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.

(Click On Detroit)   Not news: Man breaks in to house. News: Woman in the home warns the man she has a gun and will shoot, and does, killing the man. FARK: This is the 8th time someone has broken in to their house   (clickondetroit.com) divider line 387
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

13868 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2014 at 7:36 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-03 12:45:33 PM  
For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

The reality of this carnage versus the gun-humpers fantasy of the consequences of an armed society is pretty sickening.
 
2014-03-03 12:52:14 PM  

gja: Skeezix: gja: Skeezix: gja: Lorelle: Dimensio: gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.

STOP TRYING TO SPOIL MY FUN, DAMNIT.

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

It was a studio apartment with one door and one big, long window in front. The kitchenette and bathroom were in the rear.

I am enjoying this repartee immensely. It is like spit-roasting bugs on wire getting your ante up.
Too cold and out of season for fishing near me, so playing you like a trout on the end of a line will have to suffice.

BTW, if the bathroom was handy you might have tried flushing yourself. Or hiding in the shower and stopped breathing to trick him.
Of course the latter might have backfired if he was a necrophiliac.

That chick has a reputation for trolling gun threads. You stupidly fell for her shtick. Anyone can see that she played YOU, and I'll grudgingly admit that she did a pretty good job of it too. It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots.

Soooo, you missed my re-trolling of her? Bolded it for ya. Learn to laugh a bit. Have fun with life.

"It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots."
I don't give an damn what people think.

I'm laughing, but at YOU. I've seen enough of her shiat to know how she works. She always waits until someone like you gets unhinged and starts calling her names, then she lays the smackdown on them and goes off to troll another thread.

Don't feed the troll. You only end up making yourself look like a fool.

Not a concern ...


She got a rise out of you first, and you're too dumb to see it.
 
2014-03-03 12:59:03 PM  

walkingtall: a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Well, it is the 99% giving the 1% a bad name here Im afraid. When liberal leaders actually go on record to try and soothe the followers that regulation is only the first small step to confiscation you have to admit maybe gun owners have a right to be a little wary.


Liberal leaders like who?
 
2014-03-03 01:06:02 PM  

DarkVader: Firethorn: DarkVader: There are more accidental shootings with Glocks than anything else out there, because the Glock DOES NOT HAVE A SAFETY!!! It's an extremely dangerous gun.

Part of this is observation bias.  Because there's so many police departments that issue them, there's probably more Glocks out there than other handguns.

And depending on who you ask, most will tell you that the Glock has at least 3 safeties.  That funky sub-trigger lever?  That's a safety.  There's a firing pin block in the system - that's another safety.

What it lacks is a manual safety, and for that to do anything you actually have to turn it on.

No, those features aren't safeties.

A firing pin block is a good thing, but won't do a damn thing if something catches the trigger.  It's nice if you drop the gun, though.  But it's not a safety, it's a firing pin block.  Do I think it should be mandatory on new gun designs, sure.  But it's not a safety.

And that funky sub-trigger?  Yeah, that's not a safety.  That's the trigger.  In no way does that make the gun even the slightest bit safer.  I see no reason for it to even be there.

A "manual safety" as you call it IS a safety.  Not turning it on is highly irresponsible behavior.  Owning a gun without one is irresponsible behavior.  And manufacturing or selling a gun without one should be illegal.


Just because you say their not safeties doesn't mean they're not...
You could easily argue the Glock has a manual safety because it will not fire without disengaging the "sub-trigger". It also does make the firearm safer as it protects from the trigger being snagged on the tips and sides and discharging.
It's really no different, in practice, than a 1911 beaver tail safety, just located on the trigger instead of the grip.
I would also kindly ask you to quit pressing your interpretations of "irresponsible behavior" onto the rest of us that know how to handle firearms safely whether they have a manual safety or not.
 
2014-03-03 01:09:00 PM  

drew46n2: gun-humpers


Why does it almost always seem the sexual stuff regarding guns comes from the anti-gun crowd?

/penis, fetish, masturbation fantasies, humpers, etc
//NTTAWWT
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 01:09:05 PM  

Skeezix: gja: Skeezix: gja: Skeezix: gja: Lorelle: Dimensio: gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.

STOP TRYING TO SPOIL MY FUN, DAMNIT.

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

It was a studio apartment with one door and one big, long window in front. The kitchenette and bathroom were in the rear.

I am enjoying this repartee immensely. It is like spit-roasting bugs on wire getting your ante up.
Too cold and out of season for fishing near me, so playing you like a trout on the end of a line will have to suffice.

BTW, if the bathroom was handy you might have tried flushing yourself. Or hiding in the shower and stopped breathing to trick him.
Of course the latter might have backfired if he was a necrophiliac.

That chick has a reputation for trolling gun threads. You stupidly fell for her shtick. Anyone can see that she played YOU, and I'll grudgingly admit that she did a pretty good job of it too. It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots.

Soooo, you missed my re-trolling of her? Bolded it for ya. Learn to laugh a bit. Have fun with life.

"It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots."
I don't give an damn what people think.

I'm laughing, but at YOU. I've seen enough of her shiat to know how she works. She always waits until someone like you gets unhinged and starts calling her names, then she lays the smackdown on them and goes off to troll another thread.

Don't feed the troll. You only end up making yourself look like a fool.

Not a con ...


Sure. You win ace.
 
2014-03-03 01:13:33 PM  

Hickory-smoked: walkingtall: a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Well, it is the 99% giving the 1% a bad name here Im afraid. When liberal leaders actually go on record to try and soothe the followers that regulation is only the first small step to confiscation you have to admit maybe gun owners have a right to be a little wary.

Liberal leaders like who?


"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -Janet Reno

"I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another."
-Charles Morgan

"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
 -Lenin
 
2014-03-03 01:14:50 PM  

GanjSmokr: drew46n2: gun-humpers

Why does it almost always seem the sexual stuff regarding guns comes from the anti-gun crowd?

/penis, fetish, masturbation fantasies, humpers, etc
//NTTAWWT



Why do gun-fetishists ignore the numbers of the dead and maimed while celebrating the relatively rare legitimate defensive gun use?
 
2014-03-03 01:54:51 PM  

ChaosStar: Hickory-smoked: walkingtall: a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Well, it is the 99% giving the 1% a bad name here Im afraid. When liberal leaders actually go on record to try and soothe the followers that regulation is only the first small step to confiscation you have to admit maybe gun owners have a right to be a little wary.

Liberal leaders like who?

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -Janet Reno


The only cite for that quote is from a 1995 issue of "Soldier of Fortune." The DoJ denies Reno ever said it.

Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.

Liberals are not trying to disarm you. Obama has done absolutely nothing to grab your guns. Gun laws are not a plot by the U.N. to leave America weak and defenseless. The Queen of England is probably not an extraterrestrial lizard. Meth is not an pre-natal supplement.
 
2014-03-03 01:57:00 PM  

LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.


The Brady AWB was anything but "local" and you would know about it if you actually had been paying attention.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Nothing has happened except for when it happened. You are a joke.
 
2014-03-03 02:00:51 PM  

drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

The reality of this carnage versus the gun-humpers fantasy of the consequences of an armed society is pretty sickening.


Doesn't matter.  My firearms saved my family's lives during a home invasion.  My ex- wife and son are trained in how to handle and respect weapons.  Just because someone else is irresponsible doesn't give you or anyone else the right to eliminate my ability to defend myself.  Sorry.
 
2014-03-03 02:09:45 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.


I don't think that's where the problem comes from.
I agree that irrational conspiracy theorists have a problem (or three), but I don't think that's the problem we're discussing here.

Hickory-smoked: Liberals are not trying to disarm you

 This is blatantly false.

You may be a Liberal, and you may not want to disarm me, but that doesn't change the fact that those who do want to disarm me are, for the most part, Liberals.
The buck doesn't just stop at Obama you know. Brady, Feinstein, Bloomberg... all want to disarm me and all are Liberals.
 
2014-03-03 02:50:50 PM  

gja: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.


The first bolded part shows just how disingenuous you are.
The second bolded part is PART of the problem, young man. You haven't been around long enough to see all the nonsense.

Try some of these links:
Recent
The thing that started it all

There are MANY more. But that really isn't the point. The point is POLITICIANS are prone to gun confiscation whether it be overt or via an ex-post-facto rule change.


And this warrants calling everything else under the sun an encroachment on gun rights?

You guys crow as if you've been shot.
 
2014-03-03 02:57:50 PM  

deadlyplatypus: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.

What you're doing is called "back-pedaling" or moving goalposts.  You said they haven't been trying or that they have any interest in doing it.  Ask Diane Feinstein, or "The Mayors Against Illegal Guns".  Sure, none of the liberal/Democratic groups have been successful, but they sure as hell are trying.

Those "fanatical gun nuts" only preach those things because every time something happens they get on the news or start pushing bills that limit peoples' rights.  Its not the gun nuts that are causing the paranoia its Feintstein, Bloomburg, Eric Holder etc.


No, I said there's been no major democratic push for "gun grabbing." Are there some Democrats who are in favour of extreme gun control? Sure. But it's not a party platform, it's not something the Democrats are doing as a group. To say the Democrats are enacting gun control legislation is like saying Republicans all strive for rape-rape legislation; factually inaccurate and disingenuous.

You realize that Feinstein, Bloomburg, and Holder are not the Democratic party, right? Public opinion massively favors the Democrats currently, and if gun grabbing were on the agenda it would've been done shortly after the school full of murdered children got in the news.

A few local regulations. Two states, so far, have been shown to have more onerous gun laws and some misguided restrictions.

Which goalpost moved, again? Be specific.
 
2014-03-03 02:58:58 PM  

Doom MD: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.

In New York State a deadly weapon of war that is too deadly to own:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x390]

In New York State a perfectly legal non-weapon of war:
[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x232]

These laws are totally about public safety.


So, you're upset that the law bans pistol grips and full size magazines?

Well golly, colour me surprised. Clearly this is the Red Dawn scenario.

Wolverines, gentlemen.
 
2014-03-03 03:00:02 PM  

umad: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

The Brady AWB was anything but "local" and you would know about it if you actually had been paying attention.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Nothing has happened except for when it happened. You are a joke.


So you're complaining, in 2014, about a weapons ban that expired 10 years ago?

WOLVERINES.
 
2014-03-03 03:07:39 PM  

drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?



Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year. Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.
Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year.

Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.  Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year ....

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths


Are these the numbers you wanted?
 
2014-03-03 03:15:26 PM  

drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

The reality of this carnage versus the gun-humpers fantasy of the consequences of an armed society is pretty sickening.


So you think the laws should be changed and then ask other people to give you information to show why you are right that the laws should be changed?
 
2014-03-03 03:17:40 PM  

BayouOtter: drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?


Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year. Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.
Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year.

Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.  Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year ....

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths

Are these the numbers you wanted?


Those defensive gun uses per year are entirely full of shiat. 4.7 million defensive gun uses in one year, that's one in every 70 people using a firearm to defend themselves every year. 50,000 is high but a little more reasonable than those ridiculous multi-million per year numbers.
 
2014-03-03 03:22:27 PM  

LavenderWolf: BayouOtter: drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths

Are these the numbers you wanted?

Those defensive gun uses per year are entirely full of shiat. 4.7 million defensive gun uses in one year, that's one in every 70 people using a firearm to defend themselves every year. 50,000 is high but a little more reasonable than those ridiculous multi-million per year numbers.


Do you have a particular empirical reason for doubting them, or just a 'gut feeling'? Maybe you have some stronger evidence and studies showing the numbers are much lower?

Until you do, the numbers stand on their own merits.
 
2014-03-03 03:36:14 PM  

BayouOtter: LavenderWolf: BayouOtter: drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths

Are these the numbers you wanted?

Those defensive gun uses per year are entirely full of shiat. 4.7 million defensive gun uses in one year, that's one in every 70 people using a firearm to defend themselves every year. 50,000 is high but a little more reasonable than those ridiculous multi-million per year numbers.

Do you have a particular empirical reason for doubting them, or just a 'gut feeling'? Maybe you have some stronger evidence and studies showing the numbers are much lower?

Until you do, the numbers stand on their own merits.


Don't you know?  "Common sense" trumps "facts and figures".
 
2014-03-03 03:44:53 PM  

BayouOtter: LavenderWolf: BayouOtter: drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths

Are these the numbers you wanted?

Those defensive gun uses per year are entirely full of shiat. 4.7 million defensive gun uses in one year, that's one in every 70 people using a firearm to defend themselves every year. 50,000 is high but a little more reasonable than those ridiculous multi-million per year numbers.

Do you have a particular empirical reason for doubting them, or just a 'gut feeling'? Maybe you have some stronger evidence and studies showing the numbers are much lower?

Until you do, the numbers stand on their own merits.


Your data fails to take into account that a "defensive firearm use" only counts if an aggressor is killed.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 03:55:37 PM  

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.


The first bolded part shows just how disingenuous you are.
The second bolded part is PART of the problem, young man. You haven't been around long enough to see all the nonsense.

Try some of these links:
Recent
The thing that started it all

There are MANY more. But that really isn't the point. The point is POLITICIANS are prone to gun confiscation whether it be overt or via an ex-post-facto rule change.

And this warrants calling everything else under the sun an encroachment on gun rights?

You guys crow as if you've been shot.


Beg pardon? Didja blow a gasket there bucko? "Everything under the sun"? LOLz
My links and cites are VERY specific and very salient.

You are too young to have seen all the nonsense. But you can find the long and sordid history of weird laws where guns are involved.
Go searchy-searchy. No lazy-lazy....
 
2014-03-03 04:12:06 PM  

ChaosStar: Hickory-smoked: Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.

I don't think that's where the problem comes from.
I agree that irrational conspiracy theorists have a problem (or three), but I don't think that's the problem we're discussing here.

Hickory-smoked: Liberals are not trying to disarm you
 This is blatantly false.

You may be a Liberal, and you may not want to disarm me, but that doesn't change the fact that those who do want to disarm me are, for the most part, Liberals.
The buck doesn't just stop at Obama you know. Brady, Feinstein, Bloomberg... all want to disarm me and all are Liberals.


Do they, though?

Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons. Mayors Against Illegal Guns wanted to have expanded background checks on all firearms purchases, but not ban sales or confiscate weapons.

I have heard some people say it would be nice if it was possible to get rid of guns, but nobody thinks that's actually an option. Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they should be debated against on their own merits, but if you need to bring up the specter of disarmament by liberals totalitarians every time the subject of a shooting comes up, even in a thread where nobody is questioning the woman's right to shoot an intruder, then you're just indulging in a persecution complex.
 
2014-03-03 04:16:57 PM  

Hickory-smoked: ChaosStar: Hickory-smoked: Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.

I don't think that's where the problem comes from.
I agree that irrational conspiracy theorists have a problem (or three), but I don't think that's the problem we're discussing here.

Hickory-smoked: Liberals are not trying to disarm you
 This is blatantly false.

You may be a Liberal, and you may not want to disarm me, but that doesn't change the fact that those who do want to disarm me are, for the most part, Liberals.
The buck doesn't just stop at Obama you know. Brady, Feinstein, Bloomberg... all want to disarm me and all are Liberals.

Do they, though?

Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons. Mayors Against Illegal Guns wanted to have expanded background checks on all firearms purchases, but not ban sales or confiscate weapons.

I have heard some people say it would be nice if it was possible to get rid of guns, but nobody thinks that's actually an option. Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they should be debated against on their own merits, but if you need to bring up the specter of disarmament by liberals totalitarians every time the subject of a shooting comes up, even in a thread where nobody is questioning the woman's right to shoot an intruder, then you're just indulging in a persecution complex.


So you're okay with voter I.D.s?

They aren't taking anybodies right to vote away but to hear the left tell it it's a vast conspiracy to take away the right to vote.

Is that also a persecution complex?
 
2014-03-03 05:04:25 PM  

gja: You are too young to have seen all the nonsense. But you can find the long and sordid history of weird laws where guns are involved.


If it's a legitimate second amendment violation, Congress has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
 
2014-03-03 05:09:10 PM  

BayouOtter: LavenderWolf: BayouOtter: drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths

Are these the numbers you wanted?

Those defensive gun uses per year are entirely full of shiat. 4.7 million defensive gun uses in one year, that's one in every 70 people using a firearm to defend themselves every year. 50,000 is high but a little more reasonable than those ridiculous multi-million per year numbers.

Do you have a particular empirical reason for doubting them, or just a 'gut feeling'? Maybe you have some stronger evidence and studies showing the numbers are much lower?

Until you do, the numbers stand on their own merits.


The numbers are bald-faced lies on their own merits.

You don't always have to know the truth to spot a lie. This is one of those times. By those statistics, on average, a person will have some 20-60 firearm self-defense incidents in their lifetimes. Ludicrous.
 
2014-03-03 05:12:14 PM  

gja: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.


The first bolded part shows just how disingenuous you are.
The second bolded part is PART of the problem, young man. You haven't been around long enough to see all the nonsense.

Try some of these links:
Recent
The thing that started it all

There are MANY more. But that really isn't the point. The point is POLITICIANS are prone to gun confiscation whether it be overt or via an ex-post-facto rule change.

And this warrants calling everything else under the sun an encroachment on gun rights?

You guys crow as if you've been shot.

Beg pardon? Didja blow a gasket there bucko? "Everything under the sun"? LOLz
My links and cites are VERY specific and very salient.

You are too young to have seen all the nonsense. But you can find the long and sordid history of weird laws where guns are involved.
Go searchy-searchy. No lazy-lazy....


Really?  I'll just quote someone else who makes the point better than I.

"Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they should be debated against on their own merits, but if you need to bring up the specter of disarmament by liberals totalitarians every time the subject of a shooting comes up, even in a thread where nobody is questioning the woman's right to shoot an intruder, then you're just indulging in a persecution complex. "

The people crowing about gun rights in this thread? Persecution complex, plain and simple. This is what I was talking about.

If you have a specific issue, limited in scope, and don't crow from the highest rooftop about how they're coming to take your guns, stop arguing against me. We have no beef. I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted.
 
2014-03-03 05:17:03 PM  
LavenderWolf:
The numbers are bald-faced lies on their own merits.

You don't always have to know the truth to spot a lie. This is one of those times. By those statistics, on average, a person will have some 20-60 firearm self-defense incidents in their lifetimes. Ludicrous.


You wouldn't know truth is if it bit you on the face while everyone screamed "That Truth is biting LavenderWolf! Call Truth Control!"
 
2014-03-03 05:17:59 PM  

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.


The first bolded part shows just how disingenuous you are.
The second bolded part is PART of the problem, young man. You haven't been around long enough to see all the nonsense.

Try some of these links:
Recent
The thing that started it all

There are MANY more. But that really isn't the point. The point is POLITICIANS are prone to gun confiscation whether it be overt or via an ex-post-facto rule change.

And this warrants calling everything else under the sun an encroachment on gun rights?

You guys crow as if you've been shot.

Beg pardon? Didja blow a gasket there bucko? "Everything under the sun"? LOLz
My links and cites are VERY specific and very salient.

You are too young to have seen all the nonsense. But you can find the long and sordid history of weird laws where guns are involved.
Go searchy-searchy. No lazy-lazy....

Really?  I'll just quote someone else who makes the point better than I.

"Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they sh ...


I'll try again.

Are you for voter ID laws?
 
2014-03-03 05:22:56 PM  
Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?


And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 05:27:42 PM  

LavenderWolf: I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted.


Really. So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?
Because it is on-point for this discussion. And is a material impact to many owners who did nothing wrong.
 
2014-03-03 05:28:05 PM  

LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?


It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 05:38:50 PM  

LavenderWolf: and don't crow from the highest rooftop about how they're coming to take your guns,


Oh, and I have never said they are coming to take my rifles.
For one, they do not fit the 'scary' diagram. Two, they are not handguns. Three, I do not have high-cap mags for them.

That being said, many friends who are just as responsible as I, are now going to have to deal with an unreasonable and frivolous bit of failed legislation (which may end up in SCOTUS' lap soon). It will not save a single life. It will only cause grief and money and open a venue to other overreaches and abuse of process. It is a bad thing, done by people with an underhanded agenda.
 
2014-03-03 05:48:09 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?


You might find this article informative:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-law s- are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/
 
2014-03-03 05:48:45 PM  
Glocks are no more dangerous than any other gun.  Glocks are one of the most popular guns for IPSC and IDPA competitions where shooters have to run, draw, find cover, shoot, reload, differentiate between "good guy" and "bad guy" targets and fire accordingly.  All of this while drawing from a concealment holster which is covered by clothing.  I go to and participate in many of these competitions every year.  I have yet to see any other cause to a Glock firing than the trigger being pulled.  I've never seen the trigger "snag" a piece of clothing and I have seen them drawn thousands of times from underneath clothing.  People who go on about how Glocks are unsafe are people with little to no hands-on exposure to handguns.  Also if you are carrying a gun for the purpose of protecting yourself or others, having the safety on will probably get you killed.  There is a reason why the Glock is the most often issued weapon by police departments.  Then there are H&K models that don't have a manual safety that many departments issue.  Of course, the S&W M&P series is also growing in popularity with law enforcement and again that version has no manual safety.  Even the Sig Sauer 226 that federal agencies offer has no safety.
The most basic and often taught rules of gun safety include: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
 
2014-03-03 05:54:05 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?

You might find this article informative:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-law s- are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/


So the answer is gun owners who complain that proposed gun laws are paranoid nut jobs but Americans who want people to present ID (just like when they cash a check, get a drivers license, but a plane ticket) are racists and ageists.

Got it.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 05:58:35 PM  

lonerancher: Glocks are no more dangerous than any other gun.  Glocks are one of the most popular guns for IPSC and IDPA competitions where shooters have to run, draw, find cover, shoot, reload, differentiate between "good guy" and "bad guy" targets and fire accordingly.  All of this while drawing from a concealment holster which is covered by clothing.  I go to and participate in many of these competitions every year.  I have yet to see any other cause to a Glock firing than the trigger being pulled.  I've never seen the trigger "snag" a piece of clothing and I have seen them drawn thousands of times from underneath clothing.  People who go on about how Glocks are unsafe are people with little to no hands-on exposure to handguns.  Also if you are carrying a gun for the purpose of protecting yourself or others, having the safety on will probably get you killed.  There is a reason why the Glock is the most often issued weapon by police departments.  Then there are H&K models that don't have a manual safety that many departments issue.  Of course, the S&W M&P series is also growing in popularity with law enforcement and again that version has no manual safety.  Even the Sig Sauer 226 that federal agencies offer has no safety.
The most basic and often taught rules of gun safety include: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.


I dislike the idea of paying a goodly sum of money for a 'plastic fantastic'.
IF (massive if here, because very unlikely I will ever bother with a handgun) I were to buy a handgun it would be along these lines:

picturearchive.gunauction.com

Very limited edition. In a wooden presentation box. With a card signed by the people proud enough to put their names on it.
 
2014-03-03 06:07:20 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?


I have no interest in engaging in a manufactured distraction.
 
2014-03-03 06:09:02 PM  

gja: LavenderWolf: I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted.

Really. So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?
Because it is on-point for this discussion. And is a material impact to many owners who did nothing wrong.


Uh, what exactly are you asking me here?
 
2014-03-03 06:14:59 PM  
A gun in a presentation box doesn't make sense to me but if that is what you are into, cool.  Shooting that gun would reck its value.  Carrying it would leave it damaged by holster wear.  When you clean it the solvents could wreck the gold plating.

I don't need a purdy gun.  I need one that functions and stands up to being carried everyday.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 06:20:55 PM  

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted.

Really. So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?
Because it is on-point for this discussion. And is a material impact to many owners who did nothing wrong.

Uh, what exactly are you asking me here?


YOUR CLAIM:
LavenderWolf: "I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted."

MY QUERY:
So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?

YOUR ANSWER:?

/because it DID happen, and is impactful to people who did no wrong, and is a model of ex-post-facto abuse
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 06:23:59 PM  

lonerancher: A gun in a presentation box doesn't make sense to me but if that is what you are into, cool.  Shooting that gun would reck its value.  Carrying it would leave it damaged by holster wear.  When you clean it the solvents could wreck the gold plating.

I don't need a purdy gun.  I need one that functions and stands up to being carried everyday.


The point isn't the 'pretty', the point really is fine craftmanship. I will not fork over large sums for things made from cheap materials on a CNC machine that barely get a once-over. No thank you very much.
I know it would get worn. Things are supposed to get worn from use. Just like us 2 legged animals get worn-out. Age. It happens.
 
2014-03-03 06:48:29 PM  

Hickory-smoked: ChaosStar: Hickory-smoked: Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.

I don't think that's where the problem comes from.
I agree that irrational conspiracy theorists have a problem (or three), but I don't think that's the problem we're discussing here.

Hickory-smoked: Liberals are not trying to disarm you
 This is blatantly false.

You may be a Liberal, and you may not want to disarm me, but that doesn't change the fact that those who do want to disarm me are, for the most part, Liberals.
The buck doesn't just stop at Obama you know. Brady, Feinstein, Bloomberg... all want to disarm me and all are Liberals.

Do they, though?

Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons. Mayors Against Illegal Guns wanted to have expanded background checks on all firearms purchases, but not ban sales or confiscate weapons.

I have heard some people say it would be nice if it was possible to get rid of guns, but nobody thinks that's actually an option. Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they should be debated against on their own merits, but if you need to bring up the specter of disarmament by liberals totalitarians every time the subject of a shooting comes up, even in a thread where nobody is questioning the woman's right to shoot an intruder, then you're just indulging in a persecution complex.


So you're moving the goal post from "Liberals are not trying to disarm you " to "Liberals are not successfully trying to disarm you"? I see, well then there's really no point in speaking with you further is there, as nothing I'm going to say is going to hit the target you keep moving?

But I'll let miss Feinstein say it in her own words, and prove you utterly wrong: "If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here. "

but no, no Liberal wants to take guns away...
 
2014-03-03 06:59:31 PM  

LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?

I have no interest in engaging in a manufactured distraction.


Of course you don't.

Just noticed you're a Canadian.

Must be tough when your Prime Minister has to bow before a monarch.
 
2014-03-03 07:09:29 PM  

Lorelle: teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

One can buy quick-release window bars, dude.


Yeah. My mom had bars put on the windows of her old house and the QR handles were quite prominent.
 
2014-03-03 07:12:25 PM  
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensrolein C anada.aspx

I'll post this so maybe people can better understand where LavenderWolf is coming from.

"The Queen personifies the state and is the personal symbol of allegiance, unity, and authority for all Canadians. Legislators, ministers, public services and members of the military and police all swear allegiance to The Queen. It is for this reason that all new Canadian citizens swear allegiance to The Queen of Canada. Elections are called and laws are promulgated in The Queen's name."

So that's why someone from a colony such as this has a tough time grasping self-determined rights.
 
2014-03-03 07:22:09 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.


This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.
 
2014-03-03 07:22:45 PM  

RatMaster999: LavenderWolf: RatMaster999: RatMaster999: LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.


Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%
//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.
///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Nope, this isn't the first step in collecting guns from legitimate owners.


Oh, and this...

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/despp-0788-c_magazin e_ declaration.pdf

Both of your links are just gibbering about the line where civilians are no longer allowed to have certain hardware. Some people think it should be with assault rifles (which, yes, are a thing and are real) being illegal, others think ...


http://gunsnfreedom.com/ct-cops-seize-69-year-olds-274-legal-guns-an d- charge-him-with-17-felonies/


Here's another example of people not grabbing our guns...
 
2014-03-03 07:32:46 PM  

umad: If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.


But that law didn't take away water pistols, slingshots, pea-shooters, pneumatic tools, or caulk dispensers, so it wasn't really a ban on all guns, was it?

/And while we're on the subject of "Liberals have never retroactively banned and confiscated guns", don't forget the SKS sportster...
 
Displayed 50 of 387 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report