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.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Fifteen-year-old boy who murdered two people with a handgun got the weapon from his father, who took him gun shopping and let him pick out which gun he wanted. Naturally police have arrested the father   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 318
    More: Florida, handguns, Osceola County  
•       •       •

10130 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Aug 2013 at 9:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



318 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-20 07:19:14 PM
Makes sense to me. He enabled someone to be irresponsible with a gun he owned. Imagine of the dad had let his son drive the dad's car without a license and the kid ended up intentionally running someone over with it?
 
2013-08-20 07:28:03 PM
We should start doing the same to the "parents" of kids who accidentally kill themselves with guns they find laying around.
 
2013-08-20 07:28:15 PM
The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.
 
2013-08-20 07:28:34 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Makes sense to me. He enabled someone to be irresponsible with a gun he owned. Imagine of the dad had let his son drive the dad's car without a license and the kid ended up intentionally running someone over with it?


I agree.  He should never have done it in the first place, and he should have locked the gun in a safe the moment he fund out the kid was sneaking it out of the house to go shooting.

That said...  Lothar?  Konrad?  Are they white supremacists, or recent German immigrants?
 
2013-08-20 07:37:06 PM
Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?
 
2013-08-20 07:41:01 PM
Yes - parents are responsible for what their underage children do. Whether that's throwing a fit in a restaurant or cold blooded murder.
 
2013-08-20 07:41:19 PM

doglover: Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?


Googling around it appears this is what a Hi-Point .45 Carbine looks like:

2.bp.blogspot.com

And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.
 
2013-08-20 07:43:51 PM

doglover: Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?


what subby's handgun looks like:
www.thefirearmblog.com
 
2013-08-20 07:48:21 PM

sno man: doglover: Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?

what subby's handgun looks like:
[www.thefirearmblog.com image 800x310]


Well it's a handgun if you're on the cast of Expendables. But other than that, no that ain't no handgun.
 
2013-08-20 07:50:29 PM
Nice AK-47.
 
2013-08-20 07:51:12 PM

TuteTibiImperes: doglover: Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?

Googling around it appears this is what a Hi-Point .45 Carbine looks like:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 800x311]

And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.


*tiny fist, and all that*
 
2013-08-20 07:52:56 PM
Hey Subby:

The man is accused of knowingly allowing his son to take a weapon from his home to shoot people with, not purchasing a weapon.

Purchasing a weapon for your son = totes legalsies

Letting your child remove your weapon from your property to repeatedly commit murder = totes not legalsies

Read the farking article
 
2013-08-20 07:53:22 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


You're walking the argument. He essentially let the son have access to it knowing it's illegal for a minor to have a handgun. That's world's different than a handgun being stolen from an owner and being used illegally.

TuteTibiImperes: And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.


That's a dishonest statement, and you know it. The abusive taunt was just flare. It's as honest as saying gun control advocates believe banning guns will eliminate all murders.
 
2013-08-20 07:58:13 PM
"Oh, hi officer. See it's like this. Yes I did park my car at the top of that hill overlooking the orphanage and fireworks factory and no didn't apply the parking brake and yes I left a lit cigar in the back seat, but you can't possibly think of charging me for the collision and destruction of the fireworks factory and orphanage including the deaths of all inside, it was the car that slid down the hill!!"
 
2013-08-20 08:04:47 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: That said...  Lothar?  Konrad?  Are they white supremacists, or recent German immigrants?


I grew up thinking that Lothar was a black name...guess I read too many comics.

20.img.v4.skyrock.net
 
2013-08-20 08:14:07 PM
Fark that. Charge the dad with felony murder.
 
2013-08-20 08:42:53 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Nice AK-47.


LULZ
 
2013-08-20 08:43:42 PM
They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.
 
2013-08-20 08:45:49 PM
Looking at his cohorts, it appears his gang was multi-racial and had a female as well. Nice to see kids can cross ethnic and gender barriers to find common interests.
 
2013-08-20 09:02:13 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


This. I've been advocating this for awhile now.

/with the mitigation that the weapon is reported missing or stolen prior to any illicit behavior committed with it
 
2013-08-20 09:18:47 PM
Good
 
2013-08-20 09:19:03 PM
Lothar? LOTHAR?
i2.photobucket.com
Maybe the kid was upset that the mansheath had been removed from his penoose.
 
2013-08-20 09:19:43 PM

TuteTibiImperes: doglover: Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?

Googling around it appears this is what a Hi-Point .45 Carbine looks like:



And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.


An object for perspective would be nice.
 
2013-08-20 09:20:54 PM
Subby is correct.

I know because the Fark 2nd Amendment Protection Society has taught me that shootings are totally unrelated to easily available guns.
 
2013-08-20 09:21:24 PM

MFAWG: TuteTibiImperes: doglover: Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?

Googling around it appears this is what a Hi-Point .45 Carbine looks like:

And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.

An object for perspective would be nice.


www.gunpundit.com
 
2013-08-20 09:22:50 PM

slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.


I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.
 
2013-08-20 09:23:31 PM
Came to post Lothar. Now I shall walk alone in the hills.
 
2013-08-20 09:23:37 PM
If your child is under 18 you are in fact responsible for his farkups. Did you know that juvi charges by the day like it's a goddam hotel? A month is rather expensive.

/he got better
 
2013-08-20 09:24:15 PM
The father should be arrested. What is the problem?
 
2013-08-20 09:26:01 PM
www.blogcdn.com
/got nothing
 
2013-08-20 09:26:32 PM
Nice mug shots.  All that group needs is a pit bull and they'd be the 21st century meth-head version of Scooby Doo.
 
2013-08-20 09:28:16 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Hey Subby:

The man is accused of knowingly allowing his son to take a weapon from his home to shoot people with, not purchasing a weapon.

Purchasing a weapon for your son = totes legalsies

Letting your child remove your weapon from your property to repeatedly commit murder = totes not legalsies

Read the farking article


actually purchasing a weapon for your son is only legal if you are tthe "actual" owner and he has access to the weapon except under your supervision.
 
2013-08-20 09:29:00 PM
Am I supposed to be outraged? My reaction:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-20 09:29:41 PM
Good.
 
2013-08-20 09:29:45 PM

FrancoFile: Nice mug shots.  All that group needs is a pit bull and they'd be the 21st century meth-head version of Scooby Doo.


upload.wikimedia.org

???
 
2013-08-20 09:30:27 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.
 
2013-08-20 09:30:29 PM

TuteTibiImperes: doglover: Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?

Googling around it appears this is what a Hi-Point .45 Carbine looks like:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 800x311]

And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.



It's not an assault rifle. It's a cheap .45-caliber carbine dressed up as something out of a video game.
 
2013-08-20 09:30:47 PM

Mrbogey: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

You're walking the argument. He essentially let the son have access to it knowing it's illegal for a minor to have a handgun. That's world's different than a handgun being stolen from an owner and being used illegally.

TuteTibiImperes: And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.

That's a dishonest statement, and you know it. The abusive taunt was just flare. It's as honest as saying gun control advocates believe banning guns will eliminate all murders.


Wrong


And


Wrong
 
2013-08-20 09:31:42 PM

sno man: doglover: Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?

what subby's handgun looks like:
[www.thefirearmblog.com image 800x310]


I'm 6'5" 350 lbs... If the balance is pretty close to the grip I'd like to try firing that one handed. At least a a few rounds. We'd be sure to get the video on YouTube either way.
 
2013-08-20 09:31:50 PM

Nabb1: Looking at his cohorts, it appears his gang was multi-racial and had a female as well. Nice to see kids can cross ethnic and gender barriers to find common interests.


They're like the gang from "Rumble in the Bronx". Which was of course shot in Vancouver.
 
2013-08-20 09:32:04 PM
F*ck this. I'm going to go buy a couple extra rifles and a few thousand rounds to stock up because you KNOW they're coming for our guns after this one
 
2013-08-20 09:32:24 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


LOL that would mean people would have to take personal responsibility, and no one believes in THAT!
 
2013-08-20 09:33:49 PM
Dang it 'Murica. What happened to you that bored white kids keep going about and killing people because killing relieves the boredom.

Oh yea right.....
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-20 09:35:13 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Hey Subby:

The man is accused of knowingly allowing his son to take a weapon from his home to shoot people with, not purchasing a weapon.

Purchasing a weapon for your son = totes legalsies

Letting your child remove your weapon from your property to repeatedly commit murder = totes not legalsies

Read the farking article


I hope to one day read a judicial opinion containing the phrase "totes legalsies".
 
2013-08-20 09:36:47 PM
This is why I oppose multiculturalism. Look at that gang.
 
2013-08-20 09:36:51 PM
FTFA:  The father also told police he bought the carbine and 100 rounds of ammunition because his son "was having problems with unidentified subjects in Poinciana, Florida," records state. And in a separate interview, the son told police that he regularly took the carbine from his father's house.

Yeah, that's good parenting right there.
 
2013-08-20 09:36:59 PM
I can't believe people still remember Lothar of the Hill People.

Isn't that skit like 25 years old? And it's not like it was a big hit like Sprockets, Toonces or Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.

/and yes, father and son should be charged
//jesus, the kid treated it like a video game. Shot and killed someone on the way to the bus stop. Father responded by taking the gun away. Kid stole it back and killed someone else a month later. He's a farking psychopath.
 
2013-08-20 09:37:29 PM
Shot someone walking to the bus stop just for "fun"?

If this isn't what the death penalty is for I don't know what it is for.
 
2013-08-20 09:37:34 PM
I'm going to become a hobbit. You cannot go anywhere anymore without fear of being shot.

/maybe just invest in a bullet proof vest
 
2013-08-20 09:37:56 PM

LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.


So in this case, the guy kept letting his son walk with the weapon, I agree.

But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?
 
2013-08-20 09:38:03 PM

scottydoesntknow: FrancoFile: Nice mug shots.  All that group needs is a pit bull and they'd be the 21st century meth-head version of Scooby Doo.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 230x292]

???


A pit bull.  Not THE pit bull.
 
2013-08-20 09:38:09 PM
Clearly the gun's fault.
 
2013-08-20 09:38:48 PM
Still nothing on FARK about the teens that shot the jogger because they were bored. And NO. this guy should not have been arrested. the kid should have.
 
2013-08-20 09:39:51 PM
If your kid claims to be having trouble with other people around town, and your apparently only solution is to buy him a carbine and 100 rounds, then I question both your parenting and conflict-resolution skills.

Also, your kid might be a homicidal psychopath. You might want to look into that.
 
2013-08-20 09:39:56 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


And how would you find out who that weapon belonged to? That might involve some form of registration and we all know that while our hobbyist friends are terribly keen on protecting their rights, many go soft when it comes to accepting any responsibility or accountability.
 
2013-08-20 09:40:18 PM
OhioUGrad: I'm going to become a hobbit.

/maybe just invest in a bullet proof vest


it's called Mithril, and I doubt you have enough dough.
 
2013-08-20 09:42:46 PM
If your kid claims to be having trouble with people around town, and your apparently only solution is to take him out and buy him a carbine and 100 rounds, then you might need to work on both your parenting and conflict resolution skills. Also, your kid might be a homicidal psychopath. You might want to check into that.
 
2013-08-20 09:42:46 PM

sheep snorter: Dang it 'Murica. What happened to you that bored white kids keep going about and killing people because killing relieves the boredom.

Oh yea right.....
[i.imgur.com image 570x713]


An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Silly white kids.
 
2013-08-20 09:43:29 PM

Elegy: LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.

So in this case, the guy kept letting his son walk with the weapon, I agree.

But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?


Yeah, I admit I kinda went a bit extreme. I'd say "Locking your doors, with the gun out of sight" would be safe enough, unless you live in a REALLY shiatty neighborhood.
 
2013-08-20 09:44:33 PM

WTFDYW: Still nothing on FARK about the teens that shot the jogger because they were bored. And NO. this guy should not have been arrested. the kid should have.


You're off you meds. I'm very pro-Second Amendment and this father knowingly armed his minor
son with full - or at least constructive - knowledge that the kid intended to use it on others. This goes beyond mere bad parenting.
 
2013-08-20 09:45:27 PM

MFAWG: I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.


I've been a police officer and a owner of both handguns and rifles (I currently don't own any firearms as I sold them all when I moved to a nicer area).  I think it's ok to teach a kid about firearms (that they're dangerous, not to point a gun at a person, it's not a toy, etc).  My son watched me clean my handguns on the kitchen table when he was around 12.  Showed him how to handle a weapon (how to check if it's empty, clear it before handing it to someone else, etc)...but even then, I didn't take him shooting.

Personally, I don't think it's ok to take a first grader shooting a handgun.  I always kept my handguns locked up in a safe or with a trigger lock (I haven't hunted since before he was born so I haven't owned a rifle in more than 20 years).  I don't have a problem with parents taking their kids hunting around 12 or so...depending upon the maturity of the kid...it can be a cool bonding experience.  My son wasn't especially responsible (at least to my liking) and I stopped hunting before he was born.  As a result, I didn't take him target shooting with a handgun until he was a junior in high school (we rented).  He was brought up with a healthy respect for weapons.  Now he's 19 and in the Navy...he's definitely responsible (and a good shot).

I think what the father did in this case was recklessly irresponsible...his reckless disregard led to the murder of 2 people.
 
2013-08-20 09:46:01 PM

69gnarkill69: sheep snorter: Dang it 'Murica. What happened to you that bored white kids keep going about and killing people because killing relieves the boredom.

Oh yea right.....
[i.imgur.com image 570x713]

An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Silly white kids.


*that's* the part you focused on?

Go back to /b/.
 
2013-08-20 09:46:28 PM

Elegy: You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?


If psychopaths like these broke into your house and stole your guns you wouldnt be around to be arrested the next day.
 
2013-08-20 09:46:54 PM

Ishkur: I can't believe people still remember Lothar of the Hill People.

Isn't that skit like 25 years old? And it's not like it was a big hit like Sprockets, Toonces or Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.

/and yes, father and son should be charged
//jesus, the kid treated it like a video game. Shot and killed someone on the way to the bus stop. Father responded by taking the gun away. Kid stole it back and killed someone else a month later. He's a farking psychopath.


And you know somebody will blame video games for it. Oh well what can you do? Ban the games!...ban the guns!...ban everything! Just the same old stuff spewing back and forth.
 
2013-08-20 09:47:47 PM

WTFDYW: Still nothing on FARK about the teens that shot the jogger because they were bored. And NO. this guy should not have been arrested. the kid should have.


I took a peek at the Fox News comments just before the arraignment.

I'll take a pass on all those threads.
 
2013-08-20 09:47:48 PM
And that surprises you?
 
2013-08-20 09:48:47 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun

carowners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a guncar, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

If you think my changes sound ridiculous, that's the way Florida law is.  It's called a "dangerous instrument doctrine".  If you own something dangerous -- gun, car, dog, blender, stairs -- you are responsible at all times for who uses it and how.
 
2013-08-20 09:49:14 PM

MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.


Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.
 
2013-08-20 09:49:30 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: 69gnarkill69: sheep snorter: Dang it 'Murica. What happened to you that bored white kids keep going about and killing people because killing relieves the boredom.

Oh yea right.....
[i.imgur.com image 570x713]

An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Silly white kids.

*that's* the part you focused on?

Go back to /b/.


dafuq you going on about?
 
2013-08-20 09:49:42 PM
Hey trollmitter:  Screw you and screw the trollmin who approved this trollline.
 
2013-08-20 09:50:33 PM
The boy was just standing his ground.
 
2013-08-20 09:50:52 PM

b0rg9: Shot someone walking to the bus stop just for "fun"?

If this isn't what the death penalty is for I don't know what it is for.



Two teens charged with murdering Melbourne baseball player Chris Lane

Seems there's a lot of that going around these days.
 
2013-08-20 09:51:20 PM

freetomato: Am I supposed to be outraged? My reaction:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 180x120]


Bears/grumpycats repeating.

/subby really thought there is something wrong or unusual about this?
 
IP
2013-08-20 09:52:19 PM
[imokaywiththis.jpg]
 
2013-08-20 09:54:41 PM

Tellingthem: And you know somebody will blame video games for it. Oh well what can you do? Ban the games!...ban the guns!...ban everything! Just the same old stuff spewing back and forth.


I'm not blaming video games nor am I saying this kid got the idea from playing video games (who knows if he even plays video games). I'm just noting the similarities: This specific kid had such an appalling disregard for firearms and their lethal consequences that he literally went out and killed people in the middle of the farking street, GTA style. Almost as if expecting them to pop right back up and re-spawn with a health boost or something.

I've never heard of any gun crime like that before. This kid is seriously sick in the head.
 
2013-08-20 09:54:58 PM

Amos Quito: b0rg9: Shot someone walking to the bus stop just for "fun"?

If this isn't what the death penalty is for I don't know what it is for.


Two teens charged with murdering Melbourne baseball player Chris Lane

Seems there's a lot of that going around these days.


Three teenaged wastes of carbon.
 
2013-08-20 09:54:59 PM

TuteTibiImperes: And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.


The Hi-Point Carbine doesn't qualify as an assault rifle under any definition of the term unless "scary & black" is the new definition for assault rifle.

Anywho, the dad should be arrested just for getting a Hi-point.
 
2013-08-20 09:55:02 PM

Amos Quito: b0rg9: Shot someone walking to the bus stop just for "fun"?

If this isn't what the death penalty is for I don't know what it is for.


Two teens charged with murdering Melbourne baseball player Chris Lane

Seems there's a lot of that going around these days.


was just looking to see if that was on here, seems not
 
2013-08-20 09:55:42 PM

Elegy: But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?


Get a gun safe, you irresponsible POS.  If anyone gets your gun and hurts someone with it, you should be charged as if you had just handed it to them to commit the crime.  Because that is what you did by not securing it in a way where anyone able to pry open a door or window could not get at it.
 
2013-08-20 09:56:06 PM
weird. as i read this trolltastic, bottom-of-the-barrel headline, ahmad jamal's 'poinciana' started from my speakers.

floridiancidence? i think not.
 
2013-08-20 09:56:54 PM
'Sounds about right.
 
2013-08-20 09:57:20 PM

Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.



LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.
 
2013-08-20 09:57:49 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: We should start doing the same to the "parents" of kids who accidentally kill themselves with guns they find laying around.


They DO,  have an "un-secured" firearm about and a minor gets it you are DOOOOOOOMED in California.  I do agree reasonable means should be taken to secure a weapon, a gun safe, trigger lock, there are so many easy ways, and I can get to my loaded but trigger locked revolver in a very reasonable few seconds...
 
2013-08-20 09:57:53 PM
That gun is like the lowered Honda Civic of guns.
 
2013-08-20 09:58:20 PM
No one under 18 is accountable for their own actions, everybody knows that.  This poor innocent child was clearly coerced and taken advantage of by someone in a position of ultimate authority over him, such as a dance instructor or a substitute art teacher.  The child's brain is still developing, there's no way he understood the consequences of his actions.  Let the little scamp run along but tell him to be on time for his counseling appointment so we can help him through the pain others have caused him.
 
2013-08-20 09:59:10 PM

WTFDYW: And NO. this guy should not have been arrested. the kid should have.


You did see the kids mugshots, didn't you?
 
2013-08-20 10:00:01 PM

gadian: Elegy: But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?

Get a gun safe, you irresponsible POS.  If anyone gets your gun and hurts someone with it, you should be charged as if you had just handed it to them to commit the crime.  Because that is what you did by not securing it in a way where anyone able to pry open a door or window could not get at it.


Same goes for cars that are stolen and then used in a crime?
 
2013-08-20 10:00:45 PM
Good. I'm all for gun rights, but I'm more in favor of parenting.
 
2013-08-20 10:01:03 PM
Death sentence for the kid, 10-20 years for dad.
 
2013-08-20 10:01:20 PM

Ishkur: Tellingthem: And you know somebody will blame video games for it. Oh well what can you do? Ban the games!...ban the guns!...ban everything! Just the same old stuff spewing back and forth.

I'm not blaming video games nor am I saying this kid got the idea from playing video games (who knows if he even plays video games). I'm just noting the similarities: This specific kid had such an appalling disregard for firearms and their lethal consequences that he literally went out and killed people in the middle of the farking street, GTA style. Almost as if expecting them to pop right back up and re-spawn with a health boost or something.

I've never heard of any gun crime like that before. This kid is seriously sick in the head.


I bet it was movies more than anything.

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-20 10:01:47 PM

LordJiro: Elegy: LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.

So in this case, the guy kept letting his son walk with the weapon, I agree.

But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?

Yeah, I admit I kinda went a bit extreme. I'd say "Locking your doors, with the gun out of sight" would be safe enough, unless you live in a REALLY shiatty neighborhood.


Black letter law says that if he secured the house, as the 'sole occupant', he is indemnified. Now 'sole occupant' can apply to a multi-family residence (apartment building) providing that separate locks exist for each occupant to secure their own space. At that point, the weapon does need to be in their own 'secured space' for the indemnity.

Also, I know people that are farmers. They possess ammonium-nitrate and diesel fuel (in large quantities) on their property. Are you going to blame them if someone steals a bunch to make a fertilizer bomb while they're at a wedding?

You can't hold someone responsible for the actions of a random person. The only reason dad is on the hook here is he didn't secure the weapon from a minor in his household. He has a parental responsibility for his child.
 
2013-08-20 10:02:49 PM

Ishkur: Tellingthem: And you know somebody will blame video games for it. Oh well what can you do? Ban the games!...ban the guns!...ban everything! Just the same old stuff spewing back and forth.

I'm not blaming video games nor am I saying this kid got the idea from playing video games (who knows if he even plays video games). I'm just noting the similarities: This specific kid had such an appalling disregard for firearms and their lethal consequences that he literally went out and killed people in the middle of the farking street, GTA style. Almost as if expecting them to pop right back up and re-spawn with a health boost or something.

I've never heard of any gun crime like that before. This kid is seriously sick in the head.


I never said you did (maybe it just sounded that way, but it wasn't intentional). Just mentioning that every time something like this happens some yahoo will go on tv and blame video games for it.
 
2013-08-20 10:03:18 PM

slayer199: MFAWG: I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

I've been a police officer and a owner of both handguns and rifles (I currently don't own any firearms as I sold them all when I moved to a nicer area).  I think it's ok to teach a kid about firearms (that they're dangerous, not to point a gun at a person, it's not a toy, etc).  My son watched me clean my handguns on the kitchen table when he was around 12.  Showed him how to handle a weapon (how to check if it's empty, clear it before handing it to someone else, etc)...but even then, I didn't take him shooting.

Personally, I don't think it's ok to take a first grader shooting a handgun.  I always kept my handguns locked up in a safe or with a trigger lock (I haven't hunted since before he was born so I haven't owned a rifle in more than 20 years).  I don't have a problem with parents taking their kids hunting around 12 or so...depending upon the maturity of the kid...it can be a cool bonding experience.  My son wasn't especially responsible (at least to my liking) and I stopped hunting before he was born.  As a result, I didn't take him target shooting with a handgun until he was a junior in high school (we rented).  He was brought up with a healthy respect for weapons.  Now he's 19 and in the Navy...he's definitely responsible (and a good shot).

I think what the father did in this case was recklessly irresponsible...his reckless disregard led to the murder of 2 people.


Similar approach we took with our boy. He respects them and handles them carefully. My husband grew up a KY country boy, hunting from the time he was 9. I never touched a weapon till I joined the military. The range is fun and we have a decent gun safe-full that we take out for that purpose now and then. We started taking him with us when he was 16 or so. Our son is too educated to flash guns to impress his buddies but we still keep them locked up, except when we are on long road trips (we both have concealed carry permits). We have four dogs so any home invader is gonna pass right by our house. I do have a Sig P229 stashed where I can get to it, but the dogs are the best frontline deterrent. Bad guys don't like dogs. I really don't think I will ever fire it outside the range. I hope not at least. But if I do, it will be for a damn good reason.

OMG! A lefty who wears combat boots and owns guns!
 
2013-08-20 10:03:37 PM

Archfeld: The My Little Pony Killer: We should start doing the same to the "parents" of kids who accidentally kill themselves with guns they find laying around.

They DO,  have an "un-secured" firearm about and a minor gets it you are DOOOOOOOMED in California.  I do agree reasonable means should be taken to secure a weapon, a gun safe, trigger lock, there are so many easy ways, and I can get to my loaded but trigger locked revolver in a very reasonable few seconds...


Good, We need that law up here in Washington.
 
2013-08-20 10:03:56 PM

Headso: Amos Quito: b0rg9: Shot someone walking to the bus stop just for "fun"?

If this isn't what the death penalty is for I don't know what it is for.


Two teens charged with murdering Melbourne baseball player Chris Lane

Seems there's a lot of that going around these days.

was just looking to see if that was on here, seems not



I guess no one has submitted the story with a funny enough headline.
 
2013-08-20 10:04:02 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Googling around it appears this is what a Hi-Point .45 Carbine looks like:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 800x311]

And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.


sno man: what subby's handgun looks like:
[www.thefirearmblog.com image 800x310]


scottydoesntknow: An object for perspective would be nice.

[www.gunpundit.com image 850x483]


Are those bump fire stocks? I still cant believe those are generally legal... Looks like the same stock on all 3 of those pictures is that standard equipment? If it is, for farks sake i am pretty pro gun, but giving a 15 year old basically the equivalent of a submachine gun is a bad idea.

/also i think that dude is really tiny
//or that rhino next to his elbow is HUGE
 
2013-08-20 10:04:29 PM

Elegy: LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.

So in this case, the guy kept letting his son walk with the weapon, I agree.

But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?


Absolutely I would think you should bear some liability if your gun was used in a crime, even if it was stolen from your home, your vehicle, or taken from you while you were carrying concealed.  If that liability seems like too much for some people, maybe they will reconsider owning guns.  Depending on the circumstances I could see civil vs criminal penalties, but the threat of a weapon being stolen is reason enough to own a gun safe.  If you can't afford a gun safe, you can't afford a gun.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

And how would you find out who that weapon belonged to? That might involve some form of registration and we all know that while our hobbyist friends are terribly keen on protecting their rights, many go soft when it comes to accepting any responsibility or accountability.


We absolutely need a registry.  I'm confident that within ten years we'll have one.
 
2013-08-20 10:04:44 PM

Ishkur: I can't believe people still remember Lothar of the Hill People.

Isn't that skit like 25 years old? And it's not like it was a big hit like Sprockets, Toonces or Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.

/and yes, father and son should be charged
//jesus, the kid treated it like a video game. Shot and killed someone on the way to the bus stop. Father responded by taking the gun away. Kid stole it back and killed someone else a month later. He's a farking psychopath.


Sounds like another in the long line of "maligned responsible gun owner...until he wasn't."
 
2013-08-20 10:04:44 PM

69gnarkill69: An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.


Fun stat:

Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.
 
2013-08-20 10:05:02 PM
When son #2 graduated from high school I got him an AK-47 (okay a Romanian stamped-receiver knockoff) and 1000 rounds of ammo. We had fun with that. He's not psycho, so I was never worried.
 
2013-08-20 10:05:14 PM

WTFDYW: Still nothing on FARK about the teens that shot the jogger because they were bored. And NO. this guy should not have been arrested. the kid should have.


Why not?
I'd say this is, at best, a case of straw purchasing. The BATFE should be all over the father when he admits to buying a gun for his underaged kid AND letting him use it unsupervised.  Not calling the cops when he knew the son was out shooting people, and not properly securing the weapon when he knew his son was taking it, that's aiding a crime right there.
There's all kinds of criminality in the fathers actions that enabled his son to kill people.
Both of them should be dragged in front a Judge and Jury.

/For the record, being pro-gun doesn't mean you're in favor of criminal activity.
/Its the fact that some people don't want to be victimised that drives them to arm up in the first place.
/This man was letting his kid carry on like a hoodlum.  He's got to answer for that.
 
2013-08-20 10:05:31 PM

LordJiro: Elegy: LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.

So in this case, the guy kept letting his son walk with the weapon, I agree.

But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?

Yeah, I admit I kinda went a bit extreme. I'd say "Locking your doors, with the gun out of sight" would be safe enough, unless you live in a REALLY shiatty neighborhood.


So you would require legal gun owners who live in high-crime neighborhoods - and thus have a demonstrable need for a gun for home protection - to lock up their guns where they can't get to them in case of an emergency? But you'd give middle class people who live in safe neighborhoods a pass on the mandatory gun safe?

Something tells me you haven't thought this cunning plan all the way through.
 
2013-08-20 10:07:03 PM

Elegy: What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?


Nope. That is still irresponsible.


WTFDYW: And NO. this guy should not have been arrested. the kid should have.


Misprision of felony would be a nice federal charge, but here are the Florida felony charges so far (from TFA):
Lothar Schafer faces a felony charge of culpable negligence for allegedly leaving a loaded firearm within easy access of a minor who uses it to injure or kill someone.
/And if Lothar weren't the kid's father, he would be facing capital murder charges as an accessory after the fact to the murder of a minor.
 
2013-08-20 10:07:27 PM

Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.


It's in my profile.
 
2013-08-20 10:07:34 PM

Ishkur: 69gnarkill69: An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Fun stat:

Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.


Except that it's not a Gaussian distribution.

If you live and work in low-crime areas, and do not have a gun in the house, your odds of being shot are much, much, much less.
 
2013-08-20 10:07:49 PM

Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.


My temptation is to tell your gloaty ass to go fark yourself. But it's a year I owe you, jackass.
 
2013-08-20 10:08:14 PM
Before allowing your child to handle a firearm, you must first ask yourself, "is this person responsible enough to be trusted with a deadly weapon?"   Sometimes the answer is yes, even as young as 8 years old (with adult supervision).  Sometimes the answer is no, no matter how old the child is.  My stepdaughter fell into the latter group.  Which is why I kept my firearms locked up securely.  I'm pretty damn sure if she had access to them, she would have done something not just stupid, but possibly fatal to someone.

No matter how responsible the person is, however, so long as that person is a minor, they must always have adult supervision when handling a gun.  No farking exceptions.  EVER.
 
2013-08-20 10:09:05 PM

quickdraw: Elegy: You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?

If psychopaths like these broke into your house and stole your guns you wouldnt be around to be arrested the next day.


Unless, of course, you were not at home.
 
2013-08-20 10:10:21 PM

ultraholland: OhioUGrad: I'm going to become a hobbit.

/maybe just invest in a bullet proof vest

it's called Mithril, and I doubt you have enough dough.


i265.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-20 10:10:42 PM
Kinda like little Traytray's daddy helpin him get a gun huh?
 
2013-08-20 10:11:01 PM

inglixthemad: LordJiro: Elegy: LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.

So in this case, the guy kept letting his son walk with the weapon, I agree.

But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?

Yeah, I admit I kinda went a bit extreme. I'd say "Locking your doors, with the gun out of sight" would be safe enough, unless you live in a REALLY shiatty neighborhood.

Black letter law says that if he secured the house, as the 'sole occupant', he is indemnified. Now 'sole occupant' can apply to a multi-family residence (apartment building) providing that separate locks exist for each occupant to secure their own space. At that point, the weapon does need to be in their own 'secured space' for the indemnity.

Also, I know people that are farmers. They possess ammonium-nitrate and diesel fuel (in large quantities) on their property. Are you going to blame them if someone steals a bunch to make a fertilizer bomb while they're at a wedding?

You can't hold someone responsible for the actions of a random person. The only reason dad is on the hook here is he didn't secure the weapon from a minor in his household. He has a parental responsibility for his child.


I think knowledge his kid was farking around and failure to properly secure the weapon after might have something to do with it.
 
2013-08-20 10:11:10 PM
I see Fark goes full retard at night...
 
2013-08-20 10:11:34 PM

Ishkur: 69gnarkill69: An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Fun stat:

Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.



Linky linky???

Pretty please?

Thanks in advance.

:-)
 
2013-08-20 10:11:40 PM
Put em in jail together. Dad should choke the kid out
 
2013-08-20 10:12:33 PM

MFAWG: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

My temptation is to tell your gloaty ass to go fark yourself. But it's a year I owe you, jackass.


Think you replied to the wrong person.

And it's a month of TF, not a year, according to the terms I originally laid out and you accepted
 
2013-08-20 10:13:14 PM
Gun policy finally getting scientifically studied - although this first study is self-admittedly weak.

What they say they found is that either extreme (complete control, or no control) of gun policy will work, but compromise policies that only exert partial control will fail.
 
2013-08-20 10:13:59 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Makes sense to me. He enabled someone to be irresponsible with a gun he owned. Imagine of the dad had let his son drive the dad's car without a license and the kid ended up intentionally running someone over with it?


Yeah, I have no problem with this.  The father bears a *LOT* of responsibility here.

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged. I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons. If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


I disagree.  You should no more be responsible for a stolen weapon than you are if your car is stolen and used to run someone down.

way south: I'd say this is, at best, a case of straw purchasing. The BATFE should be all over the father when he admits to buying a gun for his underaged kid AND letting him use it unsupervised.


Good point, I overlooked the straw purchase.
 
2013-08-20 10:14:01 PM
Based on those admissions, Lothar Schafer faces a felony charge of culpable negligence for allegedly leaving a loaded firearm within easy access of a minor who uses it to injure or kill someone, records show. He also faces a misdemeanor charge of allowing unlawful possession of a firearm.

After what happened with Newtown, this is probably a good thing.
 
2013-08-20 10:14:42 PM

Elegy: Think you replied to the wrong person.

And it's a month of TF, not a year, according to the terms I originally laid out and you accepted


That's hilarious
 
2013-08-20 10:15:33 PM

Ishkur: 69gnarkill69: An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Fun stat:

Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.


0.003/100 Somebody might actually nibble.
 
2013-08-20 10:15:43 PM
The kid got his pick of guns and he goes with a Hi-Point?
 
2013-08-20 10:16:09 PM
No that isn't a bump fire stock....no it isn't a submachine gun.  No it isn't any type of assault weapon.  Most all full size semi-auto centerfire pistols these days pack more firepower than this firearm you ignorant dolts are freaking out about.

It is a high point carbine

That thing is basically the bottom rung of the firearms spectrum.  It is make of plastic and the pot metal used in die cast cars, uses a blowback design that makes a heavy and cumbersome action, and is basically something that an idiot who doesn't have much money buys to look like a mall ninja.

They aren't crap and are generally reliable, cheap, and have a good factory warranty.  However it is of no real practical use for much of anything.  I sold one I picked up on a trade (gen 1 even uglier than that one) for $150 about 2 years ago.
 
2013-08-20 10:16:09 PM
After getting more details, I think the father should be charged as an accessory to murder.
 
2013-08-20 10:16:35 PM

MFAWG: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

My temptation is to tell your gloaty ass to go fark yourself. But it's a year I owe you, jackass.



^ I saved that post. ^

And Elegy and I would BOTH like our year now, thanks.

;-)
 
2013-08-20 10:17:26 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ishkur: 69gnarkill69: An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Fun stat:

Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.

0.003/100 Somebody might actually nibble.


He should have picked odds not quite so horrific.  His choice is so obviously made up numbers that it ruined a perfectly good trolling opportunity.
 
2013-08-20 10:17:34 PM

Elegy: negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.


Swear to god, I thought it was a year.

Cancelling current purchase.

You're stilla jackass.
 
2013-08-20 10:18:07 PM
But whatever you do DONT BLAME THE GUNS LOOK AT THAT POOR SWEET INNOCENT GUN IT'S NOT THE GUNS
 
2013-08-20 10:18:10 PM
"Lothar" and "Konrad"?? Good lord, just their NAMES scare me!
 
2013-08-20 10:18:18 PM

FrancoFile: Ishkur: 69gnarkill69: An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Fun stat:

Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.

Except that it's not a Gaussian distribution.

If you live and work in low-crime areas, and do not have a gun in the house, your odds of being shot are much, much, much less.


Just don't live for 500 years.
 
2013-08-20 10:20:00 PM

Amos Quito: MFAWG: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

My temptation is to tell your gloaty ass to go fark yourself. But it's a year I owe you, jackass.


^ I saved that post. ^

And Elegy and I would BOTH like our year now, thanks.

;-)


Yours I do not recall? Not saying it didn't happen, just don't recall.

And you can save whatever you'd like. Smiley faces don't make you less of a jackass.
 
2013-08-20 10:20:12 PM

Cyno01: TuteTibiImperes: Googling around it appears this is what a Hi-Point .45 Carbine looks like:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 800x311]

And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.

sno man: what subby's handgun looks like:
[www.thefirearmblog.com image 800x310]

scottydoesntknow: An object for perspective would be nice.

[www.gunpundit.com image 850x483]

Are those bump fire stocks? I still cant believe those are generally legal... Looks like the same stock on all 3 of those pictures is that standard equipment? If it is, for farks sake i am pretty pro gun, but giving a 15 year old basically the equivalent of a submachine gun is a bad idea.

/also i think that dude is really tiny
//or that rhino next to his elbow is HUGE


You can't tell what a bump fire stock is with three pictures or not, and you are a "pro gun" guy?

What? Are you a "pro gun for other people but Cyano01 guy?"

pfft.
 
2013-08-20 10:20:50 PM

ben_reddy: The kid got his pick of guns and he goes with a Hi-Point?


Can't say that thought didn't pass through my mind.
 
2013-08-20 10:20:59 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Absolutely I would think you should bear some liability if your gun was used in a crime, even if it was stolen from your home, your vehicle, or taken from you while you were carrying concealed.  If that liability seems like too much for some people, maybe they will reconsider owning guns.  Depending on the circumstances I could see civil vs criminal penalties, but the threat of a weapon being stolen is reason enough to own a gun safe.  If you can't afford a gun safe, you can't afford a gun.


First, you're farking insane. In this hypothetical, you want to arrest me, the victim of a crime, for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

So if someone stills my car and commits a crime with it, am I liable even though the doors were locked.

Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.

Congratulations, you just priced poor people out of the market. Since many black people are poor, you also disenfranchised a significant percentage of African-Americans out of their constitutional rights, while allowing white people to purchase access to the same rights.

What's next, a poll-tax, you racist fark?
 
2013-08-20 10:23:00 PM

MFAWG: Elegy: negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

Swear to god, I thought it was a year.

Cancelling current purchase.

You're stilla jackass.


Good. I would have felt really, really bad if you'd bought me a year.

Thanks for being a sport and paying up.
 
2013-08-20 10:23:21 PM

Cyno01: TuteTibiImperes: Googling around it appears this is what a Hi-Point .45 Carbine looks like:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 800x311]

And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.

sno man: what subby's handgun looks like:
[www.thefirearmblog.com image 800x310]

scottydoesntknow: An object for perspective would be nice.

[www.gunpundit.com image 850x483]

Are those bump fire stocks? I still cant believe those are generally legal... Looks like the same stock on all 3 of those pictures is that standard equipment? If it is, for farks sake i am pretty pro gun, but giving a 15 year old basically the equivalent of a submachine gun is a bad idea.

/also i think that dude is really tiny
//or that rhino next to his elbow is HUGE


1, not a "bump fire stock".. just a plastic stock
2, if you were "pro gun" you'd know how to recognize a stock configured for bump firing
3, if you were "pro gun" you'd know that any semi-auto weapon can be "bump fired" (with varying degrees of difficulty)
4, yeah, a 15 year old should not have unsupervised access to any firearm.
 
2013-08-20 10:23:24 PM

Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Absolutely I would think you should bear some liability if your gun was used in a crime, even if it was stolen from your home, your vehicle, or taken from you while you were carrying concealed.  If that liability seems like too much for some people, maybe they will reconsider owning guns.  Depending on the circumstances I could see civil vs criminal penalties, but the threat of a weapon being stolen is reason enough to own a gun safe.  If you can't afford a gun safe, you can't afford a gun.

First, you're farking insane. In this hypothetical, you want to arrest me, the victim of a crime, for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

So if someone stills my car and commits a crime with it, am I liable even though the doors were locked.

Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.

Congratulations, you just priced poor people out of the market. Since many black people are poor, you also disenfranchised a significant percentage of African-Americans out of their constitutional rights, while allowing white people to purchase access to the same rights.

What's next, a poll-tax, you racist fark?


Holy crap, really?
 
2013-08-20 10:23:40 PM

b0rg9: ben_reddy: The kid got his pick of guns and he goes with a Hi-Point?

Can't say that thought didn't pass through my mind.


It was the kids (in essence) so he was going for the wow factor, not the practicality of it
 
2013-08-20 10:24:34 PM
Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-08-20 10:24:38 PM
Gun or no gun, if you're too damn incompetent ot too damn lazy to teach your kid right from wrong, you should face charges when he kills someone. Enjoy prison, you assclown.
 
2013-08-20 10:26:31 PM

Elegy: MFAWG: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

My temptation is to tell your gloaty ass to go fark yourself. But it's a year I owe you, jackass.

Think you replied to the wrong person.



Probably put you on ignore after GZ  walked


And it's a month of TF, not a year, according to the terms I originally laid out and you accepted


Okay, you take the month - but I'm holding out for the full year.

;-)
 
2013-08-20 10:26:31 PM

Amos Quito: Ishkur: 69gnarkill69: An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Fun stat:

Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.


Linky linky???

Pretty please?

Thanks in advance.

:-)


 
2013-08-20 10:27:08 PM

Elegy: LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.

So in this case, the guy kept letting his son walk with the weapon, I agree.

But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?


Gun legislation advocates might be ok with you storing it at the bottom of the Marianas trench as long as you cut the action in three pieces with an axy/acetylene torch first.
 
2013-08-20 10:27:27 PM

WTFDYW: Still nothing on FARK about the teens that shot the jogger because they were bored. And NO. this guy should not have been arrested. the kid should have.


You're a maroon.  FTFA:
Based on those admissions, Lothar Schafer faces a felony charge of culpable negligence for allegedly leaving a loaded firearm within easy access of a minor who uses it to injure or kill someone, records show. He also faces a misdemeanor charge of allowing unlawful possession of a firearm.
The younger Schafer is being tried as an adult and is facing two counts of first-degree murder in the June shooting death of David Guerrero and subsequent killing in July of 22-year-old Eric Roopnarine.


The father AND the son were appropriately charged.
 
2013-08-20 10:27:42 PM

scottydoesntknow: Amos Quito: Ishkur: 69gnarkill69: An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Fun stat:

Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.


Linky linky???

Pretty please?

Thanks in advance.

:-)


Well shiat, it cut off everything I said!

It's more like 1 in 5000

Politifact, # of people shot in 2010 (including non-fatal, minus suicides) over 2010 population
 
2013-08-20 10:27:51 PM
oxy/acetylene
 
2013-08-20 10:28:33 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


I completely agree. Then I get gun nuts up in my ass biatching about stolen guns, and they shouldn't be held responsible for stolen weapons. I guess locking them up is too much personal responsibility for them.
 
2013-08-20 10:28:50 PM

Amos Quito: b0rg9: Shot someone walking to the bus stop just for "fun"?

If this isn't what the death penalty is for I don't know what it is for.


Two teens charged with murdering Melbourne baseball player Chris Lane

Seems there's a lot of that going around these days.


What's interesting about that case is the third kid involved, the only one whose parents didn't make any excuses about, was also the only one that showed any remorse.

"James Edwards, 15, was treating the murder as a joke, Mr Hicks told the hearing... Before the hearing, Edwards' father, James Edwards Sr., said he knew where his son was 95 percent of the time and would call or text him. The 15-year-old was involved in wrestling and football, his father said, and was trying to forge the same sort of athletic career as Lane. He was heading into his sophomore year in high school. Edwards Sr. said Luna was also like a son to him. Luna's mother, Jennifer Luna, said her son likes to play basketball at a local court and play on his iPhone and Xbox. Asked if she had a message for the Lane family outside court, Ms Luna told the Herald Sun: "I feel sorry for them, my heart goes out to them, it really does, but that's my baby too. My boy was a baby too." Jones' parents, however, left the courtroom as their son was being brought in, and the father only mentioned to the Sun that he was "disappointed."

"Edwards and Luna did not show any emotion, but Jones broke down in tears after Mr Hicks said he was looking at a "very, very lengthy prison sentence"."

/needs a new "son, I am disappoint" picture
 
2013-08-20 10:29:06 PM

Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

My temptation is to tell your gloaty ass to go fark yourself. But it's a year I owe you, jackass.

Think you replied to the wrong person.


Probably put you on ignore after GZ  walked


And it's a month of TF, not a year, according to the terms I originally laid out and you accepted


Okay, you take the month - but I'm holding out for the full year.

;-)


LOL, see I would pay up but as I learned when I went to pay for Elegy's earlier in the month, you can't buy TF for somebody who already has TF.

It seems to be a glitch in the system.
 
2013-08-20 10:29:49 PM

scottydoesntknow: scottydoesntknow: Amos Quito: Ishkur: 69gnarkill69: An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Fun stat:

Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.


Linky linky???

Pretty please?

Thanks in advance.

:-)

Well shiat, it cut off everything I said!

It's more like 1 in 5000

Politifact, # of people shot in 2010 (including non-fatal, minus suicides) over 2010 population


And the vast majority of those shootings happen in shiatty neighborhoods.  If you live in a nice part of town and avoid visiting the ghetto, your odds of being shot are pretty damn close to zero.
 
2013-08-20 10:30:11 PM

MFAWG: Amos Quito: MFAWG: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

My temptation is to tell your gloaty ass to go fark yourself. But it's a year I owe you, jackass.


^ I saved that post. ^

And Elegy and I would BOTH like our year now, thanks.

;-)

Yours I do not recall? Not saying it didn't happen, just don't recall.

And you can save whatever you'd like. Smiley faces don't make you less of a jackass.



We had no bet - I was just jerkin' your chain because you responded to me instead of to Elegy, and you made it sound like we did.

That's what the smiley face was for!

;-)
 
2013-08-20 10:30:22 PM
There's nothing that could have been done to prevent this.

If the kid hadn't got a firearm and ammunition from his father, he probably just would have got one from somewhere else or shot those people with a knife or something
 
2013-08-20 10:30:28 PM
This is a semi-auto gun that fires a .45 ACP (a pistol round) and people in this thread have called it an assault rifle? Dear God.
 
2013-08-20 10:31:02 PM
My father started me shooting at six with a ppk at the local gun range.

At age 10 I was given a .177 crossman air rifle that shot pellets or bbs.

At age 12 I was given a 22, single shot, that was bolt action, but you it had a spring loaded firing pin, so you had to chamber the round and pull back the spring loaded bolt with the firing pin.  Literally 2 minutes between shots.

At 13 I qualified as a Sharpshooter with the NRA.

I never shot anyone.  I do not hunt.

At 22 I bought a Glock.  Kept it for a month before selling it, realizing that it was bad news if I carried it.  Since dad sent the whole family through the concealed carry course.

Ironically of our dead-eye family, mom is rated as an Expert.  But that is due to her father giving her a bow as a six year old and her uncanny eye site.

I have 2 lightweight 38s in the house with shaved hammers and plastic handles.  They are both hidden in false panels, one upstairs and the other downstairs.

It takes a responsible citizen and training to learn how to own and handle fire arms but the small percentage that does not use them correctly tarnish it for the rest of us.
 
2013-08-20 10:31:48 PM

ben_reddy: The kid got his pick of guns and he goes with a Hi-Point?


I'm guessing budgetary constraints kept him from the SCAR-H.
 
2013-08-20 10:34:32 PM

JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.


Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Do you think if a father bought his son a Ford pickup and the kid used it to run over people, that the dealership needs to be sued?  Or if my father buys a knife from Macys, and I stab someone with it, Macy's is responsible?
 
2013-08-20 10:36:04 PM

theflatline: Ironically of our dead-eye family, mom is rated as an Expert. But that is due to her father giving her a bow as a six year old and her uncanny eye site.


Sounds like a couple I knew.  With a rifle, the husband was the best, no argument.  He was a sniper in the army.  With a pistol, the wife  She pretty much out shot everyone at the range.  And she did it wearing a miniskirt and spiked heels.
 
2013-08-20 10:36:37 PM

JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.


Was it, in fact, illegal?

/Not trying to defend the dad, sounds like an appropriate charge.
 
2013-08-20 10:37:36 PM

theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Do you think if a father bought his son a Ford pickup and the kid used it to run over people, that the dealership needs to be sued?  Or if my father buys a knife from Macys, and I stab someone with it, Macy's is responsible?


Wait....Macy's sells knives?

Which department? I'm always stuck sitting in a chair when my girlfriend shops.
 
2013-08-20 10:37:51 PM

theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Do you think if a father bought his son a Ford pickup and the kid used it to run over people, that the dealership needs to be sued?  Or if my father buys a knife from Macys, and I stab someone with it, Macy's is responsible?


If the kid had already purposely ran over someone with that Ford pickup and the father didn't take away the damn keys, then yeah.

The gun dealer, however, can't be held at fault so long as it was sold legally.
 
2013-08-20 10:38:28 PM

scottydoesntknow: theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Do you think if a father bought his son a Ford pickup and the kid used it to run over people, that the dealership needs to be sued?  Or if my father buys a knife from Macys, and I stab someone with it, Macy's is responsible?

Wait....Macy's sells knives?

Which department? I'm always stuck sitting in a chair when my girlfriend shops.


Kitchen department.  D'uh.
 
2013-08-20 10:39:07 PM
WTF is wrong with people! My son has a pellet rifle that he doesn't use without me present. That father should be charged with accessory to murder.
 
2013-08-20 10:39:35 PM

OgreMagi: theflatline: Ironically of our dead-eye family, mom is rated as an Expert. But that is due to her father giving her a bow as a six year old and her uncanny eye site.

Sounds like a couple I knew.  With a rifle, the husband was the best, no argument.  He was a sniper in the army.  With a pistol, the wife  She pretty much out shot everyone at the range.  And she did it wearing a miniskirt and spiked heels.


...  and she wore sleeveless shirts and showed a lot of cleavage.
And seemed to really enjoy getting fresh burns from the hot brass.

/Spice it up a little more, bro.
 
2013-08-20 10:40:21 PM

theflatline: My father started me shooting at six with a ppk at the local gun range.

At age 10 I was given a .177 crossman air rifle that shot pellets or bbs.

At age 12 I was given a 22, single shot, that was bolt action, but you it had a spring loaded firing pin, so you had to chamber the round and pull back the spring loaded bolt with the firing pin.  Literally 2 minutes between shots.

At 13 I qualified as a Sharpshooter with the NRA.

I never shot anyone.  I do not hunt.

At 22 I bought a Glock.  Kept it for a month before selling it, realizing that it was bad news if I carried it.  Since dad sent the whole family through the concealed carry course.

Ironically of our dead-eye family, mom is rated as an Expert.  But that is due to her father giving her a bow as a six year old and her uncanny eye site.

I have 2 lightweight 38s in the house with shaved hammers and plastic handles.  They are both hidden in false panels, one upstairs and the other downstairs.

It takes a responsible citizen and training to learn how to own and handle fire arms but the small percentage that does not use them correctly tarnish it for the rest of us.


On mobile.

Smart.

It took me 2 times to qualify on the M16. First time I had ever handled a firearm. The next time, I fired expert on the M60. That was about the same time a distant cousin of mine blew his own brains out accidentally in front of his new bride doing God knows what.....


Training, training, training. Or is that for elitists?
 
2013-08-20 10:40:31 PM

OgreMagi: scottydoesntknow: theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Do you think if a father bought his son a Ford pickup and the kid used it to run over people, that the dealership needs to be sued?  Or if my father buys a knife from Macys, and I stab someone with it, Macy's is responsible?

Wait....Macy's sells knives?

Which department? I'm always stuck sitting in a chair when my girlfriend shops.

Kitchen department.  D'uh.


Damn...and I was thinking hunting knives. Thought they were expanding their merchandise.
 
2013-08-20 10:43:09 PM

poot_rootbeer: There's nothing that could have been done to prevent this.

If the kid hadn't got a firearm and ammunition from his father, he probably just would have got one from somewhere else or shot those people with a knife or something


Well there are stories like this one of a few teens ganging up on an innocent and killing them, and often involve other weapons than guns.  No one ever went after the dad who bought his kid a ball bat that was used to club a kid to death.

However, in cases involving guns the dad should be locked up.  That gun should've stayed in a gun safe till dad took him to a range.  But don't think these kids couldn't have killed without a gun, for it is more about the mentality than the weapon on hand.
 
2013-08-20 10:43:34 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: OgreMagi: theflatline: Ironically of our dead-eye family, mom is rated as an Expert. But that is due to her father giving her a bow as a six year old and her uncanny eye site.

Sounds like a couple I knew.  With a rifle, the husband was the best, no argument.  He was a sniper in the army.  With a pistol, the wife  She pretty much out shot everyone at the range.  And she did it wearing a miniskirt and spiked heels.

...  and she wore sleeveless shirts and showed a lot of cleavage.
And seemed to really enjoy getting fresh burns from the hot brass.

/Spice it up a little more, bro.


Naw, she learned her lesson about cleavage at the range early on.  A woman only makes that mistake once.  She did have incredible boobies, though.  Double Ds (after having them reduced).
 
2013-08-20 10:43:34 PM

MFAWG: Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Absolutely I would think you should bear some liability if your gun was used in a crime, even if it was stolen from your home, your vehicle, or taken from you while you were carrying concealed.  If that liability seems like too much for some people, maybe they will reconsider owning guns.  Depending on the circumstances I could see civil vs criminal penalties, but the threat of a weapon being stolen is reason enough to own a gun safe.  If you can't afford a gun safe, you can't afford a gun.

First, you're farking insane. In this hypothetical, you want to arrest me, the victim of a crime, for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

So if someone stills my car and commits a crime with it, am I liable even though the doors were locked.

Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.

Congratulations, you just priced poor people out of the market. Since many black people are poor, you also disenfranchised a significant percentage of African-Americans out of their constitutional rights, while allowing white people to purchase access to the same rights.

What's next, a poll-tax, you racist fark?

Holy crap, really?


Lets look at some of the more pertinent amendments from bill of rights.

1st: Freedom of Speech. Hate speech is proven to be detrimental to society. In the worst cases it incites violence and discord among citizens. Therefore, every citizen must pay an additional $500 to purchase a free speech permit before utilizing these rights.

2nd: Guns are proven to be detrimental to society. In the worst cases, they are used to commit crimes and murders. Therefore, everyone must pay an additional $500 to purchase a gun safe to utilize these rights, even in cases where are gun safe is not needed.

4th: Search and seizures have a proven beneficial effect on society. They allow police to catch criminals and put violators behind bars. Therefore, you must pay and additional $500 to purchase your "unreasonable search and seizure exemption" to exercise your rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

5th: Rights in criminal cases are detrimental to society. They allow known murderers to walk free on technicalities. Therefore, you must pay $500 for a "criminal rights exemption" in order to exercise these rights.

6th: Fair trials are detrimental to society, just as criminal rights are, because they allow known criminals to walk free on technicalities. Therefore, you must purchase these rights for an additional $500 on top of a lawyer. No excuses - if you can afford a lawyer, $500 is not too much to pay.

7th: civil cases are burdensome to the judicial process and can be proven to have a disproportionate case load on judges and lawyers. Therefore, to exercise your rights to bring a civil suit against someone, you must pay and additional $500 above and beyond any filing and lawyers fees. No excuses - if you can afford to bring a civil case, you can afford $500.


Now, which of these are you OK with? Which are you not?

And are you OK with the fact that in every single instance listed, access to your rights is based upon a financial fee and this would disproportionately affect blacks versus whites per capita?

Really, I have no problem if you want to repeal the second amendment. Get your talking points in order, and go for it. That's your right in a democracy.

But until the second amendment is repealed, stop trying to nickel and dime gun owners out of their constitutional rights with excessive fees and requirements like "you have to own a gun safe to own a gun."

Just because YOU don't care about your rights, doesn't mean that others don't.
 
2013-08-20 10:44:40 PM

69gnarkill69: An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Silly white kids.


Interestingly, Australia has just about the strictest gun control laws short of a complete ban.
 
2013-08-20 10:44:43 PM

Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Absolutely I would think you should bear some liability if your gun was used in a crime, even if it was stolen from your home, your vehicle, or taken from you while you were carrying concealed.  If that liability seems like too much for some people, maybe they will reconsider owning guns.  Depending on the circumstances I could see civil vs criminal penalties, but the threat of a weapon being stolen is reason enough to own a gun safe.  If you can't afford a gun safe, you can't afford a gun.

First, you're farking insane. In this hypothetical, you want to arrest me, the victim of a crime, for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

So if someone stills my car and commits a crime with it, am I liable even though the doors were locked.

Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.

Congratulations, you just priced poor people out of the market. Since many black people are poor, you also disenfranchised a significant percentage of African-Americans out of their constitutional rights, while allowing white people to purchase access to the same rights.

What's next, a poll-tax, you racist fark?


A car is a practical necessity for most of the country to get to work, buy groceries, and generally deal with the challenges of life.  Cars are also built primarily for transportation.  Guns, on the other hand, are not a necessity for the vast majority of people (only law enforcement, license security, and the military) and are primarily designed to kill.  Cars != guns.

I'd be willing to concede an exception if the weapon is reported stolen, but require that it be reported stolen immediately upon the owner discovering such, so, if you can prove you were on vacation or a business trip it doesn't kick it until you get home, but if you were home that night and didn't call, you're out of luck.

I'd also promote mandatory liability insurance for all gun owners, yearly license/registration fees charged for each weapon owned, and requiring all gun owners to register their weapons and upon doing so agree to surprise inspections of their storage practices from law enforcement (Germany does this, and it seems to work well for them).

If that means some people can't afford to own guns or get so fed up with the hassle and expense that they decide not to own guns, all the better, it means less guns floating around.
 
2013-08-20 10:44:53 PM

scottydoesntknow: OgreMagi: scottydoesntknow: theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Do you think if a father bought his son a Ford pickup and the kid used it to run over people, that the dealership needs to be sued?  Or if my father buys a knife from Macys, and I stab someone with it, Macy's is responsible?

Wait....Macy's sells knives?

Which department? I'm always stuck sitting in a chair when my girlfriend shops.

Kitchen department.  D'uh.

Damn...and I was thinking hunting knives. Thought they were expanding their merchandise.


At Macy's the most you can hope for is a Victorinox.  And I'm not even sure they even sell those.
 
2013-08-20 10:45:25 PM

freetomato: Smart.

It took me 2 times to qualify on the M16. First time I had ever handled a firearm. The next time, I fired expert on the M60. That was about the same time a distant cousin of mine blew his own brains out accidentally in front of his new bride doing God knows what.....

Training, training, training. Or is that for elitists?


Elitists and freetomatoes.
Did you get any time in with those .38s? I farking hated the Smith & Wessons - gritty triggers on 'em.

/Oh, and old soldiers.
//It's how we get to be old soldiers.
///My personal challah recipe is still yours for the asking.
 
2013-08-20 10:45:43 PM

LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes:I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.


Thankfully, you are wrong. Certain SCOTUS rulings (too lazy to look them up now) have ruled that to be an unreasonable burden on gun owners, and rightly so. Gun owners have a right to keep their firearms in a readily available location. After all, what good is a gun for self defense, ostensibly the main reason for having one, if it's in a location that's time consuming to reach? I would agree more with your sentiment when it came to securing a large collection, but expecting every last gun to be kept in a safe bolted to the floor is ridiculous and eliminates much of the practical reason for having a gun.

How would you like to be held accountable for a car thief killing someone after stealing your car? Well, guess you should have parked in a better neighborhood then. Or had one of those Lo-Jack things. You could have done more! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!>!!
 
2013-08-20 10:46:04 PM

Dextro: This is a semi-auto gun that fires a .45 ACP (a pistol round) and people in this thread have called it an assault rifle? Dear God.



www.bigheadsays.com

Diane would call it an "assault rifle".

And don't you DARE question Diane.
 
2013-08-20 10:46:41 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Cars != guns.


That is correct.  One is a Constitutionally protected Right.  The other isn't.
 
2013-08-20 10:46:47 PM

OgreMagi: demaL-demaL-yeH: OgreMagi: theflatline: Ironically of our dead-eye family, mom is rated as an Expert. But that is due to her father giving her a bow as a six year old and her uncanny eye site.

Sounds like a couple I knew.  With a rifle, the husband was the best, no argument.  He was a sniper in the army.  With a pistol, the wife  She pretty much out shot everyone at the range.  And she did it wearing a miniskirt and spiked heels.

...  and she wore sleeveless shirts and showed a lot of cleavage.
And seemed to really enjoy getting fresh burns from the hot brass.

/Spice it up a little more, bro.

Naw, she learned her lesson about cleavage at the range early on.  A woman only makes that mistake once.  She did have incredible boobies, though.  Double Ds (after having them reduced).


This is Fark.  You know the drill...
 
2013-08-20 10:48:43 PM

OgreMagi: theflatline: Ironically of our dead-eye family, mom is rated as an Expert. But that is due to her father giving her a bow as a six year old and her uncanny eye site.

Sounds like a couple I knew.  With a rifle, the husband was the best, no argument.  He was a sniper in the army.  With a pistol, the wife  She pretty much out shot everyone at the range.  And she did it wearing a miniskirt and spiked heels.


I worked for the Federal Air Marshal Service for 6 years, practically from 9/12 (not a FAM, support personnel). They have about the highest shooting requirements of any other fed agency. The BEST shot in our field office was a quiet, plump brunette who had been with the BOP and grew up on a farm, shooting squirrels when she was 7. I called her Annie Oakley. If you saw her on a plane, you would think she was a librarian on her way to a conference.

http://www.thegunzone.com/fam-lawman/ fam-qual.html
 
2013-08-20 10:49:00 PM

OgreMagi: Naw, she learned her lesson at the range early on.


Try a sleeve full of hot links from an M-60. Scratch-burns are no fun.
/Always button up tight and check the folds.
 
2013-08-20 10:49:34 PM
Lothar learned of one of Konrad's shootings and took the firearm away from him," the affidavit stated. "However, Konrad was able to access it again and continue to commit shootings with it.
Arrest away.
 
2013-08-20 10:49:45 PM
So the 15 year old is being tried as an adult while the father is being charged with allowing a minor to access his firearms?  Sounds very consistent.
 
2013-08-20 10:49:59 PM

OgreMagi: theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Do you think if a father bought his son a Ford pickup and the kid used it to run over people, that the dealership needs to be sued?  Or if my father buys a knife from Macys, and I stab someone with it, Macy's is responsible?

If the kid had already purposely ran over someone with that Ford pickup and the father didn't take away the damn keys, then yeah.

The gun dealer, however, can't be held at fault so long as it was sold legally.



Wait, is there reason to believe that the father KNEW that his son had shot the pedestrian, yet continued to allow access?

Link?

Thanks.
 
2013-08-20 10:51:18 PM
Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-08-20 10:54:12 PM

Amos Quito: OgreMagi: theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Do you think if a father bought his son a Ford pickup and the kid used it to run over people, that the dealership needs to be sued?  Or if my father buys a knife from Macys, and I stab someone with it, Macy's is responsible?

If the kid had already purposely ran over someone with that Ford pickup and the father didn't take away the damn keys, then yeah.

The gun dealer, however, can't be held at fault so long as it was sold legally.


Wait, is there reason to believe that the father KNEW that his son had shot the pedestrian, yet continued to allow access?

Link?

Thanks.


...it's in the article.

"Lothar learned of one of Konrad's shootings and took the firearm away from him," the affidavit stated. "However, Konrad was able to access it again and continue to commit shootings with it. ...
 
2013-08-20 10:54:39 PM

Amos Quito: Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.
Linky linky???
Pretty please?


Why should I? You're a petulant little fark who couldn't stand losing an argument so you resorted to calling me obscenities a dozen times. I don't place anyone on ignore, but there are some people I'm simply not interested in replying to anymore. You are very close to being one.

/here's your farking link. Do the math: 467,300 / 320 million = .0015 = 0.2% (rounded) = 1 in 500.
//there. Now grow the fark up. Science is the best system we have and you are a god damn retard.
 
2013-08-20 10:55:31 PM

scottydoesntknow: Amos Quito: OgreMagi: theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Do you think if a father bought his son a Ford pickup and the kid used it to run over people, that the dealership needs to be sued?  Or if my father buys a knife from Macys, and I stab someone with it, Macy's is responsible?

If the kid had already purposely ran over someone with that Ford pickup and the father didn't take away the damn keys, then yeah.

The gun dealer, however, can't be held at fault so long as it was sold legally.


Wait, is there reason to believe that the father KNEW that his son had shot the pedestrian, yet continued to allow access?

Link?

Thanks.

...it's in the article.

"Lothar learned of one of Konrad's shootings and took the firearm away from him," the affidavit stated. "However, Konrad was able to access it again and continue to commit shootings with it. ...


Sounds like misprison of a felony.
 
2013-08-20 10:55:38 PM

Elegy: MFAWG: Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Absolutely I would think you should bear some liability if your gun was used in a crime, even if it was stolen from your home, your vehicle, or taken from you while you were carrying concealed.  If that liability seems like too much for some people, maybe they will reconsider owning guns.  Depending on the circumstances I could see civil vs criminal penalties, but the threat of a weapon being stolen is reason enough to own a gun safe.  If you can't afford a gun safe, you can't afford a gun.

First, you're farking insane. In this hypothetical, you want to arrest me, the victim of a crime, for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

So if someone stills my car and commits a crime with it, am I liable even though the doors were locked.

Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.

Congratulations, you just priced poor people out of the market. Since many black people are poor, you also disenfranchised a significant percentage of African-Americans out of their constitutional rights, while allowing white people to purchase access to the same rights.

What's next, a poll-tax, you racist fark?

Holy crap, really?

Lets look at some of the more pertinent amendments from bill of rights.

1st: Freedom of Speech. Hate speech is proven to be detrimental to society. In the worst cases it incites violence and discord among citizens. Therefore, every citizen must pay an additional $500 to purchase a free speech permit before utilizing these rights.

2nd: Guns are proven to be detrimental to society. In the worst cases, they are used to commit crimes and murders. Therefore, everyone must pay an additional $500 to purchase a gun safe to utilize these rights, even in cases where are gun safe is not needed.

4th: ...


The 2nd amendment was designed to allow civilian ownership of weapons for the purposes of forming a well regulated militia.  The words militia and regulated are right in the text.  Overly broad readings by the Supreme Court have allowed it to expand such that everyone thinks they have the constitutional right to own a damned armory in their rec-room.

That was never the intent, and I have no problem restricting the 2nd above any and all other amendments.
 
2013-08-20 10:56:33 PM

theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.


Is he a member of a well-regulated militia; as in, police?  National Guard?  Army?  Anything?  If not, then it's an illegal weapon.
 
2013-08-20 10:57:13 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The 2nd amendment was designed to allow civilian ownership of weapons for the purposes of forming a well regulated militia. The words militia and regulated are right in the text. Overly broad readings by the Supreme Court have allowed it to expand such that everyone thinks they have the constitutional right to own a damned armory in their rec-room.


Kinda hard to have a militia when the government can disarm it..  Also, can you explain how the right of the people is limited just to militia weapons?
 
2013-08-20 10:58:09 PM

JosephFinn: theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Is he a member of a well-regulated militia; as in, police?  National Guard?  Army?  Anything?  If not, then it's an illegal weapon.


Is he a person?  Then he has the right to keep and bear that arm.  Militia membership is irrelevant, and the police are not a well regulated militia.
 
2013-08-20 10:58:13 PM

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Cars != guns.

That is correct.  One is a Constitutionally protected Right.  The other isn't.


Which is more important to Americans' economy and livelihood?
 
2013-08-20 10:58:41 PM

Ishkur: Amos Quito: Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.
Linky linky???
Pretty please?

Why should I? You're a petulant little fark who couldn't stand losing an argument so you resorted to calling me obscenities a dozen times. I don't place anyone on ignore, but there are some people I'm simply not interested in replying to anymore. You are very close to being one.

/here's your farking link. Do the math: 467,300 / 320 million = .0015 = 0.2% (rounded) = 1 in 500.
//there. Now grow the fark up. Science is the best system we have and you are a god damn retard.


Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.
 
2013-08-20 10:58:49 PM
Wow -- white, black, male, female, hair that is short, medium, long, and in dreadlocks ...

Say what you want, these are equal-opportunity murderous thugs.
 
2013-08-20 10:59:22 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: freetomato: Smart.

It took me 2 times to qualify on the M16. First time I had ever handled a firearm. The next time, I fired expert on the M60. That was about the same time a distant cousin of mine blew his own brains out accidentally in front of his new bride doing God knows what.....

Training, training, training. Or is that for elitists?

Elitists and freetomatoes.
Did you get any time in with those .38s? I farking hated the Smith & Wessons - gritty triggers on 'em.

/Oh, and old soldiers.
//It's how we get to be old soldiers.
///My personal challah recipe is still yours for the asking.


I got a lot of time with the .38s, snubbed nose, they are people stoppers and are great for center masses at short distances.

Oddly enough our trainer, an ex NOPD cop, had an office in the bottom of the Superdome in New Orleans, and it had a range. He had a projector that shined on a wall and he had films that we had to shoot no shoot decide, with paper bullets.

I also have 2 .22 north americans, five shot .22.long, that I never carry, dad used to carry them in the 80s when New Orleans was pretty rough.  When you fire them look out for bruised fingers.

I am a little guy, so my weapon of choice is a  six inch .357 that I have under my mattress.
 
2013-08-20 10:59:47 PM

poot_rootbeer: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Cars != guns.

That is correct.  One is a Constitutionally protected Right.  The other isn't.

Which is more important to Americans' economy and livelihood?


The Constitution.
 
2013-08-20 11:00:03 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Absolutely I would think you should bear some liability if your gun was used in a crime, even if it was stolen from your home, your vehicle, or taken from you while you were carrying concealed.  If that liability seems like too much for some people, maybe they will reconsider owning guns.  Depending on the circumstances I could see civil vs criminal penalties, but the threat of a weapon being stolen is reason enough to own a gun safe.  If you can't afford a gun safe, you can't afford a gun.

First, you're farking insane. In this hypothetical, you want to arrest me, the victim of a crime, for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

So if someone stills my car and commits a crime with it, am I liable even though the doors were locked.

Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.

Congratulations, you just priced poor people out of the market. Since many black people are poor, you also disenfranchised a significant percentage of African-Americans out of their constitutional rights, while allowing white people to purchase access to the same rights.

What's next, a poll-tax, you racist fark?

A car is a practical necessity for most of the country to get to work, buy groceries, and generally deal with the challenges of life.  Cars are also built primarily for transportation.  Guns, on the other hand, are not a necessity for the vast majority of people (only law enforcement, license security, and the military) and are primarily designed to kill.  Cars != guns.

I'd be willing to concede an exception if the weapon is reported stolen, but require that it be reported stolen immediately upon the owner discovering such, so, if you can prove you were on vacation or a business trip it doesn't kick it until you get home, but if you were home that night and didn't call, you're out of luck.

I'd also promote mandatory liability insurance for all gun owners, yearly license/registration fees charged for each weapon owned, and requiring all gun owners to register their weapons and upon doing so agree to surprise inspections of their storage practices from law enforcement (Germany does this, and it seems to work well for them).

If that means some people can't afford to own guns or get so fed up with the hassle and expense that they decide not to own guns, all the better, it means less guns floating around.


"Cars != guns"
So what if someone stole a knife from my house and committed a crime with it? A baseball bat? A crossbow?

What if my front door was locked and dead bolted and someone stole my gun? Surely that's safe enough, right? I mean, it's pretty clear that a locked and dead bolted door says "do not enter my property."

How is it the fault of the legal owner of a thing that someone else stole his property and commits a crime?

"Germany, surprise home inspections"

Germany != the US. Last I checked, Germany didn't have a right to bear arms in its constitution.

Again, if you want to repeal the second amendment, get your talking points in order and go for it. That's your right in a democracy and I have no problem with it.

Instead, you admittedly want to nickel and dime gun owners out of their constitutional rights. That, I have a problem with.

You also want to set up a situation which will disproportionately disenfranchise poor people over rich people.

That, I have a BIG problem with. Are you racist, or do you just think poor people are too prone to crime to lawfully exercise their constitutional rights?
 
2013-08-20 11:00:34 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: freetomato: Smart.

It took me 2 times to qualify on the M16. First time I had ever handled a firearm. The next time, I fired expert on the M60. That was about the same time a distant cousin of mine blew his own brains out accidentally in front of his new bride doing God knows what.....

Training, training, training. Or is that for elitists?

Elitists and freetomatoes.
Did you get any time in with those .38s? I farking hated the Smith & Wessons - gritty triggers on 'em.

/Oh, and old soldiers.
//It's how we get to be old soldiers.
///My personal challah recipe is still yours for the asking.


Yes, send that recipe my way, please! I have started baking and canning recently, with amateur results on the baking side. Bestow your secrets to me! Me at ultra fark.

(General statement, not directed at you). Righties have this misconception that lefties are soft, helpless hippies. Oh no, my friends. Many of us are just fine, marksmanship-wise, and have many other survival skills. I don't want the civil war some seem to want, but if it comes to that, this family will be A OK.
 
2013-08-20 11:01:49 PM

Snarfangel: Wow -- white, black, male, female, hair that is short, medium, long, and in dreadlocks ...

Say what you want, these are equal-opportunity murderous thugs.



she was totally cock teasing the shooter, while banging the black dude.
 
2013-08-20 11:02:15 PM

Ishkur: /here's your farking link. Do the math: 467,300 / 320 million = .0015 = 0.02% (rounded) = 1 in 5000.


Correcting my own math. It's 1 in 5000.
 
2013-08-20 11:03:13 PM

poot_rootbeer: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Cars != guns.

That is correct.  One is a Constitutionally protected Right.  The other isn't.

Which is more important to Americans' economy and livelihood?


That would depend on the American in question. There are certainly people who depend more on firearms more than they do automobiles.
 
2013-08-20 11:04:03 PM
TuteTibiImperes [TotalFark]
2013-08-20 07:28:15 PM


The father should absolutely be charged. I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons. If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

And anyone whose car is stolen should be responsible for anything the thief does with it.
 
2013-08-20 11:04:18 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Elegy: MFAWG: Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Absolutely I would think you should bear some liability if your gun was used in a crime, even if it was stolen from your home, your vehicle, or taken from you while you were carrying concealed.  If that liability seems like too much for some people, maybe they will reconsider owning guns.  Depending on the circumstances I could see civil vs criminal penalties, but the threat of a weapon being stolen is reason enough to own a gun safe.  If you can't afford a gun safe, you can't afford a gun.

First, you're farking insane. In this hypothetical, you want to arrest me, the victim of a crime, for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

So if someone stills my car and commits a crime with it, am I liable even though the doors were locked.

Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.

Congratulations, you just priced poor people out of the market. Since many black people are poor, you also disenfranchised a significant percentage of African-Americans out of their constitutional rights, while allowing white people to purchase access to the same rights.

What's next, a poll-tax, you racist fark?

Holy crap, really?

Lets look at some of the more pertinent amendments from bill of rights.

1st: Freedom of Speech. Hate speech is proven to be detrimental to society. In the worst cases it incites violence and discord among citizens. Therefore, every citizen must pay an additional $500 to purchase a free speech permit before utilizing these rights.

2nd: Guns are proven to be detrimental to society. In the worst cases, they are used to commit crimes and murders. Therefore, everyone must pay an additional $500 to purchase a gun safe to utilize these rights, even in cases where are gun safe is not needed.

4th: ...

The 2nd amendment was designed to allow civilian ownership of weapons for the purposes of forming a well regulated militia.  The words militia and regulated are right in the text.  Overly broad readings by the Supreme Court have allowed it to expand such that everyone thinks they have the constitutional right to own a damned armory in their rec-room.

That was never the intent, and I have no problem restricting the 2nd above any and all other amendments.


Free speech was never intended to include hate speech. I have no problem with regulating free speech over and above the other amendments.

The right to a fair trail was never intended to allow murderers and child molestors to walk free. I have no problem with regulating the 4th amendment over and above the others.

Etc...

Again, you want to repeal the 2nd? Go for it.

But you don't, because that is too hard. Instead, you take the cowards way and want to legislate it out of existence.
 
2013-08-20 11:04:56 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Hey trollmitter:  Screw you and screw the trollmin who approved this trollline.


Agreed. These trolltastic headlines are getting annoying.
 
2013-08-20 11:05:53 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.


It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.
 
2013-08-20 11:08:51 PM

Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.


A country that allows a handful of people to dictate policy by proxy is the one I'd say is culturally broken.

All gun violence is gone in Australia?  Citation needed.

I'm going to assume you meant that were no more mass shootings. New Zealand didn't ban anything and they too managed not to have any mass shootings in 20+ years.
 
2013-08-20 11:09:14 PM
...I'm a pretty big gun rights advocate, but that dad was clearly an irresponsible moron.
 
2013-08-20 11:09:46 PM

Elegy: Free speech was never intended to include hate speech. I have no problem with regulating free speech over and above the other amendments.


I disagree.  Primarily because it becomes a problem with who decides what is considered hate speech.  I've heard people call a statement that merely disagreed with their stance hate speech.

Nope.  The 1st protects hate speech.  On the plus side, when people spew their bile publicly, we know exactly who to look for when the revolution comes.  I'm looking at you Fred Phelps.
 
2013-08-20 11:09:56 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ishkur: Amos Quito: Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.
Linky linky???
Pretty please?

Why should I? You're a petulant little fark who couldn't stand losing an argument so you resorted to calling me obscenities a dozen times. I don't place anyone on ignore, but there are some people I'm simply not interested in replying to anymore. You are very close to being one.

/here's your farking link. Do the math: 467,300 / 320 million = .0015 = 0.2% (rounded) = 1 in 500.
//there. Now grow the fark up. Science is the best system we have and you are a god damn retard.

Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.


Possession of a concealed weapon, hunting without a license, etc;
 
2013-08-20 11:13:15 PM

Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.


Are you serious, if you have any google fu skills you see the crime level went up after the gun ban.
 
2013-08-20 11:13:43 PM

pedrop357: TuteTibiImperes: The 2nd amendment was designed to allow civilian ownership of weapons for the purposes of forming a well regulated militia. The words militia and regulated are right in the text. Overly broad readings by the Supreme Court have allowed it to expand such that everyone thinks they have the constitutional right to own a damned armory in their rec-room.

Kinda hard to have a militia when the government can disarm it..  Also, can you explain how the right of the people is limited just to militia weapons?


We have a permanent standing military, we no longer have a need for a militia.  Ideally the 2nd amendment should join the 3rd as an obscure bit of law that doesn't matter anymore, and the guns could be rounded up and destroyed.

Elegy:
Germany != the US. Last I checked, Germany didn't have a right to bear arms in its constitution.

Again, if you want to repeal the second amendment, get your talking points in order and go for it. That's your right in a democracy and I have no problem with it.

Instead, you admittedly want to nickel and dime gun owners out of their constitutional rights. That, I have a problem with.

You also want to set up a situation which will disproportionately disenfranchise poor people over rich people.

That, I have a BIG problem with. Are you racist, or do you just think poor people are too prone to crime to lawfully exercise their constitutional rights?


Germany is not the US, correct, but we could try looking to the rest of the world and learning from countries that have found ways to balance firearm possession with public safety more effectively that we have.

I'm for all gun owners having to face hard decisions about whether or not they keep their guns, financial disincentives may effect the poor more, but they would discourage most people.

One of the most effective methods the anti-smoking crusaders have used to stop smoking is raising the taxes on cigarettes to the point where they're becoming more and more unfordable.  It's what prompted me to quite.  It's effective, and we could use it on guns.

Elegy: Free speech was never intended to include hate speech. I have no problem with regulating free speech over and above the other amendments.

The right to a fair trail was never intended to allow murderers and child molestors to walk free. I have no problem with regulating the 4th amendment over and above the others.

Etc...

Again, you want to repeal the 2nd? Go for it.

But you don't, because that is too hard. Instead, you take the cowards way and want to legislate it out of existence.


The text of the 1st, 4th, etc, make no such distinctions.  The text of the 2nd does.  Ideally I'd love to see it repealed, but in the current social and political climate it would be impossible.  Reducing the peoples' idea that they have the right to own an armory in their home over time though, that will eventually make it possible.
 
2013-08-20 11:14:08 PM

PunGent: Was it, in fact, illegal?


Interestingly, that's not a straightforward question. Florida law requires parental consent before giving a minor a firearm, but otherwise doesn't place an age restriction on ownership. Clearly this kid had parental consent to owning the firearm.

They do prohibit the transfer of a weapon to any person "of unsound mind", but it sounds like the father did not allow the kid to have the gun after the first shooting.

In this light, I conclude that the ownership of the gun by the minor was not illegal (that is, it was not an illegal gun). However:

A minor less than 18 years of age may not possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his home, unless engaged in lawful activities.

In this context, the minor's use of the gun was clearly illegal, even if he had not shot anyone. As to whether or not the father is liable for how his son used the weapon... Florida law says the following, in addition to any other laws that deal with the safe storage of dangerous items:

It is unlawful to store or leave a firearm in any place within reach or easy access of a person less than 18 years of age. This provision does not apply to:
*A firearm stored in a securely locked box or container, or in a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure, or securely locked with a trigger lock;
*A minor who obtains a firearm by means of unlawful entry by any person;
*Minors engaged in a lawful marksmanship competition or practice or other lawful recreational shooting activity;
*Any person carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.

Whoever, through culpable negligence, stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a minor less than 16 years of age commits a felony of the third degree, if the minor obtains the firearm and uses it to inflict injury or death upon himself or herself or any other person.  This subsection does not apply:
*If the firearm was stored or left in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure, or was securely locked with a trigger lock;
*If the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person;
*To injuries resulting from target or sport shooting accidents or hunting accidents; or
*To members of the Armed Forces, National Guard, or State Militia, or to police or other law enforcement officers, with respect to firearm possession by a minor which occurs during or incidental to the performance of their official duties.


So it really comes down to whether the father stored it in a locked container, and if so, whether the child had to circumvent any lock or other safety feature to gain access to the weapon.
 
2013-08-20 11:15:29 PM

OgreMagi: Elegy: Free speech was never intended to include hate speech. I have no problem with regulating free speech over and above the other amendments.

I disagree.  Primarily because it becomes a problem with who decides what is considered hate speech.  I've heard people call a statement that merely disagreed with their stance hate speech.

Nope.  The 1st protects hate speech.  On the plus side, when people spew their bile publicly, we know exactly who to look for when the revolution comes.  I'm looking at you Fred Phelps.


So who decides what "too many guns" are?
 
2013-08-20 11:16:32 PM

TuteTibiImperes: We have a permanent standing military, we no longer have a need for a militia. Ideally the 2nd amendment should join the 3rd as an obscure bit of law that doesn't matter anymore, and the guns could be rounded up and destroyed.


Well, that's not going to happen until the constitution is amended and will ultimately be decided by the survivors of the subsequent revolution.

At least I know you've truly earned your 'Retard red' coloring.
 
2013-08-20 11:16:36 PM

Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.


Sounds like you guys would love the Patriot Act.
 
2013-08-20 11:16:47 PM

pedrop357: All gun violence is gone in Australia? Citation needed.


I believe I just posted one.

pedrop357: New Zealand didn't ban anything and they too managed not to have any mass shootings in 20+ years.


That's because there's nothing to shoot in New Zealand, except sheep and hobbits.
 
2013-08-20 11:16:52 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

And how would you find out who that weapon belonged to? That might involve some form of registration and we all know that while our hobbyist friends are terribly keen on protecting their rights, many go soft when it comes to accepting any responsibility or accountability.


Quit being a biatch unless you support registration of each bullet/brass combo. I mean like, identifying marks and such.

Because registration on a tube doesn't mean fark all..
 
2013-08-20 11:16:56 PM

scottydoesntknow: Amos Quito: OgreMagi: theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Do you think if a father bought his son a Ford pickup and the kid used it to run over people, that the dealership needs to be sued?  Or if my father buys a knife from Macys, and I stab someone with it, Macy's is responsible?

If the kid had already purposely ran over someone with that Ford pickup and the father didn't take away the damn keys, then yeah.

The gun dealer, however, can't be held at fault so long as it was sold legally.


Wait, is there reason to believe that the father KNEW that his son had shot the pedestrian, yet continued to allow access?

Link?

Thanks.

...it's in the article.

"Lothar learned of one of Konrad's shootings and took the firearm away from him," the affidavit stated. "However, Konrad was able to access it again and continue to commit shootings with it. ...



Also FTA: "The rifle was used in multiple shooting incidents in Osceola County...including in the shooting death of 17-year-old David Guerrero,'' a police statement said."


There were several incidents of the kid farking up. There is no indication that the father knew that his son had shot and murdered someone.

Not buying that spin, sorry - and apparently the cops don't believe that either - OTHERWISE he'd already be charged with accessory to murder, wouldn't he?

This sounds like the media bullshiat gang-bang that followed the Trayvon Martin incident.

No sale.
 
2013-08-20 11:20:13 PM

jafiwam: You can't tell what a bump fire stock is with three pictures or not, and you are a "pro gun" guy?

What? Are you a "pro gun for other people but Cyano01 guy?"

pfft.


The_Original_Roxtar: 1, not a "bump fire stock".. just a plastic stock
2, if you were "pro gun" you'd know how to recognize a stock configured for bump firing
3, if you were "pro gun" you'd know that any semi-auto weapon can be "bump fired" (with varying degrees of difficulty)
4, yeah, a 15 year old should not have unsupervised access to any firearm.


Ok, i am pro gun rights, i have what i consider an average level of firearms knowledge but i am not a gun enthusiast. Im not gay nor do i know the intricacies of gay sex, but i can support gay rights, right? Im a broke student and couldnt afford any guns right now if i felt the want or need. I understand that any semi auto can be bump fired to a degree, but the three things on the butt of the stock look like they could be springs and "Internal Recoil Buffer In Stock" is listed among the features, ill admit i dont know exactly what that means.
 
2013-08-20 11:20:40 PM
This seems like, on the face, "yee haw show them bullies!"

Armed dummies and their spawn.

Remove them from the gene pool. Even contrarians can agree...right?

/yeah right.
 
2013-08-20 11:21:09 PM
If the other kids had been armed, this wouldn't have happened.

Maybe then they would have had a better "shot"
 
2013-08-20 11:23:36 PM

muck4doo: Sounds like you guys would love the Patriot Act.


Why? What does it have to do with gun legislation?
 
2013-08-20 11:25:22 PM

Cyno01: jafiwam: You can't tell what a bump fire stock is with three pictures or not, and you are a "pro gun" guy?

What? Are you a "pro gun for other people but Cyano01 guy?"

pfft.

The_Original_Roxtar: 1, not a "bump fire stock".. just a plastic stock
2, if you were "pro gun" you'd know how to recognize a stock configured for bump firing
3, if you were "pro gun" you'd know that any semi-auto weapon can be "bump fired" (with varying degrees of difficulty)
4, yeah, a 15 year old should not have unsupervised access to any firearm.

Ok, i am pro gun rights, i have what i consider an average level of firearms knowledge but i am not a gun enthusiast. Im not gay nor do i know the intricacies of gay sex, but i can support gay rights, right? Im a broke student and couldnt afford any guns right now if i felt the want or need. I understand that any semi auto can be bump fired to a degree, but the three things on the butt of the stock look like they could be springs and "Internal Recoil Buffer In Stock" is listed among the features, ill admit i dont know exactly what that means.


I am not gay but I understand the intricacies of gay sex.

Gays have one less hole to stick it it into.
 
2013-08-20 11:26:01 PM

Elegy: LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.

So in this case, the guy kept letting his son walk with the weapon, I agree.

But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?


I'd be OK with the Marine Corps's standards. Double-locked when left unattended.

No, that doesn't mean two padlocks on a chain, that means two separate layers of locking container. A locked trunk inside of a solidly-constructed, locked closet would be good.

... or a safe.
 
2013-08-20 11:27:21 PM

Cyno01: Ok, i am pro gun rights, i have what i consider an average level of firearms knowledge but i am not a gun enthusiast. Im not gay nor do i know the intricacies of gay sex, but i can support gay rights, right? Im a broke student and couldnt afford any guns right now if i felt the want or need. I understand that any semi auto can be bump fired to a degree, but the three things on the butt of the stock look like they could be springs and "Internal Recoil Buffer In Stock" is listed among the features, ill admit i dont know exactly what that means.


Don't pay attention to them. For some, it's like star trek fans flipping out because you don't know the series back and forth. I hear ya.

And I think the Rhino in the background is a blown-up picture :)
 
2013-08-20 11:28:07 PM
 
2013-08-20 11:30:28 PM

Amos Quito: "Lothar learned of one of Konrad's shootings and took the firearm away from him," the affidavit stated. "However, Konrad was able to access it again and continue to commit shootings with it. ...


Also FTA: "The rifle was used in multiple shooting incidents in Osceola County...including in the shooting death of 17-year-old David Guerrero,'' a police statement said."


There were several incidents of the kid farking up. There is no indication that the father knew that his son had shot and murdered someone.

Not buying that spin, sorry - and apparently the cops don't believe that either - OTHERWISE he'd already be charged with accessory to murder, wouldn't he?

This sounds like the media bullshiat gang-bang that followed the Trayvon Martin incident.

No sale.


Seriously? If I found out my kid was involved in ANY shooting of ANY kind, I would flip shiat and remove any possibility of him touching another firearm until he/she is out of my house. He was negligent as fark, doesn't matter if the one he knew about was the murder or one of the other shootings.
 
2013-08-20 11:31:38 PM

theflatline: Cyno01: jafiwam: You can't tell what a bump fire stock is with three pictures or not, and you are a "pro gun" guy?

What? Are you a "pro gun for other people but Cyano01 guy?"

pfft.

The_Original_Roxtar: 1, not a "bump fire stock".. just a plastic stock
2, if you were "pro gun" you'd know how to recognize a stock configured for bump firing
3, if you were "pro gun" you'd know that any semi-auto weapon can be "bump fired" (with varying degrees of difficulty)
4, yeah, a 15 year old should not have unsupervised access to any firearm.

Ok, i am pro gun rights, i have what i consider an average level of firearms knowledge but i am not a gun enthusiast. Im not gay nor do i know the intricacies of gay sex, but i can support gay rights, right? Im a broke student and couldnt afford any guns right now if i felt the want or need. I understand that any semi auto can be bump fired to a degree, but the three things on the butt of the stock look like they could be springs and "Internal Recoil Buffer In Stock" is listed among the features, ill admit i dont know exactly what that means.

I am not gay but I understand the intricacies of gay sex.

Gays have one less hole to stick it it into.


Well thats the basics, i assume theres intricacies, like theres probably a specific lube choice depending on the butthole, and how they decide who goes first, and that penis to penis thing if one of the guys is uncircumcised... I mean does not knowing the hankerchief code disqualify me from wanting them to be able to get married and adopt children?
 
2013-08-20 11:32:38 PM

scottydoesntknow: Seriously? If I found out my kid was involved in ANY shooting of ANY kind, I would flip shiat and remove any possibility of him touching another firearm until he/she is out of my house. He was negligent as fark, doesn't matter if the one he knew about was the murder or one of the other shootings.


If my kid was involved in a shooting, there'd be no chance for him to be involved in a second, because I'd be marching his ass down to the police station.
 
2013-08-20 11:36:24 PM

pedrop357: TuteTibiImperes: We have a permanent standing military, we no longer have a need for a militia. Ideally the 2nd amendment should join the 3rd as an obscure bit of law that doesn't matter anymore, and the guns could be rounded up and destroyed.

Well, that's not going to happen until the constitution is amended and will ultimately be decided by the survivors of the subsequent revolution.

At least I know you've truly earned your 'Retard red' coloring.


OK, as soon as someone brings up violent uprisings I can safely conclude that they're not garden variety gun nuts, but full on sociopaths.
 
2013-08-20 11:37:11 PM

Government Fromage: scottydoesntknow: Seriously? If I found out my kid was involved in ANY shooting of ANY kind, I would flip shiat and remove any possibility of him touching another firearm until he/she is out of my house. He was negligent as fark, doesn't matter if the one he knew about was the murder or one of the other shootings.

If my kid was involved in a shooting, there'd be no chance for him to be involved in a second, because I'd be marching his ass down to the police station.


Lol, yep I'm sure he'd let you.

School shooters can, but don't necessarily have poor parenting.
 
2013-08-20 11:38:21 PM

Cyno01: I understand that any semi auto can be bump fired to a degree, but the three things on the butt of the stock look like they could be springs and "Internal Recoil Buffer In Stock" is listed among the features, ill admit i dont know exactly what that means.


Bumpfiring is just a little trick where you work with the recoil action of the gun to pull the trigger rapidly (far more rapidly than anyone could achieve otherwise).

1) Hold your finger steady
2) Pull the gun forward (away from you) slightly
3) The action of the gun moving forward causes your finger to pull the trigger
4) The recoil pushes the gun backward (toward your body), but your slight forward pull arrests this movement and pushes your finger back into the trigger
5) The gun now fires as long as you pull the gun forward

The only things necessary for bump firing is a semi-automatic weapon and someplace that you're able to securely grip the weapon without interfering with the operation, typically this is the foregrip on a rifle/carbine. Most handguns don't have enough purchase to permit this. The technique can be difficult to master, and typically requires holding the gun in an awkward position.

The "bump fire stock" you refer to (also known as SlideFire) allows the stock to slide back and forth about an inch or so. In essence, it takes the difficulty out of learning the exact position and amount of pull that is necessary for bumpfiring. The reason they're legal is because, technically, each single pull of the trigger results in exactly one bullet being fired. They're just a very efficient method for pulling the trigger.

The "internal recoil buffer in stock" is just a spring that lessens the amount of recoil felt by the shooter. It has nothing to do with being able to bumpfire a firearm.
 
2013-08-20 11:38:34 PM

Cyno01: theflatline: Cyno01: jafiwam: You can't tell what a bump fire stock is with three pictures or not, and you are a "pro gun" guy?

What? Are you a "pro gun for other people but Cyano01 guy?"

pfft.

The_Original_Roxtar: 1, not a "bump fire stock".. just a plastic stock
2, if you were "pro gun" you'd know how to recognize a stock configured for bump firing
3, if you were "pro gun" you'd know that any semi-auto weapon can be "bump fired" (with varying degrees of difficulty)
4, yeah, a 15 year old should not have unsupervised access to any firearm.

Ok, i am pro gun rights, i have what i consider an average level of firearms knowledge but i am not a gun enthusiast. Im not gay nor do i know the intricacies of gay sex, but i can support gay rights, right? Im a broke student and couldnt afford any guns right now if i felt the want or need. I understand that any semi auto can be bump fired to a degree, but the three things on the butt of the stock look like they could be springs and "Internal Recoil Buffer In Stock" is listed among the features, ill admit i dont know exactly what that means.

I am not gay but I understand the intricacies of gay sex.

Gays have one less hole to stick it it into.

Well thats the basics, i assume theres intricacies, like theres probably a specific lube choice depending on the butthole, and how they decide who goes first, and that penis to penis thing if one of the guys is uncircumcised... I mean does not knowing the hankerchief code disqualify me from wanting them to be able to get married and adopt children?


Hahahaha, did you ever see the Pacino flick Cruising?  Al is an undercover cop trying to find a gay serial killer, and he enjoys it a little too much.

There is a scene in the flick where his first night out he has a yellow kerchief  in his back pocket and this giant bear says "hey your into watersports" and Al says no and the giant guy says "then take the shiat out of your pocket"

And tom Selleck was an Extra.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-20 11:39:25 PM

Amos Quito: Dextro: This is a semi-auto gun that fires a .45 ACP (a pistol round) and people in this thread have called it an assault rifle? Dear God.


[www.bigheadsays.com image 272x300]

Diane would call it an "assault rifle".

And don't you DARE question Diane.


questioning would require that she be capable of answering... and Dianne Feinstein doesn't know the first thing about firearms.
 
2013-08-20 11:40:09 PM
1. As mentioned, a carbine is not a "handgun", it's a short-stocked, usually short-barreled long gun (typically a rifle) that still requires two hands to fire but was originally designed to fit conveniently in a saddle holster for use by cavalry and later shepherds and cow-men.  Since they're designed around being fired off a horse anyhow so precision isn't going to be high, many of them use high-caliber ammo with high stopping power, which makes them popular in paramilitary/military applications as well as mid-range target shooting.  To that extent, the handgun comparison is valid-- the original purpose of the design was to hit human-scale critters like wolves and cougars and actual humans, so the danger if it's pointed at a person is pretty damned apparent.

2. There is not a state in the union where providing a minor unsupervised access to a loaded firearm isn't some form of felony.  Usually it's a class-A felony for 14- and under, and class-B or lower as you get closer to 18.  Note that "loaded" is the operative word here, in most states you can let your 4-year old sleep with her twelve-gauge if you want and that's fine, but if there's a shell sitting on a shelf in the same room you're looking at potential prison time.

3. Many states take it a step further and require that you not allow children unsupervised access to any _building_ with unsecured firearms... including firearms owned/purchased under that child's name.  Violation is a low-grade felony that gets bumped up immediately if something actually happens.  For reference, I'm not talking about dem dere pussy California leebrul blue states, I'm talking about like... Texas, and Arkansas.  Like, this is considered common-sense legislation even in some pretty red + pro-gun places.

Summary: Yes.  This idiot gets locked up.  There is such a thing as criminal negligence, and if this were an auto-related incident this is about on the order of sitting your kid in the seat of the car right in front of the farmer's market, having him close his eyes, and telling him the pedal on the right makes a cool vroom sound.  You're pretty much responsible for the fail that ensues through your sheer incompetence.
 
2013-08-20 11:40:28 PM

freetomato: Yes, send that recipe my way, please! I have started baking and canning recently, with amateur results on the baking side. Bestow your secrets to me! Me at ultra fark.


Sent. That email address seems to cut down significantly on the amount of spam I receive.
It works for any followup questions you might have.
 
2013-08-20 11:40:55 PM

knowless: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

And how would you find out who that weapon belonged to? That might involve some form of registration and we all know that while our hobbyist friends are terribly keen on protecting their rights, many go soft when it comes to accepting any responsibility or accountability.

Quit being a biatch unless you support registration of each bullet/brass combo. I mean like, identifying marks and such.

Because registration on a tube doesn't mean fark all..


As I was saying....
 
2013-08-20 11:42:03 PM

WTFDYW: Still nothing on FARK about the teens that shot the jogger because they were bored. And NO. this guy should not have been arrested. the kid should have.


Nope.  Looked too.  Not newsworthy.
 
2013-08-20 11:43:14 PM

Fubini: Bumpfiring is just a little trick where you work with the recoil action of the gun to pull the trigger rapidly (far more rapidly than anyone could achieve otherwise).


Works perfectly as long you don't want to hit what you believe you're "aiming" at, and don't care about bystanders.
 
2013-08-20 11:45:09 PM

scottydoesntknow: Cyno01: Ok, i am pro gun rights, i have what i consider an average level of firearms knowledge but i am not a gun enthusiast. Im not gay nor do i know the intricacies of gay sex, but i can support gay rights, right? Im a broke student and couldnt afford any guns right now if i felt the want or need. I understand that any semi auto can be bump fired to a degree, but the three things on the butt of the stock look like they could be springs and "Internal Recoil Buffer In Stock" is listed among the features, ill admit i dont know exactly what that means.

Don't pay attention to them. For some, it's like star trek fans flipping out because you don't know the series back and forth. I hear ya.

And I think the Rhino in the background is a blown-up picture :)


Ah, makes sense, the angle on it looked really weird too. Those are sexy sexy handguns, but ive heard the quality doesnt live up to the price.

And yeah, ive watched all six series and at the time ten movies of Trek in chronological order by episode, but i dont give my buddy whos watching DS9 on netflix right now shiat when he misunderstands that its the Klingons who are an allegory for the Soviets in WWII, not the Romulans.
 
2013-08-20 11:46:35 PM

Fubini: The "bump fire stock" you refer to (also known as SlideFire) allows the stock to slide back and forth about an inch or so. In essence, it takes the difficulty out of learning the exact position and amount of pull that is necessary for bumpfiring. The reason they're legal is because, technically, each single pull of the trigger results in exactly one bullet being fired. They're just a very efficient method for pulling the trigger.


I should also point out that bumpfiring doesn't really increase the lethality of a weapon. Even with a special stock, it takes too much precision to be performed in a life-or-death situation. If you did get it to work you'd just end up with a wildly inaccurate and jam-prone weapon.
 
2013-08-20 11:48:05 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Works perfectly as long you don't want to hit what you believe you're "aiming" at, and don't care about bystanders.


Yup. It's a toy for rich folks who don't care about burning $10 of ammo every time they pull the trigger.
 
2013-08-20 11:49:00 PM
I spent a month in Australia during the Sydney Olympics. I had numerous natives query me on the gun culture of the US ( as if I was an expert). I did my best to explain.


A star athlete being shot like a carnival target.....no words.

This will work wonders for the US's international rep.

/sucks all around
 
2013-08-20 11:49:07 PM

Noam Chimpsky: This is why I oppose multiculturalism. Look at that gang.


The United Killers of Benetton.
 
2013-08-20 11:51:04 PM

Fubini: demaL-demaL-yeH: Works perfectly as long you don't want to hit what you believe you're "aiming" at, and don't care about bystanders.

Yup. It's a toy for rich folks who don't care about burning $10 of ammo every time they pull the trigger.


When I volunteered at the rifle range, we'd get people coming in with their new rapid-fire gadgets from time to time. They'd invariably be excited when they walked in, but by the time they left, they were usually out of ammo and disappointed. And looking for someone else to sell the gizmo to.
 
2013-08-20 11:51:22 PM

Fubini: Fubini: The "bump fire stock" you refer to (also known as SlideFire) allows the stock to slide back and forth about an inch or so. In essence, it takes the difficulty out of learning the exact position and amount of pull that is necessary for bumpfiring. The reason they're legal is because, technically, each single pull of the trigger results in exactly one bullet being fired. They're just a very efficient method for pulling the trigger.

I should also point out that bumpfiring doesn't really increase the lethality of a weapon. Even with a special stock, it takes too much precision to be performed in a life-or-death situation. If you did get it to work you'd just end up with a wildly inaccurate and jam-prone weapon.


Yeah, im aware of that, and the technical legality, but it does sound like the sort of thing a dumbass 15 year old with unlimited access to a firearm would fark around with.
 
2013-08-20 11:57:08 PM

Elegy: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

It's in my profile.


neither of those punks honored the bet? did they agree to the bet?  Hell.. I knew that farker Zimm would walk that's why I didn't bother with all the outrage threads.
..
 
2013-08-21 12:02:13 AM

OhioUGrad: I'm going to become a hobbit. You cannot go anywhere anymore without fear of being shot.

/maybe just invest in a bullet proof vest


I've nearly given up working for change.  I've got a new idea.  Because we refuse to change laws then we have to change our thinking.  We need to accept random violent murder.
It's what our corporate overlords want.
 
2013-08-21 12:04:44 AM
If you want to know anything about firearms, I found this amazing tool.  They call it the googles or some hipster shiat like that, you can find it here  http://www.google.com .  If you want to legislate something you know nothing about, you are the worst kind of ignorant asshole, a willfully ignorant asshole.
 
2013-08-21 12:08:56 AM

Fubini: I should also point out that bumpfiring doesn't really increase the lethality of a weapon. Even with a special stock, it takes too much precision to be performed in a life-or-death situation. If you did get it to work you'd just end up with a wildly inaccurate and jam-prone weapon.


Another way to say this is that with a burst-fire weapon you're not used to you'll usually land the first shot and lose the rest of the burst.  The difference with bump firing is that you'll miss the first shot too, and it doesn't matter whether you're used to it or not because you're intentionally holding the weapon in a way that farks accuracy up the arse sideways with a pile driver.

It's basically worth trying if there's a bear literally chewing on your boot.  I wouldn't use it in a self-defense situation (or a murder, I guess) even if I was literally in barrel-whip range.

Or, to put it in even shorter terms, this is the long-arm version of aiming by holding the pistol sideways over your head with your wrist loose... and then carrying it in the waistband of your sweats just over your penis.
 
2013-08-21 12:14:40 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: OgreMagi: Naw, she learned her lesson at the range early on.

Try a sleeve full of hot links from an M-60. Scratch-burns are no fun.
/Always button up tight and check the folds.


Got both of ya beat! Had a 20mm cannon shell drop and wedge perfectly between the neck coverage of my flack jacket and my bare neck thanks to a SuperCobra facking something up a few hundred yards down range of us. Was only lodged there for the few seconds it took for me to drop my SAW and start doing the funky chicken dance totally out of cover in the middle of the street to get that fricken thing out of there and that few seconds is all it took to leave me scarred for life on the back of my neck.
 
2013-08-21 12:17:15 AM

Jim_Callahan: Or, to put it in even shorter terms, this is the long-arm version of aiming by holding the pistol sideways over your head with your wrist loose... and then carrying it in the waistband of your sweats just over your penis.


Ah. The Patriot Carry(TM), for Real 'Merkins: We don't believe in Darwin and find any kind of sex educatin' that isn't abstinence only disturbin' and preverted.
 
2013-08-21 12:18:54 AM

dropdfun: demaL-demaL-yeH: OgreMagi: Naw, she learned her lesson at the range early on.

Try a sleeve full of hot links from an M-60. Scratch-burns are no fun.
/Always button up tight and check the folds.

Got both of ya beat! Had a 20mm cannon shell drop and wedge perfectly between the neck coverage of my flack jacket and my bare neck thanks to a SuperCobra facking something up a few hundred yards down range of us. Was only lodged there for the few seconds it took for me to drop my SAW and start doing the funky chicken dance totally out of cover in the middle of the street to get that fricken thing out of there and that few seconds is all it took to leave me scarred for life on the back of my neck.


Hint: Just like sex, this is not a contest.
 
2013-08-21 12:19:17 AM

Cerebral Knievel: Elegy: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

It's in my profile.

neither of those punks honored the bet? did they agree to the bet?  Hell.. I knew that farker Zimm would walk that's why I didn't bother with all the outrage threads.
..


See my previous post. You have to wait for somebodies TF to expire before you can renew them. Since I don't obsessively follow Elegy's status, I didn't realize his had expired.

But thanks for your input.
 
2013-08-21 12:26:19 AM
Do GOP gun nuts ever pick a weapon based on anything other than how scary it looks? What a piece of junk. LOL.
 
2013-08-21 12:29:48 AM
Oblig:

I bought my step-son a knife for his 13th birthday.  For fishing and camping only.  He knows that if he takes it outside of the house without his dad's or my consent that it disappears forever.  He's shaping up to be a decent fisherman and I trust him to keep his knife in his room.  We had one minor misunderstanding and that was all it took.  Air has been clear and rules obeyed ever since then.

His dad and I have discussed getting him a .22.  I have no problem with guns but have been erring on the side of extreme prudishness and said not until next year at which time he will be 15.  If he gets one then, it will only be released from the prison of the gun safe for target practice under adult supervision.

All guns are locked up either in the safe or the gun case in our house.  Not let out, never left unsupervised for children or visitors under any circumstances.  We also keep our bedroom door locked as I own several knives and a sword that is on display and there is no reason for the kid or one of his fool teenage friends to mess with any of these items when we're not home.  Never, ever.
 
2013-08-21 12:30:21 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: dropdfun: demaL-demaL-yeH: OgreMagi: Naw, she learned her lesson at the range early on.

Try a sleeve full of hot links from an M-60. Scratch-burns are no fun.
/Always button up tight and check the folds.

Got both of ya beat! Had a 20mm cannon shell drop and wedge perfectly between the neck coverage of my flack jacket and my bare neck thanks to a SuperCobra facking something up a few hundred yards down range of us. Was only lodged there for the few seconds it took for me to drop my SAW and start doing the funky chicken dance totally out of cover in the middle of the street to get that fricken thing out of there and that few seconds is all it took to leave me scarred for life on the back of my neck.

Hint: Just like sex, this is not a contest.


No wonder the ladies always give me a weird look when I ask if they have any footage of them in action with their ex's for my competitive analysis, thanks for clearing that up for meh!
 
2013-08-21 12:35:44 AM

dropdfun: demaL-demaL-yeH: dropdfun: demaL-demaL-yeH: OgreMagi: Naw, she learned her lesson at the range early on.

Try a sleeve full of hot links from an M-60. Scratch-burns are no fun.
/Always button up tight and check the folds.

Got both of ya beat! Had a 20mm cannon shell drop and wedge perfectly between the neck coverage of my flack jacket and my bare neck thanks to a SuperCobra facking something up a few hundred yards down range of us. Was only lodged there for the few seconds it took for me to drop my SAW and start doing the funky chicken dance totally out of cover in the middle of the street to get that fricken thing out of there and that few seconds is all it took to leave me scarred for life on the back of my neck.

Hint: Just like sex, this is not a contest.

No wonder the ladies always give me a weird look when I ask if they have any footage of them in action with their ex's for my competitive analysis, thanks for clearing that up for meh!


If they DO have such things, maybe a little lookie loo is still a bad idea.
 
2013-08-21 12:37:06 AM

MFAWG: Cerebral Knievel: Elegy: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

It's in my profile.

neither of those punks honored the bet? did they agree to the bet?  Hell.. I knew that farker Zimm would walk that's why I didn't bother with all the outrage threads.
..

See my previous post. You have to wait for somebodies TF to expire before you can renew them. Since I don't obsessively follow Elegy's status, I didn't realize his had expired.

But thanks for your input.


He's right. I got sponsored about 3 days before the trial ended so I couldn't be sponsored again.

But I'm currently unsponsored now sooooooo.... Yeah.
 
2013-08-21 12:46:36 AM

MFAWG: Cerebral Knievel: Elegy: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

It's in my profile.

neither of those punks honored the bet? did they agree to the bet?  Hell.. I knew that farker Zimm would walk that's why I didn't bother with all the outrage threads.
..

See my previous post. You have to wait for somebodies TF to expire before you can renew them. Since I don't obsessively follow Elegy's status, I didn't realize his had expired.

But thanks for your input.


got it, And I understand.. ... that persons TF has now expired.. are you going to now honor the bet?


remember to always do sober what you said you would do when drunk, that teaches you to keep your fool mouth shut.

Not that I am actually calling you a fool, nor,actually a punk despite my previous comment. All I'm saying $5 keeps this shiat honest. despite everything.. there are actual people and personalities behind these letters.
 
2013-08-21 12:56:46 AM
Carbine ≠ handgun

Both father and son should be locked up for the rest of their lives.
 
2013-08-21 12:56:53 AM
The US could do worse than to import some of the gun laws that the Czech Republic has.

Lots of guns there, all registered, increasing tests depending on why/what you want to use it for.

Of course, it'll never happen because of the r-word in that 2nd sentence.

Maybe for Canada someday thought (but I doubt it)

Looking into the purchase of a Ruger SR-1911 if anyone has any experience with it and could offer insight.
 
2013-08-21 01:16:33 AM

Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.


So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

Link (PDF), data used on page 27:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf
 
2013-08-21 01:23:36 AM

Ishkur: Amos Quito: Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.
Linky linky???
Pretty please?

Why should I? You're a petulant little fark who couldn't stand losing an argument so you resorted to calling me obscenities a dozen times. I don't place anyone on ignore, but there are some people I'm simply not interested in replying to anymore. You are very close to being one.



The problem you had last night is that you had NO CLUE what you were trying to argue. It gets frustrating after a while.

And again, you have no clue - as we shall see.


/here's your farking link. Do the math: 467,300 / 320 million = .0015 = 0.2% (rounded) = 1 in 500.
//there. Now grow the fark up. Science is the best system we have and you are a god damn retard.



You could learn a lot from a "retard", Ishkur.

You see, Ishkur, the problem here is not in the science, but in the (intentionally ambiguous?) (mis)representation of the science, AND in the misinterpretation of the findings.

Your source links to the Bureau of Justice Statistics - to a news release that provides information cloaked in ambiguous and esoteric terms:

QUOTE:

"In 2011, about 70 percent of all homicides and eight percent of all nonfatal violent victimizations (rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault) were committed with a firearm, mainly a handgun. A handgun was used in about 7 in 10 firearm homicides and about 9 in 10 nonfatal firearm violent crimes in 2011. In the same year, about 26 percent of robberies and 31 percent of aggravated assaults involved a firearm, such as handguns, shotguns or rifles."

END QUOTE

See, the article speaks of 467,300 NONFATAL FIREARM VICTIMIZATIONS , and you interpret that as "467,300 people were shot", but that is not the case. In fact, this number represents the TOTAL number of crimes in which firearms - real or imaginary - were USED (whether fired, brandished, used as a bludgeon, or simply implied/threatened). The gun need not have even existed (finger in pocket bank heist), let alone been fired with injury.

To find the actual number of non-fatal firearms injuries in 2010, let's go to another source - one that is decidedly anti-gun:

LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE

QUOTE:

"In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

"73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010."

END QUOTE

Their source: The CDC. Go ahead, run the figures.

While 73,505 non-fatal gun injuries is substantial, it is a far cry from your initial claim: "Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year", isn't it? even if we add in the 31,076 firearms victims who die - including homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings, we still arrive at 104,500 TOTAL persons actually shot.

So the real math goes something like this:

US population: 308,747,000 (2010) / DIVIDED BY / Persons SHOT (killed or injured - including accidents and suicides) 104,500 (2010)  = 2,954.

Your corrected claim: "Every American has a 1 in 500 2,954 chance of being shot in a given year".

But don't feel bad, Ishkur you were only off by a factor of six.

You see, Ishkur, science isn't the problem - rather it is the ambiguous (mis)representation of science (BOJS / NPR article) and the misinterpretation of this ambiguous representation (you), whether accidental or intentional, to shape public opinion. And THAT, dear sir (or madame), is precisely the point I labored (in vain) to get through your thick head yesterday evening.

RECAP: Your figures are wrong. Americans do NOT have "a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year" , in fact, they have a 1 in 2,954 chance of "being shot" in a given year - and that includes accidents and suicides, sir.

/ Science, Ishkur
// It's "the best system we have"
/// Why do you hate it?
 
2013-08-21 01:30:29 AM

lizyrd: Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.

So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

Link (PDF), data used on page 27:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf


How about this:

www.washingtonpost.com

You can't seriously argue that we don't have a major problem with gun violence compared to other first world industrialized nations.
 
2013-08-21 01:31:26 AM

gadian: Get a gun safe, you irresponsible POS. If anyone gets your gun and hurts someone with it, you should be charged as if you had just handed it to them to commit the crime.


So if someone steals your car and crashes it into a farmers market, does that mean you should do jail time?

If not, then you are a hypocritical asshole.
 
2013-08-21 01:33:17 AM

b0rg9: Shot someone walking to the bus stop just for "fun"?

If this isn't what the death penalty is for I don't know what it is for.


Walking to the bus stop, apparently.
 
2013-08-21 01:33:25 AM

JuggleGeek: gadian: Get a gun safe, you irresponsible POS. If anyone gets your gun and hurts someone with it, you should be charged as if you had just handed it to them to commit the crime.

So if someone steals your car and crashes it into a farmers market, does that mean you should do jail time?

If not, then you are a hypocritical asshole.


No, because cars aren't guns, and aren't in any way equivocal to guns.

Cars are designed to transport, guns are designed to kill.
 
2013-08-21 01:34:37 AM

Elegy: Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.


And they're not that effective for apartment dwellers where you can't bolt them down.  Not to mention that if you can't bolt to concrete it doesn't really mean that much anyway.

I have a safe next to me.  It's not a gun safe but certainly could hold a few handguns.  It has things like our passports, checkbooks etc--the only thing actually of value in there is a bit of foreign currency.  (We're going back, we don't bother to trade it in when we leave.)  Since I'm upstairs bolting it down makes little sense.  It will stop guests from walking off with something, it won't stop a burglar.  I, as a middle-age adult working alone got it up here.  A young-adult burglar who doesn't care about damage will have no problem getting it out of here.  It's as much about the fire rating as theft protection anyway.

By the time you're up to a gun safe that will actually stop a burglar you simply can't put it upstairs anyway.
 
2013-08-21 01:36:54 AM

ReluctantPaladin: Looking into the purchase of a Ruger SR-1911 if anyone has any experience with it and could offer insight.


Not a bad 1911 for the price. Ruger has excellent customer service.
Clean and lube correctly before using and put a few hundred rounds of ball (230 gr FMJ) through it.
/Or have a good gunsmith polish the appropriate places where it's needed and adjust the extractor and magazine springs.
 
2013-08-21 01:45:14 AM

lizyrd: So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.



I agree with all of this. I stand corrected.
 
2013-08-21 01:46:11 AM
Cerebral Knievel:

MFAWG: See my previous post. You have to wait for somebodies TF to expire before you can renew them. Since I don't obsessively follow Elegy's status, I didn't realize his had expired.

But thanks for your input.

got it, And I understand.. ... that persons TF has now expired.. are you going to now honor the bet?


remember to always do sober what you said you would do when drunk, that teaches you to keep your fool mouth shut.

Not that I am actually calling you a fool, nor,actually a punk despite my previous comment. All I'm saying $5 keeps this shiat honest. despite everything.. there are actual people and personalities behind these letters.



Well said, my good sir, and in my experience, there is no better Farker to have said it.


/Still looking for the "Legendary" beer
//Have yet to locate
///Will update

Oh, and thanks again!
 
2013-08-21 01:53:37 AM

Amos Quito: You see, Ishkur, the problem here is not in the science, but in the (intentionally ambiguous?) (mis)representation of the science, AND in the misinterpretation of the findings.


Yes, but that's not science's fault. So why criticize the methodology (or even equate it to a religion) for something that it doesn't even subscribe to.

See, unlike you, I am capable of admitting when I'm wrong and I will always side with reason and evidence every time, irrespective of the claimant. You, on the other hand, resort to ad hominems and faulty accusations which I have absolutely no interest in addressing. Your arguments are fine without all the condescending brow-beating. Grow the fark up.
 
2013-08-21 01:56:58 AM

lizyrd: Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.

So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

Link (PDF), data used on page 27:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf



Nice.

Isn't science wonderful?
 
2013-08-21 02:01:51 AM

Ishkur: See, unlike you, I am capable of admitting when I'm wrong and I will always side with reason and evidence every time, irrespective of the claimant. You, on the other hand, resort to ad hominems and faulty accusations which I have absolutely no interest in addressing. Your arguments are fine without all the condescending brow-beating. Grow the fark up.


It's funny, you're the one who started flapping your gum hole and made yourself look like a moron, and now you're indignant over the manner in which your false and poorly-informed bullshiat got shot down.  And yet you come back and try to claim the intellectual high ground because the other farkers are being mean to you.

home.roadrunner.com

Maybe next time think about what you spew into the comment box before you hit submit.

/cry moar
 
2013-08-21 02:06:23 AM

TuteTibiImperes: lizyrd: Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.

So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

Link (PDF), data used on page 27:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

How about this:



You can't seriously argue that we don't have a major problem with gun violence compared to other first world industrialized nations.


On mobile, can't see the graph all that well, but I get the gist. Do we have a problem? Sure. Is it because we have guns? Maybe. Could the problem be less practical and more social? Like greater wealth disparity, more heterogenous cultures in close proximity, higher incarceration rates, more absent fathers, when compared to other first-world nations? Maybe. I don't know, and don't care enough about the subject to keep reading about it. Gun issues just aren't a high priority for me.

My problem was the guy using a bad number and dishonest math, then saying that the number he used is irrelevent because "who knows anyway?" when it was pointed out.
 
2013-08-21 02:06:56 AM

Ishkur: lizyrd: So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

I agree with all of this. I stand corrected.



I should add, however, that my argument was that gun violence is abnormally high. However off or unreliable my original statistic was, disputing it in no way discredits the sane fact that the US has a gun violence problem.

I think a more interesting question is: How many gun murders will it take to acknowledge this problem to the point where you do something about it? Give an exact figure: One million? Ten million? I wonder what number that NRA would capitulate at. I'm guessing 25 million. That means 24,999,999 people have to die through the barrel of a gun before the nation's leading gun rights organization says "now, hold on a minute here...". But maybe the NRA doesn't have a number. Because guns are freedom, after all. Except for those they kill.
 
2013-08-21 02:17:07 AM

lizyrd: TuteTibiImperes: lizyrd: Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.

So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

Link (PDF), data used on page 27:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

How about this:



You can't seriously argue that we don't have a major problem with gun violence compared to other first world industrialized nations.

On mobile, can't see the graph all that well, but I get the gist. Do we have a problem? Sure. Is it because we have guns? Maybe. Could the problem be less practical and more social? Like greater wealth disparity, more heterogenous cultures in close proximity, higher incarceration rates, more absent fathers, when compared to other first-world nations? Maybe. I don't know, and don't care enough about the subject to keep reading about it. Gun issues just aren't a high priority for me.

My problem was the guy using a bad number and dishonest math, then saying that the number he used is irrelevent because "who knows anyway?" when it was pointed out.


Oh, and not trying to be an ass and keep harping on that guy. He said he was incorrect, good enough.

I found an error of my own; I was applying today's population to injury rates from 03-07, so my percentages were a little low. So much for being a loudmouth about using good data.
 
2013-08-21 02:31:50 AM

Ishkur: Ishkur: lizyrd: So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

I agree with all of this. I stand corrected.


I should add, however, that my argument was that gun violence is abnormally high. However off or unreliable my original statistic was, disputing it in no way discredits the sane fact that the US has a gun violence problem.

I think a more interesting question is: How many gun murders will it take to acknowledge this problem to the point where you do something about it? Give an exact figure: One million? Ten million? I wonder what number that NRA would capitulate at. I'm guessing 25 million. That means 24,999,999 people have to die through the barrel of a gun before the nation's leading gun rights organization says "now, hold on a minute here...". But maybe the NRA doesn't have a number. Because guns are freedom, after all. Except for those they kill.


Hm. 25 million is a big number. At 10,000 gun murders per year, it will take 2500 years to get there. I really think this may be more complex than availability of guns. Put a gun in my hand today or in my bedroom for 25 years, I don't think I'd commit murder. If you have someone willing to kill, I'm not sure the weapon is the root of the problem.
 
2013-08-21 02:49:19 AM

Amos Quito: Ishkur: Amos Quito: Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.
Linky linky???
Pretty please?

Why should I? You're a petulant little fark who couldn't stand losing an argument so you resorted to calling me obscenities a dozen times. I don't place anyone on ignore, but there are some people I'm simply not interested in replying to anymore. You are very close to being one.


The problem you had last night is that you had NO CLUE what you were trying to argue. It gets frustrating after a while.

And again, you have no clue - as we shall see.


/here's your farking link. Do the math: 467,300 / 320 million = .0015 = 0.2% (rounded) = 1 in 500.
//there. Now grow the fark up. Science is the best system we have and you are a god damn retard.


You could learn a lot from a "retard", Ishkur.

You see, Ishkur, the problem here is not in the science, but in the (intentionally ambiguous?) (mis)representation of the science, AND in the misinterpretation of the findings.

Your source links to the Bureau of Justice Statistics - to a news release that provides information cloaked in ambiguous and esoteric terms:

QUOTE:

"In 2011, about 70 percent of all homicides and eight percent of all nonfatal violent victimizations (rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault) were committed with a firearm, mainly a handgun. A handgun was used in about 7 in 10 firearm homicides and about 9 in 10 nonfatal firearm violent crimes in 2011. In the same year, about 26 percent of robberies and 31 percent of aggravated assaults involved a firearm, such as handguns, shotguns or rifles."

END QUOTE

See, the article speaks of 467,300 NONFATAL FIREARM VICTIMIZATIONS , and you interpret that as "467,300 people were shot", but that is not the case. In fact, this number represents the TOTAL number of crimes in which firearms - real or imaginary - were USED (whether fired, brandished, used as a bludgeon, or simply implied/threatened). ...


I don't really like you, but that was, without a doubt, an "oh snap" moment.
 
2013-08-21 02:54:01 AM

Ishkur: Amos Quito: You see, Ishkur, the problem here is not in the science, but in the (intentionally ambiguous?) (mis)representation of the science, AND in the misinterpretation of the findings.

Yes, but that's not science's fault. So why criticize the methodology (or even equate it to a religion) for something that it doesn't even subscribe to.



Ah, but I did not criticize scientific methodology, rather, I pointed out that the findings of science are often misrepresented / misinterpreted by parties with ulterior motives to serve their agendas - much as religious scripture is selectively quoted - often out of context - to sway the thoughts and opinions of the befuddled masses. You yourself in this thread have provided a fine example of how said misrepresentations / misinterpretations can and DO sway opinions as a result of deference to "authority".

And yet in spite of these cold-slap-in-the-face revelations, you remain oblivious to the point I repeatedly worked to make both yesterday and today.

I am depressed.


See, unlike you, I am capable of admitting when I'm wrong and I will always side with reason and evidence every time, irrespective of the claimant. You, on the other hand, resort to ad hominems and faulty accusations which I have absolutely no interest in addressing. Your arguments are fine without all the condescending brow-beating. Grow the fark up.


Click that link I added to your post. Ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it means.

You repeatedly accused me of berating science and the scientific method in favor of theology. You were wrong, and refused to back down no matter how many times you were painstakingly corrected. Did I call you a "dick"? Why yes, yes I did, and repeatedly, and as you pigheadedly repeated the same asinine claims - in post after post - in spite of being patiently corrected - you damn well deserved it.

That said, I admire the fact that you are willing to stand corrected (if not by me), and I am more than willing to bury the hatchet - or so to speak - except that I sense that my previous comments on certain - er - "sensitive" topics (Israel / Zionism) have put me on your "shiat list", so I doubt that you will reciprocate.

In any case, I bid you a pleasant evening (or morning, as it may be).

Ta ta!
 
2013-08-21 02:57:53 AM

ReluctantPaladin: Looking into the purchase of a Ruger SR-1911 if anyone has any experience with it and could offer insight.


It's another 1911. You want a 1911 there are dozens of companies that build them. Ruger isn't bad, and the price is good.

I like 1911's but their resurgence is odd to me.
 
2013-08-21 03:01:45 AM

violentsalvation: I like 1911's but their resurgence is odd to me.


resurgence? they never went away.
 
2013-08-21 03:18:33 AM

log_jammin: violentsalvation: I like 1911's but their resurgence is odd to me.

resurgence? they never went away.


Fine, but they sure seem more popular than ever. I have nothing against them, but I have other pistols I'd prefer to shoot.
 
2013-08-21 03:22:25 AM

violentsalvation: Fine, but they sure seem more popular than ever. I have nothing against them, but I have other pistols I'd prefer to shoot.


I'd like to get one, but I just can't talk myself into spending the money.
 
2013-08-21 03:56:13 AM
Boy.....charge him as adult---life in prison no chance of parole. period.
Dad....charge him with murder---life in prison no chance of parole. period.

People like that need to rot for life. If we need to release all the pot-heads from the joint to make room for scum-bags like this....fine. let them go.


Don't "ban" guns.

BAN CRIMINALS.....for life. period. Problem solved. any questions?
 
2013-08-21 03:58:27 AM

violentsalvation: ReluctantPaladin: Looking into the purchase of a Ruger SR-1911 if anyone has any experience with it and could offer insight.

It's another 1911. You want a 1911 there are dozens of companies that build them. Ruger isn't bad, and the price is good.

I like 1911's but their resurgence is odd to me.


They aren't .40 S&W or 10mm.
They aren't ^%#$^#$ 9mm.
Or .380, or .38.
They don't eat exotic, overpriced ammunition. (Looking at you, Five seveN, and .45 GAP!)

.45 ACP has been the get 'er done semiautomatic pistol round for 109 years. Most modern 1911s fire +P just fine, thank you.
/.357 Magnum for 79 years for revolvers.
 
2013-08-21 04:07:42 AM
Gun nut here.  It sounds like he broke the law.  It's against the law for anyone under 18 to have a rifle when he's not in the company of an adult.  Negligence for sure.
 
2013-08-21 04:20:19 AM

Fark It: It's funny, you're the one who started flapping your gum hole


No, this is a continuation of another thread.
 
2013-08-21 04:22:16 AM

Amos Quito: Ah, but I did not criticize scientific methodology


You did. You compared it to religion -- several times.
 
2013-08-21 04:24:33 AM

Amos Quito: Click that link I added to your post. Ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it means.


I dunno, I'm fairly certain this is a stunning example of it.
 
2013-08-21 04:37:14 AM
Next year just get him an Xbox.
 
2013-08-21 05:03:30 AM

I_Like_Pie: No that isn't a bump fire stock....no it isn't a submachine gun. No it isn't any type of assault weapon. Most all full size semi-auto centerfire pistols these days pack more firepower than this firearm you ignorant dolts are freaking out about.

It is a high point carbine

That thing is basically the bottom rung of the firearms spectrum. It is make of plastic and the pot metal used in die cast cars, uses a blowback design that makes a heavy and cumbersome action, and is basically something that an idiot who doesn't have much money buys to look like a mall ninja.


I'm sure that the dead guys and their families are glad that it wasn't a high-end weapon that cost a lot of money.
 
2013-08-21 05:37:29 AM
i'm normally one of those frothing at the mouth 2nd amendment supporters.

and I'm ok that they arrested the father.

Charge him with manslaughter. Through gross negligence on his part (by not teaching his son the value of life, and providing him with easy access to a firearm) his actions or inactions directly caused the death of another.

That does not excuse the son though. He should get murder. He's 15. That is old enough to know what you have done wrong.

Actions should have consequences.

/still pro 2a
 
2013-08-21 05:45:26 AM
From the article:
The father also told police he bought the carbine and 100 rounds of ammunition because his son "was having problems with unidentified subjects in Poinciana, Florida," records state.

So either the kid was having problems with schoolwork or had some other kids at school that were treating him like crap.

Either way, sounds like he was trying to teach his kid that the best way out of a problem is to shoot someone. Looks like the kid learned his lesson.
 
2013-08-21 06:25:32 AM

Elegy: LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.

So in this case, the guy kept letting his son walk with the weapon, I agree.

But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?


Please don't feed the trolls
 
2013-08-21 06:30:13 AM

Elegy: Think you replied to the wrong person.

And it's a month of TF, not a year, according to the terms I originally laid out and you accepted


How did I get sucked into this?
 
2013-08-21 06:35:09 AM

Dextro: This is a semi-auto gun that fires a .45 ACP (a pistol round) and people in this thread have called it an assault rifle? Dear God.


To be fair, it's not only a pistol round.
s14.postimg.org
Also fires .45 ACP, albeit very rapidly.

But it's also not an assault rifle, even under the 1994 assault weapons ban.  The hi-point was made in 1994 as a legal rifle following the ban.  It was also the rifle selected by Eric Harris for the Columbine shooting.
 
2013-08-21 06:39:43 AM

Fubini: PunGent: Was it, in fact, illegal?

Interestingly, that's not a straightforward question. Florida law requires parental consent before giving a minor a firearm, but otherwise doesn't place an age restriction on ownership. Clearly this kid had parental consent to owning the firearm.

They do prohibit the transfer of a weapon to any person "of unsound mind", but it sounds like the father did not allow the kid to have the gun after the first shooting.

In this light, I conclude that the ownership of the gun by the minor was not illegal (that is, it was not an illegal gun). However:

A minor less than 18 years of age may not possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his home, unless engaged in lawful activities.

In this context, the minor's use of the gun was clearly illegal, even if he had not shot anyone. As to whether or not the father is liable for how his son used the weapon... Florida law says the following, in addition to any other laws that deal with the safe storage of dangerous items:

It is unlawful to store or leave a firearm in any place within reach or easy access of a person less than 18 years of age. This provision does not apply to:
*A firearm stored in a securely locked box or container, or in a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure, or securely locked with a trigger lock;
*A minor who obtains a firearm by means of unlawful entry by any person;
*Minors engaged in a lawful marksmanship competition or practice or other lawful recreational shooting activity;
*Any person carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.

Whoever, through culpable negligence, stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a minor less than 16 years of age commits a felony of the third degree, if the minor obtains the firearm and uses it to inflict injury or death upon himself ...


Interesting, thanks.

Sounds like that's they way it SHOULD be...he takes the gun away and locks it up.  Kid breaks in, not his fault.  But if he just puts it in a cupboard, and says "don't touch it"...well, probably not enough, given what happened.

Even if he's found innocent, I'd guess the civil suits arising out of this will bankrupt the guy.
 
2013-08-21 06:45:22 AM

craigdamage: Boy.....charge him as adult---life in prison no chance of parole. period.
Dad....charge him with murder---life in prison no chance of parole. period.

People like that need to rot for life. If we need to release all the pot-heads from the joint to make room for scum-bags like this....fine. let them go.


Don't "ban" guns.

BAN CRIMINALS.....for life. period. Problem solved. any questions?


No problem with the boy doing life, but Dad?  I see reckless indifference, negligent homicide, stuff like that, (depending on Florida law).  I DON'T see him intending to kill anyone, and in fact he seems to have taken steps (perhaps feeble ones) to prevent the situation.

Save the big penalties for those who really deserve it.

He could still be screwed under the felony murder rule, I suppose, depending on what he knew, when he knew it, etc.
 
2013-08-21 06:56:26 AM

TuteTibiImperes: JuggleGeek: gadian: Get a gun safe, you irresponsible POS. If anyone gets your gun and hurts someone with it, you should be charged as if you had just handed it to them to commit the crime.

So if someone steals your car and crashes it into a farmers market, does that mean you should do jail time?

If not, then you are a hypocritical asshole.

No, because cars aren't guns, and aren't in any way equivocal to guns.

Cars are designed to transport, guns are designed to kill.


There IS an analogy to be made.  Both are mechanical devices that require training to use safely.
And cars kill a LOT of people every year.  We're just used to it...it barely makes the news.
Think 9/11, times ten, EVERY year.  Plus a solid million non-fatal accidents, every year.

And like it or not, cars aren't mentioned in the Constitution, while guns are.  You can argue about the degree of right afforded by the Second Amendment, and you can lobby to change it...heck, try to repeal it if you want...but you can't deny it's in there.
 
2013-08-21 07:20:43 AM
Family of fark ups.
 
2013-08-21 08:39:26 AM

slayer199: Elegy: Think you replied to the wrong person.

And it's a month of TF, not a year, according to the terms I originally laid out and you accepted

How did I get sucked into this?


Innocent bystander. I think you were the guy MFAWG replied to first.

Given that its been 12 hours and no TF on my end, I'm pretty sure he's not going to pay up.

Always sad to meet a welcher.
 
2013-08-21 09:22:12 AM
Based on those admissions, Lothar Schafer faces a felony charge of culpable negligence for allegedly leaving a loaded firearm within easy access of a minor who uses it to injure or kill someone, records show. He also faces a misdemeanor charge of allowing unlawful possession of a firearm.

The younger Schafer is being tried as an adult and is facing two counts of first-degree murder in the June shooting death of David Guerrero and subsequent killing in July of 22-year-old Eric Roopnarine.


Not that I really object, but I just find it strange that they can, on one hand, charge the father because his son is a minor, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that he's a minor so they can charge him as an adult... It's like legal cognitive dissonance...
 
2013-08-21 09:52:19 AM
After his arrest, Konrad Schafer told police he shot and killed David Guerrero for "fun" around dawn June 26 while the teen walked to a bus stop on his way to work.

life without parole for this motherfarking little prick.
 
2013-08-21 10:19:25 AM

I_Like_Pie: No that isn't a bump fire stock....no it isn't a submachine gun.  No it isn't any type of assault weapon.  Most all full size semi-auto centerfire pistols these days pack more firepower than this firearm you ignorant dolts are freaking out about.

It is a high point carbine

That thing is basically the bottom rung of the firearms spectrum.  It is make of plastic and the pot metal used in die cast cars, uses a blowback design that makes a heavy and cumbersome action, and is basically something that an idiot who doesn't have much money buys to look like a mall ninja.

They aren't crap and are generally reliable, cheap, and have a good factory warranty.   However it is of no real practical use for much of anything.  I sold one I picked up on a trade (gen 1 even uglier than that one) for $150 about 2 years ago.


How is it any less useful than any other personally owned firearm? Most people have no need to own ANY firearm, but if they have one that fires ammunition, then it is at least as useful as any other weapon.

/grew up with and around guns.  had my own rifle at , what, 12? 13?  Was picked on quite a bit in school (would have been much worse if not for a jock brother that didn't let it get out of hand - thanks, bro, you really don't know how much my pasty white ass appreciated it) but even when it was bad, I never considered shooting anyone.  It would have been child's play - step-dad had a large gun cabinet, fully stocked with rifles, hand guns, muzzle loaders, shotguns, and it was never locked, and this being the 80's, there were no trigger guards.  hell, we would make small "bombs" with gunpowder and notebook paper (said jock brother once blew his eyebrows off when one of our "bombs" went off in his face) and never really hurt anyone and never even had the idea to hurt anyone.  I was taught to respect firearms at a very early age.
 
2013-08-21 10:56:30 AM

TuteTibiImperes: You can't seriously argue that we don't have a major problem with gun violence compared to other first world industrialized nations.


Note the footnote on that graph--OECD nations <b>Excluding Mexico</b>.  In other words, they altered their data to make the US look worst.  Be very leery of OECD data for this reason, it's often deceptive.
 
2013-08-21 11:01:22 AM

Loren: TuteTibiImperes: You can't seriously argue that we don't have a major problem with gun violence compared to other first world industrialized nations.

Note the footnote on that graph--OECD nations <b>Excluding Mexico</b>.  In other words, they altered their data to make the US look worst.  Be very leery of OECD data for this reason, it's often deceptive.


'We're not as bad as Mexico' isn't exactly an achievement level to be proud of.
 
2013-08-21 11:06:44 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Loren: TuteTibiImperes: You can't seriously argue that we don't have a major problem with gun violence compared to other first world industrialized nations.

Note the footnote on that graph--OECD nations <b>Excluding Mexico</b>.  In other words, they altered their data to make the US look worst.  Be very leery of OECD data for this reason, it's often deceptive.

'We're not as bad as Mexico' isn't exactly an achievement level to be proud of.


You know what they say. "Poor America -- so far from God, so close to Mexico."
 
2013-08-21 11:09:54 AM

Surool: The father should be arrested. What is the problem?


Subby's probably of the 'if they're over ten charge 'em like they're adults' school of thought. Never mind the  overwhelming amount of evidence that teenagers, especially teen boys, are basically brain-damaged and DO GET BETTER, locking teens up is just the natural thing to do for these people. Rehabilitation? What's this fancy book-lernin' word you're usin'?

/If they aren't legally adults, you cannot charge them as adults. If you want to be able to charge them as adults, you are putting the responsibility of adulthood on them--so you damn well better give them the privileges of adulthood, too.
 
2013-08-21 11:47:59 AM

PsiChick: Surool: The father should be arrested. What is the problem?

Subby's probably of the 'if they're over ten charge 'em like they're a

Tesla coil ...

/Fixed for my amusement.
 
2013-08-21 12:35:27 PM

Dextro: This is a semi-auto gun that fires a .45 ACP (a pistol round) and people in this thread have called it an assault rifle? Dear God.


A pistol round is exactly the type of round you'd want to kill a large number of people at a short range. I don't think the people wanting to ban assault weapons are concerned about weapons that fire slowly at long range, they're concerned about the weapons that fire rapidly at close range.

"Assault rifle" is admittedly one of the worst terms given to the type of weapon they're looking to ban, but your argument is a typical dishonest bullshiat argument you get from idiots who think they need their guns because "the gubmint is gonna come for em, then they gonna put you in the FEMA coffins".
 
2013-08-21 02:51:12 PM

Marcintosh: OhioUGrad: I'm going to become a hobbit. You cannot go anywhere anymore without fear of being shot.

/maybe just invest in a bullet proof vest

I've nearly given up working for change.  I've got a new idea.  Because we refuse to change laws then we have to change our thinking.  We need to accept random violent murder.
It's what our corporate overlords want.


I still want my bullet proof vest.
 
2013-08-21 03:17:32 PM
No quibble there.
What size?
 
2013-08-21 09:05:00 PM

Amos Quito: Cerebral Knievel:

MFAWG: See my previous post. You have to wait for somebodies TF to expire before you can renew them. Since I don't obsessively follow Elegy's status, I didn't realize his had expired.

But thanks for your input.

got it, And I understand.. ... that persons TF has now expired.. are you going to now honor the bet?


remember to always do sober what you said you would do when drunk, that teaches you to keep your fool mouth shut.

Not that I am actually calling you a fool, nor,actually a punk despite my previous comment. All I'm saying $5 keeps this shiat honest. despite everything.. there are actual people and personalities behind these letters.


Well said, my good sir, and in my experience, there is no better Farker to have said it.


/Still looking for the "Legendary" beer
//Have yet to locate
///Will update

Oh, and thanks again!


Actually wasn't... that drunk that particualar night, just wanted to reward a comment that made me snort... and the timing worked out to easily respect my promise...

I understand that it isn't always as easy as checking one's email and saying OH YEAH!!

And if you turn into a customer by happenstance, then all the better.. it's good will... something this world seems to be lacking nowadays.

your profile is a bit... vague for location... but as per our prior talks about the matter, the beer I help make is usually distributed by distribution companies that also sell AB products. as AB distributors tend to be more craft friendly then SABmiller/coors distributors.

Elegy: slayer199: Elegy: Think you replied to the wrong person.

And it's a month of TF, not a year, according to the terms I originally laid out and you accepted

How did I get sucked into this?

Innocent bystander. I think you were the guy MFAWG replied to first.

Given that its been 12 hours and no TF on my end, I'm pretty sure he's not going to pay up.

Always sad to meet a welcher.


got ya covered.

it's payday... either that of a wee bottle of cheap whiskey.

Also, these folks will be featuring us in January I think
 
2013-08-21 09:06:17 PM
man, completely hosed that thread format...

fark it.. have fun folks.
 
2013-08-21 09:54:56 PM

give me doughnuts: TuteTibiImperes: doglover: Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?

Googling around it appears this is what a Hi-Point .45 Carbine looks like:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 800x311]

And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.


It's not an assault rifle. It's a cheap .45-caliber carbine dressed up as something out of a video game.


So it's ok then?
 
2013-08-21 11:43:01 PM
Duly noted  :)
 
2013-08-21 11:43:37 PM

Cerebral Knievel: Amos Quito: Cerebral Knievel:

MFAWG: See my previous post. You have to wait for somebodies TF to expire before you can renew them. Since I don't obsessively follow Elegy's status, I didn't realize his had expired.

But thanks for your input.

got it, And I understand.. ... that persons TF has now expired.. are you going to now honor the bet?


remember to always do sober what you said you would do when drunk, that teaches you to keep your fool mouth shut.

Not that I am actually calling you a fool, nor,actually a punk despite my previous comment. All I'm saying $5 keeps this shiat honest. despite everything.. there are actual people and personalities behind these letters.


Well said, my good sir, and in my experience, there is no better Farker to have said it.


/Still looking for the "Legendary" beer
//Have yet to locate
///Will update

Oh, and thanks again!

Actually wasn't... that drunk that particualar night, just wanted to reward a comment that made me snort... and the timing worked out to easily respect my promise...

I understand that it isn't always as easy as checking one's email and saying OH YEAH!!

And if you turn into a customer by happenstance, then all the better.. it's good will... something this world seems to be lacking nowadays.

your profile is a bit... vague for location... but as per our prior talks about the matter, the beer I help make is usually distributed by distribution companies that also sell AB products. as AB distributors tend to be more craft friendly then SABmiller/coors distributors.Elegy: slayer199: Elegy: Think you replied to the wrong person.

And it's a month of TF, not a year, according to the terms I originally laid out and you accepted

How did I get sucked into this?

Innocent bystander. I think you were the guy MFAWG replied to first.

Given that its been 12 hours and no TF on my end, I'm pretty sure he's not going to pay up.

Always sad to meet a welcher.

got ya covered.

it's payday... either that of a wee bottle of c ...

 
2013-08-22 02:24:45 AM

Cerebral Knievel: Well said, my good sir, and in my experience, there is no better Farker to have said it.


/Still looking for the "Legendary" beer
//Have yet to locate
///Will update

Oh, and thanks again!

Actually wasn't... that drunk that particualar night, just wanted to reward a comment that made me snort... and the timing worked out to easily respect my promise...

I understand that it isn't always as easy as checking one's email and saying OH YEAH!!

And if you turn into a customer by happenstance, then all the better.. it's good will... something this world seems to be lacking nowadays.

your profile is a bit... vague for location... but as per our prior talks about the matter, the beer I help make is usually distributed by distribution companies that also sell AB products. as AB distributors tend to be more craft friendly then SABmiller/coors distributors

.


Started to write you an email, but a buddy called, and I kept drinkin' while talkin'.

Too late and too tired to finish tonight.

Maybe tomorrow

;-)
 
2013-08-22 03:41:56 AM

Cerebral Knievel: Amos Quito: Cerebral Knievel:

MFAWG: See my previous post. You have to wait for somebodies TF to expire before you can renew them. Since I don't obsessively follow Elegy's status, I didn't realize his had expired.

But thanks for your input.

got it, And I understand.. ... that persons TF has now expired.. are you going to now honor the bet?


remember to always do sober what you said you would do when drunk, that teaches you to keep your fool mouth shut.

Not that I am actually calling you a fool, nor,actually a punk despite my previous comment. All I'm saying $5 keeps this shiat honest. despite everything.. there are actual people and personalities behind these letters.


Well said, my good sir, and in my experience, there is no better Farker to have said it.


/Still looking for the "Legendary" beer
//Have yet to locate
///Will update

Oh, and thanks again!

Actually wasn't... that drunk that particualar night, just wanted to reward a comment that made me snort... and the timing worked out to easily respect my promise...

I understand that it isn't always as easy as checking one's email and saying OH YEAH!!

And if you turn into a customer by happenstance, then all the better.. it's good will... something this world seems to be lacking nowadays.

your profile is a bit... vague for location... but as per our prior talks about the matter, the beer I help make is usually distributed by distribution companies that also sell AB products. as AB distributors tend to be more craft friendly then SABmiller/coors distributors.Elegy: slayer199: Elegy: Think you replied to the wrong person.

And it's a month of TF, not a year, according to the terms I originally laid out and you accepted

How did I get sucked into this?

Innocent bystander. I think you were the guy MFAWG replied to first.

Given that its been 12 hours and no TF on my end, I'm pretty sure he's not going to pay up.

Always sad to meet a welcher.

got ya covered.

it's payday... either that of a wee bottle of cheap whiskey.

Also, these folks will be featuring us in January I think


Holy fark, thanks man! I really appreciate it...
 
Displayed 318 of 318 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report