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.

(SFGate)   Looks like California is going to get a lot more polite. Or something   (sfgate.com) divider line 404
    More: Interesting, California law, San Francisco County Superior Court, concealed weapons  
•       •       •

10346 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 6:15 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-14 12:55:15 AM

TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

Until recently, gun ownership was illegal.  Supposedly they've loosened that up a little.  Now you can get a pea-shooter to go up against the cartels AK-47s.  However, I'm sure the law was implemented in such a way that your average Mexican citizen won't be able to get a firearm.  The people, though, are now ignoring the law, arming themselves, and taking matters in their own hands because the police are worse than useless since they are actively working with the cartels.

If the US were a mostly lawless free-for-all where drug kingpins who were in league with the police ran the show I'd be far more sympathetic towards universal CCW permits.  That, however, is not the case here.


I take it you've never been to Oakland or Detroit.
 
2014-02-14 12:57:09 AM

Pray 4 Mojo: TuteTibiImperes: Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier. We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_de at h_rate

We're 15th. So it's not just Mexico that's our Mississippi.

/and them central americans sure do like shooting each other!


The chart was developed nations.  My point still stands if you substitute 'developing and third world countries' for Mexico.
 
2014-02-14 12:59:04 AM

OgreMagi: So pass a farking amendment. Until then, STFU about my rights.


I think it's important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not "give" the people the right to bear arms... the right simply exists... the 2nd Amendment just prevents the right from being infringed.
 
2014-02-14 12:59:10 AM

JDJoeE: WTH is going on in Estonia? o.O


Crime. Organized and otherwise would be my guess.
 
2014-02-14 01:00:14 AM

OgreMagi: IronTom: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running forI Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.

I like the way you think, OgreMagi.

I'm glad not everyone on Fark is a GFW (Gun Fearing Wussie).

And thanks for the TF.

I was just discussing the court decision and this thread with my sister.  She's in agreement that it was the correct ruling.  She's also an uber-crunchy, organic eating, yoga instructor, Wiccan hippy.


I would like to point out that not all Wiccans are uber-crunchy, organic eating, yoga instructor libtard types.  Some, surprisingly, are even pro-gun.

/speaking from experience
 
2014-02-14 01:03:32 AM

Pray 4 Mojo: OgreMagi: So pass a farking amendment. Until then, STFU about my rights.

I think it's important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not "give" the people the right to bear arms... the right simply exists... the 2nd Amendment just prevents the right from being infringed.


That is correct.  Those Rights are considered natural, we are born with them (or god given for you religious types).  However, without the 2nd Amendment's protection, I would guarantee a lot of states would outright ban all types of firearms in private possession.
 
2014-02-14 01:04:52 AM

Scrotastic Method: deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that

The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?


The first clause of the amendment announced the reason, it is not a requirement. In your example he IS expressly limited.

 QUOTE: "WHENEVER you get an A..." now, in this case, per the "agreement" with Timmy, you are not obliged to give him pizza, but you are not prohibited from doing so, nor is he prohibited from ASKING.  Your example (politely) fails.

Everything prior to the comma in the 2A simply explains WHY everything after the comma exists.  They can be broken into two sentences that retain the exact same meaning.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state. FULL STOP

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. FULL STOP...not "as long as they're in a government sponsored militia."

If they wanted it to apply to the militia solely and not to the general populace they would have said militia twice, not people the second time.

\PS - amendment doesn't say guns, it says arms. This includes (but is not limited to) guns, knives, clubs, spears, swords, whips, chains, knuckledusters, stilettos, garrotes, or ANYTHING else that can be "borne"
 
2014-02-14 01:07:24 AM

TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.

Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Why is Mexico excluded in that diagram? They are currently fighting the other side of our drug war. What would the gun murder rate be in the US and Mexico if we weren't both currently engaged in a futile drug war?

Probably a lot lower, and I'm all for ending it.

Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.


Doesn't fit the narrative...got it.
 
2014-02-14 01:07:33 AM

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

Until recently, gun ownership was illegal.  Supposedly they've loosened that up a little.  Now you can get a pea-shooter to go up against the cartels AK-47s.  However, I'm sure the law was implemented in such a way that your average Mexican citizen won't be able to get a firearm.  The people, though, are now ignoring the law, arming themselves, and taking matters in their own hands because the police are worse than useless since they are actively working with the cartels.

If the US were a mostly lawless free-for-all where drug kingpins who were in league with the police ran the show I'd be far more sympathetic towards universal CCW permits.  That, however, is not the case here.

I take it you've never been to Oakland or Detroit.


Or Stockton...

Or East St. Louis.
 
2014-02-14 01:10:11 AM

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

Until recently, gun ownership was illegal.  Supposedly they've loosened that up a little.  Now you can get a pea-shooter to go up against the cartels AK-47s.  However, I'm sure the law was implemented in such a way that your average Mexican citizen won't be able to get a firearm.  The people, though, are now ignoring the law, arming themselves, and taking matters in their own hands because the police are worse than useless since they are actively working with the cartels.

If the US were a mostly lawless free-for-all where drug kingpins who were in league with the police ran the show I'd be far more sympathetic towards universal CCW permits.  That, however, is not the case here.

I take it you've never been to Oakland or Detroit.


Or the National Park I like to hike around in.

www.nps.gov
 
2014-02-14 01:12:57 AM

deadlyplatypus: Scrotastic Method: deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that

The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?

The first clause of the amendment announced the reason, it is not a requirement. In your example he IS expressly limited.

 QUOTE: "WHENEVER you get ....


I just punished you with a month of TF for actually responding to that drivel.

You wanna go for 6?
 
2014-02-14 01:18:35 AM

TuteTibiImperes: The Southern Dandy: It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.

Yet people living in nations where there are strong firearm safety regulations still manage to protect themselves without carrying guns around.


This guy would like a word with you.

thenypost.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-14 01:19:34 AM

JDJoeE: shda5582: lostcat:
It seems like this ruling, even if it is not appealed, doesn't directly affect more than a handful of counties, and at most removes the requirement for the applicant to indicate their immediate need, in favor of a more general explanation of need. The waiting period and mandatory safety training are still in place and weren't even challenged. And the local government gets to decide what type of carry permit you receive.

Slightly wrong on that. 

The AWESOME decision by the 9th basically says that a county saying that you needed justifiable "good cause" (IE: restraining order by the courts, proof that you've been threatened requiring a signed statement by the person doing the threatening, politician, judge, celebrity, someone that donated a fark-ton of money to the county Sheriff...) can no longer deny you your application based upon just listing "self defense" on the good cause part of the application.

Pretty much if you can legally own a gun in CA, and you wish to carry concealed, then the counties can no longer deny you the issuance of the CCW if your reason is self-defense.  In other words, you can now get one in LA county provided you aren't a prohibited person, which is HUGE.

Could reciprocity from other states be next?  I'm still not sure why all states have to honor the drivers license from that state but not another state issued license (e.g.: ccw permit).


Hey, guess what Gabby Giffords cosponsored two days before she was shot.
 
2014-02-14 01:26:31 AM

The Southern Dandy: TuteTibiImperes: The Southern Dandy: It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.

Yet people living in nations where there are strong firearm safety regulations still manage to protect themselves without carrying guns around.

This guy would like a word with you.

[thenypost.files.wordpress.com image 300x300]


If Tute had been there he would have saved that young soldier's life with a chart or perhaps a witty quip
 
2014-02-14 01:30:51 AM

kombat_unit: The Southern Dandy: TuteTibiImperes: The Southern Dandy: It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.

Yet people living in nations where there are strong firearm safety regulations still manage to protect themselves without carrying guns around.

This guy would like a word with you.

[thenypost.files.wordpress.com image 300x300]

If Tute had been there he would have saved that young soldier's life with a chart or perhaps a witty quip


I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much.  My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that.  Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.
 
2014-02-14 01:39:01 AM

deadlyplatypus: A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state. FULL STOP

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. FULL STOP.


Correct. The people who don't understand this need it broken down just a little bit more though so if I may...

If the amendment says what they think that it says then it would have read:

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state. FULL STOP

The right of the people militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. FULL STOP.

The militias were mentioned in the first part to recognize that even a free state (or nation) needs a military from time to time to protect itself from enemies both foreign and domestic, and that forming a military in and of itself is not an indication of the decline of a free state or nation.

If the second line was written as above (in my example) replacing people with militias then only things like a state national guard and the military would be permitted to bear arms and any people NOT in those organizations would have been explicitly denied the right to bear arms.

But that's not what it says nor was it ever implied. Only those who hate the idea of guns read it the way that my example gives (they read people and get dyslexic and think that it means militia).
 
2014-02-14 01:46:02 AM

TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.


I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.
 
2014-02-14 01:57:34 AM

Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.


And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.
 
2014-02-14 02:17:36 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.


So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.
 
2014-02-14 02:18:14 AM
there*
 
2014-02-14 02:26:03 AM

The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.


Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?
 
2014-02-14 02:33:09 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?


Shot him.
 
2014-02-14 02:50:17 AM

The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?

Shot him.


Right. Two men in a car who swerved at the last second and hit you in the back.
They took out an active-duty infantryman, but you're claiming that you would have identified the threat, turned, drawn, aimed, and shot two men in a car without hitting any bystanders, and got out of its path in the time it takes to swerve off the road and run you over from behind.
/Damn, Marshal Rambo Dillon, that's really farking impressive.
//Totally only-in-the-movies fictional, but really farking impressive.
 
2014-02-14 03:03:33 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an unarmed active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?


FTFY.
 
2014-02-14 03:13:12 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Right. Two men in a car who swerved at the last second and hit you in the back.
They took out an active-duty infantryman, but you're claiming that you would have identified the threat, turned, drawn, aimed, and shot two men in a car without hitting any bystanders, and got out of its path in the time it takes to swerve off the road and run you over from behind.
/Damn, Marshal Rambo Dillon, that's really farking impressive.
//Totally only-in-the-movies fictional, but really farking impressive.


You do understand the concept of "show of force", yes?
My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car.
So if he was able to draw on the two gentleman, maybe they would have reconsidered their little plan and fled.
If not, he could have opened fire, and hopefully ended the altercation there, whether he hit one of them or not.
If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him.
Arguing the hypothetical what-ifs of a specific situation are stupid.
But for me, I'd still prefer to have that option available to me if worse comes to worse.

I will be interested to see where this goes for CA, and if it has any noticeable effect on the current trending in violent crime, firearms related homicide, etc.
 
2014-02-14 03:26:15 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?

Shot him.

Right. Two men in a car who swerved at the last second and hit you in the back.
They took out an active-duty infantryman, but you're claiming that you would have identified the threat, turned, drawn, aimed, and shot two men in a car without hitting any bystanders, and got out of its path in the time it takes to swerve off the road and ...


Hold on, I'm trying to get a grip on all the rules for your game here.  So I get run over by a car...am I still able to reach weapon?  If so, I want my weapon to be a gun, and not a rubber chicken, which the govt may require I defend myself with. Guns work much better.  I just want the right to use the best tool to defend my life.

OK. so I've been run over.  If I'm already out of it...oh well, bad guy wins, but he won because he got the drop on me, not because the govt prevented me from defending myself. Do you understand that concept.  The govt preventing you from defending your own life?  The govt taking away that basic human right of survival.  The govt took it, not the bad guy.  If the bad guy took it by running me down with a car, so be it...he's a bad guy. He doesn't give a fark about my right to survival.  The govt shouldn't be the bad guy.  The govt shouldn't take away my right to survival.
 
2014-02-14 03:48:04 AM

WhiskeyBoy: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an unarmed active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?

FTFY.


Riiiiiight.
She saw the Tigra strike Fusilier Rigby and carry him until the car crashed into a road sign.
"The young man flew off the bonnet and landed about two feet in front of the car," Mr Whittam said.
"She (Bailey) saw that his eyes were open but they looked frozen."
Mr Whittam said the men left the car.
"The driver was carrying a cleaver in his hand. He knelt down by Lee Rigby and took hold of his hair.
"He then repeatedly hacked at the right side of his neck just below the jawline."
 
2014-02-14 03:52:43 AM
ww4.hdnux.com

This was a passing grade in CCW class?

:stare:   Can I change sides in this debate?
 
2014-02-14 04:37:26 AM

Kahabut: [ww4.hdnux.com image 628x418]

This was a passing grade in CCW class?

:stare:   Can I change sides in this debate?


He isn't trying to qualify as an expert marksman.  If that is a bad guy, he isn't walking away. I am more worried that the person with the weapon knows basic safety and when and where he should use his weapon than his exact score. After all, when circumstances dictate a use of a weapon and you get that adrenaline dump, your not going to be too steady no matter what your shooting and most people just don't have the time and training to counter that circumstance. We saw 7 LAPD officers shoot 100 rounds at 2 newspaper delivery women and only got 1 hit on one and a graze on the other.

It is more important to show familiarity of the weapon and the appropriate places to draw and make ready to use your weapon that is all you have to do to deescalate the situation.  A movie theater after someone has thrown popcorn in your face is not appropriate.  A mall shooting where there isn't a clear shot so you don't discharge the weapon, yes.
 
2014-02-14 05:23:44 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: WhiskeyBoy: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an unarmed active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?

FTFY.

Riiiiiight.
She saw the Tigra strike Fusilier Rigby and carry him until the car crashed into a road sign.
"The young man flew off the bonnet and landed about two feet in front of the car," Mr Whittam said.
"She (Bailey) saw that his eyes were open but they looked frozen."
Mr Whittam said the men left the car.
"The driver was carrying a cle ...


What are you contesting here?  He was unarmed.
If you meant to quote where I said "My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car." I understand, and retract my statement in light of new information you have provided.
Of course, I did also say "If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him."
 
2014-02-14 06:30:03 AM

That's 'Master Troll' to You: Hurray! It is safe to go in public with a tiny penis again!


NOT A FETISH!!!
 
2014-02-14 06:47:58 AM

Scrotastic Method: First, I wouldn't attempt to conflate health and family decisions with those of the desire to possess a firearm.

And second, I believe Heller was one of the worst decisions the court ever made, maybe only trumped in modern times by Citizens United. I side with Stevens on that one, who wrote in his dissent, which is summarized better on Wikipedia than I would do here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenti ng _opinions

Interestingly, his main points were:
-- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,
-- We're trumping states' rights,
-- We're legislating from the bench, and,
-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.

All of which are, you know, the kinds of things conservatives are supposed to be against. A true conservative should be against the Heller decision, but since it gave them what they wanted, they are willing to compromise their principles.

Compromising of principle being, of course, the foundation of the right wing. See also: things Jesus really said and did


Really?

--  You really need to re-read the Bill of Rights
--  All of a sudden, we care about states' rights on the liberal side?  Or is it only where the 2nd amendment is concerned?  I don't hear this argument when it comes to voter registration, abortion, gay marriage, or anything else.
--  Upholding a Supreme Court precedent is not legislating from the bench by any stretch
--  Ironic.  Because trigger locks, gun safes, magazine limits, and cosmetic limitations don't address the main point of contention either.  Since when does imposing a restriction on a law abiding citizen do anything to prevent crime?

As far as Stevens' position of "the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".  Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont."?  Live by the Supremeacy clause, die by the Supremacy clause.

Dimensio: I have been assured that, despite my advocacy of same-sex marriage, the teaching of evolution in public schools, a fair and progressive tax rate, health care reform and easy access to birth control and abortion, I am a "bagger" because I believed that a proposed law to ban .50 caliber rifles -- and to mandate surrender of any currently owned rifles to the government -- was not reasonable


Me too.  I share all of your positions.  It's really ironic for a group that purport to be open-minded.  Nothing gets you labeled a right wing radical faster than saying that people should be able to defend themselves with a firearm.  Bizarre.
 
2014-02-14 06:56:01 AM
This makes me wanna shoot!
 
2014-02-14 07:09:06 AM

The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.


Except that's not true at all.  The government absolutely has the right to tell you if you can carry a gun around or not, it's a basic public safety policy decision.

The incident regarding the guy in London is pretty horrific, but it's also an isolated incident.  Overall the per-capita homicide rate in the UK is less than half that of the US, and the firearm related homicide rate is less than 1/10th that of the US, so obviously gun policy plays a pretty big role.

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carrying around guns in public'.
 
2014-02-14 08:57:38 AM

TuteTibiImperes: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Except that's not true at all.  The government absolutely has the right to tell you if you can carry a gun around or not, it's a basic public safety policy decision.

The incident regarding the guy in London is pretty horrific, but it's also an isolated incident.  Overall the per-capita homicide rate in the UK is less than half that of the US, and the firearm related homicide rate is less than 1/10th that of the US, so obviously gun policy plays a pretty big role.

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carry ...


And yet, in the US, it's STILL, by percentages, rare that a person dies from gun violence if it's NOT suicide or gang-related.

If you don't like living around guns, move to England. Simple as that.
 
2014-02-14 10:29:07 AM

TuteTibiImperes: mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

If you feel as if you need a gun with you at all times to be safe there are problems far greater than CCW permits.  The logical course of action would be to address why the police presence in the area is either inadequate or ineffective and take measures to fix that.  It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.


You do realize that the courts have repeatedly and consistently ruled that the Police are under no obligation to protect you, right??
 
2014-02-14 10:34:44 AM

Farkage: If you feel as if you need a gun with you at all times to be safe there are problems far greater than CCW permits.  The logical course of action would be to address why the police presence in the area is either inadequate or ineffective and take measures to fix that.  It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.


You do realize that the courts have repeatedly and consistently ruled that the Police are under no obligation to protect you, right??


Don't bother.  They will never listen.  It's willful blindness.
 
2014-02-14 10:41:12 AM

TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

I can't find the same graph including Mexico, but this is total homicides:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 545x477]

We're not the highest, but we're at the unfortunate end of the spectrum.  Mexico is just insane.  Estonia's position is surprising.

Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier.  We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.


Can you do a comparison between major metropolitan areas in the US?  Maybe a comparison between rural areas?
 
2014-02-14 11:00:48 AM

Scrotastic Method: deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that

The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?


"A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." - Forgot the author

So you're saying no books for people that don't vote?
/you fail
 
2014-02-14 11:14:15 AM

WhiskeyBoy: demaL-demaL-yeH: WhiskeyBoy: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an unarmed active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?

FTFY.

Riiiiiight.
She saw the Tigra strike Fusilier Rigby and carry him until the car crashed into a road sign.
"The young man flew off the bonnet and landed about two feet in front of the car," Mr Whittam said.
"She (Bailey) saw that his eyes were open but they looked frozen."
Mr Whittam said the men left the car.
"The driver w ...


Don't bother even arguing with him.  When he gets proven wrong, he just ignores what you said and keeps on going.
 
2014-02-14 11:15:50 AM

TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

I can't find the same graph including Mexico, but this is total homicides:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 545x477]

We're not the highest, but we're at the unfortunate end of the spectrum.  Mexico is just insane.  Estonia's position is surprising.

Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier.  We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.


And for the Mexican homicide rate we can mostly thank..... the American War on Drugs.  Nancy Reagan, you farked us all.
 
2014-02-14 11:19:08 AM

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.

Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


more guns arguably yields more gun related deaths.  However, less guns does not mean less deaths overall.  I imagine a state with lots of lakes or a long coastline has more drwoning a year than a landlocked arid state.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-14 11:41:32 AM
johnny_vegas

Is it weird that the first thing I noticed about your map is that it seems to have entirely excised the Caspian from existence, instead marking its southernmost reaches as an apparent country that doesn't exist in our world?

I don't know what the UNODC is up to, but it strikes me fair odd.
 
2014-02-14 11:47:51 AM
TuteTibiImperes:

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carry ...

Except it isn't.   The violent crime rate in England is approximately double that of the USA once you correct England's stats to US metrics.

And before you get your panties in a twist, "correcting" UK stats drops their violent crime rate significantly.
 
2014-02-14 11:51:49 AM

WhiskeyBoy: What are you contesting here?  He was unarmed.
If you meant to quote where I said "My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car." I understand, and retract my statement in light of new information you have provided.
Of course, I did also say "If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him."


*DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING*
Now look upthread and see where some mentally-disadvantaged farkers claimed that firearms would make a difference in the UK, citing this very horrific murder as support.
 
2014-02-14 11:55:08 AM

Thingster: TuteTibiImperes:

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carry ...

Except it isn't.   The violent crime rate in England is approximately double that of the USA once you correct England's stats to US metrics.

And before you get your panties in a twist, "correcting" UK stats drops their violent crime rate significantly.


Um, no. No, it isn't. Simple assault (i.e. I'm going to kick your arse,") and BB gun wars/shooting lightbulbs are classified as violent crimes in the UK. The FBI stats don't even count them at all.
 
2014-02-14 11:55:31 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: WhiskeyBoy: What are you contesting here?  He was unarmed.
If you meant to quote where I said "My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car." I understand, and retract my statement in light of new information you have provided.
Of course, I did also say "If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him."

*DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING*
Now look upthread and see where some mentally-disadvantaged farkers claimed that firearms would make a difference in the UK, citing this very horrific murder as support.


You do know it's ok to shoot as a bystander?

You see someone hit by a car, then a guy jumps out and starts stabbing him, you shoot.

That's a good shoot in all 50 states.
 
2014-02-14 11:58:38 AM

Facetious_Speciest: johnny_vegas

Is it weird that the first thing I noticed about your map is that it seems to have entirely excised the Caspian from existence, instead marking its southernmost reaches as an apparent country that doesn't exist in our world?

I don't know what the UNODC is up to, but it strikes me fair odd.


Great point

/specifically to answer your question, not odd at all
 
2014-02-14 12:00:07 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Thingster: TuteTibiImperes:

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carry ...

Except it isn't.   The violent crime rate in England is approximately double that of the USA once you correct England's stats to US metrics.

And before you get your panties in a twist, "correcting" UK stats drops their violent crime rate significantly.

Um, no. No, it isn't. Simple assault (i.e. I'm going to kick your arse,") and BB gun wars/shooting lightbulbs are classified as violent crimes in the UK. The FBI stats don't even count them at all.


Which is where my "correcting to US metrics" statement comes in.

The raw numbers show the UK being 5x more violent than the US.

working their numbers down to the Big Four the FBI look at, the UK is still about 2x as violent as the US.
 
2014-02-14 12:06:04 PM

Thingster: demaL-demaL-yeH: Thingster: TuteTibiImperes:

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carry ...

Except it isn't.   The violent crime rate in England is approximately double that of the USA once you correct England's stats to US metrics.

And before you get your panties in a twist, "correcting" UK stats drops their violent crime rate significantly.

Um, no. No, it isn't. Simple assault (i.e. I'm going to kick your arse,") and BB gun wars/shooting lightbulbs are classified as violent crimes in the UK. The FBI stats don't even count them at all.

Which is where my "correcting to US metrics" statement comes in.

The raw numbers show the UK being 5x more violent than the US.

working their numbers down to the Big Four the FBI look at, the UK is still about 2x as violent as the US.


Accepting your claim (which I don't, b the way), that still leaves the UK far, far less deadly, maimy, vegetably, and paralyzedy.
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report