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.

(Charleston Post and Courier)   Guess who's back: "I wanted to make a political demonstration about problems (blah, blah, blah)... have been causing me these alleged mental problems ever since I met a lesbian professor"   (postandcourier.com) divider line 121
    More: Followup, private schools  
•       •       •

17060 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2013 at 11:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-06 03:05:03 PM  

The Dreaded Rear Admiral: Hey, two minutes away from my place, great.  Also, one working firing pin away from a multiple-death school shooting on my main throughfare to-and-fro.  That would have been inconvenient.

/probably inconvenient for the victims too


If it helps, she's from Beaufort. I woulda guessed Walterboro but hey...
 
2013-02-06 03:13:23 PM  

Theaetetus: MBooda: No point in warning the savvy men of FARK, but ladies: Don't Scissor Crazy.
[www.postandcourier.com image 638x439]

... just because the article says the word "lesbian" somewhere in it does not mean that  she's a lesbian.

In fact...
In a rambling statement in bond court Tuesday, Boland said she went to the school because "I wanted to make a political demonstration about problems in my life relating to the fact that racist feminists, including institutions like that where I was demonstrating ... have been causing me these alleged mental problems ever since I met a lesbian professor."
... isn't the "racist feminist" likely to  be the lesbian professor whom she hates?


What he said was clearly an offense to lesbians.
 
2013-02-06 03:15:54 PM  

cmb53208: If it helps, she's from Beaufort. I woulda guessed Walterboro but hey...


No, no, no... in Walterboro they always end up killing at least one person.  At least!
 
2013-02-06 03:18:17 PM  
"Officers arrived a few minutes later and told the woman to drop the gun and get on the ground, according to an incident report. Boland dropped the firearm and asked police if they wanted her to do some push-ups, the report states."

Why did this have to happen twice. No tolerance for gun violations like this. Should have been locked up the first time.
 
2013-02-06 03:30:03 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Gun crime is a cultural problem in the US. Of that I am certain. We need to change the culture and if making it more difficult or expensive to obtain a firearm is a less than perfect plan, it can be the first step until we get through the generational changes necessary to make that change in culture. It's a decent first step that can be fine tuned as we go and will discourage gun ownership, which would help decrease gun crime by default. However, the truth remains that until we change the cultural view of firearms in the US, gun crime, whether the firearm was obtained legally or illegally, is not going away. It won't go away completely no matter what we do, but it can be reduced with those changes, in addition to a few more, including the ones you mentioned.


I do think that over time making guns more difficult to obtain will decrease the total number of people that have guns. Sort of like how increasing the taxes on cigarette sales in addition to negative popular opinion and more health information about the dangers of it decreased the rate of new smokers. And there is plenty of evidence that there isn't really any benefit to smoking for anyone. However, I really don't like the idea that we should attempt to legislate through additional taxation something that isn't harmful to someone who uses it responsibly. Not for the sake "of society"... nor should we ever look at imposing additional taxation on people who are not mis-using guns for the benefit of anyone else.
 
2013-02-06 03:31:19 PM  
Too bad those two staff members that confronted her weren't armed. They could have killed that crazy lady dead in front of a bunch of little kids. USA! USA!
 
2013-02-06 03:33:01 PM  
www.studenthandouts.com
 
2013-02-06 03:48:53 PM  

Surool: Hector Remarkable: Surool: We need more guns within guns within guns.

 
2013-02-06 03:56:30 PM  
I'm still trying to figure out why this got a followup tag in the first place.
 
2013-02-06 04:24:01 PM  

Hector Remarkable: Surool: Hector Remarkable: Surool: We need more guns within guns within guns.

bossip.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-06 04:43:47 PM  

Farktastic: Real Women Drink Akvavit:
If someone is legally purchasing a gun, there's no excuse for not being trained in its proper use and taught the laws about guns in their state and community. Those "I just want a gun, no training or testing, because the second amendment!!1!one1!" types are huge problems waiting to happen and make us non-nutty gun nuts look bad with their vast amounts of stupid. I'm really surprised that the second amendment hysterics either don't realize this or refuse to acknowledge it. I'm going with "refuse to acknowledge it".

This is why I think that liability insurance is the way to handle gun purchasing in America.  You want to purchase a gun?  Enhanced background check you pay for, training course you pay for, registration you pay for, and liability insurance you pay for, hopefully to the tune of a couple thousand dollars.  Then you get to buy a gun.  You want to buy something that is not a hunting rifle or basic shotgun (assault weapons, handguns, etc), you apply to buy the weapon and pay for the application, submit to weapons and storage inspections which you pay for, and a shiat ton more liability insurance is added on.  If you are a safe owner who doesn't end up with mental problems or in trouble with the law the insurance costs will eventually level off.  If you are not a safe owner, become a nut or a criminal you could have your firearms confiscated. Think of it like new driver's car insurance, with the threat of losing your car as well.   It will be a cost to every owner, but responsible owners wouldn't be fronting all the costs, just like safe drivers don't front the costs of new drivers.  The money could be used to pay for better training and background check programs, and to pay victims of gun violence.

Obviously this doesn't deal with the illegal gun trade, but it will hopefully convince the small dick compensators that owning a gun to look cool isn't worth it.


Because those are the ones killing people? You might want to check those statistics before you run with this idea.
 
2013-02-06 05:30:17 PM  
Elizabeth Wurtzel?
 
2013-02-06 08:39:20 PM  
We need to find out how this obvious nut-case managed to get her hands on a gun and fix that.
 
2013-02-06 08:43:34 PM  
/So, while this small woman was pulling the trigger, trying to make the gun work, they just put the kids inside and waited for police?  I mean, I agree on moving the kids, but was it too much for ANYONE to tackle her?  Anyone at all?
 
2013-02-06 10:21:00 PM  
Her speech became unintelligible at that point,


My guess is paranoid schizophrenia, seeing as it causes unintelligible speech...
 
2013-02-07 04:51:35 AM  
img0.etsystatic.com
 
2013-02-07 05:00:20 AM  

MNguy: Sounds as if she had had proper training on how to properly use a firearm a lot of people would be dead right now.


Maybe.  But it was a .22, so maybe not.

Regardless, I'd just as soon fry her and be done with it.  I've little sympathy for this sort.  The "I'm a nutcase who doesn't know any better" defense just tells me that you'll keep doing it because you don't think it's wrong.
 
2013-02-07 09:54:15 AM  
Real Women Drink Akvavit: 

I was pretty heavy on the revolver side for a while and wanted more semi-autos.


Will you marry me?
 
2013-02-07 10:06:30 AM  
weltallica:

ISOLATED INCIDENT

ISOLATED INCIDENT


Indeed. What about all the other people with guns who never shoot anybody? Hell, what about all the other funny-looking dyke-hating crazy women with guns who never shoot anybody?

Wide-spread Open Carry might have the wonderful of showing the public that contrary to what they see on TV most gun-owners don't shoot people with them.

Maybe it'd be better to start out with everyone involved carrying only .22 rifles, not "assault weapons" but the kind people used give their teenagers to shoot chicken-killing raccoons  with. Something like this:

cdn-wp1.gofishn.com
 
2013-02-07 10:45:41 AM  
Real Women Drink Akvavit:

Gun crime, whether the firearm was obtained legally or illegally, is not going away. It won't go away completely no matter what we do.

The above statement is taken out of context to remind the FUD-spreading gun-hating crowd of that fact. Which fact often gets "lost" in these "debates," as does the fact that the vast majority of American gun-owners never shoot anybody; common sense dictates that even a big (but of course unknown) percentage of mentally-unbalanced people who obtain guns illegally never shoot anybody. Even in a very bad gang-&-drug infected neighborhood gun violence is still the the exception.

If this were not true there wouldn't be so many of us here arguing about it: we'd be dying literally left and right because of what you decry as America's "gun culture."

That said, my hunch is that lots of "gun nuts" are out there right now buying up the very kind of firearms y'all seek to restrict access to, both to hoard them for themselves and to distribute them at a considerable profit through the inevitably increasing black market -- which will inevitably now include quite a few people who never owned any gun before "regulation" began.

In fact I picture this new restatement of the controversy giving rise to a humongous increase in new gun ownership of any kind of gun, legally or illegally, by upstanding citizens and wild-eyed loonies alike. These "debates" provide lots of incentive for people to  hurry up and get them while it's still fairly easy, which again will inevitably flood the black market.

In America there is no better way to increase gun ownership than anti-gun measures and rhetoric.* And people who have quite a few high-capacy magazines  and "assault weapons" to distribute in case the new effort to ban them succeeds are drooling over the big profit they expect to make.

Face it: the only way to totally eliminate "gun crime" is to eliminate people. I'm all for that, one of my continuing complaints is that homo sapiens is a disease on the planet and should be at least greatly reduced in numbers, but I gather most people don't regard our species that way. (Including of course a lot of gun-owners you think shouldn't have guns who nevertheless never shoot anybody.)

* A corollary is that if every able-bodied non-insane citizen were required to own a gun most of them would still never shoot anybody; my hunch is that most gun owners would keep them locked in their gun cabinets and never even take them out.
 
2013-02-07 11:46:02 AM  
kriegsgeist: Farktastic:

Obviously this doesn't deal with the illegal gun trade, but it will hopefully convince the small dick compensators that owning a gun to look cool isn't worth it.

Because those are the ones killing people? You might want to check those statistics before you run with this idea.


Incidentally, something else that gets overlooked is that one reason for Basic Training in the military is that most people can't bring themselves to shoot anybody. Even Bible-thumping right-wing homo-hating "small dick compensators" from trailer parks. DIs have to overcome that natural reluctance to get recruits to "KILL! KILL!! KILL!!! the Enemy!!1!"

A year or so ago there was an outbreak of armed robbery and illict gun use, including home invasions, in my niece's former neighborhood, and she was worried because she couldn't afford to move. Some of her Facebook Friends encouraged her to buy a gun and learn to use it; her reply is that she'd have a hard time using it, and even if she did she'd fire a warning shot and then shoot to wound if the warning shot didn't stop him/them. Some armed miscreant could kick in her door while she was home and the most she could imagine doing is shooting him in the arm --  which she'd probably miss anyway because gun ranges are for "militiamen."

I told her to get a semi-auto 20 gage shotgun, load it with #1 buckshot, keep it handy, and if someone broke in to aim straight for the chest. And to keep shooting till the miscreant stopped twitching. That by directly threatening her life and her housemates' he'd given up the right to live. It took her a week to get over being mad at me for my "crazy, violent" suggestion.

In the end she drastically rearranged her life and moved to a "safer" neighborhood, which for her was probably the best she could have done. I hope the guy she and her girlfriend share their house with gets a gun and learns how to use it, just in case: those two women would rather hope & pray that they lived through it.

And the strange thing is I know a few redneck men who think that way, "warning shot" and at worst "shoot to wound."

If you required everybody to own an "assault weapon" with a "high-capacity magazine" most people could still not bring themselves to shoot somebody with it even in self-defense. Even in America's allegedy execrable "gun culture."

Y'all may now resume your debate about "gun nuts."


 
Displayed 21 of 121 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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