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.

(Talking Points Memo)   SC Gov "Nikki" Haley: let people carry guns without any training or permits, even in bars? Sure, why not? I mean really, what's the worst that could happen?   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 232
    More: Dumbass, South Carolina, Nikki Haley, business license, Beretta  
•       •       •

1458 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2014 at 12:54 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-12 02:33:53 PM  

justtray: I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars.


Here you go, man.
 
2014-02-12 02:34:05 PM  

DrBenway: justtray: No, I need to see data that shows that just because someone acts like a jackass it means they're going to shoot someone. I don't personally equate being a douche with murder. Additionally, having seen and been in a few bar fights myself, having had a dozen stitches in my forehead from being hit with 'something,' I don't personally consider the availability of a gun to necessarily be more dangerous in that situation than not. At the very least I'd like data that shows that it is. I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars. To me it seems like people just want to beat eachother, not kill

Well now, if "something" happens to be a bullet, I'm guessing stitches in your forehead won't be doing you a whole lot of good. But you're apparently okay with that possibility so here's to you. Skoal, brother.



Ah yes, the "getting shot by a gun is the exact same as being hit by a pool cue, because either could kill you" argument.

Of course, the follow up is: lets assume that you're being forced to cage fight a person.  Would you rather fight a person with a gun, or a person with a pool cue?
 
2014-02-12 02:34:37 PM  

justtray: Saiga410: justtray: Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.

Is there a state that prevents businesses from disallowing firearms from  the premises?

I honestly don't know. But I wouldn't be surpirsed, and if there is, I disagree. I vaguely remember some arguments on here about how certain area men think that their 2nd amendment right is unlimited thus they just ignore "no guns" signs as non enforcable. Which is why I brought it up.


And  the folks that enter a marked premise carrying but are later found out should be charged with criminal traspass.
 
2014-02-12 02:35:45 PM  

Dimensio: I have merely requested an assessment of the damage caused by concealed weapons permit holders. I have made no statement regarding the feasibility of an insurance system for such individuals.


Translation: "Aww, come on! Come down this rabbit hole with me!  It'll be fun!"
 
2014-02-12 02:38:02 PM  

The Name: Dimensio: I have merely requested an assessment of the damage caused by concealed weapons permit holders. I have made no statement regarding the feasibility of an insurance system for such individuals.

Translation: "Aww, come on! Come down this rabbit hole with me!  It'll be fun!"


Dishonestly misrepresenting my position is not logically equivalent to a stated assessment of damage. While I understand that the two concepts can be confusing to individuals with a poor comprehension of reality, they are in fact distinct.
 
2014-02-12 02:43:51 PM  
In a few years time, every state up there will at least be shall-issue.

I'm not sure I believe that.

/Maryland resident
// Massachusetts citizen.
 
2014-02-12 02:47:33 PM  
My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country
 
2014-02-12 02:47:33 PM  

Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?

I mean required gun insurance would probably run afoul of a court challenge anyway.


Why would you think that?  Let me guess - "because second amendment is absolute whaaargarrrbl."


Well no. If there were any kind of feasibility or merit to the measure, one would think that it wold have been applied to hunting licenses long ago. There are 2x as many hunters as there are CCW holders (last time I read the DOJ and FWS numbers). The only hunting insurance I'm aware of is for people who allow hunting on their land (ie preserves, farmers et al). The NRA does offer liability insurance for self-defense but I can't find any numbers for it. You'd also have to bridge the difference between permit itself and the firearm(s). You don't need insurance to get a driver's license.

But thanks for guessing. I suspect the fact the 2nd amendment, though not absolute, would be a large barrier to implementing it. Courts have held that training other requirements (non-felon, non drug abuser et al) are fine. They've also held that unneccessarily difficult regulations cannot -- heavy training requirements but no ranges or instructors inside city limits, no gun stores in city limits, no transfer, et al.

I'm sure someone can bring the legalese into it. One of them Fark GED guys for sure.
 
2014-02-12 02:51:08 PM  

redmid17: If there were any kind of feasibility or merit to the measure, one would think that it wold have been applied to hunting licenses long ago.


Yeah, because it's not like gun enthusiasts actually lobby to prevent gun control or anything.
 
2014-02-12 02:53:06 PM  

The Name: redmid17: If there were any kind of feasibility or merit to the measure, one would think that it wold have been applied to hunting licenses long ago.

Yeah, because it's not like gun enthusiasts actually lobby to prevent gun control or anything.


If you actually knew anything about the NRA prior to the late 1970s, this would be a good time to show it. However if you don't or won't take 30 seconds to google it, keep digging yourself deeper. It is amusing and my afternoon is going slowly.
 
2014-02-12 02:53:48 PM  

Dimensio: The Name: Dimensio: I have merely requested an assessment of the damage caused by concealed weapons permit holders. I have made no statement regarding the feasibility of an insurance system for such individuals.

Translation: "Aww, come on! Come down this rabbit hole with me!  It'll be fun!"

Dishonestly misrepresenting my position is not logically equivalent to a stated assessment of damage. While I understand that the two concepts can be confusing to individuals with a poor comprehension of reality, they are in fact distinct.


Okay, C3PO.  But I should point out that I wasn't representing your position -I was representing your mode of argumentation.  They're two different things.
 
2014-02-12 02:54:59 PM  

The Name: justtray: I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars.

Here you go, man.


Link 1 - The bar was closed at the time.
Link 2 - It happened around 4 a.m. in the parking lot of Flashbacks Sports Bar
Link 3 -  Witnesses then saw that unidentified man walk out of the bar, grab a gun from his vehicle and shoot Richard once in the head, according to Sheriff's Office.
Link 4 - Bartender shoots man in self defense, no charges filed.

I guess one-half out of four isn't too bad. It's not a passing grade, but you get effort for trying. You'll have to work harder though to show that guns in bars cause any extra harm. None of these fit that criteria at all.
 
2014-02-12 02:55:07 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: If there were any kind of feasibility or merit to the measure, one would think that it wold have been applied to hunting licenses long ago.

Yeah, because it's not like gun enthusiasts actually lobby to prevent gun control or anything.

If you actually knew anything about the NRA prior to the late 1970s, this would be a good time to show it. However if you don't or won't take 30 seconds to google it, keep digging yourself deeper. It is amusing and my afternoon is going slowly.


The 70s ended 44 years ago, dude.
 
2014-02-12 02:57:44 PM  

Masso: Of course, let people carry guns into the bar, provided that they don't drink.

Gun crazed people that want to drink will eagerly leave the gun behind and most likely to get drunk will behave very rationale and responbisbly.


The other option is the equivalent of banning anyone from driving a car to a bar because some people will drink and drive.  You criminalize the behavior you want to end, not one possible intermediate step that may lead to that behavior.  Banning people from carrying at bars will do nothing to stop Billy-Bob from strapping on a gun and getting shiat faced at his buddy's house then wandering around town.  As long as the level of intoxication in the law is reasonable, possibly the same as for a DUI charge, I would think that a carrying a firearm while intoxicated law would be fairly easy to pass.
 
2014-02-12 02:59:13 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: If there were any kind of feasibility or merit to the measure, one would think that it wold have been applied to hunting licenses long ago.

Yeah, because it's not like gun enthusiasts actually lobby to prevent gun control or anything.

If you actually knew anything about the NRA prior to the late 1970s, this would be a good time to show it. However if you don't or won't take 30 seconds to google it, keep digging yourself deeper. It is amusing and my afternoon is going slowly.

The 70s ended 44 years ago, dude.


Yes. How long do you think hunting licenses and wildlife management programs have been around?
 
2014-02-12 02:59:47 PM  

StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country



I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.
 
2014-02-12 03:00:33 PM  

Saiga410: justtray: Saiga410: justtray: Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.

Is there a state that prevents businesses from disallowing firearms from  the premises?

I honestly don't know. But I wouldn't be surpirsed, and if there is, I disagree. I vaguely remember some arguments on here about how certain area men think that their 2nd amendment right is unlimited thus they just ignore "no guns" signs as non enforcable. Which is why I brought it up.

And  the folks that enter a marked premise carrying but are later found out should be charged with criminal traspass.


I absolutely agree with this. Or wreckless endangerment.
 
2014-02-12 03:00:42 PM  
StopLurkListen

But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

At the risk of sounding tasteless: shoot.

More seriously, I don't think Carolinians carrying firearms into bars or whatever will help or hurt your child's school to respond appropriately to a carjacking elsewhere.
 
2014-02-12 03:00:51 PM  

The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.


Probably because it's a blatant troll.
 
2014-02-12 03:03:04 PM  

redmid17: The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.

Probably because it's a blatant troll.


Yeah, and we all know that trolls NEVER get any hits on Fark.
 
2014-02-12 03:05:05 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The Name: StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.

Probably because it's a blatant troll.

Yeah, and we all know that trolls NEVER get any hits on Fark.


It did get a hit.

The Name: I notice that none of our brave, patriotic militiamen in here have had the courage to reply to this post.

 
2014-02-12 03:08:31 PM  

redmid17: It did get a hit.


Your sarcasm detector must be broken.

But anyway -Dimensio, redmid17, DoomMD, Frank N Stein, there's a gun-grabber here who needs to be set straight on the facts about guns and crime!
 
2014-02-12 03:08:35 PM  

Chummer45: DrBenway: justtray: No, I need to see data that shows that just because someone acts like a jackass it means they're going to shoot someone. I don't personally equate being a douche with murder. Additionally, having seen and been in a few bar fights myself, having had a dozen stitches in my forehead from being hit with 'something,' I don't personally consider the availability of a gun to necessarily be more dangerous in that situation than not. At the very least I'd like data that shows that it is. I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars. To me it seems like people just want to beat eachother, not kill

Well now, if "something" happens to be a bullet, I'm guessing stitches in your forehead won't be doing you a whole lot of good. But you're apparently okay with that possibility so here's to you. Skoal, brother.


Ah yes, the "getting shot by a gun is the exact same as being hit by a pool cue, because either could kill you" argument.

Of course, the follow up is: lets assume that you're being forced to cage fight a person.  Would you rather fight a person with a gun, or a person with a pool cue?


Well, he's never heard of such a thing happening, so why isn't that good enough for you? Personally, I've always tried to make it a point to keep out of bar fights, but what do I know?
 
2014-02-12 03:10:21 PM  

Saiga410: Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.

OK but none of that training is required by law.  Proficiency and knowledge of the laws surrounding driving a car maybe but the rest.... nope not seeing your point.



The point is, training is not required to operate a tool, but even the most potato can see the benefits of handling said tool safely.
 
2014-02-12 03:11:38 PM  
And for the general education of the thread, hunting licenses and wildlife management programs have been around for more than a century. That's why populations of deer, elk, wolves, turkeys, geese, and pretty much any other threatened species have been rebounding.  If there had ever been good reason to have hunting license insurance for the hunter, it would have happened sometime between the early 1900s and late 70s when the NRA transformed from solely a sportsmen's organization and the sportsmen/lobby organization* that it is today. Per conjecture on my parts, but I'd imagine there are far more bullets fired during a hunting season in the smallest state than there are bullets fired in self-defense for the whole country in a year.

* yes I realize the NRA and the NRA-ILA are separate
 
2014-02-12 03:12:44 PM  

The Name: redmid17: It did get a hit.

Your sarcasm detector must be broken.

But anyway -Dimensio, redmid17, DoomMD, Frank N Stein, there's a gun-grabber here who needs to be set straight on the facts about guns and crime!


It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm. Given your track record in the thread, I opted for the former.
 
2014-02-12 03:18:49 PM  

redmid17: It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm.


Wait a minute . . . so I say something that, taken without sarcasm, would have supported your argument, i.e. that that post did not get any replies because it was a troll, with the implication that people on Fark tend to ignore trolls; however, taken WITH sarcasm, it would have been a retort not only supporting my argument (that, knowing Fark, this "troll" should have received some hits by now), but also would have been characteristic of the way I have replied to you throughout this thread and others --and you couldn't tell which one it was?

You lack the capacity to glean from context even the most superficial meanings of everyday statements, and I'M the stupid one?
 
2014-02-12 03:25:18 PM  

The Name: redmid17: It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm.

Wait a minute . . . so I say something that, taken without sarcasm, would have supported your argument, i.e. that that post did not get any replies because it was a troll, with the implication that people on Fark tend to ignore trolls; however, taken WITH sarcasm, it would have been a retort not only supporting my argument (that, knowing Fark, this "troll" should have received some hits by now), but also would have been characteristic of the way I have replied to you throughout this thread and others --and you couldn't tell which one it was?

You lack the capacity to glean from context even the most superficial meanings of everyday statements, and I'M the stupid one?


Your Weeners I took as serious. The second one I took as sarcasm.

Not necessarily stupid, most likely ignorant.
 
2014-02-12 03:30:11 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm.

Wait a minute . . . so I say something that, taken without sarcasm, would have supported your argument, i.e. that that post did not get any replies because it was a troll, with the implication that people on Fark tend to ignore trolls; however, taken WITH sarcasm, it would have been a retort not only supporting my argument (that, knowing Fark, this "troll" should have received some hits by now), but also would have been characteristic of the way I have replied to you throughout this thread and others --and you couldn't tell which one it was?

You lack the capacity to glean from context even the most superficial meanings of everyday statements, and I'M the stupid one?

Your Weeners I took as serious. The second one I took as sarcasm.

Not necessarily stupid, most likely ignorant.


And your point was . . .?  That I was pointing out that this "troll" hadn't gotten any replies, and this was ironic because that very post was a reply to that "troll"?  Is that the earth-shattering, monumentally mind-blowing insight into the nature of reality that you were trying to make?
 
2014-02-12 03:37:08 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm.

Wait a minute . . . so I say something that, taken without sarcasm, would have supported your argument, i.e. that that post did not get any replies because it was a troll, with the implication that people on Fark tend to ignore trolls; however, taken WITH sarcasm, it would have been a retort not only supporting my argument (that, knowing Fark, this "troll" should have received some hits by now), but also would have been characteristic of the way I have replied to you throughout this thread and others --and you couldn't tell which one it was?

You lack the capacity to glean from context even the most superficial meanings of everyday statements, and I'M the stupid one?

Your Weeners I took as serious. The second one I took as sarcasm.

Not necessarily stupid, most likely ignorant.


As well you should. Serious weeners are serious. Anyone who hangs out in very many gun threads knows this well.
 
2014-02-12 03:40:13 PM  
NO.

If you are working with a weapon, YOU MUST TRAIN IN ITS USE, or you are a danger to EVERYONE AROUND YOU. This is not negotiable. If you want to have a weapon around other people, you MAY NOT POSE A DANGER TO THOSE AROUND YOU.
 
2014-02-12 03:45:57 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: It's often hard to tell the difference between stupid/ignorance posts and sarcasm.

Wait a minute . . . so I say something that, taken without sarcasm, would have supported your argument, i.e. that that post did not get any replies because it was a troll, with the implication that people on Fark tend to ignore trolls; however, taken WITH sarcasm, it would have been a retort not only supporting my argument (that, knowing Fark, this "troll" should have received some hits by now), but also would have been characteristic of the way I have replied to you throughout this thread and others --and you couldn't tell which one it was?

You lack the capacity to glean from context even the most superficial meanings of everyday statements, and I'M the stupid one?

Your Weeners I took as serious. The second one I took as sarcasm.

Not necessarily stupid, most likely ignorant.

And your point was . . .?  That I was pointing out that this "troll" hadn't gotten any replies, and this was ironic because that very post was a reply to that "troll"?  Is that the earth-shattering, monumentally mind-blowing insight into the nature of reality that you were trying to make?


If I thought your Weeners was serious, that would make you look less than intelligent. Your "sarcasm" was right in line with your uninformed posting on gun insurance, so you'll just have to accept my sincerest apology that I didn't read your mind on something I clearly identified as trolling.
 
2014-02-12 04:03:00 PM  

Isitoveryet: what about ninja stars & nunchaku?
are those legal to carry in SC?

shouldnt' there be a nonlethal alternative for citizens who would rather show off their wicked martial arts talents?


I would definitely want to be able to walk around town, enter bars and restaurants and the like while wearing a scabbard holding a nice cavalry saber. At least it makes the man look more polished and debonair.
 
2014-02-12 04:03:40 PM  

Saiga410: justtray: Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.

Is there a state that prevents businesses from disallowing firearms from  the premises?


Many states (California and Washington are two) say that signs regarding the prohibition of carrying concealed weapons by licensed holders carry no weight of law (i.e. you can't be arrested for having the firearm if otherwise licensed), but you can be arrested for trespassing if asked to leave by the shopkeeper and you refuse.
 
2014-02-12 04:05:16 PM  

dericwater: I would definitely want to be able to walk around town, enter bars and restaurants and the like while wearing a scabbard holding a nice cavalry saber. At least it makes the man look more polished and debonair.


the supreme court actually ruled against laws allowing this in 1988 after yokels across the nation ordered steaks at applebees just to declare "that's not a knife" at their waiter
 
2014-02-12 04:07:04 PM  
www.blogcdn.com

Well aren't you special.
 
2014-02-12 04:20:10 PM  

sprawl15: dericwater: I would definitely want to be able to walk around town, enter bars and restaurants and the like while wearing a scabbard holding a nice cavalry saber. At least it makes the man look more polished and debonair.

the supreme court actually ruled against laws allowing this in 1988 after yokels across the nation ordered steaks at applebees just to declare "that's not a knife" at their waiter


Are you saying that "arms" only refer to guns and gun-like weapons and not to weapons in general? Cavalry sabers were used in war, up to and including WWII (very ineffectively by then, to be sure). If they disallow swords but allow guns, I would think someone would raise a big stink.
 
2014-02-12 04:20:53 PM  

Magorn: guns kill and injure people in accidents and accidental discharges at a rate FAR higher than the rate they are used in self defense



If only this were remotely true.
 
2014-02-12 04:25:19 PM  

dericwater: sprawl15: dericwater: I would definitely want to be able to walk around town, enter bars and restaurants and the like while wearing a scabbard holding a nice cavalry saber. At least it makes the man look more polished and debonair.

the supreme court actually ruled against laws allowing this in 1988 after yokels across the nation ordered steaks at applebees just to declare "that's not a knife" at their waiter

Are you saying that "arms" only refer to guns and gun-like weapons and not to weapons in general? Cavalry sabers were used in war, up to and including WWII (very ineffectively by then, to be sure). If they disallow swords but allow guns, I would think someone would raise a big stink.


Well historically I'm pretty sure both are considered arms, but you also have to concealed carry vs open carry. Many states do not allow open carry outside of hunting season, and I've yet to find a way to conceal a 4 ft long saber and it be usable.
 
2014-02-12 04:33:51 PM  

Cataholic: Magorn: guns kill and injure people in accidents and accidental discharges at a rate FAR higher than the rate they are used in self defense


If only this were remotely true.


Guns are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide 
attempts. For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally 
justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, 
and 11 attempted or completed suicides
Kellermann, A. L., "Injuries and Deaths due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, 45:2 (1998):263-67 

note this is the 1998 study, not the 1993 one that NRA folks like to dismiss as "flawed"
 
2014-02-12 04:38:14 PM  

HK-MP5-SD: Masso: Of course, let people carry guns into the bar, provided that they don't drink.

Gun crazed people that want to drink will eagerly leave the gun behind and most likely to get drunk will behave very rationale and responbisbly.

The other option is the equivalent of banning anyone from driving a car to a bar because some people will drink and drive.  You criminalize the behavior you want to end, not one possible intermediate step that may lead to that behavior.  Banning people from carrying at bars will do nothing to stop Billy-Bob from strapping on a gun and getting shiat faced at his buddy's house then wandering around town.  As long as the level of intoxication in the law is reasonable, possibly the same as for a DUI charge, I would think that a carrying a firearm while intoxicated law would be fairly easy to pass.


Let's play a game:
A. Ford Focus
B. Jeep CJ-7
C. M1911
D. Volkswagen Jetta

Which of these
1) does not require a license and insurance for use in Arizona
2) is designed specifically to kill people
3) is asinine to have in public outside a combat zone, job requirement, or direct, specific threat to your person
?

Well?

Hint: This is Fark.
 
2014-02-12 04:38:53 PM  

Magorn: Cataholic: Magorn: guns kill and injure people in accidents and accidental discharges at a rate FAR higher than the rate they are used in self defense


If only this were remotely true.

Guns are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide 
attempts. For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally 
justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, 
and 11 attempted or completed suicides
Kellermann, A. L., "Injuries and Deaths due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, 45:2 (1998):263-67 

note this is the 1998 study, not the 1993 one that NRA folks like to dismiss as "flawed"


Flawed isn't really the best word for it. Outright fabrication and blatant data manipulation is more like it. Pardon me if I prefer the CDC review of existing literature to something Kellerman wrote.
 
2014-02-12 04:39:43 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Which of these
1) does not require a license and insurance for use in Arizona
2) is designed specifically to kill people
3) is asinine to have in public outside a combat zone, job requirement, or direct, specific threat to your person
?

Well?


all of the above
 
2014-02-12 04:39:59 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: HK-MP5-SD: Masso: Of course, let people carry guns into the bar, provided that they don't drink.

Gun crazed people that want to drink will eagerly leave the gun behind and most likely to get drunk will behave very rationale and responbisbly.

The other option is the equivalent of banning anyone from driving a car to a bar because some people will drink and drive.  You criminalize the behavior you want to end, not one possible intermediate step that may lead to that behavior.  Banning people from carrying at bars will do nothing to stop Billy-Bob from strapping on a gun and getting shiat faced at his buddy's house then wandering around town.  As long as the level of intoxication in the law is reasonable, possibly the same as for a DUI charge, I would think that a carrying a firearm while intoxicated law would be fairly easy to pass.

Let's play a game:
A. Ford Focus
B. Jeep CJ-7
C. M1911
D. Volkswagen Jetta

Which of these
1) does not require a license and insurance for use in Arizona
2) is designed specifically to kill people
3) is asinine to have in public outside a combat zone, job requirement, or direct, specific threat to your person
?

Well?

Hint: This is Fark.


1) A, B, C, D
2) B
3) More of an opinion than a multiple-choice question
 
2014-02-12 04:42:11 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 3) is asinine to have in public outside a combat zone, job requirement, or direct, specific threat to your person


add putting holes in paper at the range to that list please
 
2014-02-12 04:52:47 PM  
asinine to have in public outside a combat zone, job requirement, or direct, specific threat to your person?

Dermal is predjudiced on the issue. He's former military and has openly stated that his fondest dream is to be recalled so he can stomp those he deems redneck secessionists. Of course he doesn't want them to have a 1911 to put his jackbootiness in danger.
 
2014-02-12 04:55:42 PM  
At this point, gun threads on Fark are like groundhog's day.

Don't you guys get sick of arguing over the same dumb shiat all the time?
 
2014-02-12 04:57:39 PM  

StopLurkListen: My little girls' classroom spent an hour yesterday in the coat cubbies during a lockdown when there was a kidnapping/carjacking nearby. WHY? Because after Newtown, schools now can't just lock the doors, they have to make it appear as if the school room is empty. So they have to hide out of sight until there police call an all-clear.

Because some PSYCHO WITH A GUN SHOT UP A KINDERGARTEN. But can we have any reasonable discussion about restrictions on guns?

No, we just have to "train" our kids to be ready for a possible massacre in their school.

My baby girl woke up screaming at 3am.

I hate you gun nuts, you are everything that's wrong with this country


0/10  No other location "trains for a possible massacre".  Look into the mirror to see why your child is afraid.
 
2014-02-12 05:01:03 PM  
I knew a governor named Nikki
I guess u could say she was a gun fiend
I met her at an NRA meeting
Masturbating with AK-47 magazine
She said howd u like 2 waste some time
And I could not resist when I saw Gov. Nikki grind
 
2014-02-12 05:34:48 PM  

PsiChick: NO.

If you are working with a weapon, YOU MUST TRAIN IN ITS USE, or you are a danger to EVERYONE AROUND YOU. This is not negotiable. If you want to have a weapon around other people, you MAY NOT POSE A DANGER TO THOSE AROUND YOU.


I'm glad the politics tab's resident ditz has chimed in
 
Displayed 50 of 232 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report