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
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:26:50 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?

No, it's the argument that someone who worries about and prepares for "multiple home invaders" is either a drug dealer or dangerously paranoid and they they shouldn't have any sort of firearm at all.
 
2013-03-16 03:27:13 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.



Gun control doesn't even eliminate the crime it targets. The effects of the last AWB are unmeasurable according to the ATF and other studies.
 
2013-03-16 03:29:30 PM

Gosling: 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.


Why is the guy who planned his spree all freaked out and nervous firing blindly but the person sitting in their home watching TV or freshly woken up by a noise when someone breaks in is all calm cool and collected?
 
2013-03-16 03:29:35 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.


 
2013-03-16 03:29:56 PM

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



Korean store owners take up arms to defend their neighborhood after the LAPD abandons it to burn during the LA riots.


The people with actual sense in NOLA and LA bugged out and then just filed insurance claims to replace the stuff they lost in the storm/looting. In the case of NOLA, you were already out your deductible from the storm damage and half your shiat was already waterlogged, so you might as well let it get stolen so your insurance company can buy you shiny new crap. I honestly can't think of anything I own that is worth killing someone over in non-apocalyptic conditions, since it can all be replaced.
 
2013-03-16 03:30:28 PM

TheOther: 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.


My zombie link was shot in the head.  Fark it.
 
2013-03-16 03:30:36 PM

sheep snorter: 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.


Pretty decent on the derp side. Might get a few bites.
 
2013-03-16 03:31:01 PM

vpb: 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?

No, it's the argument that someone who worries about and prepares for "multiple home invaders" is either a drug dealer or dangerously paranoid and they they shouldn't have any sort of firearm at all.


The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.
 
2013-03-16 03:31:06 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?


Well, that is because there is a huge difference between trying to defend yourself from someone trying to attack you and shooting up a room full of unarmed people.

People who are actively trying to attack you tend to be moving fast, they own the momentum (as they initiated the situation) and they are also armed, so shooting back. Getting hits in this scenario is extremely difficult - most police shootings have far more rounds expended than hits on the bad guy.

Shooting up a room full of unarmed, cowering people - even with the occasional one trying to rush you, does not take anywhere near as much effort. Mass shooters also tend to carry multiple weapons (so if someone tries to rush a reload, they have a backup) and lots and lots of magazines (making magazine capacity bans irrelevant).

So yes, magazine capacity restrictions will do FAR more to limit people's options for self-defense. Anyone who has learned about self-defense shooting in a class, in the military or in law enforcement picks up on that fact within about 3 minutes. Of course, when the national policy debate is primarily being conducted by people who know everything about guns from television and movies, you get asinine logic like the above.
 
2013-03-16 03:32:24 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.


Yes because cornered first graders are really going to slow down a reload or reach into a dufflebag for another pistol or revolver. Gun control so tight it reduces civilian gun ownership to bolt or lever action or knives is not going to happen in our lifetime, even though you may mistakenly think it's a realistic option.
 
2013-03-16 03:32:33 PM

Giltric: vpb: 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?

No, it's the argument that someone who worries about and prepares for "multiple home invaders" is either a drug dealer or dangerously paranoid and they they shouldn't have any sort of firearm at all.

The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.


farm3.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-16 03:33:35 PM

vpb: No, it's the argument that someone who worries about and prepares for "multiple home invaders" is either a drug dealer or dangerously paranoid and they they shouldn't have any sort of firearm at all.


Home Invasion Robberies are far more common than workplace/school mass shootings.

It would be far more logical and prudent to prepare for a potential home invasion robbery, such as possessing sufficient firepower to defend yourself and your home and property with, than to make major alterations to our civil liberties to attempt to curtail an outlier event like a mass shooting in a school.
 
2013-03-16 03:34:00 PM

Giltric: The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.


So it's the women's fault for not having guns! Not the men's fault for being sick murdering rapists!

Makes sense.
 
2013-03-16 03:35:26 PM

vpb: 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?

No, it's the argument that someone who worries about and prepares for "multiple home invaders" is either a drug dealer or dangerously paranoid and they they shouldn't have any sort of firearm at all.


You're more likely to be involved in a multiple intruder scenario than a mass shooting.  Who's paranoid again?
 
2013-03-16 03:35:33 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Giltric: The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.

So it's the women's fault for not having guns! Not the men's fault for being sick murdering rapists!

Makes sense.


Ahh, deflection. I love that tactic.
 
2013-03-16 03:36:09 PM
The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.
 
2013-03-16 03:36:21 PM

Giltric: Why is the guy who planned his spree all freaked out and nervous firing blindly but the person sitting in their home watching TV or freshly woken up by a noise when someone breaks in is all calm cool and collected?


Okay, firing blindly may not be the best word, but they sure as hell are firing rapidly, and that's the important thing. They're going to be firing more than 10 bullets, surely.

As for the guy in a home-invasion scenario, well, let's just say they'd damn well better be calm and collected or, again, they're farked no matter what they do, because they're not going to hit their target. Spray-and-pray does not equal a dead invader no matter how big your magazine is.
 
2013-03-16 03:37:09 PM

cman: Doktor_Zhivago: Giltric: The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.

So it's the women's fault for not having guns! Not the men's fault for being sick murdering rapists!

Makes sense.

Ahh, deflection. I love that tactic.


Yes what where those women thinking.  It's their own fault.
 
2013-03-16 03:37:55 PM

Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.


Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?
 
2013-03-16 03:39:18 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: cman: Doktor_Zhivago: Giltric: The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.

So it's the women's fault for not having guns! Not the men's fault for being sick murdering rapists!

Makes sense.

Ahh, deflection. I love that tactic.

Yes what where those women thinking.  It's their own fault.


Even more deflection! Wow you are good at this game. Can I have your autograph, please?
 
2013-03-16 03:39:19 PM

cman: Doktor_Zhivago: Giltric: The women of the Petit family in Cheshire CT were raped and murdered by multiple home invaders...they were not paranoid nor were they drug dealers.

So it's the women's fault for not having guns! Not the men's fault for being sick murdering rapists!

Makes sense.

Ahh, deflection. I love that tactic.


And I love hypocrisy. Emotional appeals are only valid if you're using them from even more infrequent events in support of gun nuts.
 
2013-03-16 03:39:34 PM

cman: Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?


Ahh, deflection.  I love that tactic.
 
2013-03-16 03:39:57 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.


Weapons should be feared, you moron.  They aren't farking toys, idiot.
 
2013-03-16 03:41:08 PM

born_yesterday: cman: Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?

Ahh, deflection.  I love that tactic.


I was humorously attempting to convey the message that Australia is not America. Just because it works in other countries doesnt mean it will work here.
 
2013-03-16 03:41:24 PM
Why is it, exactly, that gun threads draw so many *ahem* advocates out the woodwork?  No, really, in detail, how is it?

I sufferered through some nutty years on Fark, with a vast majority cheering for going to war with Iraq.  But it seems like it has largely recovered since then.

But when the subject of guns comes up, all of these cockroaches start running around.
 
2013-03-16 03:43:22 PM

dr-shotgun: Shooting up a room full of unarmed, cowering people - even with the occasional one trying to rush you, does not take anywhere near as much effort. Mass shooters also tend to carry multiple weapons (so if someone tries to rush a reload, they have a backup) and lots and lots of magazines (making magazine capacity bans irrelevant).

So yes, magazine capacity restrictions will do FAR more to limit people's options for self-defense. Anyone who has learned about self-defense shooting in a class, in the military or in law enforcement picks up on that fact within about 3 minutes. Of course, when the national policy debate is primarily being conducted by people who know everything about guns from television and movies, you get asinine logic like the above.


Well, then I guess I'm dead in that situation.

Odds are you are too. Nobody ever says they'd be anything other than the big hero. Nobody ever stops to think that maybe they end up as one of the people who gets a lead enema before they even know what the hell is happening or one of the people who tries to fight back and loses to the guy who already has his gun out and pointed before they even clear the holster. (That's another thing: everybody thinks they're somehow going to outdraw a guy who already has his gun pointed at them. Perhaps through magic.) Oh, no. Every mass shooting can be stopped by the 28 Dirty Harrys in the crowd, and if they can't, well, it's the victims' fault for not carrying a bigger gun.
 
2013-03-16 03:43:38 PM

carpbrain: Why is it, exactly, that gun threads draw so many *ahem* advocates out the woodwork?  No, really, in detail, how is it?

I sufferered through some nutty years on Fark, with a vast majority cheering for going to war with Iraq.  But it seems like it has largely recovered since then.

But when the subject of guns comes up, all of these cockroaches start running around.


Probably because of all the jerks like you who consider them cockroaches.
 
2013-03-16 03:43:42 PM

carpbrain: Why is it, exactly, that gun threads draw so many *ahem* advocates out the woodwork?  No, really, in detail, how is it?

I sufferered through some nutty years on Fark, with a vast majority cheering for going to war with Iraq.  But it seems like it has largely recovered since then.

But when the subject of guns comes up, all of these cockroaches start running around.


Core beliefs tend to bring out masses.

When a Republican files a bill to add red tape to get abortions, Democrats come out because woman's choice is one of their core beliefs. When a Democrat files a bill to add red tape on buying weapons, Republicans come out because the right to arm oneself is a core belief.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:44:44 PM
cman:

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.


Yep.  You are exactly right.

Proof that weapons control laws work, staring everyone in the face.
 
2013-03-16 03:46:12 PM

cman: Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?


"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none."

Guns are not cars. Guns are nothing like cars. Banning one gender from driving is nothing like banning the ownership of various forms of weaponry.
 
2013-03-16 03:46:34 PM

cman: When a Republican files a bill to add red tape to get abortions, Democrats come out because woman's choice is one of their core beliefs. When a Democrat files a bill to add red tape on buying weapons, Republicans come out because the right to arm oneself is a core belief.


Single-issue voters aren't really that big of a factor since they're already committed to a party either way.
 
2013-03-16 03:46:41 PM
cman: derp

How is that deflection?

People keep bringing violence against women into the gun debate as yet another way to put the onus of rape/sexual violence on women by saying they need guns to defend themselves and not on men to not rape people. It's a stupid argument and I'm tired of it getting brought up.  It's the same stupid shiat as saying she shouldn't have been dressed a certain way or have gone out alone in public, or have a vagina, or whatever else you can use to pin rape on the victim.

Your argument sucks.
It's not deflection to point that out.
 
2013-03-16 03:46:48 PM

Gosling: 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.


Tell that to this guy

www.fieldandstream.com
 
2013-03-16 03:47:15 PM

Izicata: cman: Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none."

Guns are not cars. Guns are nothing like cars. Banning one gender from driving is nothing like banning the ownership of various forms of weaponry.


And you missed the point.

I was saying that Australia isnt America. What works there does not always mean it will work here, too.
 
2013-03-16 03:47:23 PM

iaazathot: 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.

Weapons should be feared, you moron.  They aren't farking toys, idiot.


Especially the black ones.
 
2013-03-16 03:47:38 PM

Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.


I'll ignore the MoJo link since they are pretty fast and loose with facts and often do not provide citations, just a chart.

I'll ignore Autralia also because they do not have constitutional protections where as I thank the creator we actually have protections of our rights which were endowed by our creator, although the founders left a mechanism in place for people to abridge those rights properly but it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of working so politicians try to weasel around it and make emotional pleas instead.
 
2013-03-16 03:48:19 PM

Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.


There was a federal AWB between 1994-2004. Several states continue to have state-level bans. There hasn't been any real effect on mass shootings. The CDC did a study in 2003 that reviewed the effectiveness of various gun laws and "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes".

Most mass shootings are carried out with handguns, not AR-15s. Restricting ARs and other so-called "assault weapons" won't do much at all, as there's plenty of other guns which are functionally identical and equally lethal but don't look scary, and so wouldn't be banned.

There's plenty of things that could be done to actually affect violent crime, mass shootings, etc. Banning certain guns that look scary and restricting magazine sizes is incredibly politically divisive and, ultimately, ineffective. It's basically a red herring that distracts from meaningful action.

Ultimately, any ban is doomed to failure: you can already 3D print perfectly functional AR-15 receivers (the only legally regulated part) and magazines using files freely available from the internet. Anyone who wants one can have one with the click of a button. The technology will only get better and cheaper as time goes on.
 
2013-03-16 03:48:44 PM

burninbeaver: Tell that to this guy


And that's my other post right there. YOU ARE NOT RAMBO. RAMBO IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. DIRTY HARRY IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. STOP SETTING UP YOUR LIFE IN PREPARATION FOR A MOMENT WHERE YOU GET TO ACT LIKE RAMBO.
 
2013-03-16 03:50:10 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: cman: derp

How is that deflection?

People keep bringing violence against women into the gun debate as yet another way to put the onus of rape/sexual violence on women by saying they need guns to defend themselves and not on men to not rape people. It's a stupid argument and I'm tired of it getting brought up.  It's the same stupid shiat as saying she shouldn't have been dressed a certain way or have gone out alone in public, or have a vagina, or whatever else you can use to pin rape on the victim.

Your argument sucks.
It's not deflection to point that out.


DTA, my friend. You control your actions. You cannot control anyone elses. How can you trust people to do right by you? You can't. Humans are selfish by nature. Rapists dont care how their victim feels. You cannot teach that. All you can do is make the punishment so severe (like shunning and such) that they will be motivated not to do it. They may not care about how the victim feels, but people sure do care about what others think of us.
 
2013-03-16 03:50:24 PM

heypete: Ultimately, any ban is doomed to failure: you can already 3D print perfectly functional AR-15 receivers (the only legally regulated part) and magazines using files freely available from the internet. Anyone who wants one can have one with the click of a button. The technology will only get better and cheaper as time goes on.


So, what, don't even try? Gun deaths are inevitable, so lie back and enjoy them?
 
2013-03-16 03:52:34 PM

burninbeaver: Gosling: 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.

Tell that to this guy

[www.fieldandstream.com image 850x742]


Only one M60?  Wimp.
 
2013-03-16 03:52:44 PM

cman: Doktor_Zhivago: cman: derp

How is that deflection?

People keep bringing violence against women into the gun debate as yet another way to put the onus of rape/sexual violence on women by saying they need guns to defend themselves and not on men to not rape people. It's a stupid argument and I'm tired of it getting brought up.  It's the same stupid shiat as saying she shouldn't have been dressed a certain way or have gone out alone in public, or have a vagina, or whatever else you can use to pin rape on the victim.

Your argument sucks.
It's not deflection to point that out.

DTA, my friend. You control your actions. You cannot control anyone elses. How can you trust people to do right by you? You can't. Humans are selfish by nature. Rapists dont care how their victim feels. You cannot teach men to stop raping. All you can do is make the punishment so severe (like shunning and such) that they will be motivated not to do it. One may not care about how a victim feels, but one sure does care about what others think of oneself.

 
2013-03-16 03:52:57 PM

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.  avoid the question.

That's all you had to say.


No, I'm trying to make you think for yourself.

They claim that banning flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, collapsible stocks etc. will make us "safer" as a nation, that it will have some appreciable effect on gun violence in general.

Simple logic AND FBI statistics prove, beyond all doubt, that their claim is patently false.

A lie.

Clearly then their goal is NOT what they claim it to be.

Feel free to rationalize, and tell us what you THINK their true goal(s) might be.
 
2013-03-16 03:53:23 PM

cman: cman: Doktor_Zhivago: cman: derp

How is that deflection?

People keep bringing violence against women into the gun debate as yet another way to put the onus of rape/sexual violence on women by saying they need guns to defend themselves and not on men to not rape people. It's a stupid argument and I'm tired of it getting brought up.  It's the same stupid shiat as saying she shouldn't have been dressed a certain way or have gone out alone in public, or have a vagina, or whatever else you can use to pin rape on the victim.

Your argument sucks.
It's not deflection to point that out.

DTA, my friend. You control your actions. You cannot control anyone elses. How can you trust people to do right by you? You can't. Humans are selfish by nature. Rapists dont care how their victim feels. You cannot teach men to stop raping. All you can do is make the punishment so severe (like shunning and such) that they will be motivated not to do it. One may not care about how a victim feels, but one sure does care about what others think of oneself.


WHoops, and fixed.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-16 03:53:48 PM
heypete:
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.

Loughner was tackled and disarmed while trying to reload, so obviously it made a difference there.

Or you could just wonder why the army shifted from the Springfield bolt action rifle to the Garand and then to the M-14 and now to Ar-15 derivitives.
 
2013-03-16 03:54:00 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: cman: derp

How is that deflection?

People keep bringing violence against women into the gun debate as yet another way to put the onus of rape/sexual violence on women by saying they need guns to defend themselves and not on men to not rape people. It's a stupid argument and I'm tired of it getting brought up.  It's the same stupid shiat as saying she shouldn't have been dressed a certain way or have gone out alone in public, or have a vagina, or whatever else you can use to pin rape on the victim.

Your argument sucks.
It's not deflection to point that out.


By that same logic, maybe it's not the guns, but the people murdering others with them?
 
2013-03-16 03:54:45 PM

cman: Izicata: cman: Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none."

Guns are not cars. Guns are nothing like cars. Banning one gender from driving is nothing like banning the ownership of various forms of weaponry.

And you missed the point.

I was saying that Australia isnt America. What works there does not always mean it will work here, too.


Australia and America are not exactly the same, but are similar enough that comparisons can be made and useful data is available. I'm comparing two first world, western, industrialized, democratic countries; not America and Saudi Arabia.
 
2013-03-16 03:54:52 PM

Gosling: So, what, don't even try? Gun deaths are inevitable, so lie back and enjoy them?


My point is that there's plenty of things that can be done that are effective at reducing homicide (both gun-related and not). Banning certain popular guns that look scary and are rarely used in crime is not effective, so you might as well try something that is more effective and is less politically divisive.

Even with strict regulations and severe penalties for their possession and use, drugs are still widely available pretty much anywhere in the country. It's clear that prohibition of drugs is not the solution. Why would it be any different for guns, particularly when they can be easily made by unskilled people with a device that costs less than $2,000 (and is only bound to get cheaper)?
 
2013-03-16 03:56:00 PM

Gosling: burninbeaver: Tell that to this guy

And that's my other post right there. YOU ARE NOT RAMBO. RAMBO IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. DIRTY HARRY IS A MOVIE CHARACTER. STOP SETTING UP YOUR LIFE IN PREPARATION FOR A MOMENT WHERE YOU GET TO ACT LIKE RAMBO.


Settle down Beavis.  It was a joke, probably.
 
2013-03-16 03:57:36 PM

Fart_Machine: cman: When a Republican files a bill to add red tape to get abortions, Democrats come out because woman's choice is one of their core beliefs. When a Democrat files a bill to add red tape on buying weapons, Republicans come out because the right to arm oneself is a core belief.

Single-issue voters aren't really that big of a factor since they're already committed to a party either way.


During CTs hearings on sb 1076 one of the politicians felt threatened that the people (of both parties) coming up to give testimony against proposed firearm legislation in CT claimed that this will turn them into one issue voters....3:05 mark in the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2arOY9bkIPM
 
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 »






Report