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.

(Opposing Views)   Partygoing tip for the day: always assume that someone else at the party has a gun before you decide to open fire yourself. Especially if you're in Arizona   (opposingviews.com) divider line 75
    More: Stupid, salons, handguns, guns  
•       •       •

4784 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Oct 2013 at 10:40 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-23 10:42:22 AM
How's that "polite society" working out for ya?
 
2013-10-23 10:44:25 AM
Partygoing tip for the day: always assume that someone else at the party has a gun before you decide to open fire yourself. Especially if you're in Arizona

always assume this at ANY party.

but the bigger issue is, why are YOU opening fire in the first place? what a party pooper!
 
2013-10-23 10:46:31 AM
inconceivable

The fark echo chamber has been stating that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun but if he did the guy who stopped the potential mass shooter would be shot by someone else with a CCW and the cops would show up and shoot the guy who shot the guy who shot the guy who wanted to be a mass shooter.
 
2013-10-23 10:46:45 AM
There's always one asshole at every party on the verge of popping off. It's the American way!
 
2013-10-23 10:46:58 AM
Responsible gun owner brings gun to party and is shot by responsible gun owner that brought gun to party.
 
2013-10-23 10:48:39 AM

bungle_jr: but the bigger issue is, why are YOU opening fire in the first place? what a party pooper!


Jennifer was there?
 
2013-10-23 10:51:30 AM

Giltric: inconceivable

The fark echo chamber has been stating that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun but if he did the guy who stopped the potential mass shooter would be shot by someone else with a CCW and the cops would show up and shoot the guy who shot the guy who shot the guy who wanted to be a mass shooter.


And that innocent bystanders would get hit, like in NYC outside the Empire State Building.  Which is why only the police should own/carry handguns.
 
2013-10-23 10:52:27 AM

Saborlas: How's that "polite society" working out for ya?


Pretty well apparently.
 
2013-10-23 10:54:19 AM

Saborlas: How's that "polite society" working out for ya?


Well, he did show rifle-boy the gun 'before' he shot him. That was rather polite.
 
2013-10-23 10:54:53 AM

Giltric: The fark echo chamber has been stating that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun but if he did the guy who stopped the potential mass shooter would be shot by someone else with a CCW and the cops would show up and shoot the guy who shot the guy who shot the guy who wanted to be a mass shooter.


I don't think they will lose any sleep over this. Since he was stopped before becoming a mass shooter, they will just keep claiming that a mass shooter has never been stopped by an armed civilian.
 
2013-10-23 10:55:07 AM
FTA The 27-year-old man returned to the party with a rifle... he began pumping rounds from the weapon

A pump action rifle?
 
2013-10-23 10:56:35 AM
in Arizona where it is legal to carry a handgun without a permit.

It is?
I'm for CC but but letting just anyone carry a gun without at least a permit seems like a bad idea.
 
2013-10-23 10:57:12 AM
In an incident that is already being lauded by gun rights advocates as proof that "guns save lives,"...

Except that the net total is still more dead people than not.

/ yea, yea, I know, that just prove there aren't enough guns
 
2013-10-23 10:57:13 AM
images4.wikia.nocookie.net
/Arizona!
 
2013-10-23 10:57:41 AM

TomD9938: FTA The 27-year-old man returned to the party with a rifle... he began pumping rounds from the weapon

A pump action rifle?


http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-fam il ies/pump-action-model-7600.aspx
 
2013-10-23 11:00:24 AM

GanjSmokr: TomD9938: FTA The 27-year-old man returned to the party with a rifle... he began pumping rounds from the weapon

A pump action rifle?

http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-fam il ies/pump-action-model-7600.aspx


Huh.  Never associated the two.
 
2013-10-23 11:00:36 AM
Was that article written by a 14-year-old?
 
2013-10-23 11:01:02 AM
Wanted foh qwestioning:

iainhall.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-23 11:01:15 AM

TomD9938: A pump action rifle?


[ricromero.jpg]
"Pumping" is sometimes used as a slang term for firing a weapon rather than in reference to the action of ejecting a spent cartridge and chambering the next round. See: "Pump you full of hot lead".
 
2013-10-23 11:02:04 AM

Fark It: Giltric: inconceivable

And that innocent bystanders would get hit, like in NYC outside the Empire State Building.  Which is why only the police should own/carry handguns.


You are aware the gunman was trying to hurt and kill innocent bystanders, and an armed innocent bystander stopped that from happening.

By your logic the hero should have allowed the gunman to continue his rampage at innocent bystanders until the police arrived, possibly leaving many maimed or wounded.

How are you able to reconcile that huge inconsistency in your logic?

Just a non gun owner over here wondering.
 
2013-10-23 11:03:56 AM

TomD9938: FTA The 27-year-old man returned to the party with a rifle... he began pumping rounds from the weapon

A pump action rifle?


The more you know:

cdn2.armslist.com

www.gunblast.com

www.remingtonsociety.com


/Yeah, I know this guy probably didn't have one but they do exist.
 
2013-10-23 11:06:58 AM

nunyadang: Fark It: Giltric: inconceivable

And that innocent bystanders would get hit, like in NYC outside the Empire State Building.  Which is why only the police should own/carry handguns.

You are aware the gunman was trying to hurt and kill innocent bystanders, and an armed innocent bystander stopped that from happening.

By your logic the hero should have allowed the gunman to continue his rampage at innocent bystanders until the police arrived, possibly leaving many maimed or wounded.

How are you able to reconcile that huge inconsistency in your logic?

Just a non gun owner over here wondering.


I think your sarcasm meter needs calibration.
 
2013-10-23 11:07:47 AM

nunyadang: Fark It: Giltric: inconceivable

And that innocent bystanders would get hit, like in NYC outside the Empire State Building.  Which is why only the police should own/carry handguns.

You are aware the gunman was trying to hurt and kill innocent bystanders, and an armed innocent bystander stopped that from happening.

By your logic the hero should have allowed the gunman to continue his rampage at innocent bystanders until the police arrived, possibly leaving many maimed or wounded.

How are you able to reconcile that huge inconsistency in your logic?

Just a non gun owner over here wondering.


Adjust your meter....
 
2013-10-23 11:15:15 AM
I've had lots of parties at my house in Phoenix AZ and while there have been lots of shots it's nothing they couldn't get over with a little hair of the dog.
 
2013-10-23 11:23:06 AM

JustGetItRight: And that innocent bystanders would get hit, like in NYC outside the Empire State Building.  Which is why only the police should own/carry handguns.


This is referring to the event where NYPD shot a bunch of innocent bystanders trying and not succeeding to shoot a bad guy.  Correct?
 
2013-10-23 11:30:26 AM

nunyadang: Fark It: Giltric: inconceivable

And that innocent bystanders would get hit, like in NYC outside the Empire State Building.  Which is why only the police should own/carry handguns.

You are aware the gunman was trying to hurt and kill innocent bystanders, and an armed innocent bystander stopped that from happening.

By your logic the hero should have allowed the gunman to continue his rampage at innocent bystanders until the police arrived, possibly leaving many maimed or wounded.

How are you able to reconcile that huge inconsistency in your logic?

Just a non gun owner over here wondering.


And all the people shot at the Empire State shooting were shot by cops, which is another part of his point.
 
2013-10-23 11:32:01 AM

Fark It: Giltric: inconceivable

The fark echo chamber has been stating that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun but if he did the guy who stopped the potential mass shooter would be shot by someone else with a CCW and the cops would show up and shoot the guy who shot the guy who shot the guy who wanted to be a mass shooter.

And that innocent bystanders would get hit, like in NYC outside the Empire State Building.  Which is why only the police should own/carry handguns.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting

That incident?  The one where the only two parties with guns were the shooter and the police?  And aside from the initial victim, all the innocent bystanders were actually shot directly or indirectly by the police?
 
2013-10-23 11:33:09 AM
All too late do I realize my sarcasm meter may need adjusting today.
 
2013-10-23 11:40:41 AM
Yayyy! A gun thread.
 
2013-10-23 11:41:48 AM

abhorrent1: in Arizona where it is legal to carry a handgun without a permit.

It is?
I'm for CC but but letting just anyone carry a gun without at least a permit seems like a bad idea.


You don't say?

Firing shots in the air is, unfortunately, far too common. It's also not firing shots into a crowd, which Rifle Boy was most definitely not doing, since he was the only person hit by flying bullets.
 
2013-10-23 11:43:37 AM

Carn: Responsible gun owner brings gun to party and is shot by responsible gun owner that brought gun to party.


This guy seems pretty butthurt that his anti-NRA talking point just got crushed again.
 
2013-10-23 11:43:54 AM

Thingster: nunyadang: Fark It: Giltric: inconceivable


And all the people shot at the Empire State shooting were shot by cops, which is another part of his point.



I am still confused. The supporting argument to allow only police officers guns, is that cops shot innocent bystanders? That is very confusing logic.

By that logic, the hero gunman should not have killed the gunman firing at the party, he should have allowed the shooter to continue to shoot at innocent bystanders, and wait for police to come and shoot at the bystanders?
 
2013-10-23 11:50:48 AM
JustGetItRight:
I think your sarcasm meter needs calibration.

Yea, belatedly I think you are right
 
2013-10-23 11:57:06 AM

Driedsponge: Fark It: Giltric: inconceivable

The fark echo chamber has been stating that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun but if he did the guy who stopped the potential mass shooter would be shot by someone else with a CCW and the cops would show up and shoot the guy who shot the guy who shot the guy who wanted to be a mass shooter.

And that innocent bystanders would get hit, like in NYC outside the Empire State Building.  Which is why only the police should own/carry handguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting

That incident?  The one where the only two parties with guns were the shooter and the police?  And aside from the initial victim, all the innocent bystanders were actually shot directly or indirectly by the police?


how does one indirectly shoot someone?
 
2013-10-23 12:00:15 PM
Alcohol + Guns = Great Party.
 
2013-10-23 12:08:45 PM

dr_blasto: Driedsponge: Fark It: Giltric: inconceivable

The fark echo chamber has been stating that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun but if he did the guy who stopped the potential mass shooter would be shot by someone else with a CCW and the cops would show up and shoot the guy who shot the guy who shot the guy who wanted to be a mass shooter.

And that innocent bystanders would get hit, like in NYC outside the Empire State Building.  Which is why only the police should own/carry handguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting

That incident?  The one where the only two parties with guns were the shooter and the police?  And aside from the initial victim, all the innocent bystanders were actually shot directly or indirectly by the police?

how does one indirectly shoot someone?


Artillery!
 
2013-10-23 12:20:19 PM

Fark It: Giltric: inconceivable

The fark echo chamber has been stating that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun but if he did the guy who stopped the potential mass shooter would be shot by someone else with a CCW and the cops would show up and shoot the guy who shot the guy who shot the guy who wanted to be a mass shooter.

And that innocent bystanders would get hit, like in NYC outside the Empire State Building.  Which is why only the police should own/carry handguns.


You, sir, sound like a hoplophobe and should be ashamed of yourself.
 
2013-10-23 12:30:34 PM
I wonder how many times it took the second shooter to get it right?


itsfilmnotmovie.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-23 12:32:57 PM
An Arizona classic, which meets with my Personal Stamp of Approval

randommization.com
 
2013-10-23 12:34:24 PM
Apparently Arizonans can't shoot for sh*t.
 
2013-10-23 12:38:53 PM

dr_blasto: Driedsponge: Fark It: Giltric: inconceivable

The fark echo chamber has been stating that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun but if he did the guy who stopped the potential mass shooter would be shot by someone else with a CCW and the cops would show up and shoot the guy who shot the guy who shot the guy who wanted to be a mass shooter.

And that innocent bystanders would get hit, like in NYC outside the Empire State Building.  Which is why only the police should own/carry handguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting

That incident?  The one where the only two parties with guns were the shooter and the police?  And aside from the initial victim, all the innocent bystanders were actually shot directly or indirectly by the police?

how does one indirectly shoot someone?


I would classify a ricochet as indirect.
 
2013-10-23 12:39:06 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Apparently Arizonans can't shoot for sh*t.


Apparently ^^ this guy can't read for sh*t.
 
2013-10-23 12:45:35 PM

kombat_unit: Carn: Responsible gun owner brings gun to party and is shot by responsible gun owner that brought gun to party.

This guy seems pretty butthurt that his anti-NRA talking point just got crushed again.


Who the shooter?
 
2013-10-23 12:53:49 PM
Every time I hear about Arizona and guns, I picture that scene in Raising Arizona where the cops are chasing Nicholas Cage, and just keep firing non-stop the entire time, through grocery stores with people everywhere, out onto the road, never stopping shooting...
 
2013-10-23 12:57:42 PM
The party goers are lucky this happened before the cops arrived.  It seem like the Police shoot to kill here.  Both men would have probably been killed.

I am not familiar with this side of Phoenix but if its in the Avenues ... there is a chance this is not a nice neighborhood.
 
2013-10-23 12:58:35 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Apparently Arizonans can't shoot for sh*t.


The party attendee with the handgun seems to have done just fine.
 
2013-10-23 01:09:56 PM

bruce4bruce: The party goers are lucky this happened before the cops arrived. It seem like the Police shoot to kill here. Both men would have probably been killed.


What kind of idiot DOESN'T shoot to kill?
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-10-23 01:11:00 PM

Saborlas: How's that "polite society" working out for ya?


You'd rather the guy with the rifle had killed people, I take it.

That's fairly evil.
 
2013-10-23 01:12:16 PM
If we just outlawed these dangerous weapons and enforced a mandatory death penalty for owning such a device of mass destruction then nobody would ever get shot.
 
2013-10-23 01:19:45 PM

Slaves2Darkness: If we just outlawed these dangerous weapons and enforced a mandatory death penalty for owning such a device of mass destruction then nobody would ever get shot.


This week one of the CA courts used US v Miller to claim that the AK pattern rifle is not in common use and that the 2nd amendment only protects weapons that are in common use with the military.

You know what weapons are in common use by the military and are protected by the 2nd amendment according to this court?

I am starting to think that as a gun owner I have been doing more to help further erode my rights by engaging the gun control crowd in discussions about gun control. I think I should just let them keep talking.......sort of like giving them enough rope with the courts ruling about common use.


I'd rather have a M240 instead of a AK....wouldn't you?
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report