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.

(Talking Points Memo)   People: you've passed legislation establishing a state religion, allowed 13-year-olds to be put in adult prison, and snuck through insane anti-abortion measures. Are you through? North Carolina Republicans: CHALLENGE ACCEPTED   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, state religion, Republican, North Carolina, challenge accepted, legislation, concealed firearm, convicts  
•       •       •

8603 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jul 2013 at 6:08 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-26 06:28:20 PM  

Firethorn: MSFT: Prevention of cancer appears to be more effective than treating cancer, but we'll need to continue to invest in both areas for some time.

Of course, just be aware that banning guns in the USA is such a long term action that even a 100% ban would take enough time that current high school students would be retiring before the supply to criminals really started drying up.

As such, preventing high school students from becoming criminals in the first place is actually the faster option.

hubiestubert: And oddly enough, the folks who seem most comfortable with the thought of simply shooting their way through their fellow citizens, are also the folks who give the least amount of f*cks for the root causes of violence.

That makes me wonder, are you picturing the gunnies or the gun control supporters in this role?  Because the gun control types seem to love positing that the gunnies will respond to XYZ stimulus(despite it never really happening in the past) by 'shooting their way through'.  Meanwhile, I only posit myself shooting somebody if they're a lethal threat, and honestly hope it never happens(though I'd rather it happen to me and I'm able to adequately respond than to somebody who can't).

Also, while I'm tooting my own horn here, I believe I was the first in the thread to address treating the causes of violence over the implements used during.  But this thread is about guns, not social reform, so I kept it short.


The problem is BOTH sides of this debate conflate and confuse, and it's essentially a bait and switch issue. The real discussion needs to be about safety and crime.

Which is why I try to stay out of these threads for the most part. None of the "sides" want to discuss the real issues that we face. Gun control won't help. More guns won't help. It's just a chance for folks to fellate themselves over the "other" sides ignorance and intransigence. And the actual issues are buried because looking at the society we've created is a damn sight harder to talk about than banning or freeing guns as the "solution" and a lot of folks get paid very well to keep the discussion in those terms, because it would cost them a lot of dollars if we actually got into it...
 
2013-07-26 06:39:08 PM  
This is something that I'd to present to the pro-gun folks: Do you think that the framers of the second amendment would present it the same way if they were aware of the current climate in this country?
 
2013-07-26 07:08:11 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Firethorn: How do you define 'out of control'?


Murder weapons, 2011Firearms
68%Knives or cutting instruments
13%Other
9%Personal weapons
6%Blunt objects
4%Total:
12,664Source: [www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


I like that "excluding Mexico" in the asterisk down there.  Because guns are illegal in Mexico, so why would you even count them amirite?  Obviously they can't have any gun murders without any guns.
 
2013-07-26 07:11:25 PM  

Whiskey Pete: This is something that I'd to present to the pro-gun folks: Do you think that the framers of the second amendment would present it the same way if they were aware of the current climate in this country?


Yes.
 
2013-07-26 07:15:20 PM  

Whiskey Pete: This is something that I'd to present to the pro-gun folks: Do you think that the framers of the second amendment would present it the same way if they were aware of the current climate in this country?


Not sure, I'm not exactly a scholar of the founders.  I've read some of their writings, read the constitution multiple times and seen some other materials, but people's views have evolved since then.  Not to mention that the founders were actually a pretty varied and contentious lot.  Franklin's views would vary from Washington's from Webster's, Johnson, Hancock, etc...

Would they frame it differently?  Despite rumors to the contrary, I think they'd believe the modern USA a very nice place compared to their time - and that includes levels of violence.  The spike in violence/murder that peaked in the '80s aside, we're pretty low now. Though it's tough to go back to the founder's time; good statistics are harder to come by, but they say that violent crime has been dropping from at least the 13th Century.  Odds are that violence was a greater problem in the 18th century than today.  Heck, they had fistfights in congress back then.  But I think the fact that most founders knew somebody, personally, killed in a duel would say something about the rate.

In the end, I agree with hubiestubert, the problem isn't firearms, it's violence, and the systematic policies and culture in the USA that encourages violence, and lethal violence at that.  But fixing that is hard compared to talking about banning guns.  The UK did it, and found that banning methods doesn't really work - but they're now trying to ban more offensive tools, knives and such.
 
2013-07-26 07:17:48 PM  

Whiskey Pete: This is something that I'd to present to the pro-gun folks: Do you think that the framers of the second amendment would present it the same way if they were aware of the current climate in this country?


Forgot my conclusion:  Considering that despite even greater levels of violence that they even had numerous laws(militia) requiring every adult male to have a functioning musket, that private citizens outright owned artillery, etc...

I'm going to go with 'Yes', though if they find out the trouble the militia clause has caused they might even nix that or phrase 'shall not be infringed' even more strongly.
 
2013-07-26 07:57:24 PM  

theorellior: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

I got friends who love NC and live in NC and are absolutely gobsmacked that it's come to this. They took pride in being the smarter Carolina for so long, and yet here we are.


American smart.
 
2013-07-26 09:06:11 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Whiskey Pete: MSFT: I'd also like to point out that I never received any kind of special training to be able to control adrenaline or shoot people while being shot at. Fortunately, I was never in combat but I have met a lot of people who were. They all say the same thing. No amount of training can prepare you for a firefight. Training can make you more technically skilled but you are still going to experience chaos. Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.

Therefore, I'm kinda, sorta a policeman, kinda sorta.

I apologize. I meant to quote numbquill:


I never claimed to be a police officer at all. I never claimed to have been involved with law enforcement in any capacity. Due to the fact that Marines sometimes perform security duty, I have received training in non-lethal baton techniques, escalation of force, and how to determine when deadly force is authorized. It doesn't make me special. You can learn all of that stuff on the internet. The point completely went over your head. You think the point is that i'm special. The point is that I'm not special nor is any other individual who has been given special legal authority to use deadly force. The Marines I served with are human beings just like you and I. We aren't genetically modified, the physical training we do make us no more fit than a college athlete if that, we don't have a special center in our brain to make quick judgement calls, and we make mistakes. Unless they are injecting something into the local police I'm assuming they are human too. There is nothing about the average citizen that makes it more dangerous for them to walk into a bar with a holstered weapon compared to a police officer doing the same thing. In fact, police are held to a lower standard when it comes to justification of the use of deadly force. My post was written for those who think that police and the military are special people which is why they should be allowed to use firearms while the average citizen should not.
 
2013-07-26 09:11:34 PM  

numbquil: I never claimed to be a police officer at all


..and  that was my point.
 
2013-07-26 09:16:13 PM  
Okay. Ima go out on a limb and say that our founding fathers were very wise men and would think that the gun violence in our country is unacceptable. Please telll me why they would NOT feel this way.
 
2013-07-26 09:21:53 PM  

Whiskey Pete: This is something that I'd to present to the pro-gun folks: Do you think that the framers of the second amendment would present it the same way if they were aware of the current climate in this country?


After reading some of Thomas Jefferson's writings I'm convinced that if he had read Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman, he would have been an anarchist. He was clearly apprehensive about supporting any government but found there were positive reasons to support limited government. Therefore, I have to conclude that I believe at least Thomas Jefferson would have supported the right to defend yourself against violence. In modern times that means being able to carry a modern firearm.

Unlike you, I'm not convinced that the number of firearms is the problem. As Michael Moore pointed out in Bowling for Columbine there seems to be something else in play. He found that the Canadians own a fark ton of guns but don't kill each other nearly as often. He goes on a rant about how the NRA = the KKK. I have to disagree with him. I believe the the root causes of violence in the country are income inequality and the war on drugs. Most gang violence revolves around the production and distribution of controlled substances. Much like the failure of prohibition this issue has cause the country many problems. We should decriminalize drugs, stop treating drug addicts as criminals, and treat them as medical patients.

Income inequality causes a lot of problems because a close second to drugs is property crime. Why do people rob and steal? Because they don't have money. It's a class war. Those who don't have wealth are taking it from those who do. If we take steps to repair the economy it will help with this issue. On top of that we have to face the fact that a lot of the gun violence is being carried out by African Americans in places like Chicago and Los Angeles. Unfortunately, discrimination is alive and well in this country and African Americans are more likely to live in poverty, not have access to the best education, healthcare, etc.

The root of all these problems is that the politicians we have to not represent the people. If you want to stop gun violence, get at the root of the problem. If you destroyed every single gun, it wouldn't end violence. It might prevent someone from carrying out mass violence but mass murders are a small percentage of the overall statistics on violence.

What do you do to help end violence other than arguing with people on fark?
 
2013-07-26 09:23:49 PM  

numbquil: What do you do to help end violence other than arguing with people on fark?


You have no idea so don't act as if you do.
 
2013-07-26 09:25:34 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Okay. Ima go out on a limb and say that our founding fathers were very wise men and would think that the gun violence in our country is unacceptable. Please telll me why they would NOT feel this way.


I'd say you're right. At the same time you're not telling us how the law that prevented people with training and a clean record from carrying a firearm in certain establishments helped to prevent gun violence.
 
2013-07-26 09:26:21 PM  

Whiskey Pete: numbquil: What do you do to help end violence other than arguing with people on fark?

You have no idea so don't act as if you do.


I'm not. I'm asking a question. What do you do?
 
2013-07-26 09:29:33 PM  

numbquil: {DERP}

The answer answer is that they would find the current gun-culture abhorrent and would likely install bans that would make folks like you defecate all over yourselves. In fact, they would very likely institute an outright ban on firearms.

 
2013-07-26 09:32:01 PM  

numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: What do you do to help end violence other than arguing with people on fark?

You have no idea so don't act as if you do.

I'm not. I'm asking a question. What do you do?


You made the same mistake that I did and quoted the wrong source. :)
 
2013-07-26 09:33:53 PM  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoD-PbbUPYQ

What someone with training and a clean record might look like.
 
2013-07-26 09:37:59 PM  

Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: What do you do to help end violence other than arguing with people on fark?

You have no idea so don't act as if you do.

I'm not. I'm asking a question. What do you do?

You made the same mistake that I did and quoted the wrong source. :)


This is stupid because the truth is I believe in non-violence. The issue is not that I think firearms are great. If I had the power, I would destroy every single firearm in existence. The issue is that I don't believe there should be a special class of humans that have been given privilege to legally use deadly force while others do not. You call that "derp" while at the same time biatching about a law that probably wouldn't have passed if the power was equally distributed among the people and rules were determined through formal consensus.
 
2013-07-26 10:41:04 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Okay. Ima go out on a limb and say that our founding fathers were very wise men and would think that the gun violence in our country is unacceptable. Please telll me why they would NOT feel this way.


You do realize that 'gun violence' was far higher in their time and they still decided to have the 2nd, right?  Heck, dueling was still common practice!
 
2013-07-26 11:46:50 PM  

hubiestubert: Guns alone isn't the issue. A gun is a tool, and any tool can be used as a weapon if you hold it right. Then again, in a bar, the last thing you want is someone who is intoxicated and with impaired judgment with a weapon. It's not a law in Mass that forbids firearms in bars, but most do not encourage the practice, and as private property, they can ask you to take that sh*t outside, and lock it up in your car, or be you will be denied entry. You CAN be nicked for carrying while intoxicated, and that can lose your carry license. Clubs and bars also tend to ban anything that might be used as a concealed weapon, for the same reason. It's just not a good idea to have armed folks drinking. It leads to funny places.

I suspect that this law is going to get tested out, relatively soon after passage when some Cletus brings his gun to the playground to pick up his kid, and the weapon accidentally discharges, because said Cletus was more excited about where he could bring his gun, than thinking clearly on gun safety, or the fact that children often clamber all over things, and people.

If folks would simply use some common sense, and carry weapons with some responsibility, we wouldn't need laws like this, and without the fetishization of weapons, we wouldn't have idiots carrying loaded rifles in an unsafe fashion, and putting folks at risk. The simple having doesn't negate danger. I've carried in Mass, and it was work related--night deposits back when the Combat Zone was still dicey--and most of the time, I generally didn't carry, because not having a weapon made me think a bit harder about what I was doing and where I was going, because a weapon can breed overconfidence. When I was bouncing, we didn't carry sprays, we didn't have tasers or stun guns, because those are things that can miss, can put folks in the club in danger, and can get taken from you, and used in bad ways. The best "weapon" we carried was a Maglight, and the small ones at that, because they could be used as ...


Every gun owner should be required to read this.
 
Displayed 20 of 270 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 »
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