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.

(WTAE)   Gun shop owner killed in shooting at store on New Year's Eve. If only he'd had a gu-... wait, what? A gun store and taxidermy shop out of a house? What is this, I don't even. I'm hung over and need a drink now. Happy new year   (wtae.com) divider line 22
    More: Weird, New Year's Eve, Indiana counties, owner killed, firearms  
•       •       •

4075 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jan 2014 at 8:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-01-01 09:42:34 AM  
5 votes:

AngryDragon: pueblonative: I think in this moment of tragedy we should remember the rules when discussing this or any other gun tragedy:

Rule 1: It is "ghoulish" to suggest in any way that the easy availability of guns might in any way enable gun slaughter.
Rule 2: Gun crime in the president's hometown proves that guns anywhere else are no fit topic of conversation.
Rule 3: All gun owners are to be complimented as responsible and law-abiding until they personally have hurt themselves or somebody else
Rule 4: Any attempt to stop mass casualty shootings is "political." Allowing them to continue is"non-political."
Rule 5: Gun ownership is essential to freedom, as in Serbia & Guatemala. Gun restrictions lead to tyranny, as in Australia & Canada.

Carry on with your non political discussion, fellow militia member.

Already?  I see the hoplophobes are up early.

You guys would be much less terrified of gun owners if you would just go out and enjoy life a little.  It kind of looks like obsession.


You'd be a lot more rooted in reality if you didn't think that everyone who holds you in contempt fears you.
2014-01-01 08:14:32 AM  
4 votes:
I think in this moment of tragedy we should remember the rules when discussing this or any other gun tragedy:

Rule 1: It is "ghoulish" to suggest in any way that the easy availability of guns might in any way enable gun slaughter.
Rule 2: Gun crime in the president's hometown proves that guns anywhere else are no fit topic of conversation.
Rule 3: All gun owners are to be complimented as responsible and law-abiding until they personally have hurt themselves or somebody else
Rule 4: Any attempt to stop mass casualty shootings is "political." Allowing them to continue is"non-political."
Rule 5: Gun ownership is essential to freedom, as in Serbia & Guatemala. Gun restrictions lead to tyranny, as in Australia & Canada.


Carry on with your non political discussion, fellow militia member.
2014-01-01 09:35:05 AM  
3 votes:

pueblonative: Aww cute, conservatards using made up words to describe gun control and thinking they scored a killshot because it has a -phobe suffix.

Here's a cookie


Tell you what.  We'll let you kill em before they're born, we get to kill em when they become criminals.  Deal?
2014-01-01 08:59:50 AM  
3 votes:

pueblonative: I think in this moment of tragedy we should remember the rules when discussing this or any other gun tragedy:

Rule 1: It is "ghoulish" to suggest in any way that the easy availability of guns might in any way enable gun slaughter.
Rule 2: Gun crime in the president's hometown proves that guns anywhere else are no fit topic of conversation.
Rule 3: All gun owners are to be complimented as responsible and law-abiding until they personally have hurt themselves or somebody else
Rule 4: Any attempt to stop mass casualty shootings is "political." Allowing them to continue is"non-political."
Rule 5: Gun ownership is essential to freedom, as in Serbia & Guatemala. Gun restrictions lead to tyranny, as in Australia & Canada.

Carry on with your non political discussion, fellow militia member.


Already?  I see the hoplophobes are up early.

You guys would be much less terrified of gun owners if you would just go out and enjoy life a little.  It kind of looks like obsession.
2014-01-01 02:56:03 PM  
2 votes:

Rat: demaL-demaL-yeH: Rat: FnkyTwn: Rat:

Descriptive and prescriptive grammar.

*clicks profile*
You should pull that bolt and check your firing pin retaining pin - you do not want that thing nailing you in the face.
And check to make sure that the spring and pad on the extractor aren't too worn and are aligned correctly.

I wasn't too worried about the true description, just trying to help out, and I usually don't care, except that he made quite the nice argument and I hate a good argument spoiled by something so trivial.  I was hoping it would lead to a nice back and forth, but he went all name calling and I lost interest.

Funny you should mention about the firing pin, I don't think people check it enough.  Its what, a .49 piece of metal and a .29 spring?  My drill sergeant carried a few extras in his pockets during basic, since they are like dammit pins and you can never find them in the dirt.

Happy New Year!


Four months late, but thanks, and the same to you.

The part I hate about these threads tends to be when the idjits start telling me I know nothing about guns (cut my teeth, figuratively speaking, on the M110A2 when I went Army), self-defense (taught both small arms and unarmed combatives for years), or pistols (I graduated from a closely-supervised Ruger Mk.I to an even more closely-supervised M1911 at the age of 9).
I get to see various theories about how I'm afraid of firearms, that I'm insane to advocate using manual safeties and Condition 3 carry due to "response time", even after I point out that 1) your holster choice makes a bigger difference, and 2) I was taught both shooting and unarmed combatives by a master firearms instructor trained by Fairbairn and Sykes (yes, those guys) to keep the chamber empty and my eyes open.

When you point out that walking around unarmed is really strong evidence that you aren't, in fact, afraid, the typical response is either silence or loud and strident denial, accompanied by personal insults.
Admittedly, it's not as strident or loud and the response when you point out that walking around armed outside a war zone, absent a specific and personal threat, a job requirement, and outside hunting season, is very strong evidence: In short, arming yourself against an undefined threat is highly indicative of a fearful mindset. The squalls of indignation remind me of the squeals when the farmers down the road castrated their annual bacon boar.

Then, when you point out that the intent of Amendment II, encapsulated in its first six words, was enacted and implemented by Congress immediately after its ratification. Bearing arms, for crying out loud, is the only right in the Constitution that names its concomitant responsibility. I'm met with disbelief when I say that we should reimplement the Militia the way the Founders did and require mandatory firearm training and proficiency for all residents 16 and over, subject their arms and ammunition to regular inspections and report their numbers and condition to the State and Federal governments, just like the Founders did, and subject all members of the Milita of the United States to military discipline, especially where it concerns the use of their arms, just like the Founders did. The mental and physical screening, increased physical fitness levels, forging real connections within communities, and the ability to reduce the size of our active military and the train-up required for active members, are gravy, from my point of view. Yet they persist in calling me a "gun-grabber".

They deny that well regulated means, well, regulated, even when you link to the actual farking Regulations prescribed by Congress, and point out that regulated has meant governed by rules since the Middle farking English of Geoffrey Chaucer.

The Heller decision was very clear that local, state and federal laws may, in fact, constitutionally regulate firearms. (p 54) And it seems to me that the public interest is best served when criminals and the mentally ill do not have access to firearms, and that the background checks that apply to firearms sales by licensed dealers ought to be done for all firearms transfers so we aren't privately giving or selling weapons to people who are prohibited by law from having them.

You'd have to be fug-buck delusional, as in a raving paranoiac, to believe that mandatory background checks, mandatory training and proficiency-building, and safety inspections of arms and ammunition, is in any way a path to mass confiscation, since it guarantees that any attempt would be met with effective, trained armed resistance by organized units.
2014-01-01 10:11:45 AM  
2 votes:

pueblonative: AngryDragon: pueblonative: Aww cute, conservatards using made up words to describe gun control and thinking they scored a killshot because it has a -phobe suffix.

Here's a cookie

Tell you what.  We'll let you kill em before they're born, we get to kill em when they become criminals.  Deal?

You gonna give them a cookie with that hot shot, clown?

Counter deal: if you want to go play soldier, you can sign up with the Armed Forces where they'll teach you responsible gun ownership and how owning the latest Bushmaster "man card" does not turn you into a Red Dawn Wolverine.  They'll even pay you.


Already done.  Four years in the Army, 3 years as a Sheriff's deputy.

I know what's out there because I've had to clean up the aftermath.  I've had more exposure to firearms than the average person by an exponential measure.  I carry.  A .38 snubnose revolver.  I don't even own a long rifle, just a 12 gauge for sporting clays and home defense.  My firearm isn't a penis extension, an Internet tough guy statement, or a a defense against tyranny.  My firearm is with me at all times because I've seen the bad guys up close and personal and there is no way that I will let my family or any other innocent person be put at risk if I happen to be in a position to do something about it.

If you think that you can't be a victim of violent crime anywhere at anytime, or that law enforcement can protect you, you're delusional.
2014-01-01 11:55:17 AM  
1 votes:

pueblonative: hmm, didn't know that Adam Lanza  would be considered either poor or uneducated.  Same goes with Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris and James Holmes.  Oh, and one other thing: none of them had committed a gun crime prior to their blaze of glory so the jail sentences don't work that well


The gun homicide rate is down 50%.  Most of those are committed in urban, high-poverty areas.  For every one Lanza or Klebold, there are 11,000 individual criminal acts committed with firearms resulting in homicide.  Almost none of those are with "assault rifles", almost all with illegal firearms, and most with repeat offenders.  Additionally, the vast majority are black-on-black.

Go ahead, pass a law that would have stopped Lanza.  It's spitting in the ocean and the only real restriction that will be in effect is on law abiding citizens.  Do something about the other 11,000 incidents by dealing with the root causes and you will have a positive effect.

Rolling out the memories of dead children due to a lunatic to further a political and ultimately ineffective set of laws is abhorrent.
2014-01-01 11:03:28 AM  
1 votes:

HooskerDoo: InterruptingQuirk: Homophobia doesn't appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) either, but people toss that one around like it's a real word and disorder.

But it is a real word.


Then so is any word that we make up if we understand it's meaning and usage.
2014-01-01 11:01:36 AM  
1 votes:

FnkyTwn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

Most people are however really farking concerned that you can buy a gun without a background check or waiting period, or that you can buy 100 guns and NEVER HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM AGAIN, or that a Straw Purchaser is buying guns for convicted felons or people with restraining orders. The 'rational' stuff is much more realistic.


Lets go point by point here, shall we?
1.) You can? If you're referring to gun shows, perhaps people shouldn't be YELLING OUT THEIR FARKING MOUTH that this is a problem since these sales account for less that 1% of all crimes committed with a gun.
2.) Why does there need to be a waiting period?
3.) What accounting needs to be made for a gun after its purchase?
4) Straw purchases are illegal. It's a felony. If you do so, and the gun is used in a crime, you yourself become a felon.

So tell me, what justified fear is there other than the fact we have zero connection between background checks and mental health records, because I'm all for linking the two.
2014-01-01 10:55:29 AM  
1 votes:

HooskerDoo: hardinparamedic: AngryDragon: Already?  I see the hoplophobes are up early.

The word you are using is not found in the dictionary.

No word found in any dictionaries.

Well. We can certainly dismiss anyone who disagrees with your narrow world view with an imaginary word, can't we, Derpstegio.

It's a neologism coined by a gun nut to project his insecurities on to people who don't wank to firearms. It's thrown around by knuckle-draggers who want to appear intelligent.


Homophobia doesn't appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) either, but people toss that one around like it's a real word and disorder.
2014-01-01 10:50:55 AM  
1 votes:
Pro 2nd Peoples: Stop trying to change their minds, just set a good example and demonstrate responsibility through action and reasonable discourse.

Anti 2nd Peoples: You will never change the mind of those who believe the 2nd amendment is necessary for the security of a free state. Wiser folks than you decided this was best. I don't care if you are afraid. You should be more afraid of the car you drive or the air you breathe. My neighbor is an idiot. I'd prefer he didn't have guns or a drivers license, however I have no right to take that away just because it makes me uncomfortable.

Everyone: Stop being such a bunch of coonts, bickering about minor details while the country circles the drain, the economy is raped by the elite, and your children turn into self centered monsters. Focus on something more substantial than whether it is safer to have 30 rounds in a magazine or just 5.

Happy New Years!
2014-01-01 10:41:42 AM  
1 votes:

pueblonative: AngryDragon: pueblonative: I think in this moment of tragedy we should remember the rules when discussing this or any other gun tragedy:

Rule 1: It is "ghoulish" to suggest in any way that the easy availability of guns might in any way enable gun slaughter.
Rule 2: Gun crime in the president's hometown proves that guns anywhere else are no fit topic of conversation.
Rule 3: All gun owners are to be complimented as responsible and law-abiding until they personally have hurt themselves or somebody else
Rule 4: Any attempt to stop mass casualty shootings is "political." Allowing them to continue is"non-political."
Rule 5: Gun ownership is essential to freedom, as in Serbia & Guatemala. Gun restrictions lead to tyranny, as in Australia & Canada.

Carry on with your non political discussion, fellow militia member.

Already?  I see the hoplophobes are up early.

You guys would be much less terrified of gun owners if you would just go out and enjoy life a little.  It kind of looks like obsession.

Aww cute, conservatards using made up words to describe gun control and thinking they scored a killshot because it has a -phobe suffix.

Here's a cookie.


Can you name a word that isn't made up?
2014-01-01 10:38:52 AM  
1 votes:

Giltric: I can't prove he didn't do something?

Where have I heard that one before....oh yeah...from trolls.


Let's switch gears then since neither of us can prove our case with cold facts apart from a news story backing mine up and fairy dust for yours.  Let's ask ourselves this:  What is more believeable - a man who owned a gun & skinning shop have a many prosperous years without even once cutting up a corpse or selling a lethal weapon to someone with the intention of using it on other living things.  Or a man who gleefully sold these weapons and as a bonus offered discounts on creating the perfect cadaver souvenir of the murder's conquests?

Only an idiot would go with the first one, like morbidly stupid.  Sooo stupid they'd have to be an active fox news viewer.
2014-01-01 10:32:46 AM  
1 votes:

pueblonative: Giltric: pueblonative: I'd also want to make sure that if somebody was mentally ill or considered a threat that the law could at least remove the danger that he or she is to other people in society with those guns.

So you aren't really aware of the current laws that exist and you insist on even more laws that do the same thing that other laws do simply because you are ignorant of the law.


Is that a decent summation?

Because that is like 90% of the pro gun control crowd.

Yeah, it worked so well with James Holmes, didn't it.


His shrink was aware of what was going on, there were warning signs....but they never took the proper steps to report them....same with Cho..same with Laughner....Lanzas mom was trying to do something about her crazy kid but she did not do enough.

Who do you feel should have been responsible for reporting his behavior to the proper authorities?  Do we need a tank with empaths and Tom Cruise saving the day?

You don't even know the story other than he shot people....do you?
2014-01-01 10:32:27 AM  
1 votes:

pueblonative: AngryDragon: If you think that you can't be a victim of violent crime anywhere at anytime, or that law enforcement can protect you, you're delusional.

I've managed to live 35 years without being the victim of a violent crime, so that's one heck of a delusion.  I have no desire to have a gun or use a gun.  They're costly and I have better things to spend my time and money on.  But if I did, I'd want to make sure that the system made sure I was properly checked out and trained on how to use that weapon.  They made sure I had training before I got my driver's license, and a car isn't designed to kill anybody on purpose.  I'd also want to make sure that if somebody was mentally ill or considered a threat that the law could at least remove the danger that he or she is to other people in society with those guns.  Yeah, yeah, I know; he'll get his gun anyway by stealing it from a responsible gun owner who left it outside of the safe or he'll just use a lawnmower or a hammer to kill people.


Look, I agree that a background check is necessary for the legal purchase of a firearm.  The VAST majority of firearm crime is committed by people who acquired it illegally which means that additional restrictions on law abiding citizens are pointless.  You acknowledge that as well.  In the last 10 years, MILLIONS of civilians have started to carry firearms.  The violent crime rate has not gone up.  The simple fact is that law abiding citizens carrying firearms is simply not a problem.

Treat mental illness, address education and poverty, make people who commit crimes with firearms sit in jail forever, then you will do something about gun violence.
2014-01-01 10:25:55 AM  
1 votes:

pueblonative: I'd also want to make sure that if somebody was mentally ill or considered a threat that the law could at least remove the danger that he or she is to other people in society with those guns.


So you aren't really aware of the current laws that exist and you insist on even more laws that do the same thing that other laws do simply because you are ignorant of the law.


Is that a decent summation?

Because that is like 90% of the pro gun control crowd.
2014-01-01 10:24:08 AM  
1 votes:

Giltric: That's like saying a criminal is obviously guilty because he is black.


And?
2014-01-01 10:02:06 AM  
1 votes:

pueblonative: AngryDragon: pueblonative: Aww cute, conservatards using made up words to describe gun control and thinking they scored a killshot because it has a -phobe suffix.

Here's a cookie

Tell you what.  We'll let you kill em before they're born, we get to kill em when they become criminals.  Deal?

You gonna give them a cookie with that hot shot, clown?

Counter deal: if you want to go play soldier, you can sign up with the Armed Forces where they'll teach you responsible gun ownership and how owning the latest Bushmaster "man card" does not turn you into a Red Dawn Wolverine.  They'll even pay you.


A man was murdered.


What does this have to do with responsible gun ownership?

And he was murdered by a former law enforcement officer....the kind of guys who enforce gun grabbing legislation.

They guy was murdered by someone like you.
2014-01-01 09:45:40 AM  
1 votes:
Ugh. These threads always bring out the most embarrassing assclowns of gun owners.
2014-01-01 09:12:26 AM  
1 votes:

AngryDragon: pueblonative: I think in this moment of tragedy we should remember the rules when discussing this or any other gun tragedy:

Rule 1: It is "ghoulish" to suggest in any way that the easy availability of guns might in any way enable gun slaughter.
Rule 2: Gun crime in the president's hometown proves that guns anywhere else are no fit topic of conversation.
Rule 3: All gun owners are to be complimented as responsible and law-abiding until they personally have hurt themselves or somebody else
Rule 4: Any attempt to stop mass casualty shootings is "political." Allowing them to continue is"non-political."
Rule 5: Gun ownership is essential to freedom, as in Serbia & Guatemala. Gun restrictions lead to tyranny, as in Australia & Canada.

Carry on with your non political discussion, fellow militia member.

Already?  I see the hoplophobes are up early.

You guys would be much less terrified of gun owners if you would just go out and enjoy life a little.  It kind of looks like obsession.


Aww cute, conservatards using made up words to describe gun control and thinking they scored a killshot because it has a -phobe suffix.

Here's a cookie.
2014-01-01 08:33:51 AM  
1 votes:

pyrotek85: FTA: In November, Edmundson was charged with impersonating an officer after he detained juveniles he said were throwing corn at passing vehicles. Sources also said Edmunson used to work in law enforcement but he was let go.

Sounds like this guy might have had some issues, I'd like to hear why he was let go from the police force. Was he fired or laid-off?


It's a good thing those mental health reforms that Republicans posted up as an alternative to gun control are working out.

/Know it's a joke
//GOTP wouldn't do a goddamned thing about mental health in this country
///they'd lose half their vote.
2014-01-01 08:27:00 AM  
1 votes:
FTA: In November, Edmundson was charged with impersonating an officer after he detained juveniles he said were throwing corn at passing vehicles. Sources also said Edmunson used to work in law enforcement but he was let go.

Sounds like this guy might have had some issues, I'd like to hear why he was let go from the police force. Was he fired or laid-off?
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

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