with good sane distinctions and regulations and restrictions for other types of armament? That is my point.

mamoru: jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

Roe v. Wade. SCOTUS decided the right to privacy included the right to have an abortion.

mamoru: jbuist: On that note, if you want to play Constitutional Scholar could you explain to me how this:
[the 4th amendment]

... protects abortion?

I'm not aware of anyone making that argument, nor am I seeing any connection between the 4th and abortion arguments. To what are you referring to?

As for the rest...
jbuist: Not the OP but nuclear arms were not, and are not, in common use, or derivative or something that had been in common use. Heller gave us that distinction, and I believe it to be a good test.

So... if we can make a good, sane distinction for one type of armament, why can we not come up with good sane distinctions and regulations and restrictions for other types of armament? That is my point.

what sane restrictions do you propose? you do realize that three 10 round magazines and one 30 round magazine will take the average practiced shooter the same amount of time to fire, right? the "stop him when he reloads" myth is just that. i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less. sometimes more than one gun. what do you do then? with a magazine holster, if a ten round magazine was all i'd be allowed to carry, i'd still have 30-50 rounds on me, i'd just be mildly inconvenienced to have to reload more often, which consists of pushing a button, sliding the new mag in until it clicks, and then pushing another button, a process that takes less than a second. whats more, the 10 round magazines are often standard-capacity magazines with a piece of plastic in them, to prevent the follower from depressing past 10 rounds... and is easily defeated by the unscrupulous. sometimes i have more than one gun on me. what do you do when a guy has 3 10-round guns tucked in his waistband? woah! no reloading there, is there? so that whole magazine capacity argument serves only one purpose:

To impose unconstitutional infringements (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall  not be infringed and like it or not, magazine capacity restrictions is as much an infringement as DC requiring trigger locks was) on legal gun owners, when there are enough high-capacity magazines out there to easily supply every crazy person for the next 50 years... and need i remind you, the venerable 1911 was typically a 7+1 configuration, and was the staple of militaries the world over for a hundred years and is still in wide use today as an effective weapon.

so limiting magazine sizes will *change nothing at all* except our ability to quickly overthrow a tyrannical government, or effectively defend ourselves against multiple assailants. therefore, since it will do nothing at all except unconstitutionally infringe on american citizens rights, it is to be opposed!

ultimately, it's a freedom we currently have being oppressed for no good reason, and every man and woman in america should stand up and say "no" to oppressive government legislation. but of course, this is liberal fark, a liberal bastion on the internet. i still dont know why i keep paying $5 to watch the trainwreck.


maybe you'd like to know what i propose? i propose teaching gun safety in schools. we teach safe sex dont we? using a condom means you're less likely to contract an STD, right? not to mention unwanted pregnancies- isnt that an accepted point, and the whole reason we teach it? We teach evolution instead of creationism because it is accepted as scientific fact by the majority. why not teach that guns can be as dangerous as sex without a condom, and, when misused, as permanent a mistake as an unwanted, unplanned, teen pregnancy?

i propose we teach the general public that guns arent "scary evil death machines" and are in fact a civil right? i believe that blacks, jews, chinese, whoever - they are all human beings with certain unalienable human and civil rights. one of those rights, in the united states, is the right to own a gun- uninfringed. why isnt the 2nd amendment taught in social studies? why isnt it a part of the immigration test? people should exercise each right that they have, and not be told constantly in the media that its scary, evil, etc.

i propose that mental health screenings will not accomplish anything. what is the solution to gun violence? it used to be threat of the electric chair.  it should be the threat of swift defense of ones self by law abiding citizenry trained to understand that they have a right to have a gun, and use it to defend themselves. if more people carried a weapon to defend themselves, were properly taught how and when to use it, and practiced with it- i think that there'd be less "mass" shootings and more mass "defense"

owning a gun, carrying a gun, using a gun does not mean you walk around all day "scared" that something will happen, always living in fear, boarding up your windows and hording ammunition. i dont do that. until ammunition went sky-high, i practiced once a week, and carried as a matter of course. i dont pull my gun out and wave it around, i dont worship it, i dont rub it seductively, i dont do any of the things i've seen people accuse other people of in Fark threads. it stays in its' holster when i'm wearing it, and when people ask to see it, i politely decline, because its' place is in its' holster until it is NEEDED... its not a toy, its not a plaything, its a tool; a very very dangerous tool, the keys to life and death itself, and it is not to be taken lightly, it is not to be played with as a toy, it is not a status symbol to be shown off. it is to be respected. i did not go to a class or attend a school to learn these things i'm saying, i learned them on my own. why is this? because publicly guns are portrayed as bad, evil, unnecessary, inherently bad objects to be avoided. this should not be.

i guess i rambled on for awhile, but this has been building up that i've wanted to say all these things at various points thoughout the various gun threads. i'd invite anyone who will take the time to read everything i've said and respond with calm, rational, educated discourse to please do so. but if you truncate it and say "TL;DR" i'm really not going to pay attention to whatever you say, because its obvious that you dont care, and your mind is made up and cant be changed. when you no longer have an open mind, why do you engage in debate?

The NCAA needs to be cracked down on more than the NFL does.

L.D. Ablo: The NCAA needs to be cracked down on more than the NFL does.

If you sound it out it's "nick-ah"

I never noticed that before.

Why does the gun industry need reform?

Why does the NFL need reform?

Why does anything need reform but to remove the first L from LLC?

Peter von Nostrand: Sucks when you forget what alt you're logged in as

It's fun to farky-mark them though, so it's kinda good for the rest of us.

Livingroom: i generally carry 46 rounds of 9mm on my person at all times, some times more and some times less

Wow, you must live with a lot of fear.

I really like Weatherby rifles, with their crazy amazing bolt lugs and vented bolts designed to protect me from a ruptured primer or a bolt wanting to go backwards through my face. I wonder if they came up with that on their own.

But I guess that's not enough to make it to the list of "totally different topics that should not be compared". Because a fan in the stands is suffering a concussion from the QB sack, or something.

The NFL is a giant group of entertainers. That's it.

whidbey: Livingroom: i propose we teach the general public that guns arent "scary evil death machines" and are in fact a civil right? i believe that blacks, jews, chinese, whoever - they are all human beings with certain unalienable human and civil rights. one of those rights, in the united states, is the right to own a gun- uninfringed. why isnt the 2nd amendment taught in social studies? why isnt it a part of the immigration test? people should exercise each right that they have, and not be told constantly in the media that its scary, evil, etc.

Because it really isn't as important as you think it is.  Nobody is going to take away your guns.   Also, not everyone spends as much time thinking about them as you clearly do, and would not appreciate a long-winded boring patriotic rant from the teacher about it.  I  know that probably makes you mad or something.  The obsession with guns in this country is over the top.

doesnt make me mad, just allows me to understand how deceived you are for thinking that any of our constitutional amendments "are not that important"

Livingroom: what sane restrictions do you propose?

Please go back to my original post and count the number of times I said anything at all about magazine capacity.

 Livingroom: unconstitutional infringements

The point of the "nuclear weapons" bit is that what kind of infringement is unconstitutional is arbitrary. Nuclear weapons ARE arms, yet you don't have the right to bear them. Add to that, the constitution clearly states "the right of the people". People is a plural of person. A convicted felon is a person. The rights of convicted felons to legally buy firearms is infringed. Do you consider this unconstitutional? What about the rights of a civilian to carry a firearm into the White House or the Capitol Building? Or into a court room? Do you consider it unconstitutional to have your rights infringed in such ways?

Constitutionality is clearly arbitrary when applied to the 2nd Amendment (as the wording is necessarily vague as to any type or kind of armament accorded protection), and thus where to draw the lines can be determined by the courts and the people.

Stop acting as if the way it is interpreted now is written in stone. It can change, and if enough people will it, it will change. That is fundamental to the design of the US Constitution: it's ability to change to suit the times.

Look, I am definitely not anti-gun. So far, I haven't proposed anything. I'm not advocating take away all the guns. But I am also completely against completely unfettered access to guns, too (and so are you or everyone else who supports laws restricting the ability for convicted felons and prisoners to get them). I'm all about a happy medium.

I don't really know what that happy medium might be or the best regulations that would get us there, but I'm pretty certain we aren't there now, and it's damn near impossible to have a sane rational discussion about the topic, because every time the topic comes up, and rational discourse quickly gets shouted down by idiots on both sides yelling "TAKIN' OUR GUNS!!!" or "YOU WANT TO ARM BABIES!!" on their respective sides.

FWIW, I agree with your proposal of gun safety education for everyone. At the very least it might cut down on the number of so-called "accidents" (as a big fan of gun safety, I don't believe anything should be considered accidental if someone's finger was on the trigger pointing the gun at something; but I digress)

However, before comparing it to sex education, look at the state of sex education these days and the amount of misinformation that is often spread in such classes. I'd prefer the same thing not happen to gun safety education. ;)
But, yes, more education is always a good thing.

violentsalvation: I really like Weatherby rifles, with their crazy amazing bolt lugs and vented bolts designed to protect me from a ruptured primer or a bolt wanting to go backwards through my face. I wonder if they came up with that on their own.

But I guess that's not enough to make it to the list of "totally different topics that should not be compared". Because a fan in the stands is suffering a concussion from the QB sack, or something.

Not to mention that most people would trade the concussions for the money and the biatches. We ask Marines to die in horrible agony or live as quadriplegic bags of scars and/or psychoses for a lot less money and glory.

A little dain brammage is the price you gotta pay to be rich? I don't think any of the guys who've been hit by RPGs would hesitate to trade paychecks with the starting line of any team. Not even the Browns.

If the NFL doesn't want a lot of impaired rants going viral in the off-season I expect a series of rules and equipment changes over the next few years.

/and where's my comment removal button?

Livingroom: maybe you'd like to know what i propose? i propose teaching gun safety in schools. we teach safe sex dont we? using a condom means you're less likely to contract an STD, right?

I'm not going to address most of the points in your argument since I'm not an American and aren't really up to speed with the nuances of your constitution. As for increasing gun safety education, that sounds like a reasonable course of action, although sex education during my schooling involved a lot of fear with relation to pregnancies, STDs and proper condom use. We were constantly shown pictures of herpes, syphilis, gonorrhoea and other STDs as a warning to the potential consequences of unprotected sex. Would you advocate that students be shown the destructive power that these firearms possess in the form of gunshot victims or crime scene photos in order to drive the point home so that they are fully aware of the consequences of shooting another human being?

Livingroom: I'm trying to figure out why the "gun industry" "needs reform" it's simple, we have a right to guns, it doesn't matter the kind, the caliber, or the magazine capacity. And don't give me the usual horseshiat about "we can't have nuclear weapons" those aren't guns, farkstain. I can go right now and with enough money buy a 20mm cannon, or a 30 cal minigun, just like Obama has following his motorcade. It's perfectly legal, the only real restriction is cost.

Because of crazy people who think they have a right to a 20mm cannon or a minigun.