Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Gun-ban proponent Senator Leahy (D-VT) admits that assault rifles may be needed by the general public in the event of zombie apocalypse   (npr.org) divider line 460
    More: Obvious, Weekend Edition, assault rifles, zombie apocalypse, Richard Blumenthal, shoestring catch  
•       •       •

1798 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 02:38:37 PM  

Fart_Machine: Farker Soze: vpb: To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.

I thought you were advocating civil war just a few posts above that.  Doesn't really sound like you care about the number of people killed, but I guess it's OK for you when the right people are killed.

Gun control:  the religion of peace.

So your argument is that we shouldn't regulate firearms because "rational gun owners" will start shooting people.


No, I'm saying that vpb has a hard on for killing people.
 
2013-03-16 02:40:04 PM  

vpb: violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun! Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.


What makes you think Lanza couldn't have had the same body count with just about any other configuration of firearms? Oh, your general ignorance and fear of firearms, of course.
 
2013-03-16 02:41:39 PM  

derpy: cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

No, they don't. (plan on using them)

They are far too chickenshiat.

That's why they buy guns like this, to make them feel big and strong and tough.  But they aren't really.

/the Nuge is pants-wetting reality, for example


These people are dangerous. Many of them are crazy. Get a bunch of them together and you get mob mentality. Remember Matthew Shepard? Man was murdered because he was gay. Now imagine that happening all across the south to every homosexual and every Muslim.

When it comes to killing minorities they really have no problem with it. They have time and time again showed that they are violent. These are the people who will revolt. Don't underestimate your enemy.
 
2013-03-16 02:42:31 PM  

Amos Quito: vpb: Really the zombie argument is better than anything I have heard an actual gun nut come up with.


[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x790]


What exactly is this "Assault Weapons Ban" supposed to accomplish, again?


You're right.  Obviously, we should ban handguns instead.
 
2013-03-16 02:44:58 PM  

derpy: You're right.  Obviously, we should ban handguns instead.


He'll just pull more derp out of his ass about how people murder each other with chainsaws and sharks and sharks dcut taoed to chainsaws.. Argument is pointless with such people.

Because if you can never stop people from murdering one another its best just to do nothing.  Either totally fix the problem or give up.  It's the right wing way.
 
2013-03-16 02:45:36 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: dcut taoed


*attached... not sure how that happened
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 02:46:16 PM  
Amos Quito:
If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?


So you think it would be more reasonable to ban hands fists and feet than objects specifically designed to be weapons?  That's some fine logic there.

Banning "hands, fists, feet, etc"  would have certain practical difficulties.  The only problem with regulating or banning assault weapons is political.  The arguments that we need lunatic militias to protect us from the evil government and such are no more real then the Zombie threat.
 
2013-03-16 02:46:21 PM  

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: vpb: Amos Quito: vpb: Really the zombie argument is better than anything I have heard an actual gun nut come up with.

What exactly is this "Assault Weapons Ban" supposed to accomplish, again?

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?

What would that be?



Motive:


1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.

2. the goal or object of a person's actions: "Her motive was revenge."


Obviously their motive is not To reduce the number of people killed, so what would it be, then?
 
2013-03-16 02:46:35 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Doktor_Zhivago: dcut taoed

*attached... not sure how that happened


Mmm, duck taco...
 
2013-03-16 02:47:32 PM  

derpy: Amos Quito: vpb: Really the zombie argument is better than anything I have heard an actual gun nut come up with.


[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x790]


What exactly is this "Assault Weapons Ban" supposed to accomplish, again?

You're right.  Obviously, we should ban handguns instead.



That'd be next
 
2013-03-16 02:48:31 PM  

derpy: Amos Quito: vpb: Really the zombie argument is better than anything I have heard an actual gun nut come up with.


[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x790]


What exactly is this "Assault Weapons Ban" supposed to accomplish, again?

You're right.  Obviously, we should ban handguns instead.


The general public likes handguns though.  So, they disingenuously go after the low hanging fruit and claim they're doing something and thinking of the children and making a difference.  Pathetic.
 
2013-03-16 02:50:23 PM  
Yeah, because the Brady bill worked great, just ask the Columbine survivors./and I thought it was the republicans who were supposed to be irrationally terrified of stupid shiat...
 
2013-03-16 02:51:52 PM  

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: vpb: Amos Quito: vpb: Really the zombie argument is better than anything I have heard an actual gun nut come up with.

What exactly is this "Assault Weapons Ban" supposed to accomplish, again?

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?

What would that be?


Motive:


1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.

2. the goal or object of a person's actions: "Her motive was revenge."


Obviously their motive is not To reduce the number of people killed, so what would it be, then?


I asked you what it would be? Are you really so dumb as to ask the question twice?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 02:54:08 PM  

Farker Soze: vpb: To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.

I thought you were advocating civil war just a few posts above that.  Doesn't really sound like you care about the number of people killed, but I guess it's OK for you when the right people are killed.

Gun control:  the religion of peace.


No, I was calling your bluff.  I don't think you have the balls the brains or the ability to be the sort of big bad terrorists threat that you like to imagine you are.

Not that I would care about criminals getting Darwin'd the way I care about murder victims.
 
2013-03-16 02:57:16 PM  

vpb: Farker Soze: vpb: To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.

I thought you were advocating civil war just a few posts above that.  Doesn't really sound like you care about the number of people killed, but I guess it's OK for you when the right people are killed.

Gun control:  the religion of peace.

No, I was calling your bluff.  I don't think you have the balls the brains or the ability to be the sort of big bad terrorists threat that you like to imagine you are.

Not that I would care about criminals getting Darwin'd the way I care about murder victims.



"vpb, if we try to take away someone's hard earned stuff, they might start shooting at us."

"Good, we can kill them then!  We can kill all those rednecks!  Oh yeah!  Uh.  Uh!  Oops, I just had an accident in my pants."

You're just as bad as a racist cross-burning Klansman.
 
2013-03-16 03:00:07 PM  

stickmangrit: Yeah, because the Brady bill worked great, just ask the Columbine survivors./and I thought it was the republicans who were supposed to be irrationally terrified of stupid shiat...


Democrats proving they aren't always the party of facts, data, and reason.
 
2013-03-16 03:02:32 PM  

bronyaur1: How did things work out for the racist rednecks the last time they fought the US govt in a civil war?


You don't have to be fighting the federal government to want these kinds of weapons. Residents of drug-cartel-embattled Guerrero state in Mexico took up arms and drove out the cartelistas and the corrupt cops who enabled them. They've since established a quasi-official police force and a makeshift prison and are keeping the drug gangs out. When civil order breaks down and the institutions of government itself become irredeemably corrupt, arms are the only means citizens have of reestablishing control.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:04:24 PM  
cman:
Hey man, dont bunch me up with people based upon what you think is real. I may be in favor of gun rights, but claiming that I want a civil war solely due to me being on the right is a bit unfair. I am absolutely sure that a civil war will begin if assault weapons are banned. If that is because I have a want of civil war, that I cannot be absolutely sure of. I think about it a lot. How unbalanced everything has become makes it very apparent that something will happen soon.

I basing it on what you claim you think is real.  Specifically the belief that the lunatic fringe of the right is a real military threat or something to be feared at all.

Something will happen alright, but it will be the sort of things that lunatics usually do.  The idea that those people could form a real disciplined military force is laughable

So, bring it on tough guys!
 
2013-03-16 03:04:45 PM  
Morans with fully automatic guns should head on down to where the real villains in this world are and bring them to justice

/otherwise known as wallstreet and the big mega banks.

//Otherwise shut the fark up and change your diapers as you keep soiling them every time guns and the big bad black president is mentioned.
 
2013-03-16 03:05:10 PM  

Ennuipoet: Maybe if we talked about the dead children, instead of the walking dead we might make some headway.


i718.photobucket.com

"Think of the Children" is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy.

Any time somebody says that we need to do anything because of "the children", I ignore them.  That goes for both sides of the aisle.

To the Left: Don't ban Scary Blah Guns guns because of "the children" and a fear that an incredibly unlikely active shooter scenario will hurt them.

To the Right: Don't ban boobies in media because of the "the children", try making kids not be ashamed of their bodies and not tell them to avoid sex and dating and dancing and deny they are sexual beings.
 
2013-03-16 03:06:35 PM  

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: vpb: Amos Quito: vpb: Really the zombie argument is better than anything I have heard an actual gun nut come up with.

What exactly is this "Assault Weapons Ban" supposed to accomplish, again?

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?

What would that be?


Motive:


1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.

2. the goal or object of a person's actions: "Her motive was revenge."


Obviously their motive is not To reduce the number of people killed, so what would it be, then?

I asked you what it would be? Are you really so dumb as to ask the question twice?


I'm trying to make you think for yourself.
 
2013-03-16 03:07:25 PM  

Silverstaff: To the Left: Don't ban Scary Blah Guns guns because of "the children" and a fear that an incredibly unlikely active shooter scenario will hurt them.

To the Right: Don't ban boobies in media because of the "the children", try making kids not be ashamed of their bodies and not tell them to avoid sex and dating and dancing and deny they are sexual beings.


Yes.  Not wanting our children to be gunned down in school is the same as being against them seeing boobies.

BSABSVR
 
2013-03-16 03:08:12 PM  

vpb: To reduce the number of people killed.


There are things you can do to be safe on the road.
Wear your seat belt.  Avoid drinking and driving. Stop at all stop signs. Follow the speed limit.
There are things the government can do as well.
Enforce traffic laws more stringently, mark the roads more clearly, raise public awareness about safe driving.

There are things the government does in the name of road safety that are clearly about something else.
Like erecting speeding and stoplight cameras that automatically fine you.

There are things you can do that might make you think you are safer, but don't help enough to justify the trouble.
Like covering your car in reflectors...

dl.dropbox.com


The AWB was the political equivalent of prayer.  Politicians showed how much they cared by crafting a law that didn't actually help anyone.
Mass shootings still happened. Crime still happened. No one could identify the one person saved by a mag limit, so there was effectively no benefit.
All it did was cost the Democrats votes when they could least afford to lose them.

/What the AWB is doing in Colorado is, once again, putting the democrats reelection plans in peril.
/Endangering their gains on Marijuana and gay marriage, as well as two thousand jobs in the weapons industry.
/That car gets crappy gas mileage and scares off the chicks.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:09:28 PM  

violentsalvation: vpb: violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun! Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.

What makes you think Lanza couldn't have had the same body count with just about any other configuration of firearms? Oh, your general ignorance and fear of firearms, of course.


No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower.  If he had to use a knife or hands and feet it would have been lower still.
 
2013-03-16 03:10:20 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Silverstaff: To the Left: Don't ban Scary Blah Guns guns because of "the children" and a fear that an incredibly unlikely active shooter scenario will hurt them.

To the Right: Don't ban boobies in media because of the "the children", try making kids not be ashamed of their bodies and not tell them to avoid sex and dating and dancing and deny they are sexual beings.

Yes.  Not wanting our children to be gunned down in school is the same as being against them seeing boobies.

BSABSVR


You are more likely to be gunned down by multiple assailants who are democrats in your home then your children are to be gunned down in a school by a republican.

facts, liberal bias, and all that.
 
2013-03-16 03:10:38 PM  

Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.


Good luck with that.  Wasn't that one of the 12 tasks of Hercules?
 
2013-03-16 03:11:01 PM  

Ambivalence: Mentat: Ambivalence: With zombies, as with home defense, a shotgun is your best bet. What we need are high capacity shotgun magazines.

Guns jam.  Get yourself a short-arm steel bladed shovel.  Bam, right where the nose meets the forehead.

eh. Even if you sharpen a shovel all you can do s lunge with it. If I am going for a bladed weapon it's glaive all the way. With a blade suited to both thrust and slash.


You don't need the AR-15s and AK-variants for the zombies, you need them to deal with The Governor and Negan. Everyone knows that after the initial outbreak, the zombies eventually become a manageable threat and the other groups of survivors become the real threat.

/Also, if you are setting up your own personal kingdom post apocalypse, tame tigers help your street cred immensely.
 
2013-03-16 03:11:23 PM  

vpb: violentsalvation: vpb: violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun! Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.

What makes you think Lanza couldn't have had the same body count with just about any other configuration of firearms? Oh, your general ignorance and fear of firearms, of course.

No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower.  If he had to use a knife or hands and feet it would have been lower still.


And he could have killed more if he used an explosive.

/Two can play at that game
//En gard
 
2013-03-16 03:11:49 PM  

violentsalvation: stickmangrit: Yeah, because the Brady bill worked great, just ask the Columbine survivors./and I thought it was the republicans who were supposed to be irrationally terrified of stupid shiat...

Democrats proving they aren't always the party of facts, data, and reason.


That's what makes me sad about this gun control "debate".

I'm a democrat, and a liberal.  That said, I'm pro-gun rights and a dues-paying member of the NRA.  I support all civil rights, from marriage equality to the right to bear arms.

I was so proud last fall to see the Democrats being the party of reason and logic, and seeing my fellows being proud of that.  They would present the cold, hard facts on how their plans would be best for America, and how Rmoney was lying and not staying with the facts.

. . .then Newtown happened.  The left-wing Derp started up.  Within a day we had a chorus of Farkers shouting about banning this and confiscating that, and it was much much worse in some other parts of the internet.  I left a number of left-wing groups I followed and participated on Facebook, because instantly there was a chorus of people basically saying that unless you want to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all guns then you were in favor of dead babies.  It was like a left-wing mirror universe version of the right-wing derp I'd spent the last year dealing with.

There is no gun control that is permissible under the Heller and McDonald precedents that is going to make a reasonable dent in gun violence.  It would be better to increase protection for sensitive sites, work on some mental healthcare solutions, and try to look at the deeper cause about why active shooter incidents only really started coming around in the last 15 years or so, and were ridiculously rare before that.  What has changed in our society?  It's not the availability of guns, it's something deeper.   An AWB is a band-aid on sunburn in terms of the wrong fix to the real problem.
 
2013-03-16 03:12:25 PM  

Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.

  avoid the question.

That's all you had to say.
 
2013-03-16 03:12:43 PM  
fta "But nothing is impossible after Newtown, which so powerfully changed things. We are all different after Newtown."

Yes, the people want meaningful and effective gun control. But this is about politicians and their careers. It has next to nothing to do with the people.
 
2013-03-16 03:13:33 PM  

Farker Soze: Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.

Good luck with that.  Wasn't that one of the 12 tasks of Hercules?


No, that was teaching you how to tie your shoes.
 
2013-03-16 03:14:47 PM  

Fart_Machine: avoid the question.


Interdasting......

Are democrats/gun control proponents still not trying to ban any weapons?
 
2013-03-16 03:15:53 PM  

cman: These people are dangerous. Many of them are crazy. Get a bunch of them together and you get mob mentality. Remember Matthew Shepard? Man was murdered because he was gay. Now imagine that happening all across the south to every homosexual and every Muslim.

When it comes to killing minorities they really have no problem with it. They have time and time again showed that they are violent. These are the people who will revolt. Don't underestimate your enemy.


Then let them revolt. Let them show once and for all just what kind of country they want. I'm tired of 'soon'. If they want to start shooting, let them get their ass shot off by people that actually know what they're doing and let this whole thing farking end.
 
2013-03-16 03:16:03 PM  

cman: And he could have killed more if he used an explosive.


So we should regulate firearms like we do explosives.  Ok then.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:16:06 PM  
I think more people are bright enough to realize that the "gun control doesn't eliminate all crime therefore it doesn't work" argument is idiotic.

So keep making that argument. It will help people realize that you are sane and rational.
 
2013-03-16 03:16:51 PM  
www.commondreams.org

Citizens took up arms to defend themselves and their property after the NOPD abandoned entire sections of New Orleans after Katrina.

www.humanevents.com

Korean store owners take up arms to defend their neighborhood after the LAPD abandons it to burn during the LA riots.
 
2013-03-16 03:17:30 PM  

vpb: I think more people are bright enough to realize that the "gun control doesn't eliminate all crime therefore it doesn't work" argument is idiotic.

So keep making that argument. It will help people realize that you are sane and rational.


Your rebuttal doesn't end all arguments, therefore it doesn't work.
 
2013-03-16 03:17:43 PM  
Not a fan of guns, but I don't think the assault weapon ban will accomplish anything other than wasting a lot of time and political capital to make a lot of people angry and defensive.

We should concentrate on more useful measures like universal background checks for all deadly weapons and mental health care availability.

If we want to talk about effective gun control that would actually cut down on gun violence, I'd support the banning *and confiscation* of all handguns and rifles unsuitable for hunting. Of course that won't happen, and I won't waste my time arguing for the impossible.
 
2013-03-16 03:18:10 PM  

Fart_Machine: cman: And he could have killed more if he used an explosive.

So we should regulate firearms like we do explosives.  Ok then.


I was being facetious
 
2013-03-16 03:18:45 PM  

vpb: violentsalvation: vpb: violentsalvation:
It's not intended to solve anything and they know it won't. It's a desire to control people coupled with an irrational fear.

Yeah, those kids at sandy hook were totally irrational to run from the friendly gun! Thy must have just been prejudiced because of the scary way it looked.

What makes you think Lanza couldn't have had the same body count with just about any other configuration of firearms? Oh, your general ignorance and fear of firearms, of course.

No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower.  If he had to use a knife or hands and feet it would have been lower still.


Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live.  Aim better gun-nut" in the next?
 
2013-03-16 03:19:02 PM  

wingedkat: Not a fan of guns, but I don't think the assault weapon ban will accomplish anything other than wasting a lot of time and political capital to make a lot of people angry and defensive.

We should concentrate on more useful measures like universal background checks for all deadly weapons and mental health care availability.

If we want to talk about effective gun control that would actually cut down on gun violence, I'd support the banning *and confiscation* of all handguns and rifles unsuitable for hunting. Of course that won't happen, and I won't waste my time arguing for the impossible.


Thank goodness every firearm is suitable for hunting.
 
2013-03-16 03:19:45 PM  

cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.


Reality. Grip it.
 
2013-03-16 03:20:29 PM  

Fart_Machine: Farker Soze: Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.

Good luck with that.  Wasn't that one of the 12 tasks of Hercules?

No, that was teaching you how to tie your shoes.


Hercules had to time travel to complete that otherwise simple task.  Yes, time travel is hard.  See, you need to think about these things.
 
2013-03-16 03:23:16 PM  

way south: There are things you can do that might make you think you are safer, but don't help enough to justify the trouble.
Like covering your car in reflectors...


Motor vehicle lighting is also regulated on vehicles.
 
2013-03-16 03:24:46 PM  

Farker Soze: Hercules had to time travel to complete that otherwise simple task.


He was also a fictional character.
 
2013-03-16 03:25:10 PM  

vpb: No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower


Lanza would have had to make his shots count instead of pumping an average of something like 6 or 7 rounds into each victim.

He actually did reload often. According to the Hartford Courant the police found mulitple magazines with only a couple shots fired out of each one left the floor. He changed mags as as often as he changed targets.
 
2013-03-16 03:26:08 PM  

Amos Quito: vpb: Amos Quito: vpb: Really the zombie argument is better than anything I have heard an actual gun nut come up with.

What exactly is this "Assault Weapons Ban" supposed to accomplish, again?

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?


They're targetting ones used in mass shootings. But you know that. You're just framing the argument dishonestly because you have no legitimate points
 
2013-03-16 03:26:23 PM  

vpb: No, anyone who knows anything about knows that if he had to reload more often and/or stop to work a bolt or lever action that the body count would be much lower.


[citation needed]

The Virginia Tech shooter used guns with 10- and 15-round magazines with his handguns. The Newtown shooter reloaded frequently and many of the 30 round magazines he used were half-full when found by the police. He fired 152 rounds in about 15 minutes -- slightly more than 10 rounds per minute, which is well within the ability of someone with a bolt-action or lever-action gun. Neither met with any effective resistance that would have affected their ability to reload.

Would having a smaller magazine have made a difference? Maybe, but it doesn't really seem likely. Considering the federal restriction on magazine capacity for 10 years plus several state-level bans, there's plenty of evidence to show that such restrictions don't really have any meaningful effect on violent crime rates.
 
2013-03-16 03:26:28 PM  

Farker Soze: Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live. Aim better gun-nut" in the next?


Those statements do not contradict each other. The aim of 10-round magazines is to make a guy firing wildly in a mass shooting stop and reload earlier, giving someone an earlier opening to stop him with fewer dead. In a home-invasion scenario (a scenario that in and of itself is far less likely than getting shot by someone you already know, a fact conveniently ignored by the pro-gun crowd), you're more liable to take the extra second to aim and the reload period probably isn't going to factor into anything. If you need more than 10 shots in that situation, odds are you're so vastly outnumbered and outgunned that you're farked no matter what you do.
 
Displayed 50 of 460 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report