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  
•       •       •

10348 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 6:15 PM (32 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 12:29:11 PM

Daedalus27: He isn't trying to qualify as an expert marksman.  If that is a bad guy, he isn't walking away.


Neither is anyone in the vicinity.

You don't think that's a problem?

Look, it's simple.  I don't care if you carry a gun.  I care that when you pull it out, you know how to use it properly.  The real world isn't as forgiving as a target range, you go wide on your shots like that picture and you're going to kill some innocent third party.  That target wasn't moving, so this guy shoots so bad AT A STATIONARY target that he can't even hit the silhouette every time?  And you gave him a permit to carry?  fark that.

/CCW 3 counties
//never missed a stationary target in my life
///no where near the best shooter I know
 
2014-02-14 12:31:25 PM

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.


See, this is where people like you can't seem to wrap your head around the bigger picture.
Guy gets run over
Bad guys in the car get out to knife run over guy
A half dozen bystanders draw their CCW's and the bad guys are either prodigiously perforated or they run away at the show of force
Run over guy survives, depending on injuries sustained by meeting a bumper

It's not about just one person, it's about the entire collective. So yes, more guns could have very well helped him.
 
2014-02-14 12:34:28 PM

Kahabut: Neither is anyone in the vicinity.


Only two rounds missed the target, and one of those went over the targets head.
It's a little hyperbolic to say no one in the vicinity is walking away, don't you think?
 
2014-02-14 12:39:23 PM
Kahabut

Look, it's simple. I don't care if you carry a gun. I care that when you pull it out, you know how to use it properly. The real world isn't as forgiving as a target range, you go wide on your shots like that picture and you're going to kill some innocent third party. That target wasn't moving, so this guy shoots so bad AT A STATIONARY target that he can't even hit the silhouette every time? And you gave him a permit to carry? fark that.

In the theory, of course, we're all of the same mind. But as it happens, in the real world, we not only let people walk around with such skills or their lack, we give them special dispensation of authority. That in mind, I don't find it unimaginable that such a person should have the right to defend himself, what with those we expect to do more showing the same lack of acuity.

/see: Empire State Building shootings, 2012
 
2014-02-14 12:44:06 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: 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.


Nonsense. As living creature we have the natural right to self-defense. Not a natural freedom to firearms.

Farkage: "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


Well had the founders written that, yes it would have been the law, and yes I would advocate an amendment to change it. Just like when the founders specifically wrote that militias were the reasons for guns and here I am advocating for changing that.

Lucky for us, we've changed the voting rules. Here's hoping we change the gun rules.

deadlyplatypus: FULL STOP


Commas are not full stops. They directly announce that one thing is related to the other.

If we apply your broken grammar rules to the First Amendment, we'd look at all those dependent clauses as "full stops" too, and then some nutjob would think that meant we could make laws against religion.

The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller.

And you know how that makes sense? Because the claims that "weapons are a natural right" has no bounds. Can I have a .50 cal machine gun on my roof? A bank of SAMs in my backyard? Can I walk through Times Square with a bazooka on my back? Of course not, and you know you wouldn't want that. So you know that there need to be controls on what firearms the population has.

/I'm not a liberal gun nut.
//I used to be a ranked competitive trap (skeet) shooter
///took my wife to a range this summer to teach her how to use handguns...just in case
////understands there's no reason for the average civilian to own anything outside of shotguns and rifles for hunting
 
2014-02-14 12:46:34 PM

Scrotastic Method: Just like when the founders specifically wrote that militias were the reasons for guns and here I am advocating for changing that.


I botched that line and got two ideas mixed up but everyone should know what I meant. But then, this is Fark, so, a mistake just means I'm wrong.

/notice how the commas in that last sentence don't mean the last 6 words stand alone?
 
2014-02-14 12:48:47 PM

Scrotastic Method: Pray 4 Mojo: 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.

Nonsense. As living creature we have the natural right to self-defense. Not a natural freedom to firearms.

Farkage: "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

Well had the founders written that, yes it would have been the law, and yes I would advocate an amendment to change it. Just like when the founders specifically wrote that militias were the reasons for guns and here I am advocating for changing that.

Lucky for us, we've changed the voting rules. Here's hoping we change the gun rules.

deadlyplatypus: FULL STOP

Commas are not full stops. They directly announce that one thing is related to the other.

If we apply your broken grammar rules to the First Amendment, we'd look at all those dependent clauses as "full stops" too, and then some nutjob would think that meant we could make laws against religion.

The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller.

And you know how that makes sense? Because the claims that "weapons are a natural right" has no bounds. Can I have a .50 cal machine gun on my roof? A bank of SAMs in my backyard? Can I walk through Times Square with a bazooka on my back? Of course not, and you know you wouldn't want that. So you know that there need to be controls on what firearms the population has.

/I'm not a liberal gun nut.
//I used to be a ranked competitive trap (skeet) shooter
///took my wife to a range this summer to teach her how to use handguns...just in case
////understands there's no reason for the average civilian to own anything outside of shotguns and rifles for hunting


You support Miller, but then ask if you should be able to have a machine gun?
 
2014-02-14 12:50:16 PM

Scrotastic Method: The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller


Regardless of your opinion.   Heller is now the law of the land thank god.  It's effects can now be seen everywhere.  And guess what?  No blood in the streets.

Maybe your fellow citizens are more reasonable and responsible than you people give us credit for.
 
2014-02-14 12:54:47 PM

AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller

Regardless of your opinion.   Heller is now the law of the land thank god.  It's effects can now be seen everywhere.  And guess what?  No blood in the streets.

Maybe your fellow citizens are more reasonable and responsible than you people give us credit for.


Dude have you seen the stats -- any stats, from many source, ever published anywhere -- on gun death in America vs. the rest of the world?
 
2014-02-14 12:55:08 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: "Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread"



Since this ruling didn't involve judges trying to annul part of the Constitution from the bench, in principle we shouldn't be seeing anybody complaining about activist judges in this thread.
 
2014-02-14 01:02:09 PM
Scrotastic Method

The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"...

Not really sure you want to go there. If you support the interpretation in that case, you're supporting the ideas that:

- a weapon in common military service (today, an assault rifle) is appropriate for the militia;

- "The signification attributed to the term 'militia' appears from the deabtes in the Convention, the history and legislation of colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators; these show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." (emphasis mine)

- "And further, that ordinarily when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

So, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.

I don't think this is really what you want, judging from your previous comments regarding firearms in the United States.
 
2014-02-14 01:05:47 PM

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


bwahahahaha! Sweet kid. [pats head]
 
2014-02-14 01:05:58 PM

Scrotastic Method: AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller

Regardless of your opinion.   Heller is now the law of the land thank god.  It's effects can now be seen everywhere.  And guess what?  No blood in the streets.

Maybe your fellow citizens are more reasonable and responsible than you people give us credit for.

Dude have you seen the stats -- any stats, from many source, ever published anywhere -- on gun death in America vs. the rest of the world?


Yet it's down 50% in the US over the last 20 years.  And still falling.

50%
 
2014-02-14 01:11:31 PM

Thingster: 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.


As I read the California law, you can only use deadly force to protect immediate family members and your employers/servants.
 
2014-02-14 01:11:43 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Scrotastic Method

The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"...

Not really sure you want to go there. If you support the interpretation in that case, you're supporting the ideas that:

- a weapon in common military service (today, an assault rifle) is appropriate for the militia;

- "The signification attributed to the term 'militia' appears from the deabtes in the Convention, the history and legislation of colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators; these show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." (emphasis mine)

- "And further, that ordinarily when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

So, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.

I don't think this is really what you want, judging from your previous comments regarding firearms in the United States.


There's also the point that I will present here:
Okay for the people that say the right to bear arms is tied to militia service (which it isn't), you were to bring your own gun. There is a religious exemption to prevent you from being forced into militia service, but that exemption does not take away your right to own one. Therefore, it can be said you absolutely have the right to own a gun without being in the militia.
 
2014-02-14 01:17:55 PM

TuteTibiImperes: OK, I used job and duty interchangeably. If you prefer job, I have no issue going with that. If you're in trouble, the police are expected to come and help, that's what they're there for.


I can expect to see monkeys flying from my butt, that does not automagically mean they will.

Warren v. District of Columbia:
 By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.
 
2014-02-14 01:22:01 PM
Farkage

Okay for the people that say the right to bear arms is tied to militia service (which it isn't), you were to bring your own gun. There is a religious exemption to prevent you from being forced into militia service, but that exemption does not take away your right to own one. Therefore, it can be said you absolutely have the right to own a gun without being in the militia.

Of course. The means to defend oneself is a natural right, older than the country or its government. If a government were to suppress that right, though, it would hardly be possible to call up a militia with their own arms. That's where the second amendment of the Bill of Rights comes in.
 
2014-02-14 01:30:26 PM

Facetious_Speciest: So, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.

I don't think this is really what you want, judging from your previous comments regarding firearms in the United States.


I'm saying that sure, guns were needed for citizen militias. And since we have no need for those anymore, what with the world's largest armed forces at our disposal, the 2nd ought to be considered irrelevant.
 
2014-02-14 01:40:16 PM
Scrotastic Method

I'm saying that sure, guns were needed for citizen militias. And since we have no need for those anymore, what with the world's largest armed forces at our disposal, the 2nd ought to be considered irrelevant.

Before addressing that, are you now saying you no longer agree with the Miller case? At its decision, we'd had a standing army for quite some time, and the militia (every able man) had been revisited mere decades ago, yet the court opined that citizens were the militia, and the militia should be armed as regular soldiers in case of muster.

That aside, we return to personal opinion. You seem to be happy with an army to invade and occupy other countries. I, much like many of the founders of the United States, do not see that as a positive. To my mind, we waste billions of dollars that could be used for healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc., to maintain an oppressive force that only serves as a placeholder to enrich private entities and sow misery around the world. But again, we're back to the realm of opinion.
 
2014-02-14 01:46:28 PM

Scrotastic Method: Facetious_Speciest: So, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.

I don't think this is really what you want, judging from your previous comments regarding firearms in the United States.

I'm saying that sure, guns were needed for citizen militias. And since we have no need for those anymore, what with the world's largest armed forces at our disposal, the 2nd ought to be considered irrelevant.


If that is the case, repeal the Amendment. If we, as a society, begin ignoring the parts of the constitution we decide we no longer like, our country falls apart rather rapidly.
 
2014-02-14 01:48:11 PM

Thingster: 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.


But unless you've got a CCW permit, you'll be getting a call from the DA and subsequent charges for your service to the community.

which is super-duper farked up.
 
2014-02-14 01:54:41 PM

Finger51: Thingster: 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.

But unless you've got a CCW permit, you'll be getting a call from the DA and subsequent charges for your service to the community.

which is super-duper farked up.


Depends, but yeah, more likely than not you're getting a call from the DA.

Fortunately there are some places that give a defense of self exception to unlawful possession laws, though not defense of third party.
 
2014-02-14 02:14:38 PM

Farkage: If that is the case, repeal the Amendment. If we, as a society, begin ignoring the parts of the constitution we decide we no longer like, our country falls apart rather rapidly.


Yes, agreed, that's what I want, the 2nd should be (edited/repealed/replaced/etc.). But like I said on page I don't know, 2 or something, that'll never happen with a bought-out legislature. The nation has been screaming for serious gun legislation for the past few years, and nothing happens, because backwards asshats like Ted Cruz and Louie Gomert are still allowed to sit at the grown-ups table.
 
2014-02-14 02:23:45 PM

Facetious_Speciest: That aside, we return to personal opinion. You seem to be happy with an army to invade and occupy other countries. I, much like many of the founders of the United States, do not see that as a positive.


Where did I say I was happy about our military? I merely said it existed, and therefore, a citizen militia is useless -- both to defend the country and, sorry Tea Partiers, to rebel against it.

To my mind, we waste billions of dollars that could be used for healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc., to maintain an oppressive force that only serves as a placeholder to enrich private entities and sow misery around the world. But again, we're back to the realm of opinion.

I completely agree with you. I'm the first man in my family, as far back as I've traced it, that hasn't been military. My grandfather was career, my father was in and out in 4 years (I was conceived when he had leave to go bang my mom) and he's been a civilian employee of his branch since the year I was born, etc. I grew up 10 miles from a military college, 25 miles from the NSA, and 40 miles from the Pentagon. I've been surrounded by the military and from everything I've seen...I have no love for it whatsoever. Far as I can tell we've only entered two conflicts worth entering, yet we've been at war for 200 years and like you said, we set billions on fire every year out of the same kind of paranoia, xenophonia, and fear that makes a suburban dad want to keep a .380 in the nightstand and a shotgun behind the door.

But that doesn't change that the military is there, replacing any need for a citizen militia, and able to stomp out any armed uprising in seconds...so the military being there ought to render the 2nd moot.
 
2014-02-14 02:27:19 PM

Scrotastic Method: Farkage: If that is the case, repeal the Amendment. If we, as a society, begin ignoring the parts of the constitution we decide we no longer like, our country falls apart rather rapidly.

Yes, agreed, that's what I want, the 2nd should be (edited/repealed/replaced/etc.). But like I said on page I don't know, 2 or something, that'll never happen with a bought-out legislature. The nation has been screaming for serious gun legislation for the past few years, and nothing happens, because backwards asshats like Ted Cruz and Louie Gomert are still allowed to sit at the grown-ups table.


Well, not really. There are way more moderate people in this country that fully support the 2nd. If it were based on a nationwide vote (no politicians involved) it would never ever pass. And I'm good with that actually.
And the "serious gun legislation" that the people "have been screaming about" is stuff that anyone familiar with the topic knows is just feel good crap. Want to solve gun violence? End the war on drugs. This isn't a gun issue.
 
2014-02-14 02:39:23 PM
Scrotastic Method

The nation has been screaming for serious gun legislation for the past few years...

This is largely untrue, with the exception of universal background checks.

Where did I say I was happy about our military? I merely said it existed, and therefore, a citizen militia is useless -- both to defend the country and, sorry Tea Partiers, to rebel against it.

It seemed as though you prefer a standing army for invading other countries rather than a citizen militia to deter invasion. Sorry.

But that doesn't change that the military is there, replacing any need for a citizen militia, and able to stomp out any armed uprising in seconds...so the military being there ought to render the 2nd moot.

Our opinions differ. Leaving aside the effectiveness of insurgency against the American military, principles matter. If we just decide to throw out the idea of an armed citizenry because we have an oppressive military and a largely (when it comes to personal protection) ineffective police force, we might as well call it a day, IMO.

I come from an immigrant family, many of whom (including myself) having served in the American military. We did not come here from places where government forces wanted a monopoly on violence so as to live in another place where government forces have a monopoly on violence. If nothing else, the American principle that the citizenry should be armed is still attractive, IMO.
 
2014-02-14 02:41:48 PM

Farkage: Want to solve gun violence? End the war on drugs. This isn't a gun issue.


Do you live anywhere near a big city? Or anywhere near a truly rural place? I've spent a long time in both, and the "I want a gun because I can" crowd comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors, from bangers in Oakland and the Southside all the way to good 'ol boys waiting for the South to rise again, and there's a whole lot of gun violence in there that nothing to do with drugs. We have so much gun violence in this country because we have so much gun access -- otherwise, wouldn't we see population-proportionate gun death numbers in other developed nations where drug laws are similar?

Remember the headline from like three weeks ago: old cranky white guy shot and killed two black guys from his living room window, because they were on their own property, looking in their own shed? That's the kind of "responsible gun owner" that we can legislate away. Because what need does that guy really have for guns. And most people aren't strong enough to own a gun and never want to use it.
 
2014-02-14 02:48:02 PM

Scrotastic Method: Farkage: Want to solve gun violence? End the war on drugs. This isn't a gun issue.

Do you live anywhere near a big city? Or anywhere near a truly rural place? I've spent a long time in both, and the "I want a gun because I can" crowd comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors, from bangers in Oakland and the Southside all the way to good 'ol boys waiting for the South to rise again, and there's a whole lot of gun violence in there that nothing to do with drugs. We have so much gun violence in this country because we have so much gun access -- otherwise, wouldn't we see population-proportionate gun death numbers in other developed nations where drug laws are similar?

Remember the headline from like three weeks ago: old cranky white guy shot and killed two black guys from his living room window, because they were on their own property, looking in their own shed? That's the kind of "responsible gun owner" that we can legislate away. Because what need does that guy really have for guns. And most people aren't strong enough to own a gun and never want to use it.


Your last line-

But most people ARE strong enough to own one and never use it in anger, to harm, threaten, or anything else.

Wanting to shoot someone is just like wanting to run over the douche bag bicyclist. It has crossed everyone's mind, but almost no one does it.
 
2014-02-14 03:00:10 PM

Thingster: Wanting to shoot someone is just like wanting to run over the douche bag bicyclist. It has crossed everyone's mind, but almost no one does it.


Except in America, where access to guns means it happens disproportionately more than it should.

Facetious_Speciest: Leaving aside the effectiveness of insurgency against the American military


Meaning, you think a hundred neo-Nazis in Idaho have the potential to defeat the entire US Armed Forces through guerrilla tactics?
 
2014-02-14 03:10:17 PM
Scrotastic Method

Meaning, you think a hundred neo-Nazis in Idaho have the potential to defeat the entire US Armed Forces through guerrilla tactics?

No, I simply doubt the capacity of the American military to pacify American rebels in any real number. They would do fine enough against isolated households, perhaps even a city or three, but widespread insurgency across the country could not be suppressed. If it reached the level of sustained internal conflict, they would fare about as well as they have in Afghanistan*, save that we've ten times the population and fifteen times the area. In addition, the actual dynamics of such a conflict would not favor the government, as it's far harder to distinguish between "us" and "them" when the people are your own.

The usual rebuttal is "hurr durr, the government would level cities," but in all honesty, would you remain on the side of an isolated American government that was nuking American cities simply to retain power?

* meaning it would be long and bloody, but eventually largely fruitless for the American government
 
2014-02-14 03:38:21 PM

Scrotastic Method: Except in America, where access to guns means it happens disproportionately more than it should.


This is your opinion, not fact.
Just wanted to point that out.
 
2014-02-14 03:56:27 PM

Scrotastic Method: Thingster: Wanting to shoot someone is just like wanting to run over the douche bag bicyclist. It has crossed everyone's mind, but almost no one does it.

Except in America, where access to guns means it happens disproportionately more than it should.

Facetious_Speciest: Leaving aside the effectiveness of insurgency against the American military

Meaning, you think a hundred neo-Nazis in Idaho have the potential to defeat the entire US Armed Forces through guerrilla tactics?


There are 80-90 million law abiding gun owners in this country. By your logic, most of us should have been shot by now.
 
2014-02-14 04:06:42 PM

ChaosStar: 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.

See, this is where people like you can't seem to wrap your head around the bigger picture.
Guy gets run over
Bad guys in the car get out to knife run over guy
A half dozen bystanders draw their CCW's and the bad guys are either prodigiously perforated or they run away at the show of force
Run over guy survives, depending on injuries sustained by meeting a bumper

It's not about just one person, it's about the entire collective. So yes, more guns could have very well helped him.


They were stopped by a frikkin Scout Den Mother using her words.
They became attacky/stabby again when armed people showed up.
 
2014-02-14 04:17:58 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: ChaosStar: 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.

See, this is where people like you can't seem to wrap your head around the bigger picture.
Guy gets run over
Bad guys in the car get out to knife run over guy
A half dozen bystanders draw their CCW's and the bad guys are either prodigiously perforated or they run away at the show of force
Run over guy survives, depending on injuries sustained by meeting a bumper

It's not about just one person, it's about the entire collective. So yes, more guns could have very well helped him.

They were stopped by a frikkin Scout Den Mother using her words.
They became attacky/stabby again when armed people showed up.


Had there been CCP holders near by, they probably wouldn't have been stabby in the first place, they would have been holey.

Your way, a soldier ends up dead due to being stabbed.
My way, two psychotics end up leaking all over the street.

Yeah... I like my way better.
 
2014-02-14 04:39:37 PM

AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

The ruling was 2-1 along ideological lines.  Luck of the draw the case ended up with two judges with conservative leanings (one Reagan appointee and one Bush appointee) and one with liberal leanings (a Clinton appointee).

So you're saying we need another recount?


1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2014-02-14 04:46:04 PM

ChaosStar: Scrotastic Method: Except in America, where access to guns means it happens disproportionately more than it should.

This is your opinion, not fact.
Just wanted to point that out.


Link: "A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied."

Link: "According to data  by the United Nations, the United States has four times as many gun-related homicides per capita as do Turkey and Switzerland, which are tied for third. The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average for all other countries on this chart."

It's absolute fact that America has a disproportionately high -- insane, screaming, Everest-high -- amount of firearm deaths when compared to every other developed nation on Earth. Is your disagreement, then, with my use of the phrase, "than it should"? Do you think we have an appropriate amount of gun death? Is your argument that we have the right amount of gun death and everyone else has not enough?
 
2014-02-14 04:47:53 PM

Scrotastic Method: activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller.


This.

Facetious_Speciest: So, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.


To drill, where he was trained and disciplined in accordance with the regulations specified by Congress? No problem. Walking around armed in public for no good reason? Yeah, no.

Facetious_Speciest: o, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.


Depends. Is it one of those plastic tinkertoys that's illegal for deer hunting in 38 states, or is it a proper battle rifle designed to kill the enemy? Because if it's the former, no.

Scrotastic Method: Dude have you seen the stats -- any stats, from many source, ever published anywhere -- on gun death in America vs. the rest of the world?


That.

Look, I don't have a problem with armed citizens, provided we're not talking about armed felons and the mentally ill.

I do have serious heartburn over the incredibly high number of untrained ninnies with piss-poor to nonexistent risk-assessment skills to go with their piss-poor to nonexistent judgment and their piss-poor to nonexistent marksmanship topped off with grandiose delusions of competence walking around armed in public.
 
2014-02-14 04:52:36 PM

ChaosStar: demaL-demaL-yeH: ChaosStar: 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.

See, this is where people like you can't seem to wrap your head around the bigger picture.
Guy gets run over
Bad guys in the car get out to knife run over guy
A half dozen bystanders draw their CCW's and the bad guys are either prodigiously perforated or they run away at the show of force
Run over guy survives, depending on injuries sustained by meeting a bumper

It's not about just one person, it's about the entire collective. So yes, more guns could have very well helped him.

They were stopped by a frikkin Scout Den Mother using her words.
They became attacky/stabby again when armed people showed up.

Had there been CCP holders near by, they probably wouldn't have been stabby in the first place, they would have been holey.

Your way, a soldier ends up dead due to being stabbed.
My way, two psychotics end up leaking all over the street.

Yeah... I like my way better.


Your first instinct when a pedestrian is hit by a car is to slap leather and shoot up a car? Good to know.
*clicks profile*
Haven't been in SC since I left Ft. Jackson. Never intended to go back, but thanks for giving me an additional reason to stay away.
Protip: Arizona is a horrible place to visit.
 
2014-02-14 04:52:59 PM
Does having a gun in every situation mean that the gun is the answer? No. Just like having a hammer in the toolbox does not mean that every situations demands being hit with a hammer.

A gun is a tool for very specific situations, beyond the realms of hunting and sport shooting. The key is to understand that it is a tool best employed very sparingly and only after all other means are exhausted.  This doesn't mean people shouldn't have guns and have the right to defend themselves with deadly force if necessary. This means that, for the love of god, NOT EVERY CASE OF CRIME REQUIRES A GUN.

No, A CCW permit holder isn't going to stop every goddamn crime because if the odds are not in his favor, it's foolish to believe he'll have any impact, and therefore it's better NOT to employ the gun.

Some people seem to take this ideal to extremes. I think that the vast majority of gun owners accept the fact that just having a gun isn't some magical device that makes you a superhero, and understand that in a dynamic situation, things change.

THen you have dumbasses on BOTH sides of the fence who try to convince others that either we should gun down every criminal who ever crimed, or that no one should have guns because...well, whatever their reasoning is.

Look, you're both wrong, mostly because the question isn't a one of whether or not guns should be there. We have a right to own guns, and a right to defend ourselves. The question is one of when it's appropriate to use those firearms, and the means that its appropriate by which we carry them, because, yes, self defense and the right to keep and bear arms is a basic, inalienable right no matter what anyone says, it doesn't mean that we have to be children about it.

I often agree with demaL and Tutetibiimperes or whatever butchered latin his name is. On guns, I don't. But the main reason I don't agree is because they view the general public as being too immature to responsibly have guns. I think most adults are responsible enough. However, there are people that are assholes, no matter what.

Bottom line: STOP ARGUING ABOUT THE STUPID BULLshiat. Let's take it back a notch and start demanding that we promote personal awareness, safety, training and some goddamn common sense, and let's stop trying to legislate everything because someone somewhere might get hurt. It's the way of the world. Live with it.
 
2014-02-14 04:56:30 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH

To drill, where he was trained and disciplined in accordance with the regulations specified by Congress? No problem. Walking around armed in public for no good reason? Yeah, no.

So we're in agreement. Most Americans should possess assault rifles, but walking around with them for no particular reason is a bit silly.
 
2014-02-14 04:56:39 PM

Scrotastic Method: It's absolute fact that America has a disproportionately high -- insane, screaming, Everest-high -- amount of firearm deaths when compared to every other developed nation on Earth. Is your disagreement, then, with my use of the phrase, "than it should"? Do you think we have an appropriate amount of gun death? Is your argument that we have the right amount of gun death and everyone else has not enough?


COnsidering that their stats include suicides, I disagree with their stats.

That being said, I think the problem is less in having guns, and more in society itself. If you ever go over and visit Switzerland (I have), the people there aren't complete asshats and self-interested, narcissistic douchebags unwilling to exercise any forethought or self restraint.

Sadly, the US seems to excel in the "hey, it's not my problem" department.

Plus, we have that whole war on drugs going on which incites a lot of gang violence leading to a major percentage of our gun-related deaths. So we have that going for us, which is nice.
 
2014-02-14 04:57:38 PM

Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

To drill, where he was trained and disciplined in accordance with the regulations specified by Congress? No problem. Walking around armed in public for no good reason? Yeah, no.

So we're in agreement. Most Americans should possess assault rifles, but walking around with them for no particular reason is a bit silly.


Agreed.
 
2014-02-14 04:59:51 PM

Scrotastic Method: Thingster: Wanting to shoot someone is just like wanting to run over the douche bag bicyclist. It has crossed everyone's mind, but almost no one does it.

Except in America, where access to guns means it happens disproportionately more than it should.

Facetious_Speciest: Leaving aside the effectiveness of insurgency against the American military

Meaning, you think a hundred neo-Nazis in Idaho have the potential to defeat the entire US Armed Forces through guerrilla tactics?


In the scheme of things, it almost never happens.

If every single unlawful shooting in the us were perpetrated by a unique individual, thousandths(0.00x%) of a percent of gun owners shoot someone.
 
2014-02-14 05:13:33 PM

Scrotastic Method: It's absolute fact that America has a disproportionately high -- insane, screaming, Everest-high -- amount of firearm deaths when compared to every other developed nation on Earth.


How?
You said yourself that the US has more guns than all those other nations, so how is it "disproportionate" that we have as many guns deaths as we do?
By your logic, Africa has a disproportionate number of lion attacks when compared to all other continents when it's simply because that's where lions live in the wild.
It would be disproportionate if we had the least amount of guns but the most gun deaths.

So no, it's your opinion that it's disproportionate, not fact.
 
2014-02-14 05:15:30 PM

Thingster: In the scheme of things, it almost never happens.

If every single unlawful shooting in the us were perpetrated by a unique individual, thousandths(0.00x%) of a percent of gun owners shoot someone.


But every single time "almost never" turns into "actually did," which happens more here than anywhere else in the world, that means a human being is dead. I don't want to brush that off as some sort of statistical outlier.

Just the amount of innocent people killed by accident, mistake, etc. in Oakland every goddamn year is enough for me.
 
2014-02-14 05:16:28 PM

Kit Fister: Bottom line: STOP ARGUING ABOUT THE STUPID BULLshiat. Let's take it back a notch and start demanding that we promote personal awareness, safety, training and some goddamn common sense, and let's stop trying to legislate everything because someone somewhere might get hurt. It's the way of the world. Live with it.


^^This...right here^^
 
2014-02-14 05:16:48 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Your first instinct when a pedestrian is hit by a car is to slap leather and shoot up a car? Good to know.
*clicks profile*
Haven't been in SC since I left Ft. Jackson. Never intended to go back, but thanks for giving me an additional reason to stay away.
Protip: Arizona is a horrible place to visit.


You just keep earning that troll tag I gave you.
Honestly, if it was you that was hit by the car I'd probably tell the drive to back up and make sure they finished the job, but I know you already know exactly what I meant and you're just being willfully ignorant.
That's why you went to the personal attack, cause you've got nothing concrete to argue from.
 
2014-02-14 05:19:15 PM

Scrotastic Method: Thingster: In the scheme of things, it almost never happens.

If every single unlawful shooting in the us were perpetrated by a unique individual, thousandths(0.00x%) of a percent of gun owners shoot someone.

But every single time "almost never" turns into "actually did," which happens more here than anywhere else in the world, that means a human being is dead. I don't want to brush that off as some sort of statistical outlier.

Just the amount of innocent people killed by accident, mistake, etc. in Oakland every goddamn year is enough for me.


Statistically you're more likely to get killed or injured by a pool.  People really need perspective on this topic (and I'm not being snarky)
 
2014-02-14 05:28:10 PM

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

This was a passing grade in CCW class?



In his defense, it was with a sawed-off shotgun.

At 50 yards.

With a blindfold on.

In the dark.

Drunk.

F*ck yeah.
 
2014-02-14 05:29:22 PM

Scrotastic Method: Thingster: In the scheme of things, it almost never happens.

If every single unlawful shooting in the us were perpetrated by a unique individual, thousandths(0.00x%) of a percent of gun owners shoot someone.

But every single time "almost never" turns into "actually did," which happens more here than anywhere else in the world, that means a human being is dead. I don't want to brush that off as some sort of statistical outlier.

Just the amount of innocent people killed by accident, mistake, etc. in Oakland every goddamn year is enough for me.


You have no concept of risk and likelihood and a bit of tunnel vision here.

The lions in Africa comparison above spot on.

I don't know what else to say besides you've already come to your conclusion and your working on rationalizing how you got there.

Rationally, there are a lot of things to get rid of before guns if we're really looking at how dangerous the item is.
 
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