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)   "It was... a good thing that [the Aurora shooter] had a 100-round magazine... If he had instead had... 15-round magazines, no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up." This is what the GOP actually believes   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 70
    More: Dumbass, GOP, morning, Colorado, radiation damages  
•       •       •

3769 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:30 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-02-13 01:01:58 PM  
7 votes:
While technically correct, this is a really stupid thing to say.  It would be a bit like if there were some freak car accident where a person was spared injury by not wearing a seat belt.  Just because it happened that time doesn't mean seat belts are a bad idea.
2014-02-13 03:35:37 PM  
6 votes:
thismodernworld.com
2014-02-13 03:47:11 PM  
5 votes:
woodgatesview.files.wordpress.com
2014-02-13 01:11:45 PM  
5 votes:
"good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.
2014-02-13 05:14:03 PM  
4 votes:

The Name: BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability

So a poor, uneducated, angry man with a soup spoon is just as dangerous as a poor, uneducated, angry man with an AK-47?

If he wasn't poor, uneducated and angry we wouldn't have a problem, would we?

Oh?  Is the gun rights movement going to start putting its money where its mouth is on this point?  Can we expect to see an "NRA March on Washington for Economic Justice" sometime soon?


I do, for one, as do several of my allies. We're working on a more widespread acceptance of a new model for coping with crime and violence as a holistic problem with the social order.

Gun control is the wrong argument. It is a sort of bait and switch topic. BOTH sides of the argument are essentially talking around one another, because the issue isn't guns. It's about violence, safety and crime.

We have a problem with violence in this country--both domestic and in the commission of a variety of crimes where violence is a tool to gain monetary advantage. There are then just the nutjobs who just want to hurt folks in a generalized sense for a variety of reasons that come back to the issue of mental health or deep persecution complexes and see violence as their only answer.

Gun control is a bait and switch topic, because it looks at symptoms, as opposed to the causes of violence. It looks at the tools, and opposed to real issue. The real issue is that folks see violence as a valid option. Be that against their wives, husbands, or neighbors, to "settle" an issue. It is about power, frustration, and feelings of helplessness in the face of a LOT of stress. Be that as a means to gain monetary advantage, or simply carry out their "business" which involves taking from others, or "protecting" their turf so that they can continue illegal operations, and enforce their will while engaged in activities that are likewise crimes. The tools themselves don't really matter--see England's gangland problem, or Japan's own gangs that have evolved beyond just the Yakuza--but rather that there are criminal elements that will do great violence to folks, because they see it as a valid option, and one where the risks justify the reward. In part, the reward for these criminals IS the reputation of being some bad motherf*ckers who are NOT to be messed with. This is a symptom of some problems in those societies as well.

We need to take a long, hard look at violence in this country. We need to. The root causes, the rising economic inequality, the stress of modern society, mental health care, economic factors, education, and social mobility opportunities. What is causing folks to turn to violence as something that they feel justified in committing. This is not a comfortable conversation. Violence like this is a symptom of failings within our society. Just as students' behavior is indicative of issues at home, our society likewise is giving us clear signs that all is NOT well. And we are focusing on the tools, as opposed to the reasons that folks commit these crimes. And we focus on the tools, because it's easier to get folks focused on the tools, as opposed to having the real conversation we should be having. The real conversation is stalled, and in fact, the public and officials are distracted from facing the real issues when you throw "gun control" out there, because it's a red herring. It's supposed to distract folks. It is a bait and switch, because no one really wants to talk about the real ills that we face.

We are in a time of great economic upheaval. Or rather, a lot of folks are facing economic uncertainty, while others are doing more than just fine, they're making out like bandits, and that leads to a certain degree of ire. We are facing a population with declining prospects, while some are doing very well, and that leads to some grim decisions. It leads to greater stress, it leads folks to feelings of helplessness, and we are surprised when folks act while under constant and enduring stressors? Frustration and constant fear for the future leads folks down some dark paths. Couple it with a crisis in mental health care, as well as folks uncertain how to even get help, and their ability to even think about paying for it, and you get a lot of folks who simply cannot get help, and a lot of folks who are turned out of a mental health care system that is over burdened already. We have a nation that is looking to lash out at somebody, and often they turn on whoever is closest, as opposed to turning that ire on someone responsible--and in fact those responsible for the plight of so many, REALLY want the conversation turned away from looking at the real issues, because if folks focused on the real issues, their gravy train would end, so it's better for folks to talk about something else entirely. Something like gun control, which only deals with symptoms, gets folks heated up, and pointed firmly away from the real issues that we face, and thus, they can continue doing what they do, and from behind firm walls, and in communities that are gated, locked away, and firmly out of the public eye, save to wave on occasion, and throw out a bone or two of hope that some of the peons may make it out, and get them skirmishing with one another for that chance, as opposed to wondering why they should be fighting so damn hard for table scraps.
2014-02-13 03:29:51 PM  
4 votes:
Fine. I'm all in favor of this representatives initiative to only sell magazines that are defective and jam regularly. That's what he's advocating, right?
2014-02-13 01:52:13 PM  
4 votes:

Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it  wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...


If you can guarantee that every high cap magazine will jam, then I'm sure nobody would have a problem with those.
2014-02-13 05:15:37 PM  
3 votes:

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.

You haven't shown that false at all. I'm not saying gun violence couldn't rise or drop due to other factors. We have more guns and consequently more gun deaths than any other developed country. It's not very complicated.

Yet, here you are stating that more guns won't lead to less crime. Notice, I never made any statement, but I ave gave you a real situation where that did happen. In the last twenty years in the US, the number of firearms owned has gone up, yet the homicide rate has dropped to half of what it was.

So, more guns did not cause more crime.  QED - your statement is false.That's not complicated at all.

Oh, and can you prove that more guns causes more crime? Do you have a citation for that as well?


I'll help him. Yes, I have a number of statistically valid studies that you will continue to ignore. I keep them just handy for idiots like yourself when you try to make this false argument.

More guns = more homicide http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
Guns in home increase risk of homicide and suicide http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
Intentional gun homicides outnumber justified homicides by 50:1, and suicides by 100:1
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

This doesn't even include the fact that the UK has 4x the rate of violent crime per capita as the united states while maintaining 4x lower rate of homicide per capita. I wonder what the difference is??? Spoiler - guns create more homicide, a LOT more.

Your turn. Time for you to post non causal, statistically invalid graphs that show crime going down due to Roe vs Wade and falsely attributing it to guns, or better yet trying to cherry pick the one country that has high rates of gun ownership but maintain low crime, while ignoring all examples to the contrary.

Or maybe youll just pretend like you didn't see this post. Your kind is soooooo predictable.
2014-02-13 03:18:30 PM  
3 votes:
I've never considered using poor craftsmanship as a way of expanding our purchasing options.  Can we let people buy cannons if they fail more than 75% of the time?  TNT if it fails more than 85% of the time?  Ricin so long as most of the batches don't really have much ricin in them?
2014-02-13 02:42:58 PM  
3 votes:

dittybopper: Actually, you don't even have to be all that determined: Happy Land Fire Guy was mad at his girlfriend, set the entrance to the club she was in on fire. Killed 87 people (girlfriend survived).


Yeah; those happen all the time and certainly represent the latest in building and fire codes.  That's why people keep bringing things up from the 50s and 30s and whatnot to show clearly that guns have no bearing on mass killing effectiveness.

Pretty weak for you especially.
2014-02-13 01:15:58 PM  
3 votes:

TheOnion: While technically correct, this is a really stupid thing to say.  It would be a bit like if there were some freak car accident where a person was spared injury by not wearing a seat belt.  Just because it happened that time doesn't mean seat belts are a bad idea.


Both the Aurora and the Tuscon shooters were using above normal capacity magazines.  They were both stopped when those magazines failed.  I'm not aware of any other mass shooters using above normal capacity magazines.

The VT shooter, on the other hand, used neutered 10 round magazines for his Glock.... and he's got the highest body count ever in a school shooting in the US.

Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.
2014-02-13 12:52:22 PM  
3 votes:
If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it  wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...
2014-02-13 05:36:04 PM  
2 votes:

The Name: BayouOtter: I do, for one, as do several of my allies.

Yeah, I get that every time I bring up that point, and I don't care what soup kitchens you and your gun club volunteer at.  I'll stop criticizing the movement --because that, not you, is what I am criticizing-- when Congress is just as afraid to vote against a raise in the minimum wage as it is to vote against gun control.


Part of the problem is that a lot of my fellow liberals cannot let go of gun-ban fantasies. There was a golden opportunity after Newtown when massive reforms to mental health care could have been passed with the threat of gun-related stuff happening. The odds of getting the Republicans to go along with that would have been much better than chasing after gun-bans, but they just refused to put it on the backburner. They threw away a real chance to actually accomplish something practical and progressive for a very long and expensive shot at something ineffective.

I mean I've sat down with some of these people and made a list, like so:
Gun control
Prison Reform
Justice System Reform.
Police Oversight
Health Care (Including Mental Health)
Fighting Poverty
Ending the Drug War
etc.
They will agree with me on everything but gun control, and I'll say something like "Okay, we agree that ten other things will make the world better for sure. We disagree on one thing. Lets put the one thing aside, let it be status quo, and get the other ten accomplished. Then come back to the one. That way we can stop wasting energy opposing each other and work together on things we agree will help everybody."

Almost every time I get declined. That is the crux of the problem.
2014-02-13 04:49:47 PM  
2 votes:

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?

Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.

Have you looked at the US homicide rate for the last twenty years, or the number of firearms legally owned?

Hint: One has gone up, while the other has gone down. Guess which is which.


You're not claiming causation, are you? Cause you're gonna need a mighty big cite for that.
2014-02-13 03:58:47 PM  
2 votes:

smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.


It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.

Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.
2014-02-13 03:50:53 PM  
2 votes:
If high capacity magazines actually make for a less effective weapon mechanism, why do gun advocates consider it important not to limit them?
2014-02-13 03:47:52 PM  
2 votes:

UrukHaiGuyz: They do make indiscriminate mass killing much, much easier, though.


to me the real question is always "what is the base issue" followed by "how do we reduce the instances of that issue". limiting the issue to only mass shootings, which are such a small percentage of gun deaths, strikes me as an incredibly silly way to approach things. one of the simplest and most effective ways to reduce the instances of gun deaths would be to legalize and regulate drugs and prostitution.

that the idea isn't something beaten into people's heads with a farking hammer every time these threads pop up shows that people are far more interested in political point scoring/shaming than actually fixing the issue
2014-02-13 03:32:14 PM  
2 votes:
Hmm, I wonder... Let's say we make 100 round magazines illegal, so the next nujob decides to buy an illegal one or construct his own.  I wonder if it's going to end up being more or less likely to jam than the commercially available 100-round magazines today.
2014-02-13 01:06:22 PM  
2 votes:
The 100-round C-Mags (beloved of mall ninjas and keyboard kommandos the world over) are a piece of shiat that jam far more often than the standard 20 or 30 round STANAG magazines.

The 82nd Airborne Division experimented with using stripped down M4s (the short M16s) with C-Mags as sort of a lightweight version of the M249 SAW (a heavier, belt-fed weapon that uses 200 or 100 round ammo packs) for mountain warfare in Afghanistan.  They jammed so often that they actually cancelled the testing early.  A shooter burning through multiple standard 30-round mags was able to put more rounds on target than a guy constantly having to stop to unfark his weapon.
2014-02-14 11:59:01 AM  
1 votes:

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.

What changes would you make and how would they have prevented previous 'horrible shooting sprees' of the past? Whats your legislative schema for dealing with the 'mass shooter epidemic'? What are the cost projections you have in mind, and whats the ROI on that?

Lets talk.



The old "what's your plan" deflection.  It's enough for me in a thread on a troll site while talking to an NRA shill to point out that the shill is just obstructing the PROCESS of PROGRESS.

But since you asked, here are some of my thoughts on guns:

I've been saying all along that this "mental health" solution is never going to fly, and the gun fanatics will stonewall it before it goes far enough to make a difference, once they find out that THEY are not exempt from the scrutiny, restrictions and information gathering/sharing. That doesn't even mention the question of who controls all of this (government intrusion into their own mental health, and analysis of their behavior/medicine) and who pays for it. It was a distraction from the guns themselves all along.

There are just too many variables and too many paranoid people to allow the vagueries of medical diagnosis and the healthcare system to determine who can have guns (or even be AROUND them) and who can't. Crackpots will start suing, insurance premiums will go up, and so forth. As soon as PTSD veterans start getting denied guns, exemptions will be discussed and there will be no way to reconcile veteran favoritism with this "mental health" approach
.
Then there are the police. What happens if a cop is stressed out from work or is put on leave for some incident, like shooting someone? Is he stripped of all the guns he owns personally?

This has not been thought through at all by the gun lobby, or else they just never intended to go along in the first place and are kicking the can down the road again, waiting for the next election, knowing that they can use their influence to block anything meaningful and then mount constant challenges in the courts in the unlikely chance anything ever does get passed.

I'm "pro-gun" but anti-gun-nut. I believe we have a right to a reasonable type of arms, in reasonable quantities, with reasonable restrictions. If you don't like "who decides" what reasonable means, maybe look at that same Constitution that has the 2nd Amendment for the answer, because all the details about how we make and review laws and Amendments are there.

"Gun free zones" are often a response to an area being especially sensitive to gun violence, or especially prone to it. Increasing the amount of guns in such a zone, like a school, is only adding to the problem by sheer weight of numbers and, again, human nature. Even articles on cops in school cite a "prison environment" with children being tasered and even shot.

The "polite society" thing is a myth created by the gun lobby with biased statistical studies by gun advocates. I've even had people use similar products of "blog fog" to claim that the "wild west" was safer than society today. But when you look at actual numbers and not some misinterpretation of data published in Cracked magazine, you see that the exact opposite is true. These are the kinds of misconceptions that the gun nuts hold, but believe are proven facts.

There are dozens of reasons why arming teachers is asinine, so here's a few...

The first and most obvious is that if trained cops are still prone to shooting kids, what do you think is going to happen when educators (who many to the right of center despise anyway) are armed and expected to make snap decisions that even cops screw up? Peoples' Rambo fantasies are not reality. If you've studied the issue at all, beyond reading stories of people shooting unarmed or knife-wielding burglars on gunssavelives.com, you'd know that perception and cognition during such fast-moving events is shaky at best. The last thing we need is more Amadou Diallo style shootings--especially in a school--where someone who is unarmed is believed to have a gun because of the expectations or misperceptions of the shooter.

And who pays for the teacher training, and the guns? What happens to the insurance for teachers and the school system with the possibility of lawsuits resulting from wrongful death or injury cases? How easy would it be for an unarmed teenager to go through a metal detector at the front door, then sucker punch a 60 year old lady and take her gun away? Hell, a few teens could even ambush and overpower the strongest male teacher you want to put out there, and take his gun. With the volatility of teenagers, how is that making the situation any better??

And what happens if you totally lock down a school and, let's just say, everyone is armed and the place is a fortress. Then what? Then you have these types of attacks likely shifting to the SCHOOL BUS or the BUS STOP. Then what? Do you arm bus drivers, and post cops at every bus stop? Conscript parents and arm them, and put them at every stop, just in case some OTHER armed citizen shows up? How is that a better solution than working to get the guns OUT of the picture as much as possible??

You're damn right that's wingnuttery. It's practically the DEFINITION of it. Wingnuts exist on either end of the spectrum (there are lefty wingnuts of course) but I can't think of a more extreme position on guns than arming teachers, except maybe arming kids. So if that isn't wingnuttery, then what is?

I don't care if you don't like namecalling or emotion. Dead children are dead children regardless of YOUR feelings, unfortunately. This is not all about you. And you can go the usual route of complaining about "emotional responses" or "using the tragedy", but the NRA and people like them have systematically pushed back the discussion every time something like this happens, with the "this is not the time" defense mechanism. For them, there's NEVER a time.

The truth of the matter is that our brains are neurologically wired to process both logical and emotional data when forming our identities, preferences, and opinions even on the deepest level. When the mechanisms for regulating that balance are damaged (such as the orbitofrontal cortex) we can no longer make decisions because our emotional side that helps create our values is removed from our analytical side.  Some kind of emotion backs everything normal humans do, whether they realize it consciously or not. This is not just theory, it's how the brain works.

What the gun lobby REALLY wants is for nothing to get done about the problem, so they bullshiat everyone for a few weeks until the news cycle shifts to something else. That includes pretending that everyone who has an opinion apart from the gun extremists is somehow a hyperemotional dumbass...as if it's a brand new issue nobody has ever considered before, and as if there is no emotion in the fear of one's neighbor or the government that LEADS to arming oneself to the teeth and advocating that all of society be armed as well.

I wonder, as someone mentioned to me, would the same people like it if George Soros gave Bushmasters and Glocks to every liberal and minority in this country? What would they say and do then?

The 2nd says "State", singular, and does not specify what "arms" or exactly how many. So I say give them all one musket and one flintlock pistol and send them to Texas, where they can conceal carry all they want by the light of oil lamps and Franklin stoves.

Just because you can't fully stop ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE ABUSE with prohibition doesn't mean better gun regulation isn't needed.  Throwing one's hands in the air and saying nothing will ever work is defeatist sabotage of the issue.  Since we can never fully eradicate terrorism or WMDs, should we stop trying?

This conversation needs to start taking place among those who can change the laws, without b.s. excuses being made about guns being something other than what they are.

What if all the shootings in the country were liberals killing conservatives....would the historical murder rate still be considered low and acceptable?

Or, is it more sane to consider the details behind the numbers???

What if 1 person died per year from gunshots.  Only one.  Would that be ok, since the number is so low, even if it was the person you love the most?

Back to mental health...

Do you honestly think gun owners are going to go along with sanity checks run by the government or anyone else?  fark no.

That's just another scapegoat and bullshiat non-solution they never intend to implement.  They will fight it in the courts, and claim the 2nd requires no such provision.  They KNOW this will never work, and they will never go along with it at a nationally organized or individual level.  The only reason it even sounds good right now is because they just want to make the issue go away for now, and blaming crazy people is a better alternative to looking at the gun problem.

What's the cut-off for "too crazy to own guns"?  Does that mean the government accesses your medical records and tests your sanity?  That they can force mental health care on you if you already own a gun, or can take your gun away if you're on certain medications?  What are those medications?  Will they allow you to be around your own guns if, say, you're recovering from surgery and on some pills that make you loopy for a while?  And if guns are out there and the health care issues don't work, then what?  Institutionalization for all people who can't be trusted around guns, just so Gun Derper can fantasize about blasting hippies and minorities creeping through his window?

Who pays for all that shiat? You have nearly half the country going bananas over some imagined "death panels" in Obamacare, and you want to tie the 2nd Amendment to all of this healthcare crap on top of it? No farking way they will ever go along with it.

Total bullshiat.  The answer is not to wave a magic wand and make all the crazy and bad people go away, it's to remove some of their resources or at least make those resources harder to get.

 Let's extend the "bat/car/hammer=gun" type of reductionist logic to it's inevitable conclusion.  All killings are equally bad, and all items used in killings are equally bad.  Yet nearly everything in existence has been linked to death in some way.  Therefore, there is no difference in regulating any one thing vs another.  Our choices, then, are to regulate everything, or to regulate nothing.  Ban everything, or anarchy.   Right?
2014-02-14 02:26:35 AM  
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: bk3k: 1.  You didn't link to the original source, now did you?  Not that I got stuck on it for more than a sentence.  It was a minor point.  When I make a major thing out of it, you get a WOT.  Anyone who has seen me here knows this all too well.
2.  Only if the discussion was about deaths by firearms.  We're talking about violent crime and murder.  Suicide is neither.
3.  I don't give a fark about "what proportion of homicides are committed with firearms."  Rather than net homicides.  I will save time by copying what I already wrote.

1. It opens a farking PDF of the article. The source is staring at you from the top of the page.  So you didn't read TFA. Let me guess, now you're going to continue to make empirically false claims.
2. Suicide is self-murder, and death by firearm is still death by firearm, but murder is discussed separately in TFA that you can't be bothered to read.
3. You can't be bothered with facts. Fark facts. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

bk3k: Would not the more rational explanation be that the increase in armed citizenry is a deterrent to criminals, but the ones who continue their crime are therefore relying more heavily on guns?  Because that is still a net benefit.

Again, reality points to a very different conclusion: The decline in the percentage of households with firearms. Most firearm violence is not stranger-on-stranger, after all.

bk3k: People who are that scared of anyone having guns, and those who don't feel safe leaving the house without them - both groups are pants pissing cowards to me.

Incompetent armed people - both mentally and in terms of skill - are a threat to themselves and the general public. One of the biggest problems is that the overwhelming majority of people walking around armed in public in Arizona are both unskilled and lack the mental competence to rationally assess threats.

bk3k: You might be surprised(unless you read what I already wrote) that I don't actually own any guns.  Not the highest thing on ...


Farking hell no one reads.  I already got accused of all the same shiat you just said and answered every bit of it.  It didn't really take that long to read the entire thread and you can't read up a few posts.  I don't know why I bother.

The only thing I will be retyping AGAIN is that I am a farking Liberal, so quit trying that shiat.  Being anti-firearm has NOTHING IN HELL TO DO WITH BEING LIBERAL.  The policy is not remotely rooted in Liberal thinking at all.  It just happens to be an opinion shared by many.  Not all Liberals are going to agree with you on this.

Fark this I am going to bed like I should have hours ago instead of answering the same farking questions over and over and over to be ignored and misquoted over and over and over.  Hell maybe you are doing it on purpose.  I find it hard to believe your are arguing in good faith.  Whatever I am out.  Have fun with your sense of self superiority.
2014-02-14 01:29:40 AM  
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH: bk3k: If you vainly attempt to put a bandaid over the problem, you won't fix anything.  There is plenty of ways to kill people.  People have been murdering each other since before true human civilization began and during every moment since.  For most of that history we did not have guns, but that did not remotely hold us back from the barbarianism.

This is empirically untrue.

You'd think that Gun Free South Africa.org would know this pretty well that people can and do kill without guns, considering there have been at least one or two genocides where machetes were used to kill somewhere between .5-1 million people.

Firearms make murder easy. Far, far more easy than murder by machete.
And it's farking disingenuous of you to claim that firearms and machetes are perfect substitutes.


Unimportant.  People can and do kill without guns.  The problem is that they want to kill each other.  This is a social problem.  Much the same as the problem that people want to use hard drugs(which is itself tied into the violence problem).  This is also a social problem.  So do you propose we take steps against guns that are so similar to our "war on drugs" which we have taken to combat that problem?  Because it sounds like you are in favor of just that.  Something something failing to learn from history something something.

sprawl15: bk3k: Suicide is absolutely immaterial.

like when you read the word suicide are you unable to read any of the words around it

serious question

bk3k: As for me beating the statistics drumbeat, why are you so dismissive of it?

uh i just asked you that question. you seem to be unwilling to look at statistics because of things like "but it's from a lib website" and "the word suicide shuts down my ability to read"


Fark you right there.
1.  Was only a small one sentence part of my point
2.  I am a Lib.  If you read before on this very page, you would know that.  Continuing to hold onto your beliefs despite statistics, and only selectively using the small portions of them you like... not very Liberal of you I might add.  Leave that shiat to Conservatives.
3.  I said the sight was anti-gun.  I went to their main page to find that clearly.  We are arguing about a particular issue, not a left/right thing either.  Your link is to an organization that is very biased on that one issue.  I correctly called you out on that, but even then - point 1.
4.  I had a link above about how little these mass shootings are as a percentage of total murders - and I linked Bloomberg.  You DO know who owns Bloomberg and even his stance on guns, right?
5.  I'll be lucky if you don't yet again ignore everything but a small part of my post that you can intentionally misrepresent.  I'm getting a pretty strong troll vibe and I should quit while I am ahead.
6.  I did look at them.  I offered a criticism of them - which most reasonable people would take that to mean I did read.
7.  Suicide does not even remotely contribute to the discussion at hand - that discussion being violent crime and other forms of violence.  Tell me how a person who kills themselves is relevant.  That is beyond reaching and you know it.
8.  Relative to #6 - again I will state this.  The other part was a statistic about people getting murdered in their own homes as a result of domestic violence.  Apparently(if that site is to be trusted completely) this increased when guns are owned.  And yet this is only a part of the total amount of murders.  A piece of the pie does not over-ride the entirety of the pie.  This right here is proof that you selectively nitpick the tiny pieces of statistic that suit you while ignoring the whole picture(which does NOT suit you).

This is the exact same farking thing Conservatives do with Climate change.  THE EXACT SAME THING.  Durr it sure is cold in winter!  Therefore global warming is false!  Durr Durr!  Yeah if you only look at temperatures at certain times in certain areas - you can say it is colder.  When you look at the total global data over time, it paints a consistent picture - a picture they reject.  On the issue of gun violence - this is EXACTLY what YOU are doing.  The data shows less violent crime and less murders (despite the deadliness of guns) at the same time gun ownership has increased.  So how the fark can you ignore that and just come to the opposite conclusion to what the data plainly shows?

That is why I say Fark you I am done after this post.  You either cannot or will not debate in good faith.  Probably you are a troll and I shall not waste my time on you again.  If not a troll than an amazingly stubborn fool.  Same either way.  You can't even debate.  You just ignore what was said and substitute your own reality.  Forget it.



you can beat the statistics drum, and that's fine. you just have to be actually honest about how you're beating it instead of pulling the hilarious "oh you said suicide" pearl clutching bullshiat you just pulled. you don't get to play the moral high horse card and then turn around and immediately dispute everything about a report because it smells like lib

Funny that you can't argue against my points and get stuck on the suicide thing - which isn't relevant outside of a discussion about suicide.


 
how you somehow got "i sure hate statistics" out of "you're being a hypocritical dick while beating the statistics drum" is just like hilarious irony icing


Well let me formally apologize for replying to what you actually, literally said... instead of what you apparently meant to say.  Since there is no edit button, I don't think you can really pretend you didn't say exactly what you said.  But go ahead anyhow.  I think I am learning that minor technicalities like the literal truth won't stop you.

Also explain this word - hypocritical - and how it applies to me.  It was not in the first version of your quote, and so I do not understand the context of how you are attempting to apply it.  Nor do I think you fully understand how that word is used.  I suspect you feel someone who doesn't agree with you when you "are obviously right" (in your own mind) must be a hypocrite.  That is incorrect.

On second thought - you know what I don't care.

bk3k: If the "danger" exists to a significant degree, it will show up in the statistics.

are you denying the statistical fact that firearm crimes are far more lethal than non-firearm crimes?

i want to make sure i get a hernia belt on before starting to laugh


Oh yeah if you get shot with a glock you die like 5 times where getting stabbed only kills you once.  Yes sir, that is a fact I cannot deny!  I wouldn't want you to get a hernia after all.
2014-02-13 09:48:36 PM  
1 votes:
Yes yes we TOTALLY need to change our laws and restrict everyone's rights to deal with an "epidemic" that results in far less than 1% of total yearly MURDERS, let alone total yearly deaths.

[quote=my link]In the 30 years through March, 78 public mass shootings occurred in the U.S. -- incidents in which four or more people were killed at random by a gunman killing indiscriminately, according to a report issued that month by the Congressional Research Service. These crimes don't include gang-related killings or domestic disputes where a person slays relatives or other people linked to the assailant.
The mass slaughters listed in the report caused the deaths of 547 people. Over the same three decades through 2012, that's less than a tenth of 1 percent of the 559,347 people the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates were murdered in America.

To be specific, that is 1 out of every 1022.6 murders.  Again that is murders, not total deaths.

Faced again and again with math and other simple facts, I can only see the reasons for certain people being so anti-gun as falling into one or more of the following categories.

1.  People who are scared shiatless of every sensational news report.  No doubt these people wish to ban more than just guns.  Other targets could include pitbulls(or any large breed), airplanes, Muslims, and who knows what else?  EVERYTHING THAT SCARES ME SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!  Only they won't come out and say these things frighten them - they go on about how it is "common sense" that 'X' is dangerous.  We have no shortage of such people here on Fark.

2.  Bleeding hearts who wish to ban everything remotely enjoyable to "save" (really only extend) as many lives as possible.  That alone doesn't sound so bad except these people go far beyond what is reasonable.  OMG 26 people died of 'X' last year, we should OUTLAW that!  Their greatest wish may be for everyone to live long, joyless and completely unfulfilling lives.  The fact that the policies they support will save almost no one while negatively affecting many(or all) is lost on them, or they get it but simply don't care.

3.  People who simply with to punish those who enjoy something that they themselves do not enjoy AKA "stop liking what I don't like."  Another term is... assholes.

4.  People who simply do not think for themselves and have not arrived at their own opinions by virtue or processing facts and other information - in context especially - so they import their views from other people especially people they like or admire.  Such people place an undue amount of importance on self-professed experts.  They don't function by the process of WHAT they believe, but in WHOM they believe.

No there is just no logical and reasonable cause to engage in these so called "common sense" gun reforms like that.  Well maybe closing gun show loopholes, keeping guns away from the mentally ill(tea party?) and violent offenders, etc - but not stuff about ammo restrictions or registration.  But go ahead and attempt to use actual statistics to demonstrate how I am wrong.  Oh course you can't because the math is heavily biased against you.

For the record, no I am not a Teatard or other form of Rethuglican.  I'm pretty solid (D).  Being anti-gun is NOT necessarily a Liberal position nor is there anything particularity Liberal about such a stance so don't give people that crap about assuming anyone against your position is just a modern caveman.
2014-02-13 08:19:48 PM  
1 votes:
lordjupiter:
Do you think I'm new to this and your "nyah nyah you can't refute me" taunts mean anything?  I'm not wasting my time repeating myself or what others have posted just so you can continue to ignore it all and lob your own cut and paste grenades.  You are a shill from what I can tell, and probably a liar.

Stop posting, justtray.
2014-02-13 08:13:32 PM  
1 votes:

coeyagi: Questions in need of answering.


no, they aren't

i get that you want to change the subject to something that superficially sort of supports your position politically, but the percentage of gun crime as a percent of all violent incidents sticking within the 19 year average doesn't somehow magically make gun violence not decrease. especially when the same farking chart points out a ridiculous drop in the firearm crime rate and numbers over the same time period

if you're in this just because you need to jerk yourself off over imaginary internet points, just let me know.

udhq: Because while overall violent crime has plummeted over the last 30 years due to a host of social changes


simple question: when i said "gun violence has decreased [...] for years now", is that true or false?

udhq: the rate of gun crime is exploding


uh, that is not 'exploding'. that is sticking within the range. it was 7% or 8% 13 years of the 19, and you're saying that 8% is 'exploding'?

Burning_Monk: Why doesn't it take into account Fatal firearm violence?


i would assume because the set isn't using fatal crimes at all
2014-02-13 06:53:04 PM  
1 votes:
Can we all at least agree that .40S&W is a terrible "compromise" round that has no real purpose?
2014-02-13 06:04:06 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: And we're done here. It's a shame too. I would have liked to see more posts from our resident ignorant bed wetters. Makes the day that much more enjoyable.


Are you talking about gun nerds?  Nothing says bedwetter more than cowards that need to be armed to the teeth all the time.
2014-02-13 06:02:12 PM  
1 votes:

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
No, because the argument is based on the sense of selfishness and worry rather than actual societal need.

"I had a very emotional reaction to highly unlikely event. Enact expensive policy that waste finite resources to do little, if anything to prevent a similar event." - A totally unselfish person.

In other words, you can't declare something a non-issue just because worse issues exist.

Someone being murdered is a tragedy, true. It is not a good reason to throw limited government resources away for no gain, though.



The "emotional reaction" argument is tired.  Most people are more upset after a tragedy and that's natural, but these are not new problems.  They keep coming up again and again.    When people kick the can down the road they're looking to defang the opposition and ride out the wave of MOTIVATION that goes along with the emotion following a shooting.  But the sentiment is generally ALWAYS THERE, even when the political winds aren't blowing.  You want those winds to settle down so nothing changes.

And like it or not, the decision to do nothing is not without emotion, either.  All human decisions contain some emotion.  It's just the emotions behind the gun lobby are channeled elsewhere and it's been decided that certain interests must be protected.  Fear of not having a gun is one of those emotions.  Fear that the latest shooting is going to lead to new legislation is an emotion.  Those emotions rooted in self-preservation motivate gun lobbyists to try and calm everyone else down so nothing gets done.

Also, your assessment that policies need be expensive and futile is opinion, not fact.  It's a convenient assumption that portrays any effort as imperfect and impractical.  I doubt you really want to solve any problems if you take this attitude.
2014-02-13 05:11:35 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: sugar_fetus: justtray: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.

Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.

So, why do cops have guns, then?

Because bad guys still have them. But they certainly aren't required to stop crime. Better question, why do English (United Kingdom) police NOT have them? Get it yet? No, I'm certain you don't.


Yet, the bad guys in Britain still have guns. Imagine that.

And, correct - Police in the US are not required to stop crime, nor actually protect you, according to the Supreme Court.

Do *you* get it?  Nope, you don't. Keep insulting people. That's so helpful.
2014-02-13 05:07:42 PM  
1 votes:

sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.

You haven't shown that false at all. I'm not saying gun violence couldn't rise or drop due to other factors. We have more guns and consequently more gun deaths than any other developed country. It's not very complicated.

Yet, here you are stating that more guns won't lead to less crime. Notice, I never made any statement, but I ave gave you a real situation where that did happen. In the last twenty years in the US, the number of firearms owned has gone up, yet the homicide rate has dropped to half of what it was.

So, more guns did not cause more crime.  QED - your statement is false.That's not complicated at all.

Oh, and can you prove that more guns causes more crime? Do you have a citation for that as well?


I never claimed that more guns cause more crime in general. My original claim was that more guns (or a higher rate of gun ownership) leading to a more "polite" less violent society is demonstrably false given the fact that the countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Hence designating the "good guy with a gun" line of reasoning advocating for increased gun ownership is so much derp.
2014-02-13 05:04:23 PM  
1 votes:

BayouOtter: murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability


So a poor, uneducated, angry man with a soup spoon is just as dangerous as a poor, uneducated, angry man with an AK-47?
2014-02-13 05:01:44 PM  
1 votes:
Paul Baumer:
So the gentleman's statement regarding it being a "good thing" the man had a 100rd mag was in fact a red herring then, and just a show argument for the rubes.

More like a general 'its a good thing that criminal was a dumbass who picked shiatty tools/means to commit his crime, or things could have been worse.'
2014-02-13 04:54:48 PM  
1 votes:

The Name: Hey, that's way out of line.  Only gun-grabbers need to cite sources in Fark gun threads.


Actually, everyone should have cites. Most don't - especially the side that equates owning a gun with having a small penis.
2014-02-13 04:53:02 PM  
1 votes:

LoneWolf343: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.

So, adding more bullets to the firefight decreases the severity of a mass-shooting.

/this is what conservatives actually believe.


I am generally pro gun, pro concealed-carry, pro Castle Doctrine, and I agree with your statement. I am certain that another person in the Aurora theater with a gun would have likely made the situation worse. A gun does not make you immune to fear, panic, nor does it give you perfect aim. There was the story of the police officers who got into a gunfight in New York City, and about 9 innocent bystanders were shot. All by the officers' bullets.

If trained police officers can't avoid shooting innocent people, why would we expect an armed civilian to be better? These kinds of fantasies aren't helping.
2014-02-13 04:52:37 PM  
1 votes:

BayouOtter: hillbillypharmacist: BayouOtter: Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window.

"Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep
arms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San Diego

And, so, which number of rounds did they determine was protected?

Same as the number of books you can own and churches you can attend.


Snert. Why, then, are fully automatic weapons so restricted? Totes unconstitutional, right?
2014-02-13 04:48:57 PM  
1 votes:

BayouOtter: Well, again it sets a precedent that isn't savory, and secondly its a stupid thing to ban because of enforcement costs. If you grandfather them (allow existing ones to remain) then its pointless because they are still out there, confiscating them means people have to be reimbursed, then they need to be destroyed, then you have to pay cops to look for them, arrest people, then spend money to keep them in jail, and so on. For a thing that is rarely, rarely used in crime (gang-bangers rarely use rifles period) you're looking at expenses that far outweigh any possible benefit.


The irony is that while many gun advocates will echo this sentiment, they'll turn around and say no price is too high policing welfare for the poor and even one lobster and steak dinner is one too many. Then they'll wonder why they're labelled gun nuts when those loony libs say one gun death is one too many. I mean, it's only death, right? Didn't stop Jesus.
2014-02-13 04:47:02 PM  
1 votes:

Paul Baumer: BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?

I don't think anyone wants to ban them. Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.

Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.

Well ok, but the basis for this being a "stupid idea" is that they don't work well, or something else?


Its a stupid idea because giant drum magazines aren't being used to do harm on any scale necessitating a legislative response. Rifles, as a whole, are used in less than 5% of all homicides in the United States, and the number of drum magazines in use is a tiny fraction of that. Throwing money at an object that is used in less than 5% of homicides is foolish, more so because those homicides would have likely been possible even in the magazine's absence.

Going after even a general class of weapons used in homicides is pretty stupid, because murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability. Ending the drug war, working on our broken and racist policies of poverty control, income inequality and education - these topics would actually address violent crime at the cause, but that would be hard and complicated.

It is so much easier to just 'ban something - for the children!' and call it a day.
2014-02-13 04:36:40 PM  
1 votes:

sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"


The mantra of derp.

Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?


Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.
2014-02-13 04:26:00 PM  
1 votes:

Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it  wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...



The obvious solution is to only sell high-capacity magazines that automatically jam.
2014-02-13 04:20:11 PM  
1 votes:

Oktoberain: If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines?


Like a jacked-up truck with neon underlights they are obnoxious, impractical, and sometimes fun as hell.

If they are inherently and predictably defective, why the pearl-clutching about getting rid of them?

Because they are big and scary and so many bullets in one magazine means an entire school will be killed at once! (Ignoring that one can swap magazines in a second or two.)

If they function properly most of the time, then we don't want the bad guys to have access to murder power like that. And if they don't, then they're of no use to normal gun owners *anyway*, so nobody will miss them when they're gone. Right?...

Well, again it sets a precedent that isn't savory, and secondly its a stupid thing to ban because of enforcement costs. If you grandfather them (allow existing ones to remain) then its pointless because they are still out there, confiscating them means people have to be reimbursed, then they need to be destroyed, then you have to pay cops to look for them, arrest people, then spend money to keep them in jail, and so on. For a thing that is rarely, rarely used in crime (gang-bangers rarely use rifles period) you're looking at expenses that far outweigh any possible benefit.
2014-02-13 04:14:31 PM  
1 votes:

Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it  wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...


Really?  You're going with that argument?

So what if it didn't jam until the 99th bullet?  What if it wasn't a cheap one?  Or why don't require only cheap ones to be sold and then we can just rely on them jamming to stop mass murders?
2014-02-13 04:11:39 PM  
1 votes:
Amerika will get what it deserves

and it's gonna mean a lot of cold, dead hands.
2014-02-13 04:09:07 PM  
1 votes:

Frank N Stein: DrBenway: "Bigger magazines equal lower casualties because bigger magazines are pieces of crap that will fail and that's why bigger magazines need to remain legal."

Do I have that right?

Also, can someone help me with my logic board? It seems to have self-incinerated.

Or this: "those magazines do not pose a significant threat because they do no operate reliably, therefore there is no public necessity to ban them"

Does that make sense?


So, you encourage the sale of defective merchandise... for the children?
2014-02-13 04:07:06 PM  
1 votes:

Kome: The gist of his argument seems to be it's a good thing he legally purchased a 100-round magazine because they're defective. That's almost an argument against them in and of themselves. How effective would they be for self-defense if they don't work as intended?


Look man, they aren't big on logic.

They also make the argument that other things are just as deadly, except then if that was the case, why do these mass murders not choose to use said weapons, time and time again?

Also, only thing that stops guy with a gun is another gun, but reducing the available supply of guns has no impact.

Also also also, we can't put any regulations on guns, because that would lead to other, hypothetical regulations on guns that would be too restrictive.

They aren't bright people. The cartoon above really just sums it up accurately. Tens of thousands of dead people per year is the price they've decided is acceptable for their selfish hobby. And everyone else just has to deal with that.
2014-02-13 04:03:25 PM  
1 votes:

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: FTFA:
"My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally," state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. "So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me."

 Oh, so it was a "did you stop beating your wife" type of question.

How so?

It's a yes or no question in which either answer reflects negatively on the person being questioned. I'll admit that it's a bit of a stretch, but the "this law would have stopped [him] from purchasing a blah blah" question assumes that's the law would have prevented casualties. Had he answered in the affirmative, than he implies agreement that the law would have prevented deaths. If he answers in the negative he looks like he's not in touch with reality.


A sh*tty gotcha question followed up by a sh*ttier bullsh*t answer.
2014-02-13 04:00:20 PM  
1 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?


Well, it's never a 100 round ban, it's a 10 or even less ban.
2014-02-13 03:56:32 PM  
1 votes:
The gist of his argument seems to be it's a good thing he legally purchased a 100-round magazine because they're defective. That's almost an argument against them in and of themselves. How effective would they be for self-defense if they don't work as intended?
2014-02-13 03:55:25 PM  
1 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?


Yeah, sounds like we're outlawing a dangerous product here.
2014-02-13 03:51:05 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: factoryconnection: dittybopper: Actually, you don't even have to be all that determined: Happy Land Fire Guy was mad at his girlfriend, set the entrance to the club she was in on fire. Killed 87 people (girlfriend survived).

Yeah; those happen all the time and certainly represent the latest in building and fire codes.  That's why people keep bringing things up from the 50s and 30s and whatnot to show clearly that guns have no bearing on mass killing effectiveness.

Pretty weak for you especially.

I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.

Then too, we have the case of the 9/11 attackers, who used small knives.


I don't think it was the small knives that actually did the majority of the killings.
2014-02-13 03:48:53 PM  
1 votes:
FTFA:
"My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally," state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. "So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me."

 Oh, so it was a "did you stop beating your wife" type of question. I'm glad he answered it the way he did.
2014-02-13 03:43:17 PM  
1 votes:
Guns are not evil, being merely tools. They do make indiscriminate mass killing much, much easier, though. Kind of hard to imagine the founders could've conceived of today's weaponry when writing the 2nd amendment- cavalry saber charges were still used right up until the advent of machine gun emplacements, for Christ's sake. It's not the same world anymore, but our history and culture (especially westward expansion) are so tied up with firearms we probably won't shake the obsession for generations, if ever.
2014-02-13 03:43:00 PM  
1 votes:
Dear GOP:  Try this out!

scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
2014-02-13 03:42:15 PM  
1 votes:
A hundred thousand people were killed in Hiroshima without a gun. Therefore, no gun regulations.

QED, bed wetters.
2014-02-13 03:41:41 PM  
1 votes:

Dalrint: [thismodernworld.com image 720x672]


Nothing's better than a proselytizing political comic that takes three or four paragraphs to get to the farking point.
2014-02-13 03:40:41 PM  
1 votes:

unyon: Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it  wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...

If you can guarantee that every high cap magazine will jam, then I'm sure nobody would have a problem with those.


If they always jam, why would anyone want to buy one?  And why would you care if faulty crap is banned?
2014-02-13 03:39:09 PM  
1 votes:
I'm more of a suspicious guy with a gun.  I'm like the guy with a gun in the rated R movie, you know, the guy with a gun you're not sure whether or not you like yet. You're not sure where he's coming from.
2014-02-13 03:39:05 PM  
1 votes:

TheGregiss: Translated for those of us who arent fluent in farking shiathead; "I'm glad his gun jammed."


or "i'm glad he used a magazine far more prone to jamming and depended on its reliability"
2014-02-13 03:39:01 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: And we're done here. It's a shame too. I would have liked to see more posts from our resident ignorant bed wetters. Makes the day that much more enjoyable.


One day, you'll post something that isn't completely boring.
2014-02-13 03:38:30 PM  
1 votes:

Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it  wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...


Where precisely did this slack jawed imbecile mention this hypothetical scenario?

I suppose if the Aurora shooter had been aborted, that would have been a good thing too.
2014-02-13 03:36:46 PM  
1 votes:
I wonder if Loughner or Holmes ever took their firearms to a range.
2014-02-13 03:33:02 PM  
1 votes:
Translated for those of us who arent fluent in farking shiathead; "I'm glad his gun jammed."
2014-02-13 03:17:05 PM  
1 votes:
In spite of what reddit would have us believe, technically correct is not always the best kind of correct.

Yes, the Aurora shooter had an oversized magazine, and heavier magazines tend to jam.  Apparently a similar phenomenon occurs in the middle east where folks using Kalashnikovs will make the decision to tape magazines together for easier swaps.  Some figure that because taping two magazines together that taping 3 is even better than that, but apparently taping 3 together results in frequent jams due to the weight of the three together.

That being said, the guy who said that is a moron.
2014-02-13 03:12:26 PM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.


I'm sorry to say that even that date was a generation ago.  I'm seriously sorry that 1990 was a generation ago, and kinda still in shock.
2014-02-13 02:47:47 PM  
1 votes:

Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it  wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...


For the record, I agree that if the Aurora shooter hadn't used such POS equipment, things would have been even worse.  His 100-round drum feeder was a POS.
2014-02-13 01:46:07 PM  
1 votes:

hillbillypharmacist: Someone really, really determined could kill dozens without even having a gun.


A man could combine his gymnastic pommel horse ability with ninjitsu and become virtually unstoppable.

static.tvtropes.org
2014-02-13 01:41:09 PM  
1 votes:

the_rev: BunkyBrewman: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?

The mindset of the shooter, and the ability of others to stop him.


Someone really, really determined could kill dozens without even having a gun.
2014-02-13 01:39:38 PM  
1 votes:
If we make the magazines hold so much that they won't ever fire correctly, then no one will ever get shot. Bonus!
2014-02-13 01:36:42 PM  
1 votes:

BunkyBrewman: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.

Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?


The mindset of the shooter, and the ability of others to stop him.
2014-02-13 01:21:49 PM  
1 votes:

jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.


The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.
2014-02-13 01:20:08 PM  
1 votes:

jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.


Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?
 
Displayed 70 of 70 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report