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.

(The Atlantic)   "What the gun industry, the oil business, and the NFL have in common is that they'll never reform without outside regulation"   (theatlantic.com) divider line 222
    More: Interesting, NFL, Dan Le Batard, reforms, police corruption, industry, guns  
•       •       •

3380 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2013 at 8:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-01 08:08:03 AM  
That's what referees are for.
 
2013-02-01 08:10:21 AM  
Livingroom: wall of derp


You sound derpy with a mix of paranoia, and possibly a side of smallcox
 
2013-02-01 08:12:15 AM  

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.


Technically we have a right to bear arms, and a nuclear weapon is a type of arms. So the argument isn't invalid.
 
2013-02-01 08:12:16 AM  

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.


Do you honestly believe that criminals and the mentally ill have a constutional right to purchase firearms? or are you just spouting bellicose bombast?

My next door neighbor owns a tub filled with those god damn bananna clip mags and enough pistols and rifles to arm the whole damn block. and ever HE thinks that there should be federally enforced background checks for gun purchases.
 
2013-02-01 08:12:46 AM  

unlikely: 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.


That's about 3 mags for a 9mm, depending on size. Not exactly going off to war.
 
2013-02-01 08:12:49 AM  
Now, guess which organization is IN CHARGE of regulation, and still won't reform.
 
2013-02-01 08:15:35 AM  
The second amendment has as much relevance in modern society as the third. Oil is an 20th century power source that is going to go kicking and screaming to the grave in the 21st and Football is going to be about as popular as boxing after high schools and colleges  ban it.

It is just a matter of time before these things change and complaining about it just makes you look old and out of touch with reality.
 
2013-02-01 08:15:43 AM  

miss diminutive: 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?


We do it here for driver's end, showing pictures and movies of the consequences of drunk driving. For all the ballyhoo the NRA gets, its Eddie Eagle safety program is put together very well and goes over the basics of gun safety, and could serve as an example for other programs.
 
2013-02-01 08:17:51 AM  

unlikely: 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.



lol- I have close to a hundred coat hangers in my closet. I must be terrified of a fetus uprising!
 
2013-02-01 08:19:00 AM  
I don't know... with enough public pressure, change can happen from the inside.  They already penalize a lot of dangerous behavior, and made those changes some time ago (i.e. spearing, helmet to helmet, clotheslining, horse collaring, face mask, etc.).
 
2013-02-01 08:19:11 AM  
So what needs to reform in the gun industry, exactly? They are manufacturing a product that is legal.
 
2013-02-01 08:19:44 AM  
I think gun rights advocates would get a lot more mileage if they dropped the paranoia angle. Tyranny! Apocalypse! Home Invaders! Black People Moving Into The Neighborhood!

Gun ownership should require the same regulations as car ownership. With similar specifications on what is "street legal".
 
2013-02-01 08:19:55 AM  
Good!
Oil, guns and football are what make America great.
Glad to see our proudest institutions are not bending to the bleating and hand wringing of a bunch of cowardly fools.
 
2013-02-01 08:20:01 AM  
The gun lobby is run by people who believe in guns and a particular reading of the Second Amendment.

The mainstream media is run by people who don't believe in guns and whose particular reading of the second amendment would be approved of by both the KGB and SS. Clearly without governmental regulation of the first amendment the mainstream media will never reform itself and just continue to spread seditious lies.
 
2013-02-01 08:21:17 AM  

wedun: 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.

Do you honestly believe that criminals and the mentally ill have a constutional right to purchase firearms? or are you just spouting bellicose bombast?

My next door neighbor owns a tub filled with those god damn bananna clip mags and enough pistols and rifles to arm the whole damn block. and ever HE thinks that there should be federally enforced background checks for gun purchases.


I assume you are refering to the "gun show loophole". People have to right to sell their private property without government interference. There are many dangerous objects in this world. Whether it's a gun, knife, or car - requiring private citizens to run background checks on other citizens to sell them a piece of metal is not acceptable.
 
2013-02-01 08:21:53 AM  
Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?
 
2013-02-01 08:22:23 AM  
Regulations are useful when they are done correctly.   But there are few regulations without loopholes and many cannot be easily enforced.

Some things which need greater regulation:  food, banks, and drug companies.   Those 3 affect more people's lives than almost any other.
 
2013-02-01 08:24:32 AM  

Carth: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?


It seems to me that the raving loony gun nuts have done more to put the tyrants in power than remove them.
 
2013-02-01 08:25:04 AM  

Ghastly: 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.


What? Seriously? You REALLY think that? Or are you just trolling?
 
2013-02-01 08:25:41 AM  

unlikely


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.


Farky-markin' the funky bunch!
 
2013-02-01 08:25:57 AM  
The United States will never reform without outside regulation.
 
2013-02-01 08:26:30 AM  

mamoru: 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!!!!!


Ya know, I'm not a big fan of Obama but I was pretty happy with the regulations he came out with. The problem is, why are people still pushing for a ban? What Obama put through has a chance of making change, yet these people STILL go for the gold even though all the evidence points to this not making any change at all.
 
2013-02-01 08:27:04 AM  
Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?


You're right. we should just give up that right.
In addition, the government has already shown free speech rights can be violated whenever they deem it necessary for national or public security.
So that outdated first amendment really should go, too. What, you think your "words" will stop the police or government?
 
2013-02-01 08:28:52 AM  
This article is awful.  Just because an industry disagrees with an administration's interpretation of a particular law, or any other group or individuals does not justify regulation.  Also, equating an espoused professional public stance on an issue with that person's personal beliefs is naive.  Candor goes out the window when money is involved.  Also quit trying to baby NFL players.  No one is forcing them to play football, they can just as well go work as a personal trainer or car rental place.  One of the primary reasons why NFL players, or any professional athlete, is paid so well is because of the APPARENT risk of injury.

This prevailing attitude that no risk should ever be taken by an individual without proper and perfect insurance and safety is sickening and absolutely ridiculous.
 
2013-02-01 08:31:03 AM  
What gun owners think it will be like fighting against the government:
1.bp.blogspot.com

What it will actually be like:

dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com
rt.com
 
2013-02-01 08:32:30 AM  

doubled99: You're right. we should just give up that right.


It's not the amendment that needs to go, it's the mindset of certain people. A little thing called an airstrike makes any talk of somehow talking on the government so much precious chatter. Course there's the little matter that your fellow citizens would necessarily let you get very far. In a very real way the first amendment is there so you don't need to bother with the guns against the government.
 
2013-02-01 08:32:43 AM  

CthulhuCalling: unlikely: 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.

That's about 3 mags for a 9mm, depending on size. Not exactly going off to war.


If needing to reload twice is a reasonably foreseeable situation, maybe it's time to move.
 
2013-02-01 08:33:41 AM  

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.


The news reports I saw when the spill occurred claimed regulations were scaled back massively in the time between Reagan's 'government is the problem' and Bush's 'let experts monitor experts', both which lead to industry insiders co-opt the regulatory agencies. Just like Wall Street. Apparently both should get off for free.

"If one considers how much oil is used and how much is spilled the number is minuscule."

I can't think of a more irrelevant metric. "Considering how much lead is in car batteries, what do trace amounts in baby formula matter?'

Does being an industry lobbyist pay well?
 
2013-02-01 08:33:44 AM  

doubled99: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?


You're right. we should just give up that right.
In addition, the government has already shown free speech rights can be violated whenever they deem it necessary for national or public security.
So that outdated first amendment really should go, too. What, you think your "words" will stop the police or government?


Over the past 100 years "words" have changed the actions of our government more than guns. See every SCOTUS case vs .... umm what rights have guns gotten us in the past century?
 
2013-02-01 08:34:16 AM  

Carth: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?


Not really a gun nut but how about Libya, Egypt, and eventually Syria? Or closer to home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946">http://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
 
2013-02-01 08:34:30 AM  

Flakeloaf: CthulhuCalling: unlikely: 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.

That's about 3 mags for a 9mm, depending on size. Not exactly going off to war.

If needing to reload twice is a reasonably foreseeable situation, maybe it's time to move.


Be fair. Maybe he just has really crappy aim.
 
2013-02-01 08:35:50 AM  

DubtodaIll: does not justify regulation.


Regulation is what happens when someone demonstrates themselves incapable of behaving in a manner that is fit for working within society. The government didn't invent environmental regs just to be a pain, they were devised when it became clear certain people just weren't going to do the right thing and needed to be hit with a clue by four. And there are still people who haven't learned to play along and get away with it, various coal mining companies come to mind.
 
2013-02-01 08:36:02 AM  

Carth: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?


World War 2? Afghanistan against the Soviets? Bonus round question: why do occupying forces disarm the populace if the guns are hurr-durr irrelevant?
 
2013-02-01 08:38:02 AM  

Prank Monkey: Carth: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?

Not really a gun nut but how about Libya, Egypt, and eventually Syria? Or closer to home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946">http://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)


DId Libya, Egypt or Syria have a right to gun ownership before their revolutions? Seems like it just proves that if there is a real need to fight against a tyrannical government people find a way to arm themselves.  Since the people who fought in the Battle of Athens got their guns by raiding the National Guard Armory it doesn't seem like a great argument for personal gun ownership either.
 
2013-02-01 08:40:22 AM  

vpb: 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.


The gun industry needs reform because of the fact that there are crazy people out there. Wow.
 
2013-02-01 08:41:09 AM  

Carth: DId Libya, Egypt or Syria have a right to gun ownership before their revolutions?


Better way to look at it, all three were/are run by dictators, which is a case outside the scope of US government. We have a set up that doesn't let such people come to power and stay there. Oh yeah none of them, not even Egypt, was entirely down with the whole freedom of the press and speech thing. Then again, see my first point, run by dictators.
 
2013-02-01 08:41:56 AM  

Carth: What gun owners think it will be like fighting against the government:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 241x320]

What it will actually be like:

[dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com image 450x336]
[rt.com image 458x305]


I bet Khadafi wished he would have thought of that.
 
2013-02-01 08:42:11 AM  

Flakeloaf: CthulhuCalling: unlikely: 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.

That's about 3 mags for a 9mm, depending on size. Not exactly going off to war.

If needing to reload twice is a reasonably foreseeable situation, maybe it's time to move.


I carry 3 mags, but I use a 1911 which is sort of short on ammo to start. The main reason I carry 3 mags is because I have a double mag holder. While not everyone is as gifted a marksman as I, nothing says a person can carry only X rounds. It's prudent to carry as much as you can or what you feel comfortable carrying. Even I miss, and there's always the possibility of encountering more than one hostile. I'd rather carry extra ammo and not need it than need it and not have it. Besides I don't dictate the particulars such as the location of a hostile encounter, the bad guys do.
 
2013-02-01 08:42:30 AM  

neenerist: Carth: Can any gun nut give an example in the last century a time when "brave gun owners used their right to bear arms to successfully fight against government tyranny"?

World War 2? Afghanistan against the Soviets? Bonus round question: why do occupying forces disarm the populace if the guns are hurr-durr irrelevant?


World War 2  resistance movements and Afghans were funded and armed by foreign countries and the resident in both areas didn't have a right to gun before the event. They are great examples of why you don't need an absolute right to individual gun ownership and will still be able to fight against a tyrannical government if you have support of a superpower. Without super from other countries you resistance fighters don't really stand a chance.

What "occupying force" is a threat to the US? Or are you making a philosophical argument to a practical problem.
 
2013-02-01 08:42:49 AM  

Ronin FF: The gun industry needs reform because of the fact that there are crazy people out there. Wow.


If the car industry behaved like the gun industry, we'd have Pinto and Corvair fiascoes every week. And worse.
 
2013-02-01 08:43:35 AM  

swahnhennessy: I think gun rights advocates would get a lot more mileage if they dropped the paranoia angle. Tyranny! Apocalypse! Home Invaders! Black People Moving Into The Neighborhood!

Gun ownership should require the same regulations as car ownership. With similar specifications on what is "street legal".


Maybe you would not sound as dumb if you dropped your own rhetoric.
 
2013-02-01 08:43:50 AM  
one of these things is not like the other things...

seriously tho, american football is entertainment, the fact that it has that much money in it for players is partially why they're willing to be so risky in the first place... even the ones who love it for the game itself only got there on the backs of programs built with oodles of cash

point being, oil and gun industries are far more directly involved in our way of life than one league of one sport, regulating the sport has less to do with public safety and more to do with guilt-free time wasting
 
2013-02-01 08:47:13 AM  

AdamK: one of these things is not like the other things...

seriously tho, american football is entertainment, the fact that it has that much money in it for players is partially why they're willing to be so risky in the first place... even the ones who love it for the game itself only got there on the backs of programs built with oodles of cash

point being, oil and gun industries are far more directly involved in our way of life than one league of one sport, regulating the sport has less to do with public safety and more to do with guilt-free time wasting


What about the young children and high school students who play football, don't fully understand the risks, and suffer from multiple subconcussive impacts?
 
2013-02-01 08:51:53 AM  
This is simple.  The NFL sells a product (blood sport) we can't get else where.  Soccer is to boring and Americans don't understand Rugby.   There only issue is how much money goes to who.  Our government has no business whatsoever mucking about here.  I am waiting for the hand slapped moment.

The oil industry is not allowed to reform itself in this country.  Our refineries are 60% efficient and require major change overs twice a year.  European refineries are 90% efficient and require little downtime for a change over.  So 40% of our oil is lost (really it becomes a pollutant) and the oil companies are making obscene profits.  Why don't they upgrade?  Because our environmental laws and the lobbyists who push them will not allow it.  So all that money goes to profit not in upgrading the means of production as it would in any other industry.  If not for environmentalist laws and regulations we would be an all electric society running on Nuclear fuel.  Our power grid would be a fully modern smart grid, we would have no brown outs, and the bill would be cheap.  BTW-Google LA oil wells for some enlightening and entertaining knowledge.

The Gun industry is not really the debate.  The debate is the right of the people to be armed and why.    I have lived through a great deal of history and today find history books tell a different story than I learned and often a different story than the one I lived through.  Most people just don't pay attention to what is being said around them.  It's like you're playing Dungeons and Dragons and they are all NPC's.  The purpose of your right to keep and bear arms is to defend yourself.  It is not to hunt.  It has never been to hunt.  Unfortunately, most people understand the English language less than they know history and have never actually read the constitution.  Any law that restricts any type of gun ownership is unconstitutional.  Our founders expected the government to descend into corruption.  And fully expected more revolutions to overthrow that corruption.  Our founders would have already been shooting way back in Nixon's presidency.  So we live in the times of bread and circuses.

Just so you know.  It is very easy to make a gun.  The materials and machines are ubiquitous.  Bullets are more sophisticated.  There is a shortage of brass shells.  You cannot reload the steel ones.  Anybody that thinks more than one bullet is necessary for hunting, is not a good aim.  Anyone who thinks less than 50 is adequate for a gun fight has never been in one.  The New York gun law did not exempt law enforcement, they can only put 7 bullets in each clip.  Most clips hold 15 bullets.

Figures lie and liars figure.  The US has the lowest per capita incidence of gun violence.  We are just so big that the media feeds you raw numbers and it looks huge.  They also run a lot of stories that focus on the issue they want.  They are all propogandists in the end.  Lastly, all you preppers--secure a water supply first then a food source (animals and vegetables).  You will not have refined products such as oil and gas.  Do not rely on trucks jeeps and gas heat or even electric.  If you expect the end of civilization plan accordingly.   Buy a farm and learn how to work it.  Your model for survival is the Amish.  Albeit, if they were armed to the teeth.  The masses will probably be to busy starving and dieing to steal your stuff, worry about other preppers.  Liberals will try to pass a law and send somebody else to take your stuff.
 
2013-02-01 08:56:56 AM  

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.


Your right to bear arms has been infringed.  It's not horseshiat, it's an appeal to you to pull your head out of your ass for a second or two.  The second doesn't say "guns" it says "arms".  Since "arms" has been redefined over and over to exclude ordnance, and "unusual or dangerous weapons" already, it can EASILY be redefined to exclude other types of arms as well.

You will assume, despite me never saying so, that I want to take your guns.  This makes you a god damned lunatic.  Get a farking grip.
 
2013-02-01 08:57:55 AM  

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.


You do realize that you proved the conclusions of the article?

You claim: "I worked in the oil industry pollution monitoring and control"
To me this implies that your job is to minimize spills and accidents, and to work hand-in-hand with monitoring agencies to achieve that goal. However, you have the very same adversarial relationship mentioned in the article with these monitoring agencies, in re: "EPA a*sholes are there from the crude stage to the final usage and everything is monitored."
You sound aggrieved that your company is  not allowed to do as they please, yet you're supposed to be the voice of reason and restraint. Much like the police oversight board mentioned in the article. You should find another job, as you are not attitudinally qualified to perform yours.
 
2013-02-01 08:59:26 AM  

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.


You know why we have this big push for gun control right now?

Because someone has to be punished.   You can't punish the Sandy Hook shooter, because he killed himself:  He cheated us out of punishing him for his foul deed.

It was a little different for both the Gabby Giffords shooting and for the Aurora theater shooting:  We caught the people responsible, and they are going to be punished and/or treated as required.

So, we have the impulse to do something, and we can't punish the person directly responsible.  Pretty much everything being asked for at the federal level was already state law in Connecticut where the shooting happened, and by all accounts, the shooter's mother (who actually owned the guns) complied with those laws.

Stepping outside the emotional framework, it's painfully obvious that none of the laws being proposed would have done anything to stop the Sandy Hook shooter.    After all, all handgun sales in Connecticut must go through an FFL, and thus must have a NICS check. There is a 2 week waiting period for long guns (rifles and shotguns).   Assault weapons are banned.   The police can even seize your guns without a warrant or court order if they think you might be a danger to yourself or others.  That's not even on the table at the federal level.

So why are we talking about national laws similar to those of Connecticut, but in some ways still more lax?  Obviously it's not to prevent the next Sandy Hook, despite the rhetoric, because those laws didn't stop the Sandy Hook shooter.They don't even seem to have slowed him down.  He tried to buy a gun but because he didn't have a hunting license he had to wait the required 2 weeks.  If he didn't have access to his mother's guns, he could have merely waited out that time period, and then gone on his rampage.  I think, when the final report is out (due in the summer), we'll see some evidence that he was planning this for a while, at least days in advance if not weeks.  It wasn't just a person who snapped and immediately went on a rampage.

So why the rush to get new laws?  I think it comes from the urge to punish for such a foul deed.  Make no mistake, it was a horrific crime.  Because of that, and because the shooter killed himself before he could be apprehended, many people feel that *SOMETHING* must be done.   If we can't punish the person who actually committed the crime, then we can punish the people who didn't do it.

That's the root of this push for gun control, I think, combined with the false perception that we are a more violent society than ever, when in fact the homicide rate is the lowest it's been in over 50 years.
 
2013-02-01 09:22:13 AM  

whidbey: What the gun industry, the oil business, and the NFL have in common is that they'll never reform without outside regulation


The oil and firearms industries are the most regulated that I have seen.
 
2013-02-01 09:23:32 AM  

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


What we really need is gun thread control.

-you must have been on fark 4 years to submit a gun thread
-no gun threads longer than 200 posts
-no gunthreads outside the politics tab
-no farker may exceed 6 posts in any given gunthread
-no farmer may post in more than 2 gunthreads per day.

I'm sure we can all agree to these common sense restrictions.
 
2013-02-01 09:25:03 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: 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.

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


You're right, because we don't actually have any at the moment. All those people in jail are there voluntarily.
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report