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.

(MIT) NewsFlash MIT advising people to "shelter in place" after reports of a person with a long rifle and body armor on campus (UPDATE: report "unfounded")   (emergency.mit.net) divider line 291
    More: NewsFlash, shelter in place, MIT, long rifle, Cambridge Police  
•       •       •

7092 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2013 at 10:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-23 01:35:32 PM
t0.gstatic.com

Teacher must be a real dick to test on a Saturday.
 
2013-02-23 01:36:44 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: sethen320: Generation_D: There's two stories with regard to crime and guns.

1) Over all crime is down, but

2) Random nutjob attacking with assault weapons is way up since 2004.

It can be both. And both can be addressed, if the gun nut crowd would compromise an inch on various common sense regs.

But if they don't, I'd bet the eventual resulting laws will be worse. The gun nut crowd digs in its heels, which forces everyone else to dig in ours. And we outnumber the gun nuts.

Just curious. Do you label everyone who owns a gun as a "gun nut"?

i do.  but then again i'm gay


Interesting. Do you have special names for people based on skin color too?
 
2013-02-23 01:52:42 PM

Tsu-na-mi: inb4 guy in HALO costume


my thoughts exactly
 
2013-02-23 01:58:30 PM

BalugaJoe: They say it was a hoax.


Diane Feinstein is extremely disappointed, however the news should obviously have been a false report as assault weapons are already banned in Massachusetts.
 
2013-02-23 02:00:13 PM

misanthropologist: clowncar on fire: Princess Ryans Knickers: 2189 gun deaths in United States alone since Sandy Hook and counting

And how many are left when you take out suicide and accidental shootings?

Is the argument here that without guns, suicides will happen at the same rate? And that without guns, accidental deaths will happen at the same rate?

I suppose it's fair enough that people who want to commit suicide should be allowed to do it by the most efficient and effective means. We wouldn't want them to fail and accidentally survive or something, and then eventually get out of their depression or whatever situation led them to attempt suicide and live productive and fulfilling lives. People who attempt suicide should be assisted in their efforts, because that will make more room for the rest of us to thrive. Right?

And those accidental shootings, well, that's just technologically facilitated Darwinism. Those people would inevitably find another way to accidentally die, ideally before they go and reproduce and pass on their accident-prone genes. We should make sure that everyone has a gun so that gun accidents help to weed out the ignorant and weaker members of society, leaving only the strong and intelligent. Right?

There are more reasons for better gun regulation (and regulation is more than just passing laws...) than just murders.


Suicides failing and them leading productive happy lives? that's awesome.

what about the suicides that are successful and traumatize everyone who saw it? or who found the body?
 
2013-02-23 02:18:48 PM
Could this whole thing have been avoided if a student armed with a beanbag had thrown it at the perpetrator while shouting, "Freeze Spell!"
 
2013-02-23 02:27:18 PM

Larva Lump: Just up the street.

[home.earthlink.net image 640x600]


Right by the reactor.
 
2013-02-23 02:33:03 PM
DS1970:

The worst thing going for blacks are blacks.  We all just sit back and enjoy some popcorn while you all kill each other.

Um... Wow.

First, don't lump me in with "we all". Not all white people are ignorant, racist nitwits.

Second, why yes, I will call you racist. Primarily because, well, you're an ignorant racist. As someone who is white but grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood, elementary through middle school part of a mere 10% white, and a church filled with intelligent, loving, generous and lo and behold, all of them knew who their fathers were, I can say with some confidence that yes. You're a bigot. And a racist.

I'm confused why you came to Fark. Was Free Republic and Stormfront not accepting new accounts?
 
2013-02-23 02:34:58 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: If you are truly Pro Life, you are NOT pro-gun.


So if you are truly pro choice you are NOT pro assault weapons ban? Because that sentence actually makes sense.
 
2013-02-23 02:43:49 PM

wildcardjack: MIT students don't go on homicidal sprees. At least not in person.

That's what drone strikes are for.


Piss off somebody at MIT, faculty or staff, you're more likely to find your credit score thrashed and your name on the no-fly list. And you have 5 grand in unpaid parking tickets.

Fear the nerds.
 
2013-02-23 02:52:58 PM
Rumor has it that it was all due to a squirrel, was it really all over a squirrel??

i170.photobucket.com

/Really one nutty rumor....
 
2013-02-23 02:59:58 PM
DS1970: Guns don't kill people, blacks do.
 
2013-02-23 03:18:07 PM

BlippityBleep: instant news hero? check.  soon to hear about some person that everyone knows has mental issues? check.  everybody pointing at guns while ignoring the previous two issues?  check.  lulz.


Jump again.
 
2013-02-23 03:43:50 PM

Giltric: Princess Ryans Knickers: 2189 gun deaths in United States alone since Sandy Hook and counting

How many murders?


How many white kids murdered? That's the only thing anyone cares about. Ask Chicago...
 
2013-02-23 03:50:24 PM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: "A gun-free zone?"

How's that workin' for ya, MIT?


Pistol and rifle shooting are two of the most popular Phys. Ed. classes at MIT.
 
2013-02-23 03:59:45 PM

DS1970: Foolish, fearful Americans.  You're afraid of semi-auto rifles, instead of the handguns, which criminals use to commit 97% of homicides.

I live in Chicago - our violence is legendary - this January was the worst in years, with 24 people shot dead (just with gangs).  To be honest, it's AA's killing AA's.  And the gangs don't know how to fu(king shoot, so 50% of the time they're killing their unintended target.

Call me wrong, call me racist, but the data supports my claim.  This seems the AA culture; have a baby before 10th grade, with a slew of potential "dads" (which aren't discovered until a Maury appearance), work as little as possible to get whatever money you're only going to spend on ridiculous "bling" and drugs. then blame white folk for your predicament.

Quit playing the race-card, you lazy, shiftless AA's...take some responsibility and please raise your crotch-fruit so I don't have to shoot your kid in self-defense.

The worst thing going for blacks are blacks.  We all just sit back and enjoy some popcorn while you all kill each other.


I don't get it...you're blaming Alcoholics Anonymous?

Well, I suppose they do seem a bit dicey. You can't really trust a man who doesn't drink.
 
2013-02-23 04:19:01 PM
I sent Drew an email asking if I could pay for a gun nut thread today. He was too busy. Now there is a free one. Yay!

Please circulate this video to anyone who will watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG8IvO7vlok

Thanks
Dave
 
2013-02-23 04:30:31 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: 2189 gun deaths in United States alone since Sandy Hook and counting


Sorry, would have been more but Chicago got snow.
 
2013-02-23 04:35:43 PM

ParaHandy: I sent Drew an email asking if I could pay for a gun nut thread today. He was too busy. Now there is a free one. Yay!

Please circulate this video to anyone who will watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG8IvO7vlok

Thanks
Dave


I'd like to know, before I continue watching, with an open mind, your vids. Where were you born/raised in Scotland, and how long have you been American. I only ask as I was born in the country (Glasgow, Queens hospital, Gorbals resident, then of Burnbank's Jungle area, family in red-row flats, now living in mother's home town in Sweden), as I've never heard that many ex-pats with the accent affectation as strongly americanized as you, in fact the most of expats sport an even broader brogue than you.
 
2013-02-23 04:57:28 PM

DS1970: call me racist


Well, if it quacks like a bigot..
 
2013-02-23 06:00:48 PM

ausfahrk: misanthropologist: Thanks for the thought-provoking response!

Honestly, I'm shocked that you answered.  While we're talking, can you help me out with one more question that's been bugging me for a long time:  Fast food, cigarettes, and alcohol kill more Americans before breakfast every day than gun murders do all year.  If you're just looking to save lives, by the numbers, it seems like that's where the low-hanging fruit is.  Why don't we have a million moms marching on Washington (...or whatever...)about that?


Good point. Bloomberg in NYC has tried to make an impact on this stuff and he gets publicly ridiculed for it. Meanwhile, the FDA is in bed with the agrochem companies, telling us nothing is farked here, dudes.

Also, not sure if you just haven't been paying attention but there have been major campaigns against cigarettes for several decades (which tobacco companies fought for years, including suppressing their own research that showed a link with cancer and publishing fraudulent studies that claimed there was no link); against alcohol from time-to-time, most notably before and during Prohibition; and against fast food in various places and increasingly these days (ever watch the national morning news shows? They're all about getting people to eat right), including Bloomberg's transfats ban and his attempted large soda ban. Also, there have been national campaigns in many countries trying to encourage physical activity and healthier eating choices.

I guess one reason why more people are out in the streets against guns than against fast food, cigarettes, and booze is that for the most part those things kill you slowly, and the signs of impending health consequences can be caught early and reversed, whereas with guns it's much harder to dodge a bullet (no pun intended, but then I noticed it and decided to claim it wasn't intended, so pun semi-intended). Plus, any of those things in moderation are probably acceptable in terms of maintaining your body's health, although they all seem to have the potential to lead to dependencies and addictions that make it hard to self-regulate consumption.

I would imagine that another reason why it seems like the anti-gun people are more active and vocal is that the kind of things that get them riled up are spectacular events (as in, spectacles, not as in wonderful). These are acute instances of trauma and sorrow. The other things you mention, which, you're right, kill far more people than guns, are chronic problems. But then, you hardly ever hear talk about all the gun violence in Chicago, which is more chronic than acute, and you certainly don't have major media explosions and public outcries over it. And yet it kills more people per year than is even remotely acceptable. But 20 6 year olds killed in the space of a few minutes is going to provoke more outrage than 6 20 year olds killed in a week, and it's not just because those 6 20 year olds are poor, Black gangmembers on the South Side.
 
2013-02-23 06:17:43 PM
clowncar on fire:
Suicide is one of many of life's little ills- as are gun related deaths.  The difference is taking one's life has taken so much more of a toll on society and is, in some sense, a reflection of how healthy that society is and how well that government is representing it. Failed society = failed government.  People shooting other people is not all that high on why our society is failing- albeit it may actually be a symptom of that failure.  The reality is that our leaders are either clueless as to what has happened to cause this breakdown ,or feel powerless to make the changes needed, so they instead engage themselves in the trivial feel good pursuit of regulation over the things they think they can manage (worked out well in prohibition and regulation of narcotics) as opposed to addressing real issues.

If you can rewrite that paragraph into something intelligible, I may be able to respond to it.

People don't shoot themselves because they have accessibility to guns- they take their lives because they believed they have failed (either in truth or in psychosis) and that they must pay or that death is th only release from a painful life.  How can the government get involved to make us all feel better about our selves?  One is to recognize that the individual is often the master of their own fate and quit supporting the idea that others determine your fate and that only the govermnet can protect you and save you from yourself.  You cannot raise a child successfully through dependency and cocooning them in bubble wrap and then expect them to handle the realities of life the first time they step out from under their wing, why would you expect any different from a society raised under the same conditions?

People who kill themselves with guns do so because they have access to guns. They may or may not choose to kill themselves if they don't have access to guns, but many of the other methods of suicide are more painful, slow, and uncertain. A gun is quick and thorough. Reducing the availability of guns may have several effects: making people think it's too much trouble or too risky to kill themselves by other means and reducing the number of attempts; leading to failed attempts after which the suicidal person can get help.

As for the government making people feel better about themselves. That's precisely the government's job, although not directly. The government's job is to facilitate social organization and individuals' access to opportunities, help maintain the well-being of society and the individuals that constitute it, and to regulate and intervene when factors contribute to hard times, insecurity, and risk. The government might also try to ensure an adequate mental and physical health care service, so that people have the opportunity to feel better about themselves and to get help doing so when they need it.

The point about the individual being the master of his own fate ignores the fact that humans must live in social contexts to survive and reproduce. Our species only exists in groups; it evolved as a social species and it continues to be one. What this implies is that no individual is completely the master of his own fate. In fact, even though we're all thinking, reasoning, decision-makers in the world, our ability to make decisions is inherently constrained by the environmental and social context in which we must operate in order to exist. The government is not the only entity that can protect and save you, and it's hard for the government to intervene and protect an individual from herself, but the government can certainly intervene and protect the individual from others who would do that individual harm. Or from systematic problems that will do the individual harm or pose significant risk of doing the individual harm. That, in fact, is a better way to explain the role of government in regulating social interactions and facilitating individual success.

Kids don't get fat from the accessibility of coke- it's because they have parents who refuse to tell their kids no or place limitations.  Regulating coke only relieves dumbass parents from their responsibility of controlling their child's intake of sugar.  But yes, I guess its a hell of a lot easier to regulate a business (who you hold by the short hairs in the form of re-licensing) than to tell your constituency that they need to be better guardians of their kids.

The kid in your example here must also be the master of his own fate, because he's an individual just like you or I, and just like his parents. The fat kid with the soda should take responsiblity for himself and not blame his parents for letting him drink so much soda he got fat. Leave the parents out of it because, like the government, parents cannot save the fat kid from himself - he's the master of his own fate.
 
2013-02-23 06:26:45 PM

Benjamin Orr: misanthropologist: Benjamin Orr: misanthropologist: Benjamin Orr: Slate is crowd sourcing their data

Is that a bad thing?

As long as you realize there will be some level of bias involved.

I would not blindly accept crowd sourced data from Fox News either.

Explain the bias. I mean, sure, we should look at their method of going from crowd-sourced raw data to compiled and cleaned list of unique gun deaths, but if we're talking about compiling a list of gun deaths, I'm much more inclined to trust a crowd-sourced list compiled by a "liberal" media outlet than a "conservative" one, simply because I think the conservative one has a vested interest in underreporting the number, while the liberal one has a vested interest in accurately reporting the number.

lol.. No interest in over reporting at all then? No interest in twisting the facts to suit them? Wow.


Ah, forgot if I responded to this or not. Sure, there's a risk of over-reporting. Of course you should take any statistics with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism. Anyways, transparency in data collection and analysis solves that problem, which is why we should look at their method of going from crowd-sourced raw data to complied and cleaned list. That said, based on the national statistics that are available, I don't think there's any real need to over-report gun violence in America to "twist the facts." I'm open to the argument that maybe Slate does have a vested interest in inflating gun violence numbers, but I'd like to hear what it is beyond them having a reputation as a liberal media outlet and that liberals are just as bad as conservatives when it comes to fudging evidence and spinning lies.

I read your original post to imply there was something inherently wrong with crowd-sourcing data. That's great in a "we have to be skeptical of everything" sense, but it should lead to more questions, not to rejection of crowd-sourced data. I don't know if that's what you were implying...
 
2013-02-23 06:38:20 PM

Giltric: misanthropologist: So people who attempt suicide are not valuable members of society and should just be allowed, even encouraged, to complete their attempt because seeking ways to limit their access to guns would infringe on their right to kill themselves, and no government has any type of interest or obligation in keeping its citizens alive and thriving?

If only there was a way to force people who thought about doing something with their own body that ran counter to your opinion to rethink their ideas of doing something to their own self....

Trans vaginal ultrasounds maybe?


I'm not saying no one should ever be allowed to kill themself. People do it all the time, and it's unfortunate. I can see situations where it might be a reasonable option - suffering from incurable chronic illness, for example. But it would be nice if for all of those people who kill themselves because they believe things can never get any better, there was more support to help them realize that things can get better and then to facilitate them to actually make things better for themselves. One way NOT to do that is to ensure that people have free and easy access to the most efficient killing tools, which increase their likelihood of success at suicide. It's received wisdom that suicide attempts are often a cry for help (and we should always be wary of received wisdom). Suicide attempts involving guns are, I presume, less likely to fail than most other methods of attempting suicide. Anyways, I was responding to the person's post that sounded like they were arguing that suicide by gun had nothing to do with guns, and that anyone who wanted to kill themselves should be encouraged to do so by having access to the most efficient weapons around.

Anyways, the whole abortion issue is far more complicated because it involves debates over when a fetus becomes a person and how to reconcile the conflicting interests of at least three parties - the woman carrying the fetus, the fetus itself as a legally recognized person, and the state. That's the reason Roe v Wade ended up in the somewhat slippery way it did, relying on fetal viability outside the womb as the final marker of when a woman's right trumped the right of the fetus, and the state's interest in regulating the conflicting rights of two persons.

Both issues - the state's role in regulating or intervening in abortion and suicide - are ethical quandaries that have no easy answers.
 
2013-02-23 06:43:56 PM

This thread:

MIT advising people to "shelter in place" after reports of a person with a long rifle and body armor on campus



I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of Gun Grabbers were shrieking with giddy delight....

(UPDATE: report "unfounded")



... and were suddenly silenced
 
2013-02-23 06:47:35 PM

iheartscotch: misanthropologist: iheartscotch: Just pointing out the flawed logic of "if any X, then all Xs"... and it is flawed logic.

Ah, I ment all personal freedoms outlined in the constitution and bill of rights; not the freedom to go take a dump in a park.

/ damn hobos

Why shouldn't the freedom to go take a dump in the park be protected like the freedom to own guns?

Seriously. What makes some freedoms more valuable than others?

For one; taking a dump in the park is frowned upon for some unknown reason.

Unfortunately; the anti-taking a dump in the park lobby is pretty powerful.

I wouldn't say some freedoms are more valuable then others; I would say, instead, that there are some truths that are self-evident and that all men, women and children are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

/ how would one defend these rights without the ability to, in only the extreme of self preservation, draw forth their sword?


It seems that you're making an argument around constitutional infallibility, rendering it a dead text, regardless of the fact that some of the rights you would protect are amendments to the original.

I would counter that no truth is self-evident, but rather that truths like rights and freedoms in society are inherently socially-constructed, negotiated, and malleable. The fact that you mention women and children being of equal standing with men is evidence of this, because it certainly has not been the case historically, not even in the context of the US Constitution.

And while the idea of inalienable rights is a nice one, those rights are always subject to limitations in the context of society (and subject to restriction or removal for a variety of reasons in a variety of contexts, including imprisonment after being convicted of infringing on someone else's inalienable rights). That's how society works. Individual freedoms must always be negotiated where they conflict, and regulated - whether by formal institutions or informal practices - wherever systematic problems arise.
 
2013-02-23 06:51:35 PM

aesirx: misanthropologist: clowncar on fire: Princess Ryans Knickers: 2189 gun deaths in United States alone since Sandy Hook and counting

And how many are left when you take out suicide and accidental shootings?

Is the argument here that without guns, suicides will happen at the same rate? And that without guns, accidental deaths will happen at the same rate?

I suppose it's fair enough that people who want to commit suicide should be allowed to do it by the most efficient and effective means. We wouldn't want them to fail and accidentally survive or something, and then eventually get out of their depression or whatever situation led them to attempt suicide and live productive and fulfilling lives. People who attempt suicide should be assisted in their efforts, because that will make more room for the rest of us to thrive. Right?

And those accidental shootings, well, that's just technologically facilitated Darwinism. Those people would inevitably find another way to accidentally die, ideally before they go and reproduce and pass on their accident-prone genes. We should make sure that everyone has a gun so that gun accidents help to weed out the ignorant and weaker members of society, leaving only the strong and intelligent. Right?

There are more reasons for better gun regulation (and regulation is more than just passing laws...) than just murders.

Suicides failing and them leading productive happy lives? that's awesome.


It's never happened? It's unthinkable? It should happen more often, because it's certainly possible.

what about the suicides that are successful and traumatize everyone who saw it? or who found the body?

What about them? They're farking horrible. Suicide is often an entirely selfish act. In a better world there would be fewer of them and fewer attempts.
 
2013-02-23 07:01:10 PM

misanthropologist: Also, not sure if you just haven't been paying attention but there have been major campaigns against cigarettes for several decades (which tobacco companies fought for years, including suppressing their own research that showed a link with cancer and publishing fraudulent studies that claimed
there was no link);


Haven't.  I don't watch the TV -- lost interest some time in my late 20's.  I did attend a street performance in Victoria, BC recently, where the torch juggler couldn't find someone in the audience with a lighter, and that was kind of awesome.  (Disclaimer:  I smoked for 10 years, pack-a-day at the end.)

I guess one reason why more people are out in the streets against guns than against fast food, cigarettes, and booze is that for the most part those things kill you slowly, and the signs of impending health consequences can be caught early and reversed, whereas with guns it's much harder to dodge a bullet (no pun intended, but then I noticed it and decided to claim it wasn't intended, so pun semi-intended). Plus, any of those things in moderation are probably acceptable in terms of maintaining your body's health, although they all seem to have the potential to lead to dependencies and addictions that make it hard to self-regulate consumption.

Most gun use involves zero killing of animals, much less people.  Lunatics can be detected and dealt with, in many cases, long before they pick up a gun and off someone.  In other words, it's hard to dodge a bullet once it's been fired, but it's equally hard to dodge a bit of plaque that falls off your arterial wall.

I would imagine that another reason why it seems like the anti-gun people are more active and vocal is that the kind of things that get them riled up are spectacular events (as in, spectacles, not as in wonderful). These are acute instances of trauma and sorrow.

Glad you agree with me.  So STFU and stop trying to take away my AK while there are ten bacon shops within spitting distance of your house.  Rat-a-tat-tat...
 
2013-02-23 07:34:02 PM

Dimensio: BalugaJoe: They say it was a hoax.

Diane Feinstein is extremely disappointed, however the news should obviously have been a false report as assault weapons are already banned in Massachusetts.


Ironically, our Mass. "permanent" AWB was signed by...

Mitt Romney.

So, back under your bridge.
 
2013-02-23 07:38:03 PM

ausfahrk: misanthropologist: Also, not sure if you just haven't been paying attention but there have been major campaigns against cigarettes for several decades (which tobacco companies fought for years, including suppressing their own research that showed a link with cancer and publishing fraudulent studies that claimed
there was no link);

Haven't.  I don't watch the TV -- lost interest some time in my late 20's.  I did attend a street performance in Victoria, BC recently, where the torch juggler couldn't find someone in the audience with a lighter, and that was kind of awesome.  (Disclaimer:  I smoked for 10 years, pack-a-day at the end.)


That is cool. Times they are a changing. That's also Victoria though. Might have been way more lighters on the scene up in Courtney or in some parts of Vancouver.


I guess one reason why more people are out in the streets against guns than against fast food, cigarettes, and booze is that for the most part those things kill you slowly, and the signs of impending health consequences can be caught early and reversed, whereas with guns it's much harder to dodge a bullet (no pun intended, but then I noticed it and decided to claim it wasn't intended, so pun semi-intended). Plus, any of those things in moderation are probably acceptable in terms of maintaining your body's health, although they all seem to have the potential to lead to dependencies and addictions that make it hard to self-regulate consumption.

Most gun use involves zero killing of animals, much less people.  Lunatics can be detected and dealt with, in many cases, long before they pick up a gun and off someone.  In other words, it's hard to dodge a bullet once it's been fired, but it's equally hard to dodge a bit of plaque that falls off your arterial wall.


I suppose it can be. My dad smoked for about 40 years, had a slow, drawn-out heart attack a few years ago due to an occluded artery, and hasn't smoked a single cancer-stick since. Apparently his arteries are clearing up and he's at lower risk of a repeat heart attack because of quitting smoking. He could lose the 15 pounds he's gained since quitting, but that's another problem.

Lunatics are one thing. Sometimes they get noticed before anything gets farked up, sometimes they don't (hence the shootings in Tuscon, Aurora, and Newtown). Chronic gun violence in American cities is another mess. Since most gun use involves zero killing of anything other than paper targets and clay pigeons, one solution might be to require all guns to be stored in secured premises like shooting ranges or police stations and checked out for use. It would cut down on lunatics, as well as gun use in domestic violence. It doesn't solve the home-defense problem, but it's unclear how big a problem that really is (hello, Oscar Pistorius....). Getting guns off the streets and out of gang hands is a whole other challenge at a different scale. Illegal guns are still going to be illegal if more laws are made restricting or regulating them. Amnesty exchanges seem to have worked in the past, but they don't address the root causes of gang violence or even gang existence, which need to be dealt with before American can make any real progress on its urban murder problem.


I would imagine that another reason why it seems like the anti-gun people are more active and vocal is that the kind of things that get them riled up are spectacular events (as in, spectacles, not as in wonderful). These are acute instances of trauma and sorrow.

Glad you agree with me.  So STFU and stop trying to take away my AK while there are ten bacon shops within spitting distan
ce of your house.  Rat-a-tat-tat...

Maybe we disagree there. I think we can and must do better on all of the examples we've talked about. But if you're shooting hogs, make sure to save me some of that bacon!

/not a gay come-on
//also not meant as innuendo
 
2013-02-23 08:00:54 PM
if it's gay. it's goin on FARK!!!!

gay 4eva!!
 
2013-02-23 10:16:29 PM

ParaHandy: I sent Drew an email asking if I could pay for a gun nut thread today. He was too busy. Now there is a free one. Yay!

Please circulate this video to anyone who will watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG8IvO7vlok

Thanks
Dave


LOL, get rid of the NRA.  You owe me a new keyboard.  What a simple plan.  "Just get rid of this group I don't like".  I took that for serious at first, so, I guess you got me.
 
2013-02-23 11:49:47 PM

clowncar on fire: misanthropologist: clowncar on fire: misanthropologist: clowncar on fire: Princess Ryans Knickers: 2189 gun deaths in United States alone since Sandy Hook and counting

And how many are left when you take out suicide and accidental shootings?

Is the argument here that without guns, suicides will happen at the same rate? And that without guns, accidental deaths will happen at the same rate?

I suppose it's fair enough that people who want to commit suicide should be allowed to do it by the most efficient and effective means. We wouldn't want them to fail and accidentally survive or something, and then eventually get out of their depression or whatever situation led them to attempt suicide and live productive and fulfilling lives. People who attempt suicide should be assisted in their efforts, because that will make more room for the rest of us to thrive. Right?

And those accidental shootings, well, that's just technologically facilitated Darwinism. Those people would inevitably find another way to accidentally die, ideally before they go and reproduce and pass on their accident-prone genes. We should make sure that everyone has a gun so that gun accidents help to weed out the ignorant and weaker members of society, leaving only the strong and intelligent. Right?

There are more reasons for better gun regulation (and regulation is more than just passing laws...) than just murders.

Bubble wrap laws- welcome to the Nanny States of America where primary govermental function is to enact law to protect us from ourselves.  Oh, and let's not look into too many issues where the individual citizen may have to recognize they have only themselves to blame and that maybe, all the government intrusion in the world is not going to fix.  You know, cause it's always someone elses fault.

So, essentially, you're confirming my interpretation of your desire to separate out suicides and accidental gun deaths from the list of total gun deaths because they're not a real problem? And the risk of accidental ...

Suicide is one of many of life's little ills- as are gun related deaths.  The difference is taking one's life has taken so much more of a toll on society and is, in some sense, a reflection of how healthy that society is and how well that government is representing it. Failed society = failed government.  People shooting other people is not all that high on why our society is failing- albeit it may actually be a symptom of that failure.  The reality is that our leaders are either clueless as to what has happened to cause this breakdown ,or feel powerless to make the changes needed, so they instead engage themselves in the trivial feel good pursuit of regulation over the things they think they can manage (worked out well in prohibition and regulation of narcotics) as opposed to addressing real issues.

People don't shoot themselves because they have accessibility to guns- they take their lives because they believed they have failed (either in truth or in psychosis) and that they must pay or that death is th only release from a painful life.  How can the government get involved to make us all feel better about our selves?  One is to recognize that the individual is often the master of their own fate and quit supporting the idea that others determine your fate and that only the govermnet can protect you and save you from yourself.  You cannot raise a child successfully through dependency and cocooning them in bubble wrap and then expect them to handle the realities of life the first time they step out from under their wing, why would you expect any different from a society raised under the same conditions?

Kids don't get fat from the accessibility of coke- it's because they have parents who refuse to tell their kids no or place limitations.  Regulating coke only relieves dumbass parents from their responsibility of controlling their child's intake of sugar.  But yes, I guess its a hell of a lot easier to regulate a business (who you hold by the short hairs in the form of re-licensing) than to tell your constituency that they need to be better guardians of their kids.


Thank you.
 
2013-02-23 11:54:20 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: sethen320: Generation_D: There's two stories with regard to crime and guns.

1) Over all crime is down, but

2) Random nutjob attacking with assault weapons is way up since 2004.

It can be both. And both can be addressed, if the gun nut crowd would compromise an inch on various common sense regs.

But if they don't, I'd bet the eventual resulting laws will be worse. The gun nut crowd digs in its heels, which forces everyone else to dig in ours. And we outnumber the gun nuts.

Just curious. Do you label everyone who owns a gun as a "gun nut"?

i do.  but then again i'm gay


Call it gay if you want. Blanket statements about people based on likes/dislikes makes you a whiny little biatch.
 
2013-02-24 12:58:11 AM

PunGent: Dimensio: BalugaJoe: They say it was a hoax.

Diane Feinstein is extremely disappointed, however the news should obviously have been a false report as assault weapons are already banned in Massachusetts.

Ironically, our Mass. "permanent" AWB was signed by...

Mitt Romney.

So, back under your bridge.



Whats the difference between assault weapons manufactured before 1994 which you are able to buy sell and own in MA and assault weapons made after 1994 which you can not buy sell or own in MA?

The alternative was an all out ban IIRC.
 
2013-02-24 10:15:39 AM

Giltric: PunGent: Dimensio: BalugaJoe: They say it was a hoax.

Diane Feinstein is extremely disappointed, however the news should obviously have been a false report as assault weapons are already banned in Massachusetts.

Ironically, our Mass. "permanent" AWB was signed by...

Mitt Romney.

So, back under your bridge.


Whats the difference between assault weapons manufactured before 1994 which you are able to buy sell and own in MA and assault weapons made after 1994 which you can not buy sell or own in MA?

The alternative was an all out ban IIRC.


Another Romney fan, eh?

Go on, explain to us how not even TRYING to veto something is "courageous leadership".

Why, the man might've nicked himself on his pen...

The whole point of a Republican governor was to stand UP to the Dems, the way Weld did...not to out-spend and out-legislate the parlor pinks, ffs.
 
2013-02-24 10:42:26 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-24 12:55:08 PM
Same as saying "Die in place".
There are two and only two effective responses.
"Stampede" or "Run Faster Than The Last Guy".

How many understand "Bonzai"? Works real well against a solo shooter.

How about a law that all students undergo survival training instead of new laws for law abiding citizenry?
Oh. that might really help reduce gun deaths?

Nevermind, this is gungrabbing we play, not saving lives.
 
2013-02-24 12:56:34 PM

Giltric: PunGent: Dimensio: BalugaJoe: They say it was a hoax.

Diane Feinstein is extremely disappointed, however the news should obviously have been a false report as assault weapons are already banned in Massachusetts.

Ironically, our Mass. "permanent" AWB was signed by...

Mitt Romney.

So, back under your bridge.


Whats the difference between assault weapons manufactured before 1994 which you are able to buy sell and own in MA and assault weapons made after 1994 which you can not buy sell or own in MA?

The alternative was an all out ban IIRC.


The difference is "you go with the inch you have, not the mile you want".
 
2013-02-24 12:58:07 PM

PunGent: Giltric: PunGent: Dimensio: BalugaJoe: They say it was a hoax.

Diane Feinstein is extremely disappointed, however the news should obviously have been a false report as assault weapons are already banned in Massachusetts.

Ironically, our Mass. "permanent" AWB was signed by...

Mitt Romney.

So, back under your bridge.


Whats the difference between assault weapons manufactured before 1994 which you are able to buy sell and own in MA and assault weapons made after 1994 which you can not buy sell or own in MA?

The alternative was an all out ban IIRC.

Another Romney fan, eh?

Go on, explain to us how not even TRYING to veto something is "courageous leadership".

Why, the man might've nicked himself on his pen...

The whole point of a Republican governor was to stand UP to the Dems, the way Weld did...not to out-spend and out-legislate the parlor pinks, ffs.


Do you really see a difference in GOP/DFL?
Really?
Big Picture, now.
Really really?
 
2013-02-24 03:00:39 PM

PunGent: Dimensio: BalugaJoe: They say it was a hoax.

Diane Feinstein is extremely disappointed, however the news should obviously have been a false report as assault weapons are already banned in Massachusetts.

Ironically, our Mass. "permanent" AWB was signed by...

Mitt Romney.

So, back under your bridge.


I am aware of Governor Romney's actions. It does not refute my statements.
 
Displayed 41 of 291 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report