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.

(Leesburg Today)   Guns are welcome on the premises. Please keep all firearms holstered unless the need arises. In such case, judicious marksmanship is greatly appreciated by all. Enjoy your meal   (leesburgtoday.com) divider line 278
    More: Stupid, Leesburg, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Mississippi Delta, carrying a gun, cajuns, board of supervisors, Gun politics, Sandy Hook Elementary  
•       •       •

10384 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2013 at 12:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-05 02:12:52 PM  

JustGetItRight: I think what you'll find is that when bystanders get hit, the gunfire comes from the bad guy


By definition.
 
2013-04-05 02:12:53 PM  
You know what I like to do? I like to take it out and rest it on the counter when I'm eating.

// Likes to eat standing up.
 
2013-04-05 02:13:09 PM  

BgJonson79: xalres: scarmig: xalres: I often wonder what it's like to go through life so pants-pissingly paranoid of the outside world that you feel the need to be armed everywhere at all times just in case!!!! It sounds exhausting.

You ever wear a seat belt, "just in case"?

Must be exhausting to be so pants-pissingly scared of other drivers.

No I wear one because a) it's the law and b) I don't want to go flying through my windshield should I end up rear ending someone.

I think if you're going to make a seat belt to gun analogy you'd be better off comparing them to the safety. Is it more responsible to walk around with the safety on or off? Does keeping the safety on while you're not ready to shoot something make you paranoid?

You're required to wear a seat belt in your state?  We don't even have helmet laws, sales or income tax.


Yeah. It's a ticketable offense. As is talking/texting on a cell phone.
 
2013-04-05 02:13:34 PM  

master_dman: lostcat: master_dman: lostcat: dudicon: master_dman: All you scared whiny pussies can just stay away from this place.
I'm guessing this place won't be robbed.  EVER.

So the people who aren't so scared of the world they feel the need to be armed at all times are the pussies?

It's sad to me that there are people who sit in restaurants and worry that it may get robbed.

The thought has never occurred to me once in 42 years.

I've also never been in a situation where deadly force was neccessary to protect my life, or the lives of those around me.

Your right.. It's still relatively safe out there.

Chances are, you can go your whole life without ever needing to protect your life... but I suspect if it ever did come to that.. you will just curl into a ball in the corner and piddle yourself waiting for the cops to show up.

Another bad assumption. I have anger-management isssues, I'm 6' and weigh over 220. I'm the last person who would cower when someone is being an asshole. I'm more likely to be shot my some coward who feels threatened by me when I lose my temper and start getting up in their face.

/sad but true internet tough guy

I'm 6'2" and weigh 240.  So what.
Your both a dick and a pussy at the same time I see.


Could you assholes just leave and start making out already?
 
2013-04-05 02:13:56 PM  

JustGetItRight: xalres: I would love to see that social experiment. Though, it would be more amusing if you could somehow replace all their bullets with blanks just to see the looks on their faces afterward.

Here's your challenge for the day.  Find me an example of a ccw carrier using his weapon in an attempt to stop a crime and instead shooting an innocent bystander.


I am aware of one incident. I am aware of absolutely no other incidents.
 
2013-04-05 02:14:26 PM  

xalres: scarmig: xalres: scarmig: xalres: I often wonder what it's like to go through life so pants-pissingly paranoid of the outside world that you feel the need to be armed everywhere at all times just in case!!!! It sounds exhausting.

You ever wear a seat belt, "just in case"?

Must be exhausting to be so pants-pissingly scared of other drivers.

No I wear one because a) it's the law and b) I don't want to go flying through my windshield should I end up rear ending someone.

I think if you're going to make a seat belt to gun analogy you'd be better off comparing them to the safety. Is it more responsible to walk around with the safety on or off? Does keeping the safety on while you're not ready to shoot something make you paranoid?

My analogy was not about safety.  It was about fear.   You claim we carry out of fear.  Ergo, you must wear a seat belt out of fear.  If you don't wear your seat belt out of fear, then it is *possible* we may carry for reasons other than fear.

Such as...

What other reasons are there for people to carry a weapon on their person at all times everywhere they go? I'm genuinely interested because I haven't heard one explanation that didn't boil down to general paranoia about ubiquitous crime.



The government cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens. Protecting oneself and family is a personal duty and the government should not impede the ability of responsible adults to defend themselves.

Criminals carry concealed weapons regardless of their legality. Responsible citizens should have the same advantages when it comes to protecting themselves from armed attackers.

If I have the right, ability and proper training why should I put myself at a disadvantage when out in public or at home for that matter?

Better to carry and not need it then to need it and not carry.
 
2013-04-05 02:15:30 PM  

xalres: scarmig: xalres: scarmig: xalres: I often wonder what it's like to go through life so pants-pissingly paranoid of the outside world that you feel the need to be armed everywhere at all times just in case!!!! It sounds exhausting.

You ever wear a seat belt, "just in case"?

Must be exhausting to be so pants-pissingly scared of other drivers.

No I wear one because a) it's the law and b) I don't want to go flying through my windshield should I end up rear ending someone.

I think if you're going to make a seat belt to gun analogy you'd be better off comparing them to the safety. Is it more responsible to walk around with the safety on or off? Does keeping the safety on while you're not ready to shoot something make you paranoid?

My analogy was not about safety.  It was about fear.   You claim we carry out of fear.  Ergo, you must wear a seat belt out of fear.  If you don't wear your seat belt out of fear, then it is *possible* we may carry for reasons other than fear.

Such as...

What other reasons are there for people to carry a weapon on their person at all times everywhere they go? I'm genuinely interested because I haven't heard one explanation that didn't boil down to general paranoia about ubiquitous crime.


Safety.  This takes us back to my analogy.  You don't wear a seat belt because you are afraid.  You wear it to be safe.  A seat belt is a tool that you use to help mitigate unexpected danger.  A firearm is also a tool that can be used towards the same purpose.  It is not an indication of fear or paranoia, any more than your seat belt is.
 
2013-04-05 02:16:25 PM  

master_dman: noitsnot: I'm waiting for all the "accidentally shot self in leg, groin, or belly" stories.  Bring 'em on.

Is this all you whiny pussies got?
You just parrot on about all the bad things that are gonna happen..

OK.  I'll play.

Lets wait and see how many people in this place shoot themselves.  Lets all watch very carefully and see when someone gets shot.  I'm guessing your bet is what?  A day?  A week maybe?

I'll go out on a limb here and say... never.
Also.. when I say "somebody gets shot".. I mean one of the patrons shoots themselves or someone else as an accident.  If a patron shoots some thug trying to rob the place.. that doesn't count.

Deal?


Sure -  Deal.  I think that people that feel they need to carry a gun in Sears will either shoot themselves or the stock boy, because they're stupid people, and stupid people do stupid things.
 
2013-04-05 02:16:46 PM  
Why do some people try to link having a gun to penis size?
That seems to imply that the proper way to handle confrontations and defend yourself is to drop trow and play 'swords' with the opponent.
 
2013-04-05 02:17:10 PM  

xalres: scarmig: xalres: scarmig: xalres: I often wonder what it's like to go through life so pants-pissingly paranoid of the outside world that you feel the need to be armed everywhere at all times just in case!!!! It sounds exhausting.

You ever wear a seat belt, "just in case"?

Must be exhausting to be so pants-pissingly scared of other drivers.

No I wear one because a) it's the law and b) I don't want to go flying through my windshield should I end up rear ending someone.

I think if you're going to make a seat belt to gun analogy you'd be better off comparing them to the safety. Is it more responsible to walk around with the safety on or off? Does keeping the safety on while you're not ready to shoot something make you paranoid?

My analogy was not about safety.  It was about fear.   You claim we carry out of fear.  Ergo, you must wear a seat belt out of fear.  If you don't wear your seat belt out of fear, then it is *possible* we may carry for reasons other than fear.

Such as...

What other reasons are there for people to carry a weapon on their person at all times everywhere they go? I'm genuinely interested because I haven't heard one explanation that didn't boil down to general paranoia about ubiquitous crime.


Because in the unlikely event that my life is threatened, I like to have the tools to defend myself. I also used to obey "Gun Free Zones," too. I don't do that anymore after a fight at a party I was at. The house wasn't on campus, but was close enough that it was probable I would walk through it at some point. A fight broke out, everyone involved seemed over it, then an SUV came up around midnight, 7 guys poured out, and after kicking down the door and throwing a brick through a window, my friend was shot in the hip. Sure was glad I obeyed the signage at that point. Also glad that gun laws are being passed to make it harder to get guns. The shooter never would have gotten that stolen G23 with those in place.
 
2013-04-05 02:18:18 PM  
I hold a Kentucky-issue concealed weapons permit. As a matter of habit, I carry where prohibited neither by law nor by policy. Policy includes my workplace, law includes government buildings (local, state or federal), establishments where more than 50% of income is derived from the sale of alcohol for consumption upon the premises (this has affected be exactly once, as I do not socialize frequently and I never consume alcohol in public) and when in legal jurisdictions where my permit is not recognized (such as Washington, DC or New York).

I experience no feeling of decreased safety nor of increased fear when not carrying. I traveled extensively in the District of Columbia by bicycle at various times of day without any concern of being robbed or otherwise attacked unprovoked. I have walked and made use of public transit in the city of New York and I felt no such concerns there, either. I have no fear of being attacked while working, nor do I anticipate being the victim of a violent crime when I enter any government building.

Individuals who believe that concealed weapons permit holders experience fear when not armed may wish to reconsider the universal validity of their premise.
 
2013-04-05 02:20:14 PM  

FlashHarry: [i49.tinypic.com image 300x487]


How tiny is your penis?
 
2013-04-05 02:20:28 PM  

graeth: Why do some people try to link having a gun to penis size?
That seems to imply that the proper way to handle confrontations and defend yourself is to drop trow and play 'swords' with the opponent.


I have hypothesized -- though without testing -- that opponents of allowing civilians to carry firearms experience a disproportionate likelihood to be obsessed with male genitalia, which would explain the frequency by which such opponents inadvertently make inappropriate references to male genitalia in discussions.
 
2013-04-05 02:20:54 PM  
lostcat:

Another bad assumption. I have anger-management isssues, I'm 6' and weigh over 220. I'm the last person who would cower when someone is being an asshole. I'm more likely to be shot my some coward who feels threatened by me when I lose my temper and start getting up in their face.

You need to be real careful then buddy.  You're right, you are more likely to get shot.

Get help, and stay away from others if you can't behave like a human being.
 
2013-04-05 02:21:49 PM  

Allen. The end.: My problem is this: the nature of the discussion of open carry is flawed. Of course, when 'Joe Blow' with a gun starts firing to defend himself against a threat, he won't be firing accurately. Show me all the targets at the range you want, but a firing range is NOT a busy highway. The second point is that while 'Joe' has a gun, I do not. This changes the nature of the initial relationship between he and I, whether we are in the same restaurant or church, or just on the same sidewalk. His capacity to inflict harm is MUCH greater than mine, and his possession and presentation of a weapon changes the dynamic of any relationship we could have. The carrying of a weapon also changes the dynamic of his own opinion, rendering his views to be allowed to be much more severe, less able to empathize with those who choose not to carry a deadly weapon with them, and give him a sense of power that may or may not be false. Cover this with the idea of "rights" or "defense", and you get a bunch of guys arguing on the internet about...oh, wait.


I do prefer open carry to concealed carry. I don't really get the midset underpinning the desire to be armed at all times but also don't have anything against it as a right, really.

But do the rest of us not have a right to know when we are dealing with someone carrying a deadly weapon?
 
2013-04-05 02:22:02 PM  

Frogfoot: The Stupid Tag?

No person should be defenseless in their own home or on the streets of their own city or country.  Whether they are defending themselves against simple thugs or their own government.  Mandating defenseless citizenry is simply an outmoded archaic type of thinking.  Those that continue it in any form are intellectual dinosaurs.


Pity such dinosaurs as Japan, Canada, the UK, France, Poland, Finland, India, Sweden, New Zealand, Switzerland...

The fact is that you could wear a suit made entirely of handguns and still pose no threat whatsoever to your own government. The only other reasons to carry a weapon are to defend yourself from random criminal bogeymen (which is not unreasonable if you live somewhere that this is a common threat), to protect yourself from specific problems you enabled by associating with certain people or acting like a jerk, or to be some kind of instant vigilante.

There are reasonable trains of thought that could lead people to any of these three conclusions, but there are also a lot of wide, well-travelled highways from crazytown that end up in that same place. It doesn't matter which is which because, again, it's perfectly legal.
 
2013-04-05 02:22:37 PM  

pnome: lostcat:

Another bad assumption. I have anger-management isssues, I'm 6' and weigh over 220. I'm the last person who would cower when someone is being an asshole. I'm more likely to be shot my some coward who feels threatened by me when I lose my temper and start getting up in their face.

You need to be real careful then buddy.  You're right, you are more likely to get shot.

Get help, and stay away from others if you can't behave like a human being.


In what uncivilized nations is threatening, without provocation, to inflict grievous bodily injury justification for a potential victim to use potentially lethal force? Do not violent thugs enjoy a right to victimize others without risk or fear of injury?
 
2013-04-05 02:22:48 PM  
Right now if you are in a state that allows CC a/o OC of the 100 adults closest to you who are not in a "Gun Free Zone", and who are not LEO's, at least one of them has a gun on them, and in most states odds are very very good that 5 or more are armed. Yet odds are also that you will never witness a shooting of any kind in your life.

Lawful carriers have been statistically shown to commit far less violent crimes than the average citizen. It is almost as if the sort of people that trust themselves to lawfully own and carry a firearm tend to be the kind of people who don't run around doing stupid, illegal, or dangerous things. How strange is that?
 
2013-04-05 02:22:53 PM  

scarmig: xalres: scarmig: xalres: scarmig: xalres: I often wonder what it's like to go through life so pants-pissingly paranoid of the outside world that you feel the need to be armed everywhere at all times just in case!!!! It sounds exhausting.

You ever wear a seat belt, "just in case"?

Must be exhausting to be so pants-pissingly scared of other drivers.

No I wear one because a) it's the law and b) I don't want to go flying through my windshield should I end up rear ending someone.

I think if you're going to make a seat belt to gun analogy you'd be better off comparing them to the safety. Is it more responsible to walk around with the safety on or off? Does keeping the safety on while you're not ready to shoot something make you paranoid?

My analogy was not about safety.  It was about fear.   You claim we carry out of fear.  Ergo, you must wear a seat belt out of fear.  If you don't wear your seat belt out of fear, then it is *possible* we may carry for reasons other than fear.

Such as...

What other reasons are there for people to carry a weapon on their person at all times everywhere they go? I'm genuinely interested because I haven't heard one explanation that didn't boil down to general paranoia about ubiquitous crime.

Safety.  This takes us back to my analogy.  You don't wear a seat belt because you are afraid.  You wear it to be safe.  A seat belt is a tool that you use to help mitigate unexpected danger.  A firearm is also a tool that can be used towards the same purpose.  It is not an indication of fear or paranoia, any more than your seat belt is.


I guess that's the heart of the disagreement. What you see as being safe I see as being paranoid. Agree to disagree I suppose. And not for nothing but it's incredibly difficult to kill someone, accidentally or otherwise,  with a seatbelt.
 
2013-04-05 02:24:23 PM  

Ned Stark: Allen. The end.: My problem is this: the nature of the discussion of open carry is flawed. Of course, when 'Joe Blow' with a gun starts firing to defend himself against a threat, he won't be firing accurately. Show me all the targets at the range you want, but a firing range is NOT a busy highway. The second point is that while 'Joe' has a gun, I do not. This changes the nature of the initial relationship between he and I, whether we are in the same restaurant or church, or just on the same sidewalk. His capacity to inflict harm is MUCH greater than mine, and his possession and presentation of a weapon changes the dynamic of any relationship we could have. The carrying of a weapon also changes the dynamic of his own opinion, rendering his views to be allowed to be much more severe, less able to empathize with those who choose not to carry a deadly weapon with them, and give him a sense of power that may or may not be false. Cover this with the idea of "rights" or "defense", and you get a bunch of guys arguing on the internet about...oh, wait.

I do prefer open carry to concealed carry. I don't really get the midset underpinning the desire to be armed at all times but also don't have anything against it as a right, really.

But do the rest of us not have a right to know when we are dealing with someone carrying a deadly weapon?

What exactly would it change if you knew?

 
2013-04-05 02:25:49 PM  
Fart gets trollbait articles about restaurants and other establishments that allow firearms on premise all the time and the gun nuts goes their nutty routine every time.

Maybe Fark should meet them half way and start linking to stories about the dozens of shooting that must happen a day in these places to shut them up?
 
2013-04-05 02:26:47 PM  

pnome: lostcat:

Another bad assumption. I have anger-management isssues, I'm 6' and weigh over 220. I'm the last person who would cower when someone is being an asshole. I'm more likely to be shot my some coward who feels threatened by me when I lose my temper and start getting up in their face.

You need to be real careful then buddy.  You're right, you are more likely to get shot.

Get help, and stay away from others if you can't behave like a human being.


And for God's sake, don't admit to this shiat in a gun control discussion ever again.  You *were* winning.
 
2013-04-05 02:27:20 PM  

Dimensio: JustGetItRight: xalres: I would love to see that social experiment. Though, it would be more amusing if you could somehow replace all their bullets with blanks just to see the looks on their faces afterward.

Here's your challenge for the day.  Find me an example of a ccw carrier using his weapon in an attempt to stop a crime and instead shooting an innocent bystander.

I am aware of one incident. I am aware of absolutely no other incidents.


I remember that one and some extended research may turn up one or two more, but the overwhelming results will be that the CCW holder a) didn't draw b) drew, but didn't fire or c) successfully engaged (defined as shot or drove off) the offender.

Despite gun hater's claims and hopes, the evidence is undeniable that concealed carry holders exercise outstanding judgement in these situations.
 
2013-04-05 02:27:36 PM  

umad: lostcat: umad: lostcat: What I do say is that to call me a "pussy" because I don't feel the need to carry a deadly weapon around in public in order to feel safe is just backasswards.

They aren't calling you a pussy because you refuse to carry a gun. They are calling you a pussy because just the thought of somebody else carrying a gun in your vicinity freaks you the fark out and brings out your inner authoritarian.

You've just made an ass out of u and me.

Yet I'm right the fark on. You wouldn't be so "concerned" otherwise.


If I were concerned, I'd do something more than argue on a Fark thread.
 
2013-04-05 02:27:37 PM  

IoSaturnalia: You *were* winning.


In the Charlie Sheen sense of the word I suppose.
 
2013-04-05 02:29:08 PM  

super_grass: Fart gets trollbait articles about restaurants and other establishments that allow firearms on premise all the time and the gun nuts goes their nutty routine every time.

Maybe Fark should meet them half way and start linking to stories about the dozens of shooting that must happen a day in these places to shut them up?


I guess if it helps, I have a state issued CCW permit - feel free to add me to ignore because of it.

These articles bring out the nuts on both sides not just the pro side.
 
2013-04-05 02:29:16 PM  

xalres: scarmig: xalres: scarmig: xalres: scarmig: xalres: I often wonder what it's like to go through life so pants-pissingly paranoid of the outside world that you feel the need to be armed everywhere at all times just in case!!!! It sounds exhausting.

You ever wear a seat belt, "just in case"?

Must be exhausting to be so pants-pissingly scared of other drivers.

No I wear one because a) it's the law and b) I don't want to go flying through my windshield should I end up rear ending someone.

I think if you're going to make a seat belt to gun analogy you'd be better off comparing them to the safety. Is it more responsible to walk around with the safety on or off? Does keeping the safety on while you're not ready to shoot something make you paranoid?

My analogy was not about safety.  It was about fear.   You claim we carry out of fear.  Ergo, you must wear a seat belt out of fear.  If you don't wear your seat belt out of fear, then it is *possible* we may carry for reasons other than fear.

Such as...

What other reasons are there for people to carry a weapon on their person at all times everywhere they go? I'm genuinely interested because I haven't heard one explanation that didn't boil down to general paranoia about ubiquitous crime.

Safety.  This takes us back to my analogy.  You don't wear a seat belt because you are afraid.  You wear it to be safe.  A seat belt is a tool that you use to help mitigate unexpected danger.  A firearm is also a tool that can be used towards the same purpose.  It is not an indication of fear or paranoia, any more than your seat belt is.

I guess that's the heart of the disagreement. What you see as being safe I see as being paranoid. Agree to disagree I suppose. And not for nothing but it's incredibly difficult to kill someone, accidentally or otherwise,  with a seatbelt.


Of course, the tools are specific to the danger they are meant to mitigate.  I have had "just in case" happen to me*.  So perhaps I have a slightly different perspective.

*No shots fired.  The mere presence of my firearm deterred any further attack.
 
2013-04-05 02:29:47 PM  

IoSaturnalia: pnome: lostcat:

Another bad assumption. I have anger-management isssues, I'm 6' and weigh over 220. I'm the last person who would cower when someone is being an asshole. I'm more likely to be shot my some coward who feels threatened by me when I lose my temper and start getting up in their face.

You need to be real careful then buddy.  You're right, you are more likely to get shot.

Get help, and stay away from others if you can't behave like a human being.

And for God's sake, don't admit to this shiat in a gun control discussion ever again.  You *were* winning.


There is no "winning" in Fark thread arguments.

There's just people passing time while eating their lunch, and people getting the social interaction and attention they so desparately crave.
 
2013-04-05 02:30:12 PM  

lostcat: If I were concerned, I'd do something more than argue on a Fark thread.


Yeah, I bet you would walk around looking for open-carriers so you could rip their arms out and beat them to death with them. Being the absolute badass you are, that is.
 
2013-04-05 02:30:19 PM  
Hero tag or spiffy tag seems more appropriate.  Smart business move if sales increase.  Kudos to the owner for picking up the tab for the gentleman who said he would not be back
 
2013-04-05 02:31:29 PM  

Flakeloaf: Frogfoot: The Stupid Tag?

No person should be defenseless in their own home or on the streets of their own city or country.  Whether they are defending themselves against simple thugs or their own government.  Mandating defenseless citizenry is simply an outmoded archaic type of thinking.  Those that continue it in any form are intellectual dinosaurs.

Pity such dinosaurs as Japan, Canada, the UK, France, Poland, Finland, India, Sweden, New Zealand, Switzerland...

The fact is that you could wear a suit made entirely of handguns and still pose no threat whatsoever to your own government. The only other reasons to carry a weapon are to defend yourself from random criminal bogeymen (which is not unreasonable if you live somewhere that this is a common threat), to protect yourself from specific problems you enabled by associating with certain people or acting like a jerk, or to be some kind of instant vigilante.

There are reasonable trains of thought that could lead people to any of these three conclusions, but there are also a lot of wide, well-travelled highways from crazytown that end up in that same place. It doesn't matter which is which because, again, it's perfectly legal.


Canada allows citizens to own guns in their home; they actually are able to import some cooler guns than here in America. Every home in Sweden has a gun. Every one. The Finns can own guns as well. If there was anywhere I would want a gun, it would be the UK. They have an enormous violent crime problem. Japan's culture is so homogenous and different than anywhere else that it's really not even worth mentioning. The odds of committing suicide are much higher than being mugged IIRC.
 
2013-04-05 02:32:32 PM  

umad: lostcat: If I were concerned, I'd do something more than argue on a Fark thread.

Yeah, I bet you would walk around looking for open-carriers so you could rip their arms out and beat them to death with them. Being the absolute badass you are, that is.


Pretty much. And I guess that you would hide in the trunk of a car and snipe people through a small hole you've cut into it, along with your teenage companion...For all the sense that your comment made.
 
2013-04-05 02:32:47 PM  
I predict that absolutely nothing will result from this. No robberies will be attempted (and subsequently stopped in progress), nor will any lawfully armed patron shoot someone while in the restaurant. Crime rates in the surrounding area will increase or decrease based upon statewide trends, with no unexpected shift.
 
2013-04-05 02:32:59 PM  
olddinosaur:  Should have earned the HERO tag.
Every day they take more money and more freedom away from us, under the excuse "--it's for your own good!"
Every day we put up with it, because this country is a nation of wussies.
You Farkers loudly defend the use of marijuana, but when it comes to the right of self defense your silence is deafening.
Double standard as usual, or just a yellow belly.


Let's see, most Libertarians defend the use of marijuana, and most, if not all,  Libertarians are pro-gun, so you are full of shiat.
 
2013-04-05 02:38:02 PM  

super_grass: Fart gets trollbait articles about restaurants and other establishments that allow firearms on premise all the time and the gun nuts goes their nutty routine every time.

Maybe Fark should meet them half way and start linking to stories about the dozens of shooting that must happen a day in these places to shut them up?


Please do.
I've seen exactly ONE.

Would you like to see the HUNDREDS of times a law abiding citizen has stopped a criminal in their home or out about town?
 
2013-04-05 02:38:14 PM  

Trilithon: Ned Stark: Allen. The end.: My problem is this: the nature of the discussion of open carry is flawed. Of course, when 'Joe Blow' with a gun starts firing to defend himself against a threat, he won't be firing accurately. Show me all the targets at the range you want, but a firing range is NOT a busy highway. The second point is that while 'Joe' has a gun, I do not. This changes the nature of the initial relationship between he and I, whether we are in the same restaurant or church, or just on the same sidewalk. His capacity to inflict harm is MUCH greater than mine, and his possession and presentation of a weapon changes the dynamic of any relationship we could have. The carrying of a weapon also changes the dynamic of his own opinion, rendering his views to be allowed to be much more severe, less able to empathize with those who choose not to carry a deadly weapon with them, and give him a sense of power that may or may not be false. Cover this with the idea of "rights" or "defense", and you get a bunch of guys arguing on the internet about...oh, wait.

I do prefer open carry to concealed carry. I don't really get the midset underpinning the desire to be armed at all times but also don't have anything against it as a right, really.

But do the rest of us not have a right to know when we are dealing with someone carrying a deadly weapon?

What exactly would it change if you knew?


Me? Probably not much. I dont care either way. But it is a nontrivial piece of information bearing upon the balance of power for all around you. People who DO care (and I think this thread demonstrates that they exist) should be able to know.
 
2013-04-05 02:40:04 PM  

lostcat: umad: lostcat: If I were concerned, I'd do something more than argue on a Fark thread.

Yeah, I bet you would walk around looking for open-carriers so you could rip their arms out and beat them to death with them. Being the absolute badass you are, that is.

Pretty much. And I guess that you would hide in the trunk of a car and snipe people through a small hole you've cut into it, along with your teenage companion...For all the sense that your comment made.


Nah. I'm over 6', 220 too, so I'm a badass just like you. When I have a problem with somebody I just beat them to death with my huge cock.
 
2013-04-05 02:41:53 PM  

Fark France: Flakeloaf: Frogfoot: The Stupid Tag?

No person should be defenseless in their own home or on the streets of their own city or country.  Whether they are defending themselves against simple thugs or their own government.  Mandating defenseless citizenry is simply an outmoded archaic type of thinking.  Those that continue it in any form are intellectual dinosaurs.

Pity such dinosaurs as Japan, Canada, the UK, France, Poland, Finland, India, Sweden, New Zealand, Switzerland...

The fact is that you could wear a suit made entirely of handguns and still pose no threat whatsoever to your own government. The only other reasons to carry a weapon are to defend yourself from random criminal bogeymen (which is not unreasonable if you live somewhere that this is a common threat), to protect yourself from specific problems you enabled by associating with certain people or acting like a jerk, or to be some kind of instant vigilante.

There are reasonable trains of thought that could lead people to any of these three conclusions, but there are also a lot of wide, well-travelled highways from crazytown that end up in that same place. It doesn't matter which is which because, again, it's perfectly legal.

Canada allows citizens to own guns in their home; they actually are able to import some cooler guns than here in America. Every home in Sweden has a gun. Every one. The Finns can own guns as well. If there was anywhere I would want a gun, it would be the UK. They have an enormous violent crime problem. Japan's culture is so homogenous and different than anywhere else that it's really not even worth mentioning. The odds of committing suicide are much higher than being mugged IIRC.


Legal gun owners in Canada cannot keep their weapons in any state that would allow them to be used for self defense in a way a bat could not. Swedish weapons are there for military conscripts, with ammunition in a sealed, accountable container. Finnish gun owners must actually prove they use their guns for a legitimate purpose (hunting, sport shooting etc) and while I don't know much about their storage laws I don't imagine they include loaded weapons in pockets. Japan's weapon policy is an artefact of their surrender agreement and probably not something I should've introduced here. None of those countries allows carrying in any form while out in public, though I wholeheartedly agree that the UK is at the top of the list of countries that should because holy crap.
 
2013-04-05 02:43:29 PM  

BgJonson79: FlashHarry: [i49.tinypic.com image 300x487]

I heard Ron Jeremy loves guns :-P


According to Freud, fear of firearms implies sexual immaturity. Guess that's why they're always so obsessed with penii?
 
2013-04-05 02:43:59 PM  
Flakeloaf

Pity such dinosaurs as Japan, Canada, the UK, France, Poland, Finland, India, Sweden, New Zealand, Switzerland...

Yep, those "old dinosaurs," whose populations have little white trash, and almost no blacks or Hispanics (our prison make-up demographic), are surely safer than we are in the US.

Japan - Almost all Japanese
Canada - Almost all white
UK - Mostly white
France - Mostly white
Poland - Almost all white
Finland - Almost all white
India - Almost all Indian
Sweden - Almost all white
NZ - Almost all white
Switzerland - Almost all white

See a pattern here? All of the countries with the lowest violent crime rates never substantially integrated like the U.S. did.

But of course you just pulled that from Wiki, without ever putting any thought into the reasons why they have such low violent crime rates in those countries. Basically, "old dinosaur" means "racist country" with respect to your comment.
 
2013-04-05 02:47:06 PM  

Civil_War2_Time: Flakeloaf

Pity such dinosaurs as Japan, Canada, the UK, France, Poland, Finland, India, Sweden, New Zealand, Switzerland...

Yep, those "old dinosaurs," whose populations have little white trash, and almost no blacks or Hispanics (our prison make-up demographic), are surely safer than we are in the US.

Japan - Almost all Japanese
Canada - Almost all white
UK - Mostly white
France - Mostly white
Poland - Almost all white
Finland - Almost all white
India - Almost all Indian
Sweden - Almost all white
NZ - Almost all white
Switzerland - Almost all white

See a pattern here? All of the countries with the lowest violent crime rates never substantially integrated like the U.S. did.

But of course you just pulled that from Wiki, without ever putting any thought into the reasons why they have such low violent crime rates in those countries. Basically, "old dinosaur" means "racist country" with respect to your comment.


Got to "almost all Indian", laughed, dissmissed your point.
 
2013-04-05 02:47:34 PM  
America: still crazy about guns, in every sense of the word.
 
2013-04-05 02:47:43 PM  
I can't holster my FAL, can i still bring it to your eating establishment?
 
2013-04-05 02:49:02 PM  
"People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.

"Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.

"The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife -- there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.

No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife."



from "The Anti-gun Male", Julia Gorin
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp
 
2013-04-05 02:49:28 PM  

Ned Stark: Trilithon: Ned Stark: Allen. The end.: My problem is this: the nature of the discussion of open carry is flawed. Of course, when 'Joe Blow' with a gun starts firing to defend himself against a threat, he won't be firing accurately. Show me all the targets at the range you want, but a firing range is NOT a busy highway. The second point is that while 'Joe' has a gun, I do not. This changes the nature of the initial relationship between he and I, whether we are in the same restaurant or church, or just on the same sidewalk. His capacity to inflict harm is MUCH greater than mine, and his possession and presentation of a weapon changes the dynamic of any relationship we could have. The carrying of a weapon also changes the dynamic of his own opinion, rendering his views to be allowed to be much more severe, less able to empathize with those who choose not to carry a deadly weapon with them, and give him a sense of power that may or may not be false. Cover this with the idea of "rights" or "defense", and you get a bunch of guys arguing on the internet about...oh, wait.

I do prefer open carry to concealed carry. I don't really get the midset underpinning the desire to be armed at all times but also don't have anything against it as a right, really.

But do the rest of us not have a right to know when we are dealing with someone carrying a deadly weapon?

What exactly would it change if you knew?

Me? Probably not much. I dont care either way. But it is a nontrivial piece of information bearing upon the balance of power for all around you. People who DO care (and I think this thread demonstrates that they exist) should be able to know.


FYI, I carry concealed now that I have a permit - I never carry or carried open, I don't need that attention.

I still don't understand how the info about me carrying concealed changes the way others around me perceive me.

Should permit holders have signs on their foreheads? If so, I guess we should all just open carry and forgo the training and background checks that are at least required in my state.

If someone knew I was carrying would they be less of a dbag? Why do they need to know I am a lawful armed citizen?
 
2013-04-05 02:52:06 PM  

Jument: America: still crazy about guns, in every sense of the word.


Got to have hobbies man!
 
2013-04-05 02:52:37 PM  

doglover: xenophon10k: I don't trust most other people

That's really the crux of it.

Most people who want guns taken away do so because they don't trust other people. It's a kind of personality disorder on par with the gun nuts who stockpile ammo and chem toilets for Ruby Ridge 2: Electric Boogaloo.

I, on the other hand, trust most people with most things. I've often been drinking with people armed to the teeth with knives and firearms while camping. I've even argued with them heatedly. No one's ever even considered pulling a weapon because that's not what civilized people do.

But instead of making better people, we just try to legislate away our problems these days. It's very much something our grandparents would not approve of.


Trust is the belief that you can predict another person's behavior with an acceptable degree of confidence.  It really boils down to what's acceptable to you.

Note that it's entirely possible to trust someone to fark you over the first chance he gets.
 
2013-04-05 02:52:52 PM  
Ned Stark

Sure you dismissed my point. You agreed with everything before and after the "Indian" remark, and read everything I wrote.
 
2013-04-05 02:54:31 PM  
Freedom costs a buck o five
 
2013-04-05 02:55:24 PM  

Trilithon: Ned Stark: Trilithon: Ned Stark: Allen. The end.: My problem is this: the nature of the discussion of open carry is flawed. Of course, when 'Joe Blow' with a gun starts firing to defend himself against a threat, he won't be firing accurately. Show me all the targets at the range you want, but a firing range is NOT a busy highway. The second point is that while 'Joe' has a gun, I do not. This changes the nature of the initial relationship between he and I, whether we are in the same restaurant or church, or just on the same sidewalk. His capacity to inflict harm is MUCH greater than mine, and his possession and presentation of a weapon changes the dynamic of any relationship we could have. The carrying of a weapon also changes the dynamic of his own opinion, rendering his views to be allowed to be much more severe, less able to empathize with those who choose not to carry a deadly weapon with them, and give him a sense of power that may or may not be false. Cover this with the idea of "rights" or "defense", and you get a bunch of guys arguing on the internet about...oh, wait.

I do prefer open carry to concealed carry. I don't really get the midset underpinning the desire to be armed at all times but also don't have anything against it as a right, really.

But do the rest of us not have a right to know when we are dealing with someone carrying a deadly weapon?

What exactly would it change if you knew?

Me? Probably not much. I dont care either way. But it is a nontrivial piece of information bearing upon the balance of power for all around you. People who DO care (and I think this thread demonstrates that they exist) should be able to know.

FYI, I carry concealed now that I have a permit - I never carry or carried open, I don't need that attention.

I still don't understand how the info about me carrying concealed changes the way others around me perceive me.

Should permit holders have signs on their foreheads? If so, I guess we should all just open carry and forgo the training and background checks that are at least required in my state.

If someone knew I was carrying would they be less of a dbag? Why do they need to know I am a lawful armed citizen?


They should be able to know because you are able to end their life in a matter of seconds from dozens of yards away. Its a petty bi shift from the default assumption of being able to kids hurt them from one armlength away.
 
Displayed 50 of 278 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 »
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