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.

(The Atlantic Wire)   "The next mass shooting will take place on Feb. 12, 2014, in Spokane, Washington, by an emotionally disturbed, 38-year-old white man who will kill 7 people and wound 6 where he used to work using a semi-auto handgun he purchased legally in-state"   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 207
    More: Strange, semi-trailer trucks, mass shooting, handguns, expected number  
•       •       •

16229 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 9:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-17 11:48:02 PM  

bestie1: knbwhite: Mrtraveler01: The NRA's plan to stop school shootings is to have armed guard stationed in the school just like at the Navy Yard.

Obviously there is a flaw in this strategy.


Allow teachers who want to carry concealed to do so.

Take away TFGs secret service detail and hope for happy puppies to save the world.


No, I'm just skeptical that "more guns" are the answer.
 
2013-09-17 11:49:57 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: Let's further stigmatize the emotionally fragile loner white guys that already struggle to build a decent support group so they feel more isolated and less attached to the people around them.  Brilliant.


Uh...white guys are not stigmatized in the slightest...but if you're talking about  schizophrenics, who have made up a disproportionate number of the shootings lately, yes, they need a PSA program saying 'if you hear voices and feel like people are out to get you, check with your doctor'.
 
2013-09-17 11:50:57 PM  

Elegy: djh0101010: It really boggles my mind and/or offends me that my repeated suggestions that we put criminals who use guns in jail for 5 years minimum, typically get NO responses.

Supporters, please comment.  Detractors, please think, and if you have a coherent point, please comment.

I would really love to see a judicial system where criminals who are convicted of crimes, and who used a gun in said crime, would spend 5 years minimum in jail, mandatory.  I'd be interested in ANYONE who can tell me that this proposal would not benefit society.

Move to Florida. Mandatory 10-20-life for felonies committed with a gun.
[i.imgur.com image 200x285]

Something tells me most Farkers would object to modeling their state's laws on Florida law, however.


Well, it is Florida. If I was dying a horrid, painful death from cancer and scientists employed by the State of Florida found a cure that was not only painless and free and could only be administered by having sex with Miss America 2014 I would still probably decline because, you know, Florida and all that.
 
2013-09-17 11:51:10 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bestie1: Bullshiat.  If you pass the gate with the correct ID your in.  Then it's a soft target inside.  Fix the gate security and harden the inside.

This was not a gun free zone. The gunman shot a security guard and then took his handgun. Military bases are not gun free zones.

Unless you are actually an MP you can't carry a weapon.  So he went through a heavily secured area using his badge, then in a less secured zone he found an MP in a less defended area and killed him.  The reality is he could have used a machete at that point to obtain the MP's weapon.  I just assumed most fark posters are smart enough to understand what he did.  A civilian contractor walked through security using a govt. badge because the Fed Union doesn't like to be hassled by metal detectors.  He then isolated a target with a better weapon inside the soft interior and used that to kill 11 more  people.
 
2013-09-17 11:53:11 PM  

Mrtraveler01: semiotix: It depends on what you're calling a mass shooting. If you use the standard of "four or more people injured or killed by gunshots in one event," it'll happen about 25 hours after the last one. So we're already overdue, although quite possibly one has happened that hasn't been widely reported on.

Source. (247 mass shootings in 2013, 260 days elapsed through today)

If you mean the kind of mass shooting that CNN secretly fantasizes about, then yeah, February is probably about right.

Can the shooter wait a few more weeks? Because the Sochi Winter Olympics are going on during that time and that thing will most likely suck up the news cycle if it turns out to be the clusterfark it's setting itself up to be.


I'm already buying stock in popcorn in anticipation of the Winter Olympics.
 
2013-09-17 11:53:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: bestie1: knbwhite: Mrtraveler01: The NRA's plan to stop school shootings is to have armed guard stationed in the school just like at the Navy Yard.

Obviously there is a flaw in this strategy.


Allow teachers who want to carry concealed to do so.

Take away TFGs secret service detail and hope for happy puppies to save the world.

No, I'm just skeptical that "more guns" are the answer.


Were there armed guards at this Navy Yard?
 
2013-09-17 11:54:50 PM  

bestie1: Unless you are actually an MP you can't carry a weapon.


Yes. It isn't a gun free zone. That is what I am saying. We are agreeing.
 
2013-09-17 11:56:57 PM  
This will happen during the administration of our next president, Yelnik McWawa
 
2013-09-17 11:57:15 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bestie1: Unless you are actually an MP you can't carry a weapon.

Yes. It isn't a gun free zone. That is what I am saying. We are agreeing.


Campus police carry weapons.

Does that mean they were lying to me when they said the university campus nearby is a gun free zone?
 
2013-09-17 11:57:16 PM  
Monday was my British fiancé's first day back at work after visiting me in Austin for a week and a half. The first question his co-workers asked was "Did you bring back any guns?"  The second was "Did you see any mass shootings?"

The Navy Yard shootings turned up on BBC News shortly thereafter.

/Looking forward to living somewhere slightly less shooty
 
2013-09-17 11:59:14 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bestie1: Bullshiat.  If you pass the gate with the correct ID your in.  Then it's a soft target inside.  Fix the gate security and harden the inside.

This was not a gun free zone. The gunman shot a security guard and then took his handgun. Military bases are not gun free zones.


They are as much of a gun free zone as schools.
 
2013-09-18 12:00:48 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bestie1: Unless you are actually an MP you can't carry a weapon.

Yes. It isn't a gun free zone. That is what I am saying. We are agreeing.


Your being intentionally obtuse.  How many people inside the base actually were allowed to carry guns?  3 ... 5...?  I'm not talking about the gate which is defended.  He bypassed the gate with his ID.  That is the real problem.  A simple security check at the gate would have prevented the entire incident.  Why wasn't it performed?  Was it because the Fed. Union objects?
 
2013-09-18 12:02:46 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bestie1: Unless you are actually an MP you can't carry a weapon.

Yes. It isn't a gun free zone. That is what I am saying. We are agreeing.


Following that logic.. Schools are not gun free zone because when the cops show up to investigate a shooting, they bring their guns.
 
2013-09-18 12:04:27 AM  
That is actually a good argument against gun free zones.  Walk into one with a knife, kill a cop and suddenly boom boom boom.
 
2013-09-18 12:07:20 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Fail. You're not going to have to wait that long


Hell, there are some angry armed nutters on FARK as I type.
 
2013-09-18 12:09:43 AM  

djh0101010: Can we find a way to ban psychos on mind altering drugs from buying  guns, while not punishing the tens of millions of gun buyers who are not hearing voices?

There has to be a way.  This would fix the headlines.

Failing that, let's put criminals in jail for a long time when they use guns, which fixes the bulk of the problem but not the headlines.


The problem with trying to keep "crazy" people from having access to guns, or otherwise restricting them, is that it discourages people who might have psychological problems from seeking help.  I'm not saying that you're wrong or that we shouldn't do what you propose, merely pointing out that there may be unfortunate side effects.
 
2013-09-18 12:11:24 AM  

Caller Number 5: So will that be the first official Seldon Crisis?


Depends.  Has The Mule been born yet?
 
2013-09-18 12:11:30 AM  

stuffy: And they left out the part where he'll have a history of mental problems but nobody gave a shiat.


No no, they more or less included that:

While mental health issues are often tricky to diagnose, it's clear that there exists a correlation between a pattern of mental illness and involvement in mass shootings.

I was going to just post "THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS."
 
2013-09-18 12:13:34 AM  
It's a fact guys. This wasn't a gun free zone. Military bases are not gun free zones. Someone claimed the opposite. I was just correcting them. I'm not sure how simple I can make it. A good guy with a gun confronted the bad guy with a gun and the bad guy with the gun shot the good guy with the gun and then took the good guy's gun. That is what happened.
 
2013-09-18 12:16:38 AM  
I predict that before the bodies of the victims are even cold, the conspiritards will be calling the incident a "false flag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzon72J21YQ

/Derp.
 
2013-09-18 12:21:24 AM  
My high school was a gun-free zone when I was there. Yet, we had two armed county police officers.
When I go to the local movie theaters, there are no-gun signs there, but there is private armed security and usually a police officer or two there on busy nights. When I was being processed for military service at Ft. Meade, the only armed presence I saw were the MPs at the gate.
 
2013-09-18 12:26:06 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: It's a fact guys. This wasn't a gun free zone. Military bases are not gun free zones. Someone claimed the opposite. I was just correcting them. I'm not sure how simple I can make it. A good guy with a gun confronted the bad guy with a gun and the bad guy with the gun shot the good guy with the gun and then took the good guy's gun. That is what happened.


It was by definition a gun free zone.  Only the cops (MPs) had guns and they were concentrated at the gates.  He by-passed those MPs because he had a govt. id and the unions don't like metal detectors so he never had to go through one.  Then when inside a less secure area he isolated a lone MP and killed him for his weapon.  He could have done the same with a box cutter at that point.  With the MPs weapon he then killed another 10 people.
So I'm just going to copy this over to my clip board now so I can comment on your next repost of the same shiat.
 
2013-09-18 12:28:02 AM  

2chris2: Nearly two-thirds of the 67 incidents - 65.7 percent - were at the hands of a white person. Only one was committed by a female. It is indisputable: white men are most likely to commit such acts, though not exclusively.

This is a misunderstanding of the statistics.  Men are most likely to commit such acts, white people aren't.  2/3 of the shootings were by white people, but 2/3 of the country is white.  Saying that white people are most likely to commit mass shootings is like saying that white people are most likely to breathe and eat food.  It's most likely that a mass shooter will turn out to be white, but white people are no more likely to commit mass shootings than those of other races.  There are just more of them.


Wait till you see the stats on suicides by white, 40-55 male gun owners. The numbers are truly depressing.
 
2013-09-18 12:32:22 AM  

gglibertine: Monday was my British fiancé's first day back at work after visiting me in Austin for a week and a half. The first question his co-workers asked was "Did you bring back any guns?"  The second was "Did you see any mass shootings?"

The Navy Yard shootings turned up on BBC News shortly thereafter.

/Looking forward to living somewhere slightly less shooty


Just do not sing Kung Fu Fighting in front of Asian people.  You can get arrested for that.  Oh, and no racially insensitive comments, even in jest, because you can go to jail for that.  So yeah, you are less likely to get shot, but you will be a hell of a lot less free over there.
 
2013-09-18 12:33:40 AM  

bestie1: It was by definition a gun free zone.  Only the cops (MPs) had guns


Is this guy farking with me? Is this some sort of weird interactive internet performance art?
 
2013-09-18 12:35:33 AM  
Please, please, please ... move the Atlantic Wire's publishing offices to Spokane. Please.
 
2013-09-18 12:37:41 AM  

MisterTweak: 2chris2: Nearly two-thirds of the 67 incidents - 65.7 percent - were at the hands of a white person. Only one was committed by a female. It is indisputable: white men are most likely to commit such acts, though not exclusively.

This is a misunderstanding of the statistics.  Men are most likely to commit such acts, white people aren't.  2/3 of the shootings were by white people, but 2/3 of the country is white.  Saying that white people are most likely to commit mass shootings is like saying that white people are most likely to breathe and eat food.  It's most likely that a mass shooter will turn out to be white, but white people are no more likely to commit mass shootings than those of other races.  There are just more of them.

Wait till you see the stats on suicides by white, 40-55 male gun owners. The numbers are truly depressing.


If I were to commit suicide I think I would do it by jumping out of an airplane and instead of packing a chute I would pack forks.  And my reserve would be packed with old issues of Playboy (from when women still had hairy bushes!).  And I would have a pogo stick and would attempt to get a good bounce when I hit.  And I would be naked.  And pained bright blue.  That would at least ensure I was not just another statistic.

/Not planning on doing this.
//But if I was, might as well make it unique.
 
2013-09-18 12:37:54 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bestie1: It was by definition a gun free zone.  Only the cops (MPs) had guns

Is this guy farking with me? Is this some sort of weird interactive internet performance art?


It was by definition a gun free zone.  Only the cops (MPs) had guns and they were concentrated at the gates.  He by-passed those MPs because he had a govt. id and the unions don't like metal detectors so he never had to go through one.  Then when inside a less secure area he isolated a lone MP and killed him for his weapon.  He could have done the same with a box cutter at that point.  With the MPs weapon he then killed another 10 people.
So I'm just going to copy this over to my clip board now so I can comment on your next repost of the same shiat.
 
2013-09-18 12:39:40 AM  

bestie1: It was by definition a gun free zone.


Except for the guys with guns!
 
2013-09-18 12:41:26 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bestie1: It was by definition a gun free zone.

Except for the guys with guns!


It was by definition a gun free zone.  Only the cops (MPs) had guns and they were concentrated at the gates.  He by-passed those MPs because he had a govt. id and the unions don't like metal detectors so he never had to go through one.  Then when inside a less secure area he isolated a lone MP and killed him for his weapon.  He could have done the same with a box cutter at that point.  With the MPs weapon he then killed another 10 people.
So I'm just going to copy this over to my clip board now so I can comment on your next repost of the same shiat.
 
2013-09-18 12:42:38 AM  

bestie1: Dusk-You-n-Me: It's a fact guys. This wasn't a gun free zone. Military bases are not gun free zones. Someone claimed the opposite. I was just correcting them. I'm not sure how simple I can make it. A good guy with a gun confronted the bad guy with a gun and the bad guy with the gun shot the good guy with the gun and then took the good guy's gun. That is what happened.

It was by definition a gun free zone.  Only the cops (MPs) had guns and they were concentrated at the gates.  He by-passed those MPs because he had a govt. id and the unions don't like metal detectors so he never had to go through one.  Then when inside a less secure area he isolated a lone MP and killed him for his weapon.  He could have done the same with a box cutter at that point.  With the MPs weapon he then killed another 10 people.
So I'm just going to copy this over to my clip board now so I can comment on your next repost of the same shiat.


B-b-b-buht its the military! They have guns!
 
2013-09-18 12:43:50 AM  

djh0101010: It really boggles my mind and/or offends me that my repeated suggestions that we put criminals who use guns in jail for 5 years minimum, typically get NO responses.

Supporters, please comment.  Detractors, please think, and if you have a coherent point, please comment.

I would really love to see a judicial system where criminals who are convicted of crimes, and who used a gun in said crime, would spend 5 years minimum in jail, mandatory.  I'd be interested in ANYONE who can tell me that this proposal would not benefit society.



Define the types of "crimes" and he use of guns, please.

Should a hunter who wandered onto property with NO TRESSPASSING signs do 5 years?

What about a woman who gets busted with a gram of weed who has a pistol in her home? 5 years minimum mandatory?


/Reality is rarely like your fantasy
 
2013-09-18 12:44:09 AM  
This is one for the record books.
 
2013-09-18 12:51:03 AM  
Here in MD, an amendment was proposed by Del. Mike Smigiel to the recently passed gun laws that would have introduced 5-year mandatory sentences for those who commit a "crime of violence" with a firearm. It was the only part of SB281 that would have negatively effected criminals.

It originally passed in house committee, but the chairman (Vallerio) didn't like that at all. He called for a re-vote. The vote ended in a tie, which killed it. It was re-introduced on 4/3 to the House floor and it was narrowly defeated there as well. Representatives in Baltimore City claimed that they couldn't afford to lock up all of these people and used that as grounds for killing the amendment.

The politicians here are sick.
 
2013-09-18 12:54:12 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: This is one for the record books.


It was by definition a gun free zone.  Only the cops (MPs) had guns and they were concentrated at the gates.  He by-passed those MPs because he had a govt. id and the unions don't like metal detectors so he never had to go through one.  Then when inside a less secure area he isolated a lone MP and killed him for his weapon.  He could have done the same with a box cutter at that point.  With the MPs weapon he then killed another 10 people.
So I'm just going to copy this over to my clip board now so I can comment on your next repost of the same shiat.
 
I assume your flirting with me at this point.
 
2013-09-18 01:04:46 AM  

Mock26: If I were to commit suicide I think I would do it by jumping out of an airplane and instead of packing a chute I would pack forks. And my reserve would be packed with old issues of Playboy (from when women still had hairy bushes!). And I would have a pogo stick and would attempt to get a good bounce when I hit. And I would be naked. And pained bright blue. That would at least ensure I was not just another statistic.


I hope you don't kill yourself, because I want your suicide philosophy to become a national phenomenon.

I want it to be a point of pride for the newly self-offed to have the anchors on the nightly news be completely unable to relate the death of the freshly deceased to the death of ANYONE else.

"In other news, a local man had a threesome with a midget man, an albino woman and a third asian, third black, third native-american pre-operative transgender um, man/woman, then upon failing to climax, jumped out the window into an already running wood chipper, a perfectly executed swan dive, which sprayed the remains over the parking lot which had been strategically treated with repellant chemicals so the blood and gore wouldn't settle into the stenciled words, 'SURRENDER, DOROTHY'.  The coroner, sheriff and curator of the local art museum award the deceased a 9.3 for execution of a innovative suicide."
 
2013-09-18 01:09:29 AM  

Kiriyama9000: Here in MD, an amendment was proposed by Del. Mike Smigiel to the recently passed gun laws that would have introduced 5-year mandatory sentences for those who commit a "crime of violence" with a firearm. It was the only part of SB281 that would have negatively effected criminals.

It originally passed in house committee, but the chairman (Vallerio) didn't like that at all. He called for a re-vote. The vote ended in a tie, which killed it. It was re-introduced on 4/3 to the House floor and it was narrowly defeated there as well. Representatives in Baltimore City claimed that they couldn't afford to lock up all of these people and used that as grounds for killing the amendment.

The politicians here are sick.


Mandatory minimums are often less desirable than you would think. They have the effect of taking the judge out of the sentencing equation - which is one of the primary reasons we have judges - and sending people who barely qualify to overly long sentences for their actions.

See also: Ronald Thompson in Florida.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
2013-09-18 01:25:08 AM  
Wait a minute... there was no mention that they were American.

Canada, step up to the plate!
 
2013-09-18 01:44:58 AM  

bestie1: djh0101010: It really boggles my mind and/or offends me that my repeated suggestions that we put criminals who use guns in jail for 5 years minimum, typically get NO responses.

Supporters, please comment.  Detractors, please think, and if you have a coherent point, please comment.

I would really love to see a judicial system where criminals who are convicted of crimes, and who used a gun in said crime, would spend 5 years minimum in jail, mandatory.  I'd be interested in ANYONE who can tell me that this proposal would not benefit society.

I'm ok with that.  Make it 20.


If the crime is already a 20 year bit, a tacked on bit won't make a difference in the mind of the person doing it, the risk is worth the reward, plus the whole idea is that they will get away with it.

Also this will stop mass death shootings how? The people doing these aren't really doing the long term survival thing, much less "I might have to do 5 years on top of the being put to death for killing 20 people"

Adding years makes you feel good but the crimes people commit with guns usually have long sentences.
 
2013-09-18 02:44:50 AM  

leadmetal: IlGreven: So the argument against gun control is that we can't prevent 20% of these mass killings, so we shouldn't try to prevent the other 80%.

The argument is that we should look at the causes not the tools.

In practically all if not all of the mass shootings in the last 20+ years the shooter has been using a government approved product of the pharmaceutical industry which has known side effects that include violent behavior. But big pharma and the medical cartel that puts people on these drugs is untouchable and damn near unmentionable.

Why isn't this common thread addressed? These are mind altering substances made by insider companies approved by a government agency. They are big money makers. It does not serve those in government to address it. But taking away weapons from the population? That's what all rulers would like to do.


...but wouldn't that just be looking at another "tool" rather than a cause?  Taking away someone's access to easily killing people would stop them just as sure as taking them off of medication.  Plus, not only is there no guarantee they wouldn't go on a deadly shooting rampage if we took their lithium away, but there is every indication that this would increase the number of these shootings (and the number of violent death incidents in general as the untreated crazy people get a hold of anything sharp or heavy in their manic phases.)
 
2013-09-18 02:47:48 AM  
Awesome, I'm up for a challenge. Although the part where I 'formally worked' at whatever location I happen to pick that day might be a bit of a stretch if no-one in washington wants to hire me.
 
2013-09-18 02:50:18 AM  

farkingismybusiness: What's the over/under?


The bear is over.......
 
2013-09-18 06:44:18 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: This is one for the record books.


Why don't you just say "In the US there is no such thing as a gun free zone, anywhere, at any time. Because the cops carry guns everywhere they go"?
 
2013-09-18 06:58:10 AM  

Ready-set: This is just as racist as someone saying 'if you get mugged, it'll most likely be by a black guy'.


Oh no. If Farkfront has taught me anything it's that statistics are NEVER racist. Regardless of context and no matter how many times they're cited in any thread. Even Bryant Gumbel threads.
 
2013-09-18 06:58:43 AM  

Mrtraveler01: From what I heard, anyone in the Navy Yard could carry a gun so hopefully that retarded assumption is disproven and put to rest


So you "heard" that the home of the Chief of Naval Operations, the headquarters of the Naval Sea Systems Command, the U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command, the Marine Corp institute, and the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps allows anyone who wants to to carry a gun, and thought that was reasonable?

Nevermind it being in DC with the strictest gun laws in the nation?

Is there any subject you can talk about where your glaring stupidity doesn't shine through?
 
2013-09-18 07:16:29 AM  

Elegy: Move to Florida. Mandatory 10-20-life for felonies committed with a gun


I think I could get behind florida on this one.

pedobearapproved: If the crime is already a 20 year bit, a tacked on bit won't make a difference in the mind of the person doing it, the risk is worth the reward, plus the whole idea is that they will get away with it.

Also this will stop mass death shootings how?


I am curious in what crimes guns are most used in.
You are right with kidnapping bank robbery and othe rmajor crimes, but I think they may make people re-think using or having a gun with minor crimes.
 
2013-09-18 11:06:59 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: It's a fact guys. This wasn't a gun free zone. Military bases are not gun free zones. Someone claimed the opposite. I was just correcting them. I'm not sure how simple I can make it. A good guy with a gun confronted the bad guy with a gun and the bad guy with the gun shot the good guy with the gun and then took the good guy's gun. That is what happened.


Wow, are you really that dense?  A gun-free zone doesn't mean no guns at all, as it's been pointed out by many others.  It means that except for law-enforcement, (cops on duty, MPs on duty, armed security on duty), no one is allowed to legally possess a gun.

So to recap:
Colorado Theatre, gun-free zone? even with an armed guard ............. Yes.
Local school, gun-free zone? even with an armed guard ............. Yes.
Military base, gun-free zone? even with an armed MPs ............. Yes.

The point being that on-duty cops, MPs, armed security DO carry guns, freely into "gun-free" zones, yet they are still "gun-free" as other members of the general public, or in the case of the Military Base, trained soldiers who are competent shooters who have knowledge about proper weapon safety cannot carry their own weapons, thus rendering them as soft a target as those ordinary people listed in the theatres, schools and bases discussed.

I don't know why you insist on labeling facilities which are legally marked as "Gun Free" as not.
 
2013-09-18 11:07:46 AM  
So if that day is drawing to a close, and no one has done any shooting, one of you farkers will need to step up, so that we don't have a time paradox.

BTW, in most states (except for federal property) "Gun Free" zones are more of a suggestion than a law. Some states (texas, I think) enforce those signs for private property, but most do not.

In VA, if you carry in a private property "gun free" zone, and someone finds out, they most they can do is ask you do leave. If you do not, then you can be charged with tresspassing. but if they see you have a gun, and call the cops, the cops will show up and ask "Did he threaten anyone? Did you ask him to leave?" and if the answer is no to both, the cop will shrug his shoulders, walk up to you and say ""Hey look, they don't want you to have a gun here. You gotta go or I will have to charge you with tresspassing." (Or you could just get lucky and get that one cop who is out of vacations days and hasn't shot anyone for almost three weeks).

But of course if you are doing concealed carry correctly, they will never know in the first place.

/Local mall that I have been going to for 7 years suddenly decided it was "gun free". I still carry. Fark em.
// Not a hero. I hope I never have to use it.
///Make sure your state and locality doesn't enforce those laws though, or you may be looking at a misdemeanor
 
2013-09-18 11:16:02 AM  

Wrencher: Dusk-You-n-Me: This is one for the record books.

Why don't you just say "In the US there is no such thing as a gun free zone, anywhere, at any time. Because the cops carry guns everywhere they go"?


Why don't you say, "In the US there is no such thing as speed limits, anywhere, at any time. Because the cops speed everywhere they go"?

They're "Gun Free" for you and me.  Not for the Active Duty Law enforcement or armed security.  Supposedly, citizens with guns will kill everyone they see just for looking at them, anytime, anywhere, and cannot be trusted with guns.  Or large sugary soft-drinks.  Or certain cold medicines.  Or liquids of any kind over 3oz on airplanes.
 
2013-09-18 11:25:43 AM  

Mock26: gglibertine: /Looking forward to living somewhere slightly less shooty

Just do not sing Kung Fu Fighting in front of Asian people.  You can get arrested for that.  Oh, and no racially insensitive comments, even in jest, because you can go to jail for that.  So yeah, you are less likely to get shot, but you will be a hell of a lot less free over there.


Since I'm not a racist or an asshole, I don't expect that to be an issue for me.
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report