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.

(MyWay News)   Federal Law Enforcement Officials say the man accused in a shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard that left at least 12 people dead has been identified as Aaron Alexis, a 34 year-old man from Texas   (apnews.myway.com) divider line 896
    More: Followup, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, Texas, the man accused, officials, american patriots, long gun, federal  
•       •       •

10004 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Sep 2013 at 4:19 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-16 08:00:41 PM

Obscene_CNN: Seems like he entered the navy yard with a shot gun then "upgraded" his weapon by taking new ones from the people he killed.


So he followed Biden's advice?
 
2013-09-16 08:01:01 PM

plausdeny: Go Fornicate Without a Partner: Oh shiat! He's black?!?! Where's my popcorn!?!? Thought for sure that was as white as white could be of a name... Is that racist? Anyway.. this just became a clusterfark!! Do the dems demonize him? Do the repubs fight for his gun rights?!

Here come the head assplosions!!

Answers in order:

Yes.  And dead.

There are many possibilities, but you can be sure to find them wherever delicious snacks are sold.

Yes, that's racist.  If your thoughts about the situation turned immediately to the possible race of the assailants, even to the point of assuming a race, in the absence of evidence, you're a racist.

Some will, but your die hard class warfare hustlers will look for a reason why the white man/the rich/post military service PTSD/Emmanuel Goldstein made him do it.

No, because where Republicans and Democrats and independents agree is that people who commit violent felonies shouldn't be allowed to have guns again.  A libertarian attitude would be to fight for the restoration of his rights after he had completed his sentence and restitution... had he not died in the commission of his crimes.


I would agree that when you lock someone up because they are a danger to society you only let them out when they are reformed and pose no threat to the public. At that point reinstating his gun rights should follow. It's pretty dumb to let someone out of jail thinking that the only thing keeping him from shooting someone is a felony on his record. Just like how perverts shouldn't be let out of jail thinking that putting them on a naughty list and making them live under a bridge would prevent them from raping a child when they should really still be in jail.
 
2013-09-16 08:02:09 PM

skozlaw: Xcott: I think this cartoon is hilarious. I like the way it depicts the Virginia Tech shooter as just some unrelated outsider rationally selecting "Virginia Tech" because it looks like a place where there are no guns.

And Columbine had an armed guard. In fact, when Columbine isn't being used as an example of a targeted gun-free zone it's being used as an example of why guns on campus are good.

Don't confuse gun nuts. They can't really think beyond "GUNS GOOD".


And you seem unable to think beyond guns = bad.

For the record I am glad you don't have a gun because you strike me as very irrational with anger issues .

Also I'm not a gun nut, I own one gun, I don't carry it around with me, I don't keep it loaded, an it's not an assault rifle. I still support gun rights in general though.
 
2013-09-16 08:02:12 PM

PainfulItching: You realize how ridiculous the "Mah bullets is too expensive!" argument sounds to me right? It's the price of doing business. If you need a gun to be a hunter/gatherer and you can't afford ammo, you need to start sharpening sticks and plant a garden.

I'm no hypocrite here. I just understand that it's going to be more expensive to buy ammo for mine too. Gas is more expensive for my (not a Corvette) car than it was a few years back as well.


My original point was that the "Slippery slope" argument being false isn't the case when the elements of the slippery slope arguments are true.

The end result in the ban of lead bullets (not shot as some people have been saying which was never my argument) is that there will be less hunters out there and the people who can afford it least are the ones who most likely need the food the most. In addition without the hunters culling the herds the wild animal populations will explode and that won't be pretty at all plus it means that the state and feds parks dept's will have to take up the slack, which will also draw from the taxpayers coffers. Add in the loss of revenue for the state not only from hunting permits but also sales taxes and so on that hunting generates and there's no good reason for a statewide ban of lead bullets for hunting.

It's not just the extra costs to the hunters but also the costs to the state and lost revenue because of that extra cost that make it a bad idea in my opinion. The people who pushed this bill knew what the end results would be but they let their anti-gun\anti-hunter feelings get in the way of a bit of common sense and long term thinking.
 
2013-09-16 08:03:01 PM

vrax: Fark It: vrax: They are, however, buying and using machine guns.

How, exactly?  And where?  Do you have a cite for your claim that 2% of California's gun crimes are committed with machine guns (which I'm going to define as automatic weapons).

I thought this was the latest report, which contains the 2% figure:  http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_0 9 .pdf

However, I found one for the following year (why there aren't ones for every year I don't know) and it shows a decline to .6%:  http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Re p ort_10.pdf

I don't know about anyone else, but do the numbers in these reports seem really low for a state as large as CA?!


That study only looked at 147 total weapons in the entire state of California.
 
2013-09-16 08:03:32 PM

James10952001: spongeboob: James10952001: Some 85% of gun crime occurs with handguns, yet most of the focus is on so called assault rifles that are used in around 1% of gun violence. I would take the gun control argument a lot more seriously if not for this aspect. It has the outward appearance of an emotional tirade against guns that look scary, and that does not help the cause.

Define Gun Crime as used here,
Is Gun violence different than Gun Crime?
What percent of spree killers use semi-automatic rifles/carbines versus handguns, shotguns or other rifles?

Does it matter if it's a spree of 10 at once, or piecemeal at 10 different locations by 10 different people? Mass shootings are very rare compared to other killings, you just hear about every single one of them, they are dramatic and make good news.


Well, that is true.  It's like a tornado ripping through an area.  People lose their houses and lives all the time, but something like a tornado makes for a pretty rare (not rare enough) spectacle.
 
2013-09-16 08:04:10 PM

skozlaw: mizchief: And I said that when exactly?

Oh, gee, sorry. I thought since you started making up outlandish opinions for other people that was going to be a theme so I was just following suit.

Kuroshin: you prove how stupid railing against us individual gun owners really is

I've already addressed this earlier in the thread. Feel free to go read it.

By the way, I own two guns. A .22 bolt action long rifle and a Sig P226.

I just don't think I should be able to own guns with complete impunity. And if you really want reasonable checks, great, but give the fark up. The people I'm biatching at have pretty decisively ensured that sensible control will never happen, so I'm more than happy to just help remind them of the blood on their hands instead.

Owning a gun doesn't make you a lunatic, but I'm not going to sit and pretend that a portion of gun owners AREN'T lunatics, either.


Okay, since things have calmed down a bit, we can talk.

So we agree on this bit.  Problem is what comes after - you're casting a rather wide net there, snaring the rest of us along with the nutters.

Thing is, when you aren't a nutter, you don't exactly feel the urgency or need to congregate into a PAC.  We can write congresscritters, draft initiatives, pay into lobbies all day long, but the thing is, there simply aren't any moderate, rational lobbies.  There can't be.  It isn't in Human nature.  For there to be a lobby, somebody has to be passionate.  Passion is diametrically-opposed to rational thought.  The fight gets "won" on the extremes, and their pull against each other.  One extreme side wants X, the other extreme wants Y, and through that tug-of-war, compromise is made and we end up with (hopefully) something useful in the middle.

Today's politics notwithstanding, naturally.

Closest thing to a "rational PAC" there has ever been was Colbert's little PR stunt.

We do need existing laws strengthened and enforced.  We can have that, but it is going to take more time, and for the TeaTards to get out of office.  We're in a very crazy time right now, sociologically-speaking.  We can't have meaningful enforced-responsibility right now, but that doesn't mean we can't ever.

So yes, along the path to reasonable weapons-controls, there will be more murders.  Can't be avoided.  Want to point fingers and say how "blood is on the hands" of extremists?  yourenothelping.jpg

Tone down the rhetoric.  It isn't getting anyone anywhere, except the people who make money off all of this.
 
2013-09-16 08:04:14 PM

brantgoose: mizchief: Godscrack: The shooter
[img.fark.net image 250x319]

[imageshack.us image 349x471]

NRA strikes again.

That won't work, liberals can't admit that there are any black conservatives.

There are black conservatives. There. Done.

There are a few percent contrarians every where. There were even Jews who joined the Nazi Party to avoid ending up in death camps.

If 95% of blacks were Democrats or Liberals (that figure seems to apply only to Washingon, DC) 5% of the politicially active population would be about right for the Contrarian minority.

P.S. Will you stop telling me what I can or can not think, feel, or do? Because you're obviously really bad at it.

Clarence Thomas is a black conservative. Uncle Ruckus is a black conservative. That rich pizza nut is a black conservative. And what's the name of that really flakey one, Waits or Watts or Willnots or whatever? I can name lots of black conservatives. Almost all of them, apparently. There's a Hell of a lot of black Baptists and Pentecostals.

Did you know that the Founder of the Pentecostal sect was black? Ironic, isn't it? Given how many of those Pennies are racist crackers and how segregated conservatve churches are, yea unto this very day.


That's some nice "i'm not a racist" back peddling there when most of your examples are calling black conservatives nut jobs. And just BTW most of the early gun laws put on the books were intended to keep freed slaves from killing their former owners. Not sure where that fit's in, but is fun to know.
 
2013-09-16 08:05:03 PM

mizchief: skozlaw: mizchief: If your of the thought that banning all guns to stop a lone madman is more practical than letting trained soldiers carry weapons on base then yes this feeds right into your hands.

Says the guy who thinks every person in the country should have to carry at least five firearms at a time everywhere he goes.

And I said that when exactly?


In his head, anyone who doesn't believe that guns are 100% evil an the root of all our problems looks and talks like Ted farking Nugent or Rambo.

I bet he would be shocked to learn how many educated polite professionals around him have a gun or two.
 
2013-09-16 08:06:13 PM

skozlaw: LL316: Close minded

Indifferent.

Important distinction. I mock because I accept the inevitability of these events. We've chosen, as a nation, to enable them so that a few people don't have to worry about black helicopters and paperwork.

This is not a tragedy. This is a semi-common event that we choose to allow so that some people can buy guns for hobby purposes slightly quicker and I won't pretend otherwise.


It's totally not a big deal that a jackass with a shotgun can overtake a military base single-handedly. Yes, American gun laws are the disturbing problem here.
 
2013-09-16 08:06:25 PM

Fark It: vrax: Fark It: vrax: They are, however, buying and using machine guns.

How, exactly?  And where?  Do you have a cite for your claim that 2% of California's gun crimes are committed with machine guns (which I'm going to define as automatic weapons).

I thought this was the latest report, which contains the 2% figure:  http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_0 9 .pdf

However, I found one for the following year (why there aren't ones for every year I don't know) and it shows a decline to .6%:  http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Re p ort_10.pdf

I don't know about anyone else, but do the numbers in these reports seem really low for a state as large as CA?!

That study only looked at 147 total weapons in the entire state of California.


Am I crazy or does it seem a bit odd?
 
2013-09-16 08:06:45 PM

James10952001: mizchief: skozlaw: mizchief: If your of the thought that banning all guns to stop a lone madman is more practical than letting trained soldiers carry weapons on base then yes this feeds right into your hands.

Says the guy who thinks every person in the country should have to carry at least five firearms at a time everywhere he goes.

And I said that when exactly?

In his head, anyone who doesn't believe that guns are 100% evil an the root of all our problems looks and talks like Ted farking Nugent or Rambo.

I bet he would be shocked to learn how many educated polite professionals around him have a gun or two.


He says he has a few as well.  I'm willing to believe that much.  It's the rhetoric he's on about that gets things all wound up.  It's essentially just the typical internet rage that gets spewed on here constantly.
 
2013-09-16 08:06:52 PM

skozlaw: gfid: And yet charges were dropped?

Sounds more like it was an administrative fark-up from the AP story since the prosecutor's office is claiming they "never received paperwork".

This guy sounds like he had established mental problems.


That is the first sensible and coherent thing you have posted all day.
 
2013-09-16 08:07:01 PM

brantgoose: Copper bullets? Never heard of them. What's wrong with steel?


Copper is used because it can be made in homogenous rounds at the right weight and it expands, generally not as much as lead but useful for getting deep penetration and expansion on thicker skinned game such as moose, elk, or even wild boar. Most ammo manufactures have solid copper premium hunting loads now. I agree with you on lead shot being such a problem for upland game, and I'm glad that the move is coming to steel or tungsten shot. You get better results with them anyway, fly straighter and penetrate deeper, and once production really ramps up the costs will go down. Trouble is, as was mentioned above, when you start making all steel ammunition it can be classed as armor-piercing, and therefor banned under US laws.
 
2013-09-16 08:07:30 PM

Kuroshin: PainfulItching: Radioactive Ass: PainfulItching: 
Now, don't get me wrong here, because there are precious few people these days who hunt for food using firearms that don't have other, cheaper options available already (we aren't counting poachers).  Hooowwwwever...

My great-grandpa did do exactly that.  The price of ammo (.22LR, to be exact) was so steep that his family couldn't afford for him to miss.  One bullet represented more than a day's income for them, so he had to make it count.  Pointed sticks would have been his go-to, if they were realistically an option (they eventually were - he got a nice bow years later).

What's the point in that?

'Unno.  Nothin' I guess.  Jacked up price of ammo just brought it to mind.  H ...


He was Audie Murphy? Kidding. But a lot of folks went through that same thing. He probably could fish as well. But there are safeguards in place now (food stamps, etc) that are supposed to catch those things, and at least keep 14 year olds from having to stalk small game for sustenance.

Of course, those same people would rather spend their last pennies on ammo instead of applying for any kind of government help.
 
2013-09-16 08:07:34 PM
James10952001
Does it matter if it's a spree of 10 at once, or piecemeal at 10 different locations by 10 different people? Mass shootings are very rare compared to other killings, you just hear about every single one of them, they are dramatic and make good news.

Actually yes. So much yes. If a man is out to kill an ex-woman for whatever reason, he will find a way. If the mafia is out to get an informant, they will find a way. A mugger can shoot or stab one person in an alley.

If a person wants to shoot 10-20 people in a mall, it gets much, much harder. I suppose a bomb could be made, poison of some sort, ect. But that requires some knowledge and skill. Getting a rifle designed for the function of shooting people (like the ar-15 or ak47 was designed to do, including the size of the round), is pretty much a point and click function. Even easier with large magazines.
 
2013-09-16 08:08:02 PM

vrax: Well, it is true that criminals aren't buying or using legally registered pre-'86 machine guns.  They are, however, buying and using machine guns.  Not sure what other point I was supposed to take away from his statement.


I guess it is true that, once in a great while, you'll see a crime committed with automatic weapons. They're practically useless in direct fire though. Both my brother and I, who are big guys 6'1" and 6'3" respectively, can't keep my M70 on target for more than 3 or 4 rounds going automatic before you're drilling holes in the ground. If you recall the North Hollywood Shootout where two guys with body armor and modified AK's managed to kill only themselves in the end. Not crime guns. Now, if someone were to come up with a better way to deal with the overwhelming source of firearms used in crimes, thefts and straw purchases, that would be great progress and we'd see a big reduction. So-called "Universal Background Checks" is just another attempt to create a backdoor registry, and to add inconvenience to the act of purchasing a firearm by forcing the involvement of an FFL, criminalizing the sale of a firearm from one law-abiding person to another. And asking 1000 people in New Jersey if they support background checks on the purchase of a gun does not 90% of the country make. These guns are used in crimes 0.6 % of the time, according to the FBI's survey of all persons incarcerated for crimes where a gun was involved. If instead of doing that, they would open NICS up for everyone to use, I'd be all for that. However, that costs money and makes sense, so it won't happen.
 
2013-09-16 08:09:53 PM

shower_in_my_socks: One man killed 12 people, just as the authors of the 2nd Amt intended. I eagerly await news of which well regulated militia he was member of so we can get to the bottom of this. The rest of the world thinks our gun laws and gun culture are crazy, and they are farking right.


But those same people will complain about overpopulation.
 
2013-09-16 08:10:05 PM

vrax: Fark It: vrax: Fark It: vrax: They are, however, buying and using machine guns.

How, exactly?  And where?  Do you have a cite for your claim that 2% of California's gun crimes are committed with machine guns (which I'm going to define as automatic weapons).

I thought this was the latest report, which contains the 2% figure:  http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_0 9 .pdf

However, I found one for the following year (why there aren't ones for every year I don't know) and it shows a decline to .6%:  http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Re p ort_10.pdf

I don't know about anyone else, but do the numbers in these reports seem really low for a state as large as CA?!

That study only looked at 147 total weapons in the entire state of California.

Am I crazy or does it seem a bit odd?


Not really.  Bullets are crazy expensive these days.  Even reloaders are feeling the pinch.  "Spray and pray" autos are too crap, too expensive, and too pointless to bother with when you want a group of people dead.  Your average cheap stolen pistol is better.  The HAs proved that shotguns are quite effective as well.
 
2013-09-16 08:10:14 PM

James10952001: For the record I am glad you don't have a gun


I have two guns. A fact I've already exposed in this thread.

"For the record."

What's interesting is that you've chosen to take exception to and run interference against, my charge about "gun nuts", however.

I wonder what, exactly, that says about you.

Kuroshin: Okay, since things have calmed down a bit, we can talk.


No, we can't. I have no interest in achieving anything practical at this point. Americans have chosen their priorities. Repeatedly.

So fark them.
 
2013-09-16 08:10:53 PM
In 2004, Alexis was charged with malicious mischief by Seattle police after he shot out the tires of a construction workers vehicle. Those charges were dropped, but a Seattle officer said Alexis admitted to shooting the vehicle because the worker had disrespected him.

Ah, "Respect" Culture. What a charming addition to our society.
 
2013-09-16 08:11:58 PM

vrax: Fark It: vrax: Fark It: vrax: They are, however, buying and using machine guns.

How, exactly?  And where?  Do you have a cite for your claim that 2% of California's gun crimes are committed with machine guns (which I'm going to define as automatic weapons).

I thought this was the latest report, which contains the 2% figure:  http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_0 9 .pdf

However, I found one for the following year (why there aren't ones for every year I don't know) and it shows a decline to .6%:  http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Re p ort_10.pdf

I don't know about anyone else, but do the numbers in these reports seem really low for a state as large as CA?!

That study only looked at 147 total weapons in the entire state of California.

Am I crazy or does it seem a bit odd?


It is odd, and you shouldn't look at this study as being meaningful in any way, shape or form.  With such a low sample size, it's easy to over-represent certain rare types of weapons.  The data appears to be collected from regional crime labs with absolutely no rhyme or reason given as to what metric they use to decide which specific guns are included in this report.  So automatic weapons *could be more commonly used in crimes (unlikely, even modified guns), or *could be overrepresented in the reporting (more likely).
 
2013-09-16 08:12:12 PM

skozlaw: Kuroshin: Nice straw man

I don't think you know what a straw man argument is. I'll say it slowly, so as not to confuse your delicate mind:

Fark. Gun. Control.

I'm not making an argument for gun control, I'm asking gun nuts to be proud of their work.


The whole thing started with a shotgun. Even Joe Biden suggested everyone get a shotgun for self defense. Obama himself uses them in poorly photoshopped publicity pics.
 
2013-09-16 08:13:13 PM

Doom MD: Yes, American gun laws are the disturbing problem here.


It will be REALLY interesting to respond to your derp if the suggestions of PTSD by his father turn out to be an actual diagnosis....
 
2013-09-16 08:14:56 PM

mizchief: Even Joe Biden suggested everyone get a shotgun for self defense. Obama...


I love how you make this comment as if I'm going to sit here and breathlessly defend the Obama administration. Why? Because liberals and guns? Is that your angle here?

I hope you don't play poker with that face.
 
2013-09-16 08:15:05 PM

PainfulItching: He was Audie Murphy? Kidding. But a lot of folks went through that same thing. He probably could fish as well. But there are safeguards in place now (food stamps, etc) that are supposed to catch those things, and at least keep 14 year olds from having to stalk small game for sustenance.

Of course, those same people would rather spend their last pennies on ammo instead of applying for any kind of government help.


This much is very true.  All of my family (including myself, FWIW) are much too proud to go for government hand-outs.  I spent two years on the street, and couldn't bring myself to go for aid.

However, all but a small number (less than five) of them were perfectly happy paying into SS and other programs to help those in need.  It a mentality of "I understand that others need help, but I'm going to make it or die trying."  No judgement, no turning the poor into some evil villainous leech, just a simple "I'm happy to help, but I'll go my own way, thanks."

/just how pig-headed some of us are
//doing much better now
 
2013-09-16 08:15:42 PM

skozlaw: Kuroshin: Okay, since things have calmed down a bit, we can talk.

No, we can't. I have no interest in achieving anything practical at this point. Americans have chosen their priorities. Repeatedly.

So fark them.


Okay, so you're just trolling then.  Good to know.  Bye bye.
 
2013-09-16 08:16:01 PM

Kuroshin: James10952001: mizchief: skozlaw: mizchief: If your of the thought that banning all guns to stop a lone madman is more practical than letting trained soldiers carry weapons on base then yes this feeds right into your hands.

Says the guy who thinks every person in the country should have to carry at least five firearms at a time everywhere he goes.

And I said that when exactly?

In his head, anyone who doesn't believe that guns are 100% evil an the root of all our problems looks and talks like Ted farking Nugent or Rambo.

I bet he would be shocked to learn how many educated polite professionals around him have a gun or two.

He says he has a few as well.  I'm willing to believe that much.  It's the rhetoric he's on about that gets things all wound up.  It's essentially just the typical internet rage that gets spewed on here constantly.


Maybe his meds are finally kicking in.

I'm more than willing to have a rational debate, but I ask the other side to be rational too. Don't lump me in with the crazy gun nuts just because I happen to like guns. There are anti-gun nuts who are just as crazy and irrational.
 
2013-09-16 08:17:55 PM

James10952001: Kuroshin: James10952001: mizchief: skozlaw: mizchief: If your of the thought that banning all guns to stop a lone madman is more practical than letting trained soldiers carry weapons on base then yes this feeds right into your hands.

Says the guy who thinks every person in the country should have to carry at least five firearms at a time everywhere he goes.

And I said that when exactly?

In his head, anyone who doesn't believe that guns are 100% evil an the root of all our problems looks and talks like Ted farking Nugent or Rambo.

I bet he would be shocked to learn how many educated polite professionals around him have a gun or two.

He says he has a few as well.  I'm willing to believe that much.  It's the rhetoric he's on about that gets things all wound up.  It's essentially just the typical internet rage that gets spewed on here constantly.

Maybe his meds are finally kicking in.

I'm more than willing to have a rational debate, but I ask the other side to be rational too. Don't lump me in with the crazy gun nuts just because I happen to like guns. There are anti-gun nuts who are just as crazy and irrational.


Nah, he showed his hand.  He's just trolling.  I got a moment of honesty from him, and then he went full-tilt derp again.  At least he drew the line in the sand, so I know what he's up to.
 
2013-09-16 08:18:32 PM

KhamanV: You buy whatever gun or carbine you want, but there's a mandated training program made available through local gun ranges at low/free cost on handling, care and safety.  Would that be acceptable?  Table licensing for now; just ensure that who buys the gun is also taught to handle and respect the gun.  Previous purchasers can keep a verifiable receipt and not have to take a repeat course.

Guns don't bother me.  Lack of discipline is really getting on my nerves.


Yea it's kind of funny in GA. I had to take a hunter's safety course (when I was 12) to get a licence to kill animals, but later on when I got my carry licence, they had to give me one unless they could find a reason not to in the background check.
 
2013-09-16 08:19:29 PM

Kuroshin: trolling


Whatever you want to call it, sunshine. I'd suggest your unrealistic belief that sensible gun control is, not only misguided, but, given the prevailing attitude, trolling.

It will not happen. This is America. Our democracy has chosen this, as is its right. Accept it. If a classroom full of dead eight year olds won't sway the lunatics, upon what insane optimism do you base your approach during this "tragedy"?
 
2013-09-16 08:20:05 PM

vrax: James10952001: spongeboob: James10952001: Some 85% of gun crime occurs with handguns, yet most of the focus is on so called assault rifles that are used in around 1% of gun violence. I would take the gun control argument a lot more seriously if not for this aspect. It has the outward appearance of an emotional tirade against guns that look scary, and that does not help the cause.

Define Gun Crime as used here,
Is Gun violence different than Gun Crime?
What percent of spree killers use semi-automatic rifles/carbines versus handguns, shotguns or other rifles?

Does it matter if it's a spree of 10 at once, or piecemeal at 10 different locations by 10 different people? Mass shootings are very rare compared to other killings, you just hear about every single one of them, they are dramatic and make good news.

Well, that is true.  It's like a tornado ripping through an area.  People lose their houses and lives all the time, but something like a tornado makes for a pretty rare (not rare enough) spectacle.


Both are bad, I agree. I don't want to sound like I'm supporting violence or that I don't give a shiat when innocent people are killed. I just don't like the laser focus on a certain type of incident which ignores all the rest. 99% of the debate rages around 1% of the issue.
 
2013-09-16 08:21:47 PM

a particular individual: Fark It: a particular individual: The laws that allow suspected terrorists to own firearms?

Can you expand on that?

A little while after 9/11--I think it was during the PATRIOT Act debates--Republicans fought to allow people on the terror watch list to buy firearms. Their rationale is, you don't take away someone's 2nd Amendment rights just because they're suspected of something. Better to let a few terrorist arm themselves than prevent a law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights. It's a pretty good argument on the surface, but it was too broadly worded for my comfort.


The problem is that there is no due process for getting put on or taken off of the list and could easily be abused to target people who speak out.
 
2013-09-16 08:22:45 PM

skozlaw: James10952001: For the record I am glad you don't have a gun

I have two guns. A fact I've already exposed in this thread.

"For the record."

What's interesting is that you've chosen to take exception to and run interference against, my charge about "gun nuts", however.

I wonder what, exactly, that says about you.

Kuroshin: Okay, since things have calmed down a bit, we can talk.

No, we can't. I have no interest in achieving anything practical at this point. Americans have chosen their priorities. Repeatedly.

So fark them.


So if you have no interest, why are you even posting here? Is it just a good excuse to tell a bunch of people you don't know to fark off and have a shiatty day? Why do you have guns? Doesn't that make you part of the problem in your eyes?
 
2013-09-16 08:23:07 PM

Radioactive Ass: My original point was that the "Slippery slope" argument being false isn't the case when the elements of the slippery slope arguments are true.

The end result in the ban of lead bullets (not shot as some people have been saying which was never my argument) is that there will be less hunters out there and the people who can afford it least are the ones who most likely need the food the most. In addition without the hunters culling the herds the wild animal populations will explode and that won't be pretty at all plus it means that the state and feds parks dept's will have to take up the slack, which will also draw from the taxpayers coffers. Add in the loss of revenue for the state not only from hunting permits but also sales taxes and so on that hunting generates and there's no good reason for a statewide ban of lead bullets for hunting.

It's not just the extra costs to the hunters but also the costs to the state and lost revenue because of that extra cost that make it a bad idea in my opinion. The people who pushed this bill knew what the end results would be but they let their anti-gun\anti-hunter feelings get in the way of a bit of common sense and long term thinking.


That's stretching. Gas prices affect hunters more than that. Plus every hunter I know at least gets their limit, unless the weather sucks. They are usually giving meat away. There is the issue that most food charities aren't set up to take in wild game, otherwise they would have all the game they could handle.

It's not a food issue, no matter how hard people want to stomp on it. Maybe a wildlife management thing, in the short term, but that would even itself out in time (In keeping with the hands off everything conservative ethos).

There is no good argument for it. Sorry. It's like arguing for lead in gasoline or asbestos in insulation. It's the way it used to be done, but that does not mean it's the right way.
 
2013-09-16 08:23:45 PM

James10952001: Both are bad, I agree. I don't want to sound like I'm supporting violence or that I don't give a shiat when innocent people are killed. I just don't like the laser focus on a certain type of incident which ignores all the rest. 99% of the debate rages around 1% of the issue.


Did the arsonist use gasoline or gelignite?!  The masses NEED TO KNOW!!!

REGULATE GELIGNITE!!!!  IT IS ONLY USED FOR STARTING FIRES!!!

Never mind the arsonist behind the curtain!

/I agree, and the thread has died off into boredom
 
2013-09-16 08:26:07 PM

mizchief: Yea it's kind of funny in GA. I had to take a hunter's safety course (when I was 12) to get a licence to kill animals, but later on when I got my carry licence, they had to give me one unless they could find a reason not to in the background check.


Because hunting involves discharging a firearm on sometimes public lands, whereas a gun for personal carry is likely never going to be fired outside of a controlled range.

If you seriously lack basic critical thinking skills you shouldn't have guns.
 
2013-09-16 08:26:42 PM

CrazyCracka420: [flyupfitness.com image 300x196]

/was already going to hell anyways


Mondays?

...gonna shoo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oot
the
whole
day
down
 
2013-09-16 08:27:23 PM

Kuroshin: James10952001: Both are bad, I agree. I don't want to sound like I'm supporting violence or that I don't give a shiat when innocent people are killed. I just don't like the laser focus on a certain type of incident which ignores all the rest. 99% of the debate rages around 1% of the issue.

Did the arsonist use gasoline or gelignite?!  The masses NEED TO KNOW!!!

REGULATE GELIGNITE!!!!  IT IS ONLY USED FOR STARTING FIRES!!!

Never mind the arsonist behind the curtain!

/I agree, and the thread has died off into boredom


Yep, have a good one. I gotta go work on dinner and get ready for a much busier day at work tomorrow. Not a lot going on today so this was a nice diversion.
 
2013-09-16 08:27:33 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-09-16 08:30:23 PM

vrax: That stat is based on full-auto and converted weapons, not some weird BS. You seemed to be saying that they don't use machine guns. I was just pointing out that they do. If you meant that they simply don't use legally registered machine guns, then I would agree, but the point seems a little silly.


Missed you post up there. Yeah, I don't claim that it never happens, I guess what I was going for was the law, like many laws proposed and rushed out the door during times like this, was useless against preventing crime as the law abiding people, the ones willing to jump through the NFA hoops, are by-and-large very law abiding. Criminals are going to do what they will, while law abiding persons get the shaft. To get my Indiana carry permit, I had to submit to a State and Federal background check. To get my FFL I had to go though another Federal background check. Yet people worry more about me than someone who gets someone to buy them a gun because they're a criminal, or steals one.
 
2013-09-16 08:31:43 PM

USP .45: mizchief: Yea it's kind of funny in GA. I had to take a hunter's safety course (when I was 12) to get a licence to kill animals, but later on when I got my carry licence, they had to give me one unless they could find a reason not to in the background check.

Because hunting involves discharging a firearm on sometimes public lands, whereas a gun for personal carry is likely never going to be fired outside of a controlled range.



Except when the one and only thing it is being carried for comes to pass.

See, that reasoning doesn't hold water.  If a carry piece is ever to be used for its intended purpose, it is going to be used in a very public setting.  There is no safe backstop on the street, in a garage, or pretty much anywhere *outside* of that target range.

I'd have a CHP of my own if I weren't too damn lazy, but I'm not going to pretend that the dangers of a CHP holder hitting an unintended target aren't extremely high.  I spent my entire youth training with pistols, so yes, I do understand that most people who go for their CHP tend to be rather well-trained (those who aren't generally don't even think of it), but I also understand the dangers of firing off even a single round in a public space.  You aren't carrying a piece because you're avoiding urban trouble areas...
 
2013-09-16 08:34:35 PM

James10952001: if you have no interest


I didn't say I had no interest.

James10952001: Why do you have guns?


Because I purchased them. I may even purchase more if the prices ever drop again. If the lunatics ever stop their fanatical hoarding. I may even reup my membership with the local sportsman's club some day.

James10952001: Doesn't that make you part of the problem in your eyes?


You fully misunderstand the point. You fully misunderstand the intent and even the target of my posts.Which is fine. I'm not under laboring under the misunderstanding that I'm not opening the metaphorical guns up on almost everyone here.

But you still misunderstand the point and purpose regardless of who's fault that is.
 
2013-09-16 08:35:17 PM

minoridiot: FTFA: He is believed to have a criminal record there and to be a holder of a concealed carry weapon permit.

This should be impossible.  Texas does not issue a CHL to someone with a criminal record.


Also FTFA: "Alexis was in the Navy from 2007 to 2011".What are the odds they couldn't take away his right to firearms because he needed access to them for his job?

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/09/16/5167160/fort-worth-man-accuse d -in-washington.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
 
2013-09-16 08:37:00 PM

Kuroshin: See, that reasoning doesn't hold water.  If a carry piece is ever to be used for its intended purpose, it is going to be used in a very public setting.


And I'd be willing to bet that a past hunting license is a qualifying document to get a shall issue permit, as it is in many states. The safety principles still apply.
 
2013-09-16 08:37:50 PM
shower_in_my_socks: One man killed 12 people, just as the authors of the 2nd Amt intended. I eagerly await news of which well regulated militia he was member of so we can get to the bottom of this. The rest of the world thinks our gun laws and gun culture are crazy, and they are farking right.

AngryDragon: Ironic that they don't let soldiers carry sidearms on a military installation isn't it?  The ultimate expression of a gun-free zone.

JungleBoogie: Navy policy on firearms on base: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=54055

The military's ways are mysterious.

Jeep2011: Military personnel have to keep their firearms in the Armory if they live in government housing. That is so Military personnel do not go nuts and shoot people. Yes...see how well that works.



Military could change it with the stroke of a pen if they thought a different system would be more effective.
 
2013-09-16 08:39:52 PM
How was this even possible? DC has one of the strictest gun policies in the country.
 
2013-09-16 08:40:10 PM
Can somebody source the following:

He was Buddhist.

He was DISHONORABLY discharged from the Navy.

And the whole 'stole a guards automatic weapon'.

Thanks.
 
2013-09-16 08:41:37 PM
JungleBoogie: I think we should start using a massacre scale, akin to the Fujita scale for tornadoes (F0-F5) and the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale (Category 1 - 5).

"S" could be the suffix, for "severity." I'll throw some numbers out there.

• S0: 2-3 deaths.
• S1: 4-6 deaths.
• S2: 6-10 deaths.
• S3: 10-20 deaths.
• S4: 20-40 deaths.
• S5: 40-80 deaths.
• S6: 80-150 deaths.
• S7: 150-500 deaths.
• S8: 500-1000 deaths.
• S9: 1000-5000 deaths.
• S10: 5000-25000 deaths.
• S11: 25000 - 100,000 deaths.
• S12: 100K - 500K deaths.
• S13: > 500K deaths

nekom: By that scale, 9/11 would only be an S9.  What's the S13 for, nuclear war?  Not much short of that a person or persons can do to be responsible for that many deaths.
/directly responsible at least
//of course some historic political figures are attributed that much


I'm thinking S10 and above would be WMD attacks. The scale would just be for one incident, not war totals.
 
2013-09-16 08:41:48 PM

skozlaw: mizchief: Even Joe Biden suggested everyone get a shotgun for self defense. Obama...

I love how you make this comment as if I'm going to sit here and breathlessly defend the Obama administration. Why? Because liberals and guns? Is that your angle here?

I hope you don't play poker with that face.


The point is you try to blame this on "gun nuts" when in fact the two most prominent men in american politics say that the gun in question is ok for citizens to own. I don't see how this could be blamed on whoever you identify as being a gun nut, or anyone other than the gentleman who committed the allegedly committed the crime.

You don't really seem to be capable of anything other than making logical fallacies and then defending them with dramatic bullshiat.
 
Displayed 50 of 896 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report