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.

(CBS DC)   Time to reset that clock. UPDATE: Shooting suspect confirmed dead. Link to police briefing in article   (washington.cbslocal.com) divider line 569
    More: News, clocks, Howard County  
•       •       •

11753 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2014 at 12:45 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-25 04:22:12 PM

The_Sponge: cameroncrazy1984: The_Sponge: cameroncrazy1984: Sounds like Glock will have to manufacture a new magazine, then.


Nope....because Congress is not interested in passing ridiculous gun laws....like the ones you are suggesting.

Ridiculous? NY State passed a very similar gun law (actually, it went further than the one I suggested by banning certain types of features on certain weapons) and it was recently upheld as Constitutional. Doesn't seem so ridiculous to me.


If you want to talk about states, then I'm glad that my state (WA) doesn't have a bunch of bed-wetters like you to pass our firearms laws.

I'm sorry you hate The Bill of Rights.


Speaking of the Bill of Rights, by definition you should be OK with mandatory firearms training and yearly followup testing (including mental health and physical health exams as well as showing one can handle a firearm safely) as a condition of firearm ownership. :D

Please see my post above where I note that--both with the predecessor document to the Bill of Rights (the Articles of Confederation and particularly Article VI) and the immediate Militia Acts passed post-ratification of the (Second) Constitution and the Bill of Rights--that the legal intent of the Second Amendment was less "let any yahoo have a gun" and more "We want to make sure people can have a gun in case we have to call up a State Defense Force right now and we also expect the state will actually give training on how to use a military grade weapon and give weapons inspections and ensure the mad won't have access to a musket".  The legal intent was to form a state defense force similarly to Switzerland's mandatory enrollment of all men between 18 and 45 in state canton defense forces (complete with weapons supplied by canton army depots) and was expressed far more explicitly in the Articles of Confederation and the Militia Acts, and a good argument can be made that (short of declaring every person between 18 and 45 a member of the National Guard or state militia of their state and requiring a mandatory two-week vacation for military training for EVERYONE) the Founding Fathers would see things like mandatory weapons safety and training courses and background checks (akin to those you go through with a CCW permit or a Hunter Safety Course) more in line with what they intended.

Also note one major difference between then and now--at the time the Constitution was ratified and for a goodly period after (well past the Civil War in most cases) the modern concept of law enforcement or police didn't exist; "law enforcement" was the sheriff or the state governor rounding up a posse, LITERALLY.  Yes, just like in the Old West; up until very recently in Kentucky, sheriffs STILL had legal power to deputize people in the case of manhunts (a law that is a direct carryover from the days before modern law enforcement).
 
2014-01-25 04:32:25 PM

Kensey: Great Porn Dragon: Establish a national training program for use of firearms and require persons who wish to own a firearm to receive specific training including safety training and target training and to be certified by a trainer as being capable of safe use of a firearm.

No gun-rights supporter I know opposes training in principle as a good thing and something a smart gun owner will obtain.  The concern lies in the idea that training requirements could be raised to unrealistic levels, for example requiring gun owners to qualify as Expert in military shooting tests (I actually see anti-gun types trot this kind of thing out a lot, "well if you want a gun, just pass our 'simple little test', haw haw haw!").  There is also the point that self-defense typically happens at arm's length and does not involve actually firing the weapon, meaning you don't even have to be able to hit the broad side of a barn to effectively and safely defend yourself.

It's the same issue with broadening the mental-illness disqualification -- nobody wants crazies allowed to own guns (except some of the crazies), but there's concern that requirements could be written or interpreted to disqualify anyone on common prescription meds like Paxil or who have ever had a diagnosis of depression or PTSD from owning a gun, which would lead to a lot of otherwise-responsible people avoiding beneficial treatment instead of seeking it.  A formal declaration of mental incompetence can be abused but it's generally a reliable indicator that you're a good ways off the farm.


Hence in my proposal why I specified training equivalent to a CCW or Hunter Safety Course (in that you know how to handle a gun safely, and know how to properly aim at a target and in general handle firearms in a safe and effective manner for their use; full disclosure, I have multiple relatives and in-laws who've completed CCW courses in KY hence why I can say what is involved).

Also why I specifically noted "severe, untreated mental illness" and explicitly EXCLUDED things like a person with depression who is receiving successful treatment (i.e. in my proposal, no, you would NOT be disqualified just because you'd had a history of depression or were on Paxil; a RECENT history of suicidal ideation enough to get a psychiatrist talking about possible involuntary committment would be another thing).  Put more simply: Mental illness where there's a history of patient compliance with treatment and it seems to be working, they should be OK, a history where a patient has NOT been compliant and has a recent history of mental illness involving threats of harm to self or others definitely should be given a hairier eyeball, if someone has been Baker Acted within the past year or two and has actively refused to take their meds, no way should they have a firearm.

(And again, speaking from folks I've known with mental illnesses.  Obviously, not all mental illnesses are disqualifying and shouldn't be.  This is meant to prevent "No gun for you because you has teh Asperger's" and more of preventing Bad Things from happening in the case of someone who is actively bipolar or schizophrenic, has had to have the police called on them to Baker Act them because they've tried to kill themselves and/or others more than once, and refuses to take the drugs that--whilst they have shiatty side effects--generally keep the voices or manic highs and depressive lows to a dull roar.  And yes, I do agree with you that the laws should be carefully written in this regard.)
 
2014-01-25 04:33:30 PM
Muta

The shooter probably went there because the mall is a gun free zone. Had everyone been armed everyone would have been safe.

Nobody ever claimed that (aside from asshats on the left who believe dancing on graves scores political points), any more than people claim you are 100% safe once you put on a seat belt.


Both just give you a chance.
 
2014-01-25 04:35:55 PM
I'm ok with universal background checks in exchange for a repeal of the Hughes amendment and nationwide ccw reciprocity. I've mentioned this several times in these types of threads but I've never had an anti bite, they just respond with further impingements. Their disarmament agenda and monopolization of violence in the hands of the government are plain as day. What good little statists.
 
2014-01-25 04:36:55 PM
Can we PLEASE talk about banning gay marriage now?
 
2014-01-25 04:36:56 PM

Fark It: Police said one of the victims was found near a gun and ammunition.

In other words, by the time the doughnut munchers got there, the only thing left was for them to strut around and act like they matter.

They're heroes I tell you... gosh darn heroes
www.upl.co
 
2014-01-25 04:37:19 PM
I'm not distressed by firearms.  I'm highly distressed by morans or the ill with firearms.

Everyone believes in some form of firearm control.  It's just where the line is drawn that gets so many knickers in knots.
 
2014-01-25 04:55:54 PM
Gwendolyn

My kid is on a date at the AMC theater there right now. Sooo I'm freaking out quite a bit.
So your daughter is at a crime scene and your first move is see if you can score some political points and get a green-light on fark?

Love is grand.
 
2014-01-25 04:56:21 PM
So every sign in the world seems to point to a domestic issue gone horribly wrong, and CNN is still losing their got damn* minds over this.

Question: would there be this much attention if it had happened in their home, for example?

/*yes, I meant it exactly like that
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2014-01-25 04:59:53 PM

Doom MD: I'm ok with universal background checks in exchange for a repeal of the Hughes amendment and nationwide ccw reciprocity. I've mentioned this several times in these types of threads but I've never had an anti bite, they just respond with further impingements. Their disarmament agenda and monopolization of violence in the hands of the government are plain as day. What good little statists.


I agree with you. They say they want common sense and want to work with us. But they won't give anything as a trade for any law they want to pass. I agree you suggestion is fine by me as well. They will say they don't want to ban mall guns but keep talking about how great uk and Australia are. People who have banned guns.
 
2014-01-25 05:00:02 PM

Clutch2013: So every sign in the world seems to point to a domestic issue gone horribly wrong, and CNN is still losing their got damn* minds over this.

Question: would there be this much attention if it had happened in their home, for example?

/*yes, I meant it exactly like that


Come on man, thats not how you get website hits in a slow news day. Jeez get with it.
 
2014-01-25 05:02:30 PM
Great Porn Dragon, I like the proposal and in an ideal world, it would be a great compromise and acceptable to all.  The problem is we don't live in an ideal world.  With hundreds of millions of firearms already in circulation, any restriction would take time to have an effect.  In the meantime firearms would continue to be misused therefore triggering the scenario that Kensey suggested of misusing the law to actually restrict sales to everyone.   It is like the CCW permits in certain counties in California where theoretically they are available to the public, but the officials never actually issue them unless you know the Sheriff and other political figures and donate enough to their reelection that they allow you to have a permit while other counties have a more permissive issuing of permits if you meet the requirements.

Put it another way with a RL example, what about literacy requirements for voting so we can be sure the electorate can meaningfully participate.  These were common in the south and although on paper could be justified, were applied to restrict minority participation in voting.  A seemingly reasonable idea was perverted to become an unreasonable method to remove individuals from exercising their right. Given the diverse opinions firearms ownership and use, I could easily see a training, mental health, or other "reasonable" restrictions morph in certain states and jurisdictions to become a high hurdle that no one could meet.

I will give you another example.  In California, the legislature passed a law in 2007 that requires new handguns to incorporate microtagging the serial number, model, and make on any bullets fired from a weapon after the technology became viable (which was found this year) to facilitate law enforcement dealing with crime. While technically feasible, the technology is not economically viable and handgun makers are leaving the market instead of complying with law.  This "reasonable" restriction is driving companies from the market and will reduce consumer choices acting as an effective ban on many types of handguns.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/01/24/smith-wesso n -protests-california-gun-law/

The skepticism that firearms owners and those who want the freedom to purchase firearms have is that "reasonable" restrictions have a nasty habit of expanding so that they may become viewed as unreasonable and utilized to restrict the ability to meaningfully own weapons. That is not to say that no restrictions are acceptable, but the history of using restrictions to remove firearms from private ownership makes even the most benign new law subject to harsh criticism and skepticism. I wish this weren't true, but the opponents of gun ownership have only themselves to blame by overreaching when they have had the opportunity to impose new laws.
 
2014-01-25 05:03:26 PM
A picture of this thread:

crazycrashes.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-25 05:03:59 PM

Clutch2013: So every sign in the world seems to point to a domestic issue gone horribly wrong, and CNN is still losing their got damn* minds over this.

Question: would there be this much attention if it had happened in their home, for example?

/*yes, I meant it exactly like that


I know, right!  And would there be this much concern if it was a nerf gun and everyone was OK?  Sheesh!
 
2014-01-25 05:06:18 PM

Clutch2013: So every sign in the world seems to point to a domestic issue gone horribly wrong, and CNN is still losing their got damn* minds over this.

Question: would there be this much attention if it had happened in their home, for example?

/*yes, I meant it exactly like that


Yes, what if we knew what happened and it happened somewhere else? Would everything be the same?

Seems unlikely.
 
2014-01-25 05:06:24 PM

lordjupiter: Clutch2013: So every sign in the world seems to point to a domestic issue gone horribly wrong, and CNN is still losing their got damn* minds over this.

Question: would there be this much attention if it had happened in their home, for example?

/*yes, I meant it exactly like that

I know, right!  And would there be this much concern if it was a nerf gun and everyone was OK?  Sheesh!


I mean, when you think about it it's not much different from a few friends just duking it out.  Heck, a family dispute over who cleans the dishes.  A sleepover with kids pillowfighting.   A little gas from the dog.  Christmas gifts under the tree.  What's the problem?

/nothing to see here
 
2014-01-25 05:08:38 PM

OnlyM3: Gwendolyn

My kid is on a date at the AMC theater there right now. Sooo I'm freaking out quite a bit.So your daughter is at a crime scene and your first move is see if you can score some political points and get a green-light on fark?

Love is grand.


To the statist, only the government can respond to a crisis. We are powerless to their loving and all-powerful hand.
 
2014-01-25 05:08:50 PM
HeadLever: 
Not always

Yes we can always count on someone to post the ONE guy who you can find video for with his custom rigs and 60 years posting in response to semi auto posts.

Soon the entire US military will be replaced by a 60 year old man with ear muffs and fancy target pistols.

or not

http://youtu.be/K1BraAJD0tk?t=1m

.
 
2014-01-25 05:12:16 PM

Daedalus27: Great Porn Dragon, I like the proposal and in an ideal world, it would be a great compromise and acceptable to all.  The problem is we don't live in an ideal world.  With hundreds of millions of firearms already in circulation, any restriction would take time to have an effect.  In the meantime firearms would continue to be misused therefore triggering the scenario that Kensey suggested of misusing the law to actually restrict sales to everyone.   It is like the CCW permits in certain counties in California where theoretically they are available to the public, but the officials never actually issue them unless you know the Sheriff and other political figures and donate enough to their reelection that they allow you to have a permit while other counties have a more permissive issuing of permits if you meet the requirements.

Put it another way with a RL example, what about literacy requirements for voting so we can be sure the electorate can meaningfully participate.  These were common in the south and although on paper could be justified, were applied to restrict minority participation in voting.  A seemingly reasonable idea was perverted to become an unreasonable method to remove individuals from exercising their right. Given the diverse opinions firearms ownership and use, I could easily see a training, mental health, or other "reasonable" restrictions morph in certain states and jurisdictions to become a high hurdle that no one could meet.

I will give you another example.  In California, the legislature passed a law in 2007 that requires new handguns to incorporate microtagging the serial number, model, and make on any bullets fired from a weapon after the technology became viable (which was found this year) to facilitate law enforcement dealing with crime. While technically feasible, the technology is not economically viable and handgun makers are leaving the market instead of complying with law.  This "reasonable" restriction is driving companies from the market and will reduce consumer choices acting as an effective ban on many types of handguns.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/01/24/smith-wesso n -protests-california-gun-law/

The skepticism that firearms owners and those who want the freedom to purchase firearms have is that "reasonable" restrictions have a nasty habit of expanding so that they may become viewed as unreasonable and utilized to restrict the ability to meaningfully own weapons. That is not to say that no restrictions are acceptable, but the history of using restrictions to remove firearms from private ownership makes even the most benign new law subject to harsh criticism and skepticism. I wish this weren't true, but the opponents of gun ownership have only themselves to blame by overreaching when they have had the opportunity to impose new laws.


...microtagging all that information on fired bullets?

Um, how does that work exactly, especially when the bullet hits something that deforms or destroys it?

/I'm for reasonable restrictions myself, but that sounds like bullshiat
 
2014-01-25 05:13:46 PM
Sorry Clutch2013, the shell casing.  Putting that on the bullet would likely lead to it being destroyed.
 
2014-01-25 05:14:36 PM
CNN just ran a graphic summarizing the different university shooting incidents from the past week, including the one at "Perdue"
 
2014-01-25 05:16:26 PM

Pichu0102: Can we talk about handgun control yet, or will that cause the NRA to completely shiat themselves? At the very least, figure out some way to reduce the new guns:destroyed or unusable ratio so that we have less new guns being made than than those that are destroyed due to various reasons. Starve supply a bit, and raise the prices on them. Cheap available guns are a blight on poor neighborhoods.


But why? Virginia, right next door, has seen gun crime  decrease because of increased gun sales:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/va-gun-crime-drops- ag ain-as-firearm-sales-soar/article_a9a3cd36-dc50-5192-9b97-e14258e6168a .html

Meanwhile, Maryland has issues like this, because they are generally hostile toward guns and legal gun owners, first by charging a homeowner for murder when some guy kicks his door in at 2am and he shoots him:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/maryland-man-matthew-pin ke rton-faces-murder-charge-after-shooting-intruder

Then by harassing an out of state driver because he has a legal concealed carry permit:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/17/Florida-Gun-Owner -W ith-No-Gun-Pulled-Over-Searched-And-Humiliated-In-Maryland

Getting rid of legal gun owners' rights is not going to stop incidents like this. So no, taking away our Constitutional rights is not the answer. Remember, criminal love gun control because it makes their job safer.
 
2014-01-25 05:17:16 PM

Daedalus27: Sorry Clutch2013, the shell casing.  Putting that on the bullet would likely lead to it being destroyed.


That's only marginally better. I'd still like an explanation as to how it works without losing the tag when the gun's fired.
 
2014-01-25 05:18:29 PM
dang, I bought some skateboard trucks there back in July. I'm curious to see which employees were killed.
 
2014-01-25 05:24:46 PM

Clutch2013: Daedalus27: Sorry Clutch2013, the shell casing.  Putting that on the bullet would likely lead to it being destroyed.

That's only marginally better. I'd still like an explanation as to how it works without losing the tag when the gun's fired.



My guess would be you imprint the info after the bullet is fired as the shell is being ejected.  I guess they could maybe redesign the firing pin to perhaps place the info as it strikes the bullet.  I don't know for certain and it would seem to be subject to quite a bit of problems in maintaining a working weapon while at the same time making the mark meaningful to law enforcement. Either way although the technology is theoretically possible, it certainly isn't commercially viable to have firearms manufacturers to modify future designs solely for a single market hence they are pulling out as guns fall off the approved list anytime the existing design is modified.
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2014-01-25 05:25:38 PM

Clutch2013: Daedalus27: Sorry Clutch2013, the shell casing.  Putting that on the bullet would likely lead to it being destroyed.

That's only marginally better. I'd still like an explanation as to how it works without losing the tag when the gun's fired.


The firing pin micro imprints on the primer of the shell casing. Not only will the imprinting wear off the firing pin over time it can be filed off. Even replaced in 5 min. This has not stopped them from making such a crazy law. So any new firearms pistols must have this technology installed. If not it's banned from sales in California. Since it's very expensive it will never happen. So they effectively created a ban on all new pistols.
.find_in_page{background-color:#ffff00 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}.findysel{background-color:#ff9632 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}
 
2014-01-25 05:25:46 PM

ultraholland: dang, I bought some skateboard trucks there back in July. I'm curious to see which employees were killed.


CNN just gave the names and then went right back into a stereotypical gun control debate.
 
2014-01-25 05:25:51 PM

Clutch2013: Daedalus27: Sorry Clutch2013, the shell casing.  Putting that on the bullet would likely lead to it being destroyed.

That's only marginally better. I'd still like an explanation as to how it works without losing the tag when the gun's fired.


The information is micro-engraved onto the firing pin, thus being transferred to the primer when fired.  I know we have at least one 'Farker (sorry - don't remember the handle) involved in the industry.

Problem is - it doesn't work very well under the best of circumstances.  The engravings wear down over repeated use, primers aren't the best medium for stamping information onto, and it doesn't work at all if the shooter is using a revolver or has the time/presence of mind to pick up the brass.
 
2014-01-25 05:26:59 PM

SRD: This ones scary please close your eyes for the firearms sensitive.


Mama likey.

Now, let's have a quick conversation about your choice in revolver, sir/madame.

Too big, clunky and bulky for sensible carry. May I politely recommend the S-W .38 snub with single-action hammer?
 
2014-01-25 05:28:02 PM

ultraholland: dang, I bought some skateboard trucks there back in July. I'm curious to see which employees were killed.


The latest updates to TFA in link say:

"Two of the victims -  Brianna Benlolo, 21, of College Park, Md. and Tyler Johnson, 25, of Ellicott City, Md. -were skate shop employees, police said "
 
2014-01-25 05:28:17 PM

lordjupiter: ultraholland: dang, I bought some skateboard trucks there back in July. I'm curious to see which employees were killed.

CNN just gave the names and then went right back into a stereotypical gun control debate.


Or maybe it was names of injured, I only caught the end
 
2014-01-25 05:30:42 PM

Clutch2013: Daedalus27: Sorry Clutch2013, the shell casing.  Putting that on the bullet would likely lead to it being destroyed.

That's only marginally better. I'd still like an explanation as to how it works without losing the tag when the gun's fired.


the firing pin micro-imprints something on the primer when the bullet is fired, or something like that . . . so the empty shell casing can be tied to the gun. solution: use a revolver -- no shell casings to litter the crime scene. the DC police test-fire every weapon a civilian registers so that they can "match" the marks found on a fired bullet picked up at a crime scene with their library.  solution: clean your barrel, or use frangible ammo.
 
2014-01-25 05:35:38 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: mschwenk: Do you need a computer, or a TV, or a cup of coffee?

I'm seriously asking.  What purpose is there, other than "it's fun to shoot at stuff (fair enough)" or "because I want it", or preparing for some attack in which you'll surely be lauded as a hero?  When so much damage can be done by those who pick "shoot other people" as a reason, why can't you accomplish whatever purpose you have with something else?  That might be a bit slower?  So that way someone with a nefarious purpose (not any of you, of course, you're all sane and responsible) might kill just a few less people before the cops show up?  Or have to reload a bit more often, providing a chance to stop him (or I guess her)?

I was in college after 9/11.  We had multiple labs delayed and one facility closed entirely because of tightened security.  Yep, the professors definitely had the right to access the materials they needed to do the research they were doing.  But because a dumbass could do real damage, they worked within the new system, had backup labs prepared, etc.

Could a asshole intent on hurting other humans still obtain those materials or their equivalents from other places?  Yeah.  But it would take a lot more effort for something nowhere near as damaging.


Arson. My goodness arson is so much deadlier in terms of raw body count. Why do the people we currently call "mass shooters", the shock jocks of the homicide world, use firearms? Could it be the American media fetish/taboo dichotomy which elevates a simple metal tool to proportions of a totem of violence? It's terrible, but I'm pretty sure a good number of those mass shootings would have been much worse as a calculated arson. There are no checks or limits on obtaining many flammable chemicals and a means and location of using them for harm. Why is this acceptable to you? Why is it not?
 
2014-01-25 05:41:49 PM

storm16: Pichu0102: Can we talk about handgun control yet, or will that cause the NRA to completely shiat themselves? At the very least, figure out some way to reduce the new guns:destroyed or unusable ratio so that we have less new guns being made than than those that are destroyed due to various reasons. Starve supply a bit, and raise the prices on them. Cheap available guns are a blight on poor neighborhoods.

But why? Virginia, right next door, has seen gun crime  decrease because of increased gun sales:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/va-gun-crime-drops- ag ain-as-firearm-sales-soar/article_a9a3cd36-dc50-5192-9b97-e14258e6168a .html

Meanwhile, Maryland has issues like this, because they are generally hostile toward guns and legal gun owners, first by charging a homeowner for murder when some guy kicks his door in at 2am and he shoots him:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/maryland-man-matthew-pin ke rton-faces-murder-charge-after-shooting-intruder

Then by harassing an out of state driver because he has a legal concealed carry permit:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/17/Florida-Gun-Owner -W ith-No-Gun-Pulled-Over-Searched-And-Humiliated-In-Maryland

Getting rid of legal gun owners' rights is not going to stop incidents like this. So no, taking away our Constitutional rights is not the answer. Remember, criminal love gun control because it makes their job safer.


Criminals' guns don't spawn from a void, you know.
 
2014-01-25 05:45:09 PM

Nemo's Brother: To the statist, only the government can respond to a crisis.


To the anarchist, only individuals can should respond to a crisis.
 
2014-01-25 05:47:19 PM
The girl that was killed was a young mom.

And pretty cute, so expect at least a week or so of news coverage.
 
2014-01-25 05:48:03 PM
Cops have a robot in there checking the shooter for booby-traps like he's the Joker.
 
2014-01-25 05:48:50 PM

Pichu0102: Criminals' guns don't spawn from a void, you know.


Neither does cocaine or heroin.
 
2014-01-25 05:49:56 PM
We need all gay police force.
 
2014-01-25 05:50:20 PM

Triumph: Cops have a robot in there checking the shooter for booby-traps like he's the Joker.


If you had a set of $500 coasters, you'd use them every time you had iced tea.
 
2014-01-25 05:51:43 PM

plutoniumfeather: Clutch2013: Daedalus27: Sorry Clutch2013, the shell casing.  Putting that on the bullet would likely lead to it being destroyed.

That's only marginally better. I'd still like an explanation as to how it works without losing the tag when the gun's fired.

the firing pin micro-imprints something on the primer when the bullet is fired, or something like that . . . so the empty shell casing can be tied to the gun. solution: use a revolver -- no shell casings to litter the crime scene. the DC police test-fire every weapon a civilian registers so that they can "match" the marks found on a fired bullet picked up at a crime scene with their library.  solution: clean your barrel, or use frangible ammo.


Well, DC's approach sounds a good bit better than California's.

And just out of rampant curiosity (because I'm not terribly comfortable with discussing ways to circumvent laws), wouldn't cleaning the barrel on a gun not have much impact if the gun were brand new or only mildly dirty, i.e. stuff that would probably leave with a bullet instead of staying behind on the gun?
 
2014-01-25 05:55:42 PM

Triumph: Cops have a robot in there checking the shooter for booby-traps like he's the Joker.


To their credit, he always did carry a couple hand grenades.

i39.tinypic.com
 
2014-01-25 05:58:07 PM

zamboni: cameroncrazy1984: zamboni: Kensey: Dimensio: fluffy2097: KIA: Didn't Maryland just make all that shiat illegal?  What a bunch of criminals!

It's almost as if criminals were people who didn't follow the law!

/We should make a law to stop them.

Obviously, current firearm laws are insufficient. The state recently enacted an "assault weapons ban"; that this incident occurred is demonstration that the "ban" should be expanded to all semi-automatic rifles.

Difficulty: the shooter apparently used a shotgun.

It matters not one whit. There is a time for action and a time for thinking... and this, my friends, is no time for thinking.

You're right! We should slowly think about things while we continually reset the clock on when it is time to talk about reasonable gun legislation in this country.

We already have reasonable gun legislation. The issue on the table is now unreasonable, draconian gun legislation.

We have two people shot in a country of... approaching 320 million... and it's time to wet our pants in fear. Unreal.



Reasonable gun legislation would include background checks and waiting periods, at the very least. The fact that the bill proposing any background checks at all failed out the gate is a horrifying testament to our passivity about this.

And what kind of reasoning is that?  "Oh come on, only 2 people were brutally shot dead. Only 2. Why are you getting upset?" What the fark is wrong with people to think that?
 
2014-01-25 06:01:57 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Pichu0102: Can we talk about handgun control yet, or will that cause the NRA to completely shiat themselves? At the very least, figure out some way to reduce the new guns:destroyed or unusable ratio so that we have less new guns being made than than those that are destroyed due to various reasons. Starve supply a bit, and raise the prices on them. Cheap available guns are a blight on poor neighborhoods.

News reports say it was a shotgun.


What difference does that make. Now is not the time to talk about mall control.
 
2014-01-25 06:03:13 PM

nekom: Now isn't the time to talk about gun violence again.


No one needs a mall.
 
2014-01-25 06:03:38 PM

Parthenogenetic: The liberal mainstream media never covers the millions of times when law-abiding armed citizens go to malls and movie theaters and don't shoot anybody.

Go ahead and panic, sheeple.  The regime and its media allies want you to think we're the enemy, but we're the thin line of heroes that separates you from tyranny.


Farking listen to yourself. I can hear the bloodlust from here.
 
2014-01-25 06:04:31 PM

super_grass: fluffy2097: Kit Fister: This just in, farked up people do farked up things. Film at 11.

/exhibit A: the Politics tab

Breaking news. Social unrest on the rise. Scientists unsure if the rise in violence is attributed to; A widening gap between rich and poor, A lack of affordable education, over a decade of being at war, Gang activity, Racial tensions, drug use, video games, a lack of decent healthcare, increased unemployment, global warming, Gender inequality, or listening to Maralyn Manson.

/It's more about why WOULDN'T you want to kill a bunch of people and then yourself these days.
//Permanent solutions to temporary problems. The American way.

Violent crime and crime in general has been plummeting:


Which makes the media's obsession with various crime "epidemics" all the more troubling.


Words and pictures.
 
2014-01-25 06:05:46 PM

super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: But what actually happened isn't important. It's how we must feel. We need to feel outraged, we need to feel that something must be done, we need to demand immediate action regardless of detractors who want us to get off the emotional high and strike while the iron is hot.

That's what matters.

Awesome strawman, dude.

No, it's not a strawman.

Don't you just feel the burning urge to remind people in every gun thread that this could have been a classroom full of children? Don't you think about all the ways that you can massacre innocents in intricate scenarios with all the weapons that the government is too lazy to ban or restrict from you?

This is not about petty constitutional hair splitting or arcane statistics or technical functionalities guns. This is about making sure that nobody has the means to make the worst things that you can possibly imagine a person can possibly do into reality.


So, more abortions? Would that make you happy?
 
2014-01-25 06:07:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Fark It: You said "high capacity" magazines are not vital for self-defense.  I did not ask you why cops used firearms, I asked you why they use "high capacity magazines" when they aren't vital for self-defense.

Because they use firearms in other applications than self-defense. I don't know how I could've made that any more clear. It's like asking why the Army uses high-capacity magazines when they aren't vital for self-defense.


So murder? What are the other applications?
 
2014-01-25 06:09:27 PM

Triumph: Cops have a robot in there checking the shooter for booby-traps like he's the Joker.


If you get all dressed up to go to the dance you're going to want to boogie.
 
Displayed 50 of 569 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report