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.

(Abc.net.au)   Indian man has axe to grind, takes it out on 5 girls and 4 women   (abc.net.au) divider line 32
    More: Sad, Indians, Press Trust of India, Madhya Pradesh, village elders, mental breakdown  
•       •       •

10853 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 8:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-04 08:33:06 PM  
5 votes:

Nadie_AZ: Local officials have announced compensation of 25,000 rupees ($435) each for the families of the deceased, the Press Trust of India said.

I think this might just be the saddest part of the article.


I'd think the part of the article where a crazy man killed a bunch of little girls and some women with a freakin' axe was sadder.
2013-04-05 09:39:46 PM  
2 votes:

tirob: Why not try attacking both the causes of crime that you cite *and* experimenting with restrictions on semiautomatic weapons to see if such restrictions put an end to the Columbine/Virginia Tech/Newtown events that we have been hearing about over the past few years?


How did the Brady bill stop Columbine? You do remember the Brady bill, You do remember that it was allowed to expire because it had no effect what so ever on crime, don't you.

So, what you appear to be saying, since they used pump shotguns to kill at Columbine, we need to ban AR-15 style weapons.

Or is it, let's ban pistols, you know, the ones you are saying will never be banned, and the NUMBER 1 choice of murderers in the US, because the VT killer used 9mms?

And how would it have stopped Lanza? Who stole a weapon from his mother, after shooting her will a pistol, both weapons which had been in the family's possession for several years, because CT's strict gun laws thwarted his attempts to buy weapons.

In other words; let's ban them again, it'll work this time.
2013-04-04 09:21:30 PM  
2 votes:

namegoeshere: Okay, US Farkers. We need to start differentiating between Casino and Call Center, because when I read "Indian" and "axe," I'm thinking Mogwai.


I'm sure you meant "Magua," not Mogwai.

media.lunch.com

"When the Grey Hair is dead, Magua will eat his heart. Before he dies, Magua will put his children under the knife, so the Grey Hair will know his seed is wiped out forever."
2013-04-04 09:21:15 PM  
2 votes:
INDIA, WHAT THE FARK?!
2013-04-04 08:57:32 PM  
2 votes:
I "corrected" them Sir.
i1.ytimg.com
And when my wife tried to prevent me from doing my duty, I "corrected" her.
2013-04-04 08:47:56 PM  
2 votes:
NO MORE THAN 10 AXES PER HARDWARE STORE!!
2013-04-06 08:36:15 AM  
1 votes:

tirob: That CDC study came out before Virginia Tech and Newtown.  It may be obsolete now.


No, it isn't.
Analysis of statistics doesn't work that way.

tirob: I focus on this particular weapons platform because I believe that the benefit of restricting semiautomatic weapons would outweigh the inconvenience to law-abiding citizens of not being able to buy them legally.


So the gun you just said a woman has a legal right to use in self defense is one that you would ban her from owning because you now think the risks outweigh the benefits.
...and the crook still doesn't care.   You just made more victims for him.

tirob: It is true that there was some militant union activity going on


Some?
You should look into the history of anti-union violence in that period.

Bans are excused as public safety measures, but throughout history they were always written against a minority or under class. Carry bans to prevent armed blacks,Switch blade bans for the italians, pistol bans for the immigrant Irish. Pot for the mexicans.
Now its rifles for the rural whites.
Billions of dollars dumped into fear politics and no one asks the question "Are we safe yet?".
2013-04-05 09:42:56 PM  
1 votes:

tirob: Pribar: tirob: Unfortunately for the legal owners of private semiautomatic firearms, however, there have been several notorious mass murders recently in which such weapons have been used, and it appears to me that if we do nothing in response to such mass murders, we can expect to see more of them in the future

See the problem is even if we ban the "bad" guns there will still be mass shootings.

Will there be as many?  As often?  We won't know until we see if restrictions work.

If you read my posts here you will see that I don't think it's either practical or advisable to regulate further either small pistols or bolt-action rifles.  And I'm entirely in agreement with the idea that we should spend more time trying to figure out why some people go out and try to do in other people en masse.


We had a assault weapons ban and a hi cap magazine ban for over a decade, it changed nothing, but lets keep slapping on band aids maybe that gangrene will go away. its easy to pay lip service to wanting to cure the problem but if all you want is to slap on a ban thats already been shown to be ineffective then you are part of the problem.
2013-04-05 09:42:26 PM  
1 votes:

tirob: Unfortunately for the legal owners of private semiautomatic firearms, however


"Damn the statistics, full speed ahead!!"

tirob: The Firearms Act of 1934 was passed in response to a flurry of murders and other crimes in which automatic weapons were used


The NFA was about disarming unionswho showed a penchant for fighting back against their corrupt employers.It didn't ban anything from well shod crooks. This was a tax to make sure only the wealthy could own military weaponry. It was about keeping the coal flowing, not public safety.

The blood washing through the streets was put there by prohibition. The violence was curbed by the end of prohibition.
Using the damage wrought by one bad policy to excuse another bad policy doesn't solve problems. It just creates unexpected issues elsewhere.
In this case it was removing automatic and explosive weapons from production right before WWII started.

...Oops.

tirob: I just don't think you can (or should) try to write laws restricting the legal ownership of small pistols.


Then why emphasize on a weapons platform that IS NOT causing the gun violence problem?
Why not use this political floor time to fix the economic and social woes of the most troubled communities?

If this is about making politicians look tough for the cameras then save some money and have them  pose with a gun.

tirob: Why not try attacking both the causes of crime that you cite *and* experimenting with restrictions on semiautomatic weapons to see...


We ran this experiment for ten years.
The result was the CDC and the FBI stating that it was an ineffective waste of money and effort.  It didn't curb mass shootings or save people.

Why should we try the same experiment again?
We know what works. Why do something that we know doesn't work?
2013-04-05 05:04:27 PM  
1 votes:

tirob: I think you could reduce the size of your theoretical hay bale exponentially by concentrating on certain kinds of firearms.



Well, We're looking at around 300 rifle deaths a year and AR's are a small subset (they have a high asking price and are still rare among those most at risk to be involved in crimes), which means you're in "more likely to be hit by lightning" territory.

dl.dropbox.com
(some ammo seized from a local gun runner)

What you are looking for are 25 acp pocket guns sold and purchased by a handful of crooks that the ATF never seems to bust. There's been more than a few complaints about this in the past.

If we are going by what does the most damage, AR's shouldn't have made it into the debate.

tirob: If only it were so simple.  Doing these things helps to prevent some violent crimes.  But by no means all of them.


More than some.
Targeting domestic violence has been the secret behind reducing violence in many states. We know drug use attracts dealers, gangs, and trouble. Economics and population let us put big red X's on the crime map.  We know the causes.

We're supposed to go on this long walk to "save one child" by keeping a few bullets from being loaded into a magazine.  Why not save them in bulk by putting more effort behind proven methods?
2013-04-05 03:53:30 PM  
1 votes:
And as long as we are interpereting the constitution "strictly" you need to get the fark off of the internet and never use it to communicate ever again. The founding fathers didn't type the constitution in Word you know.
2013-04-05 11:33:58 AM  
1 votes:

Spanky_McFarksalot: Great, now I'll have to put up with my right-wing fb friends posting this like a brazillion times with some pro-gun statement.

Thanks a lot guy from India!


What the fark is wrong with you? Do you value your precious wood-cutting penis-extension over the lives of women and children? All we are asking for is some reasonable restrictions on sharp and pointy things. Your right to own sharp and pointy things doesn't trump my right to live in complete safety.

I hope somebody cuts up any women you are related to with an axe to teach you a lesson. Psychos like yourself should be put down for the good of the country.
2013-04-05 11:18:51 AM  
1 votes:

tirob: way south: 

When someone commits an unthinkable crime, our focus should be on that person rather than their tools. Examining the weapon only explains the mechanics of how people died, not why the perpetrator decided to kill. As a result, controlling one tool only leads to deaths by different mechanics.
That isn't the outcome we're really interested in.

I'm all for focusing attention on the perpetrator of a crime, or even on the potential perpetrator of a crime, but I don't think it follows that we shouldn't focus attention on the means that perpetrator used to commit that crime.  If the weapon of choice of psychopaths is a semiautomatic rifle built on an AR-15 platform, or a semiautomatic pistol with a large capacity magazine, I think we need not only to try to identify psychopaths before they get their hands on such weapons, but also to ask ourselves whether the benefits of permitting such weapons to be available to the general public are outweighed by the fact that such weapons are favored by psychopaths.




Thing is we have to go back to the statistical chance of any particular weapon being used.
If I say that 99% of rifles or pistols will never be used in a crime, it stands to reason that a law targeted them will affect 99% of the population who are not criminals.
I'd be looking for needles by starting with the biggest bale of hay.

We come back to it being a human problem. We can spot the traits that create a high crime neighborhood (economics, culture, population density) and We know of other tell-tales (poor mental health, drug abuse, domestic violence) that precede most violent acts.
You shrink the search pool of potential criminals to something more manageable. I can then target resources on those hotspots and My efforts are better focused.

Its useful to understand the weapons involved, but every dollar spent triple checking an objects serial number is one less I can spend on the foot soldiers actually combating a problem.
2013-04-05 07:17:47 AM  
1 votes:

tirob: BroncoFan_17: You anti gun people crack me up. When someone breaks into my house, intent on hurting my family members, I'm going to respond within seconds..........with a gun.

You're going to call a guy some dispatcher who is going to send you a guy........with a gun............who's going to take several minutes to get there.

Wouldn't you be doing your family a great service by just learning to use a gun yourselves?

If only the issue were as simple as you make it out to be.

There are many issues that arise when you have firearms at home.  A burglar can break in and steal them while you are out.  It has not been unknown for a family member to shoot another family member, or a guest, accidentally or otherwise, with a firearm that someone bought for home protection.  There have been cases--the recent tragedy in Connecticut being a notorious one--where a family member uses a firearm bought for home protection for a criminal purpose instead.

The answer to your question is yes, you would be doing your family a service by learning to protect them with a gun.  But how do you know that the gun you buy to protect your family will be used exclusively for that purpose?




Statistics.
The vast majority of weapons (or axes for that matter) aren't used to commit crimes. Taking the necessary precautions further negates the danger of keeping any tool.

Of course the measures are different for every item. You don't treat fire and yard tools with the same precautions, But whoever bought the axe in question probably wasn't thinking "if I'm not careful, this will be used to kill many people!".

When someone commits an unthinkable crime, our focus should be on that person rather than their tools. Examining the weapon only explains the mechanics of how people died, not why the perpetrator decided to kill. As a result, controlling one tool only leads to deaths by different mechanics.
That isn't the outcome we're really interested in.
2013-04-05 12:29:05 AM  
1 votes:

BigNumber12: Cuteness is a survival tactic.


The rational guy who made up 100% of me before fatherhood also realized that. There have definitely been "fark this parenthood business" times that she was able to turn right back around by being cute. Pure evolution, making sure that we nurture these taxing little bundles of need through their most vulnerable period.

But I'm okay with that particular biological instruction.


So was I.  I'm just sayin', beware around puberty time.  Imps will steal your sleeping princess and replace her with one of their hellspawn.  Then, in about 7-8 years, she'll find her way home and kick the changeling out.

"When I was 14 my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to be around him.  But when I turned 21, I was astonished by how much the old man had learned in just seven years."  Mark Twain.
2013-04-05 12:25:23 AM  
1 votes:

fusillade762: Yeah. When my house catches fire I'm not gonna call some guy with a hose to put it out for me, I have my own hose.


You don't keep a fire extinguisher around?  That's pretty damn irresponsible.
2013-04-04 11:49:22 PM  
1 votes:
Axes with handles over 18" should not be legal, and the blades should be no longer than 6".  They should be made of copper or metals with similar softness so as to reduce their ability to chop through bone.

If you disagree with these new measures, then you are a bloodthirsty, paranoid, evil person with an IQ under 100 and a penis under <4 ".  All of your political opinions are null and void, and you are incapable of contributing anything meaningful to society.
2013-04-04 10:22:48 PM  
1 votes:
You anti gun people crack me up. When someone breaks into my house, intent on hurting my family members, I'm going to respond within seconds..........with a gun.

You're going to call a guy some dispatcher who is going to send you a guy........with a gun............who's going to take several minutes to get there.

Wouldn't you be doing your family a great service by just learning to use a gun yourselves?
2013-04-04 09:52:51 PM  
1 votes:
I for one would like to see legislation banning these so called Assault Axes - if only the handle was shorter it would have taken him more swings to have reached the victims.. Collapsible handles, bayonet lugs and fore grips all need to be banned from axes..  THINK OF THE CHILDREN
2013-04-04 09:32:59 PM  
1 votes:
Supporters of axe rights in India are now claiming that this story is a hoax.
2013-04-04 09:28:29 PM  
1 votes:
Impossible, only guns hurt people.
2013-04-04 09:21:09 PM  
1 votes:

vudukungfu: Ban axes


The only way to stop a bad guy with an ax is a good guy with an ax.

The world won't be safe until everyone has multiple axes.
2013-04-04 09:19:53 PM  
1 votes:

Rufus Lee King: sheep snorter: India man versus against Florida man. Florida man eats faces. While India man supports the core GOP policy(women are slaves as per the bible).

English is not your first language?


a0.twimg.com

My name is Peggy.
2013-04-04 09:12:06 PM  
1 votes:

sheep snorter: India man versus against Florida man. Florida man eats faces. While India man supports the core GOP policy(women are slaves as per the bible).

[i.imgur.com image 634x424]


I read that as Florida man eats feces
2013-04-04 09:10:09 PM  
1 votes:

namegoeshere: Okay, US Farkers. We need to start differentiating between Casino and Call Center, because when I read "Indian" and "axe," I'm thinking Mogwai.


Just use Alexie's definition: Dot or Feather?

 So much easier.
2013-04-04 09:07:20 PM  
1 votes:
I know your all joking because it's so damn sad and serious when crap like this happens and you can't but hate the human race a bit more.

If you don't laugh you got to cry.
2013-04-04 08:58:46 PM  
1 votes:
If only they had banned something, this wouldn't have happened!
2013-04-04 08:56:55 PM  
1 votes:

Pocket_Rocket: If ya axe me, they had it cuomin


FTFY.
2013-04-04 08:47:10 PM  
1 votes:
If they'd only had guns it wouldn't have happened
2013-04-04 08:45:52 PM  
1 votes:
Ban axes
2013-04-04 07:16:05 PM  
1 votes:
Local officials have announced compensation of 25,000 rupees ($435) each for the families of the deceased, the Press Trust of India said.

I think this might just be the saddest part of the article.
2013-04-04 06:33:32 PM  
1 votes:
Did he have had wood?
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report