Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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 862
    More: Followup, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, Texas, the man accused, officials, american patriots, long gun, federal  
•       •       •

10023 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Sep 2013 at 4:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 08:13:13 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 08:19:29 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 08:22:45 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 08:42:13 PM  

USP .45: 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.


Kinda different, actually.  More extreme, really.  The target picture in the woods/marsh is of a natural backstop, with a rare living creature in the scene.  The target picture in an urban environment is literally everything.  Windows, walls, everything behind the walls and windows, people wandering around, cars, people in the cars, ricochets from concrete, etc., etc., etc...

More training is truly necessary - or at least proof of that increased training.  Even a simple light-gun course to prove discipline would be a start.  Urban firefights are not wilderness firefights, and the training does not transfer in any meaningful way.

On the plus side, there are more and more urban firefight training centers popping up these days!  Good for practice.  Could also be rolled in to a comprehensive testing system for CHP applicants.
 
2013-09-16 08:43:07 PM  

EbolaNYC: SuperNinjaToad: EbolaNYC: Why is it that in these military installations no one has a weapon? There's no armed security at all?

WTF man.

you know how I know you're never been inside a military base?

I used to do graphics for interactive course-ware for the Navy's AEGIS Combat System. Been here a fair number of times:

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 500x333]

Even still, that was back in the late 80s/early 90s. When you have more than a couple events where people have shot up installations, you'd think they'd have changed things.

Hell, back then the worst I could ever expect is being approached by some KGB agent. I didn't deal with secret info, so there was really no risk of that, but there were people in the area who had been...


They have MPs but contrary to popular believe people don't walk around carrying their firearms in military bases unless it's in a war zone. Even in army bases like Bragg, Benning Polk etc soldiers don't carry their weapons with them just walking around going about their daily business.
 
2013-09-16 08:43:50 PM  

Kuroshin: 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.

And bombs.  http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-02-08/news/9202081138_1_tom- h ayes-house-hell-angels

That was the house my maternal grandmother lived in and my paternal grandparents were still living next to (yes, my parents lived next to one another). The FBI and ATF worked out of my grandparent's house.  The house probably still has shrapnel in it.
 
2013-09-16 08:45:34 PM  

mizchief: The point is you try to blame this on "gun nuts"


Oh, oh... god no. I blame this on a lunatic with a shotgun. YOU didn't shoot anybody. I didn't shoot anybody. Wayne LaPierre, whatever completely farkwit, brainless, dickhead, retard, idiotic, mindless, proverbial-cock-sucking, shiat-for-brained, imbecilic, fartthought tendecies he might have didn't shoot anyone. God no.

A mentally unstable lunatic with a shotgun did this and I blame him.

I blame the fact that the lunatic got the shotgun on gun nuts.
 
2013-09-16 08:45:43 PM  

MFAWG: Can somebody source the following:

He was Buddhist.


"It's a good thing Buddhism teaches freedom from desire, 'cause I've got the desire to kick your ass!" - Richard Gere, "The Simpsons"


// no citation though :(
/// Will be appropriate if a citation becomes available.
 
2013-09-16 08:46:11 PM  

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


WTF is this shiat? Sorry...I need to proofread my comments better.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/09/16/5167160/fort-worth-man-accuse d -in-washington.html?rh=1#s
 
2013-09-16 08:47:11 PM  
LOL dammit
 
2013-09-16 08:51:47 PM  

mizchief: 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.


Yep. Another problem is we allow terrorists to buy firearms. But at least we're safe from tyranny.
 
2013-09-16 08:52:37 PM  

vrax: Kuroshin: 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.

And bombs.  http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-02-08/news/9202081138_1_tom- h ayes-house-hell-angels

That was the house my maternal grandmother lived in and my paternal grandparents were still living next to (yes, my parents lived next to one another). The FBI and ATF worked out of my grandparent's house.  The house probably still has shrapnel in it.


Now now, bombs are far too complex and hard to source for simple criminals like 1%er gangs to manage...

But seriously, that really sucks.  I'd hate to see one of my (former) family homes demolished like that.
 
2013-09-16 08:53:38 PM  

a particular individual: Yep. Another problem is we allow terrorists to buy firearms. But at least we're safe from tyranny.


The irony is strong with this one...
 
2013-09-16 08:53:39 PM  

mizchief: Yea, because carrying a gun in public doesn't warrant knowledge of the basic safety skills required to use a firearm in the middle of nowhere.


The safety skills are exactly the same. If anything you should have brought up legal issues.
 
2013-09-16 08:55:42 PM  

skozlaw: mizchief: The point is you try to blame this on "gun nuts"

Oh, oh... god no. I blame this on a lunatic with a shotgun. YOU didn't shoot anybody. I didn't shoot anybody. Wayne LaPierre, whatever completely farkwit, brainless, dickhead, retard, idiotic, mindless, proverbial-cock-sucking, shiat-for-brained, imbecilic, fartthought tendecies he might have didn't shoot anyone. God no.

A mentally unstable lunatic with a shotgun did this and I blame him.

I blame the fact that the lunatic got the shotgun on gun nuts.

farkin baby. Must get tiring running around stamping your feet all of time.
 
2013-09-16 08:56:19 PM  

nekom: 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

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


Fire Bombing killed more people during WWII than the two nukes we dropped combined.
 
2013-09-16 08:56:20 PM  

a particular individual: Yep. Another problem is we allow terrorists to buy firearms. But at least we're safe from tyranny.


As idiotic as his opinions are, in general, and as much asI'm fighting him, in principle, I have a hard time disagreeing with the overall point in this matter.

You can not take away a person's rights without due process no matter how dumb or pointless those rights seem "in the moment". I'm fine with removing a person's rights if there is a reason to believe they can or will not exercise them responsibly, but that should have to be proven publicly and with verifiable information.
 
2013-09-16 08:59:48 PM  

mizchief: know for a fact how he got the shotgun


A valid point in a country where the illegal acquisition of weapons is of more consequence than going to your local gun show with no ID and a pocket full of cash.

That being the case, what IS your point?
 
2013-09-16 09:02:43 PM  
Well, I guess we know where the next NRA convention will be.
 
2013-09-16 09:02:54 PM  
Radioactive Ass: As to people wondering why there were so few armed people around, it's a shipyard not a full blown base (nit that that would really matter as very few people are kept armed on bases stateside other than a very few sentries at fixed locations. NAVSEA is an engineering department although they do deal with designing and procuring weapons systems but there are no actually functioning weapons systems there. Ships offload any ordnance before they go into the yards and the shipyard takes joint ownership of the ship with most of the crew sent off to other commands. Essentially they end up with about a quarter of the crew staying behind to maintain security watches (sans weapons other than perhaps a nightstick), fire watches and to observe testing of repairs by the shipyard.

Correction.  It WAS a NAVY Base years ago.  It is called the Navy Yard, because that is what it was YEARS ago.  The Navy moved NAVSEA into this location to consolidate it's program management from a lot of different locations throughout the Beltway.  They used the old Navy Yard as it was cost effective (dilapidated, in a run-down part of town, cheap to buy and rebuild - they shoved out a bunch of poor folks to buy the land and re-build) and then took some of the old buildings and worked some of the old architecture into the new design - pretty nice.  I've worked with a group that is housed within that building.

It is only a complex of offices - essentially, it is where the US Navy has a lot of it's Program decision makers who determine ship designs, project costs and budgets, determine what gets funded and what doesn't.  It's not filled with sailors and folks wearing firearms.  A fair amount of officers who work with the programs to provide guidance, but no mission planning going on here.  Just a bunch of civil servants - the kind that no one seems to miss if they furlough them.....

The poor bastards.....
 
2013-09-16 09:03:40 PM  

skozlaw: local gun show with no ID and a pocket full of cash


Not how it works.
 
2013-09-16 09:05:55 PM  

USP .45: mizchief: Yea, because carrying a gun in public doesn't warrant knowledge of the basic safety skills required to use a firearm in the middle of nowhere.

The safety skills are exactly the same. If anything you should have brought up legal issues.



Not really.  Nothing in the Hunter's Safety Course covers urban discharge.  Literally *everything* in an urban setting is grounds for "DO NOT FIRE" in the HSC handbook.  Houses within the sight picture?  Check.  Secondary targets?  Check.  Populated backstop?  Check.  There's not a single time you can pull the trigger while in an urban setting, if we're going by HSC rules.  Not once, not ever.  Not even in an alleyway, while being beset by three thugs.  You can't verify that your backstop is clear, so you can't fire.  Urban combat requires entirely different training.  You know, the kind of training that police are supposed to be proficient at...but often aren't.  Safety rules have to be bent and/or broken when it comes time to draw-down in a city.


mizchief: I think at a minimum a written test that makes sure you know the basic laws of when it is and isn't ok to use deadly force and basic safety. I think in reality most people who do get a concealed carry are well aware of  this and spend a decent amount of time at the range.


Oregon requires an NRA safety course, with written test.  It's insufficient.  It does not cover what to do *after* you've shot someone.  Let's face it, until the facts are known, you've just committed murder.  Get ready for trial.
 
Displayed 50 of 862 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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report