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.

(WPXI.com)   Reports that 20 students have been hurt after multiple stabbings at Franklin Regional High School near Pittsburgh   (wpxi.com) divider line 742
    More: News, Franklin Regional High School, Pittsburgh, Westmoreland County  
•       •       •

8399 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 9:57 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-09 02:54:23 PM

great_tigers: Don't come after my assault knives now.


That joke stopped being funny about 600 comments back.
 
2014-04-09 02:57:22 PM

Paris1127: Same Franklin?
[img4.wikia.nocookie.net image 800x600]


Came for this. I'm guessing it was the LSDm they were spraying on the local fruit trees!
 
2014-04-09 02:58:32 PM

TheYeti: farkette716: TheYeti: It's almost as if there is a deeper societal problem than that of the availability of weapons.

I think everyone is lonely and technology has made us this way. People are meaner to each other and don't care about others. Most people just try to dominate conversations and bring people down a notch.

Could be.  I agree that the isolation and the relative anonymity of the internet might have something to do with it, but I really have no idea.

Something has fundamentally changed in past couple of decades and it scares the shiat out of me.


OMG could you imagine being in a retirement home where the people who have to help if ur a vegetable are this generation or the one behind it coming up?
 
2014-04-09 02:58:40 PM

Shan: Then there is the issue with "mental health" denials (as in, denying a purchase, not someone who denies they have mental issues).  The brain is a  very complicated organ that we have only a weak understanding of. In order for the system to be fair; a strict set of qualifiers would need to be implimented and adheared to in terms of classifying someone "mentally fit" or not.  For example, a close friend of mine was denied a renewal of his security clearance because after its issue (and initial background investigation); he had been divorced; and  voluntarily went to a psychiatrist.  Not because he was depressed or suicidal; but to talk to someone who was a neutral party and gain understanding of why the marriage didn't work.  Because he did so; he was denied a security clearance which was required for his job; and subsequently had to be let go.  Should he also be required to relinquish the weapons he has and be banned from buying more?

... By mental status; I'm meaning checking against the existing (dis)qualifiers.  As I said before the brain is a complicated beast and getting deeper than "has this person ever been diagnosed with XYZ" is a slippery slope that I'm not keen to start down if avoidable.  Any changes here would need to stay in the realm of black and white (that is, you ARE schizophrenic; or you ARE bi-polar); and avoid any kind of subjective classifications that could change depending on whose looking at your file or what day of the week it is.


Your concern regarding the first is addressed by your suggestion in the second - visiting a psychiatrist shouldn't be enough to require relinquishment of firearms, but being diagnosed with an illness should. But there's no need to restrict it to just the specifics you suggest. What about intermittent explosive disorder? What about severe depression?
Diagnosis is already based on a subjective classification - one man's bi-polar is another's depression. Why not let the psychiatrists do their job and make the determination based on whether they believe you're a danger to yourself or others?
 
2014-04-09 03:00:03 PM

cuzsis: You know, given the pressure put on today's students I'm kind of surprised that this doesn't happen a bit more often


It's already rare and happening less frequently.  The occurrence is about 2-5 times per year.  This is across 98,817 public schools (a 0.005% chance annually, non-cumulative).  So for 55 Million school children a year of all ages, 297 have been killed in total in the last 35 years.  It's statistically zero.

These events are terribly tragic, but they are blown way out of proportion.  The simple reality is that your child is more likely to be struck by a meteor than injured in a school shooting. In fact you are more likely to hit all 5 numbers on a mega-millions ticket than to have been killed in a school shooting in the last 35 years.

Sources
Interactive Chart of School Shootings - Slate
Educational Statistics - Infoplease
 
2014-04-09 03:04:40 PM

Harry Freakstorm: Early reports are that a person ran through the school slashing or puncturing students with a knife or other sharp object.

Running in the halls? That is at least two day's detention right there.


Running while carrying a knife even. Damn right that should get detention. That's dangerous. You could trip and really hurt yourself.
 
2014-04-09 03:05:18 PM

AngryDragon: cuzsis: You know, given the pressure put on today's students I'm kind of surprised that this doesn't happen a bit more often

It's already rare and happening less frequently.  The occurrence is about 2-5 times per year.  This is across 98,817 public schools (a 0.005% chance annually, non-cumulative).  So for 55 Million school children a year of all ages, 297 have been killed in total in the last 35 years.  It's statistically zero.

These events are terribly tragic, but they are blown way out of proportion.  The simple reality is that your child is more likely to be struck by a meteor than injured in a school shooting. In fact you are more likely to hit all 5 numbers on a mega-millions ticket than to have been killed in a school shooting in the last 35 years.

Sources
Interactive Chart of School Shootings - Slate
Educational Statistics - Infoplease


Yes, but bad news sells.

And there's nothing sexy about reporting on the big killers: heart disease, cancer, strokes, Alzheimer's, diabetes, etc.
 
2014-04-09 03:07:04 PM

NightOwl2255: TheShavingofOccam123: Open carry and CCW are not the same thing. But doublespeak makes it so.

Open carry. Concealed carry. Yes, not the same at all. Not like they both mean to carry a firearm on your person. Not like the difference is as simple as a tucked in shirt. Nope, completely different animals.


The difference is the distance at which one can spot, and avoid, the armed idiot.
 
2014-04-09 03:07:11 PM

devilEther: This is a false flag operation by the NRA.


No, this is a false flag operation by the National Knife Association
 
2014-04-09 03:09:33 PM
It's time to register all knives.  

Do you know how many are in your home?
 
2014-04-09 03:14:27 PM

Xcott: Naesen: My favorite quote from this whole scenario was "20 children were wounded with four flown out by helicopter, but none with life threatening injuries." This was from WTOP. How stupid do you think your readership is? You don't stick a kid on a helicopter because he broke a bone, got stabbed but not too bad, or given themselves a mild concussion. You stick em on a helicopter when a local hospital is incapable of proper treatment and that the kid will most likely die by the time a ground transport gets them to the hospital that can.


Where I live, we have three hospitals in a 10-minute drive, one just a few blocks from our house.  But the nearest pediatric ICU is in a hospital 90 minutes away.  If there's any reason a kid needs to go to the ICU, it's an automatic helicopter ride.


================
to both of you, where this town is, the life flight is preferable because in the morning rush hour traffic for the kids that were so severe this was faster than a ambulance ride. It's only ~30ish minute drive without traffic, but otherwise, it could be a while. This was a safety concern I'm sure.
 
2014-04-09 03:18:02 PM

Theaetetus: Your concern regarding the first is addressed by your suggestion in the second - visiting a psychiatrist shouldn't be enough to require relinquishment of firearms, but being diagnosed with an illness should. But there's no need to restrict it to just the specifics you suggest. What about intermittent explosive disorder? What about severe depression?
Diagnosis is already based on a subjective classification - one man's bi-polar is another's depression. Why not let the psychiatrists do their job and make the determination based on whether they believe you're a danger to yourself or others?


No; that's exactly what I'm suggesting.  I realized I was getting into Wall o' Text mode so I kind of cut myself short without fully explaining.

Obviously I don't mean to imply that "only" Bi-Polar and Schizophrenia should be used as (dis)qualifiers; but rather "hard" explicit diagnosis.  I understand that those aren't as cut and dry as say, a diagnosis of Lupus, or AIDS; but what I'm wanting to avoid is an individual (such as my friend from earlier) going to a head shrinker and mentioning that he was upset at work the other day; and the doctor running over to his computer and clicking the "keep away from guns" button.  In fact; the Dr shouldn't be able to make that call (directly) themselves; but rather he (or she) inputs the session notes into the patients file; with say a couple of check-boxes that need filling out (EG "Patient has been diagnosed with XXX disorder" or "Patient is suicidal yes/no") and from there the computer itself checks the criteria and updates the "new" NCIC database with a yay/nay.  If its a no-status, embed a reference number that links back to the shrinks office; if the patient goes to buy a gun, he gets the reference number and calls into the NCIC himself, and they can be the one to tell him it was the shrink; or because someone filed a restraining order against him, or whatever; but even the NCIC shouldn't know the SPECIFICS.  That is; the NCIC has no reason to know that he's bi-polar; just that he's mentally unfit and if he has questions call $PhoneNumberOfPsychYou'veBeenSeeing; nor should they have any need to know he has a restraining order against him; just that Criminal says NO and call $PoliceDepartment.  This alleviates any privacy concerns all around.
 
2014-04-09 03:21:50 PM

jaerik: And nobody died.


Well, duh. Knives are more difficult to kill people with than guns. Women and even children can kill a 235-pound male Marine Corps bodybuilder with a gun, while with only knives it takes another equally trained male Marine to come out of a fight alive (and then only if the opponent is unarmed or taken by surprise).

Question is, do we really want to go back to a world where everyone has to depend on such alpha males for protection, while those that are weaker and/or female can only exist as servants or slaves to them? No doubt the alpha males would love it, along with those that imagine themselves to be alpha males until they find out that a 100-knife-kill streak in Call of Duty doesn't actually translate into real life combat skills, but the rest of us unfortunate enough to be born without the proper genetics for it, or who chose intellectual pursuits that didn't give us the time to also develop huge muscles, guns are still the great equalizer, and giving up that equality is the critical first step to giving up all our other rights.

/and no, those rights aren't guaranteed
//except "might makes right," which is natural law
///everything else is imaginary, and can be destroyed if we let the Constitution be altered to the point that survival depends on abandoning the rule of its law
 
2014-04-09 03:23:53 PM
HMS_Blinkin: naughtyrev: TwoHead: kronicfeld: I wonder what a comparative study would reveal about the relative fatality rate of a knife-wielding assailant versus a gun-wielding assailant?

Oh, wait, I don't wonder that at all.

A crazed gunman has to stop to reload but that maniac with a knife never runs out of ammo.  Guns, as our nation's founders intended, are inherently safer by far.

Think about how long it would take me to reload a tank, and I'd probably need help with operating it. That's even safer. I want a government issued tank.

Fark that, I saw we need silo-based ICBMs.  Think about how long it takes to build those things, and how difficult they are to maintain properly!  Sure, you could use one, but it'd take you so long to reload that bystanders would definitely jump you before you detonated the second nuclear weapon.


Why not just outlaw all guns except for muskets? A gunman would get in one shot, then have to spend 20 minutes cleaning out the barrel before he could fire another shot.
 
2014-04-09 03:26:43 PM

kling_klang_bed: Why not just outlaw all guns except for muskets? A gunman would get in one shot, then have to spend 20 minutes cleaning out the barrel before he could fire another shot.


i508.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-09 03:28:39 PM

jankyboy: demaL-demaL-yeH: NickelP: Publikwerks: Cyrusv10: Why are those anti-gun Farkers so silent all the sudden?

Because all the retards who think that any sort of gun registration/mental health check = gun grabbing have blown their saved up load of wharbagarble before anything remotely resembling an argument could form.

The bottom line is that this is a sad occurrence, but it would have been alot worse if he had a gun. And if we could get past all the BS, maybe we could figure out a way to keep guns out of the hand of people who would do these type of attacks. So that the headlines would stay 20 injured instead of 20 killed

is there a single school shooting a gun registration would have stopped?

Columbine.

Do explain.

Gun registration isn't exactly a preventative control.


Straw. Purchases.

Riiight registering ownership and transfers is unpossible, unworkable, and ineffective[SIC].
 
2014-04-09 03:41:34 PM

tlars699: Frozboz: Kid with a knife = 20 kids with serious, but non-life threatening injuries- who may now be laced with a blood born disease that they didn't have previously and can now look forward to eventually succumbing to lifelong torture from said disease.
Kid with a gun = 20 dead kids


FTFY

Would you rather die right now, or waste away?


Well that would depend on where you end up doing your wasting away at I guess.

cfanorthatlantic.org
 
2014-04-09 03:45:22 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: jankyboy: demaL-demaL-yeH: NickelP: Publikwerks: Cyrusv10: Why are those anti-gun Farkers so silent all the sudden?

Because all the retards who think that any sort of gun registration/mental health check = gun grabbing have blown their saved up load of wharbagarble before anything remotely resembling an argument could form.

The bottom line is that this is a sad occurrence, but it would have been alot worse if he had a gun. And if we could get past all the BS, maybe we could figure out a way to keep guns out of the hand of people who would do these type of attacks. So that the headlines would stay 20 injured instead of 20 killed

is there a single school shooting a gun registration would have stopped?

Columbine.

Do explain.

Gun registration isn't exactly a preventative control.

Straw. Purchases.

Riiight registering ownership and transfers is unpossible, unworkable, and ineffective[SIC].


I know what a straw purchaser is, but I fail to see how registration would have stopped (your word) Columbine. Registration might deter someone from giving a gun to another individual who is prohibited from owning a gun, but it doesn't prevent them from doing so.
 
2014-04-09 03:49:26 PM

thefatbasturd: iq_in_binary: thefatbasturd: Baz744: thefatbasturd: Gun, knife, it doesn't matter.

Gun, knife; it matters because guns have a much higher lethality rate than knives. Guns are objectively more dangerous than knives. To deny this conclusively proves you are stupid or evil.

thefatbasturd: Face it. If you are focusing all your fear and energy on whatever tool a school assailant is using, you are part of the problem.

No. People concerned about firearms safety are in no way part of the problem. Stupid or evil people who deny that guns are objectively more dangerous than nearly all other commonly used instruments of murder, however, are part of the problem.

This is doubly true because the people most likely to support compassionate, progressive mental health policy cross over heavily with the people concerned about firearms safety; while the people who support draconian or judgmental responses to assorted abnormal behaviors which may be predictive in these cases (thereby encouraging affected individuals to hide their abnormalities rather than seek support to address them) cross over heavily with the stupid and evil people who say guns are no more dangerous than pillows.

Moreover, those who support generous public funding of mental health support cross over heavily with the first group; those who believe public funding for anything other than the military and police constitutes tyranny cross over heavily with the second group.

Enhanced gun safety laws may or may not be part of the solution to the problem of mass violence in schools and public places. But those who favor them are far less likely to be part of the problem than are the stupid and evil people who maintain that guns are no more dangerous than pillows/knives/milk/a bag of walnuts.

Wall of anti-gun rhetoric, opinion about correlation between pro-mental health beliefs and pro-gun control beliefs stated as fact, and personal attacks. Yep. You are not part of the problem at ALL.

You act like there is absolutely no gun control already. T ...

Funny, you don't hear about people getting mowed down with Thompsons anymore in this country. Or blown up with grenades. Or about mortar attacks against churches (granted, you have to go back a ways to find that one, and that one was actually a militia). Remember the roaring 20's and the days of prohibition? Those days weren't a joke, nor were they misrepresented in the history books.

Funny how after the NFA was passed....you started seeing stories about Chicago typewriters being used to clear a speakeasy disappear. All of a sudden the tools of overwhelming force preferred by gangland thugs were a huge liability. They could still get them, they weren't banned. But now they could be tracked back to them.

Gun control DOES work. So long as it's control. Case in point? From the passage of the NFA to the passage of FOPA in 1986 (which effectively relegated select fire weapons to luxuries) you can find 2, count them, 2 instances of NFA controlled weapons being used in crimes. Both of those crimes don't really count because they were committed by LEOs and to this day LEOs still have access to weapons banned under FOPA.

So, to that end, you have no farking idea what you're talking about.

Boy. Bet all those people killed with handguns, shotguns, non-assault ries etc. are sure glad those laws were passed! Banning certain types of weapons DOES NOT WORK other than to cause a switch in what TYPE of weapon is used. Nothing more. Again the ONLY thing that might help is focusing on the PERSON not the tool.


Handguns, shotguns in general, and non SBR semi auto rifles aren't under the control of the NFA.

And control does work, otherwise you'd be able to find me more than 2 instances in the 80 year history of the NFA of stamped weapons being used in crimes. Go ahead, find more. I'll wait.

Until you do, you're wrong.
 
2014-04-09 03:50:48 PM

Shan: voluntarily went to a psychiatrist. Not because he was depressed or suicidal; but to talk to someone who was a neutral party and gain understanding of why the marriage didn't work. Because he did so; he was denied a security clearance which was required for his job; and subsequently had to be let go


That's the sort of thing that is an obstacle to implementing more effective mental-health screening of firearm purchases.  It might dissuade people with problems from seeking professional help in the first place, which might supply them with drugs to stabilize their condition before it turned serious.
 
2014-04-09 03:51:53 PM

Kit Fister: demaL-demaL-yeH: Columbine.

[citation needed]


The Columbine kids also had homemade bombs with on their person, too.  I think they may have used a few of them in their assault.  Nope, I don't think this one counts, either.
 
2014-04-09 03:54:38 PM

iq_in_binary: The gangs didn't stop warring after Prohibition was repealed. They simply moved on to other activities. Do keep in mind that the families didn't really start getting dismantled and deported until 1946. Even then the fighting still continued, it just continued mostly in Italy and only direct hit attempts and various spats in major cities in the US.


So are you conceding that NFA had little to nothing to do with it and the end of Prohibition did it or what?
 
2014-04-09 03:56:19 PM

Dragonflew: Hey, children were hurt! I'll take this opportunity to leave hate-filled comments about liberals!


And I'll take this opportunity to blame "gun-culture", gun owners and the NRA.
 
2014-04-09 03:56:51 PM

Xcott: Naesen: My favorite quote from this whole scenario was "20 children were wounded with four flown out by helicopter, but none with life threatening injuries." This was from WTOP. How stupid do you think your readership is? You don't stick a kid on a helicopter because he broke a bone, got stabbed but not too bad, or given themselves a mild concussion. You stick em on a helicopter when a local hospital is incapable of proper treatment and that the kid will most likely die by the time a ground transport gets them to the hospital that can.


Where I live, we have three hospitals in a 10-minute drive, one just a few blocks from our house.  But the nearest pediatric ICU is in a hospital 90 minutes away.  If there's any reason a kid needs to go to the ICU, it's an automatic helicopter ride.


It might also be worth mentioning that this is Pittsburgh area.  A lot of things wind up sort of accidentally isolated by bridges and tunnels and the road system that was put together by a dyslexic mountain goat cruising on shrooms.  Sometimes a chopper is going to be your best throughroute.
 
2014-04-09 04:01:49 PM
____ ___ _____ _____ until things got all stabby.
 
2014-04-09 04:02:13 PM
If he'd had a gun, there would be 20 people DEAD, not injured.

But please proceed with the ridiculous comparisons.
 
2014-04-09 04:02:41 PM

Callous: Dragonflew: Hey, children were hurt! I'll take this opportunity to leave hate-filled comments about liberals!

And I'll take this opportunity to blame "gun-culture", gun owners and the NRA.


Was the link changed? When I clicked the article originally, it was full of the comments I described.
 
2014-04-09 04:05:59 PM
The lack of mental health services in this country is scarier than both guns and knives.  But please, carry on with your banning of things.  It's working so well.
 
2014-04-09 04:06:37 PM

iq_in_binary: Handguns, shotguns in general, and non SBR semi auto rifles aren't under the control of the NFA.

And control does work, otherwise you'd be able to find me more than 2 instances in the 80 year history of the NFA of stamped weapons being used in crimes. Go ahead, find more. I'll wait.

Until you do, you're wrong.


So you're okay with the crimes what were committed with illegally owned machine guns?  Or do you just not count those because they don't fit the narrative of the NFA working?
 
2014-04-09 04:07:01 PM

Callous: iq_in_binary: The gangs didn't stop warring after Prohibition was repealed. They simply moved on to other activities. Do keep in mind that the families didn't really start getting dismantled and deported until 1946. Even then the fighting still continued, it just continued mostly in Italy and only direct hit attempts and various spats in major cities in the US.

So are you conceding that NFA had little to nothing to do with it and the end of Prohibition did it or what?


If you had read what I just said you'd have known that the families didn't stop warring until well into the 50's. They were around for another decade until the FBI was even able to start making a dent in their numbers via convictions and deportations. But machine gun massacres stopped immediately after the passage of the NFA. You'd know that if you knew anything about gun crime and statistics.

I'm a card carrying and certified gunsmith, you're not going to sway me with crap until you go out and find an example of the NFA's failures.
 
2014-04-09 04:07:18 PM

shower_in_my_socks: If he'd had a gun, there would be 20 people DEAD, not injured.

But please proceed with the ridiculous comparisons.


But he didn't, but I'm amazed that he was able to do that much damage to so many people so quickly.
 
2014-04-09 04:12:40 PM

Callous: iq_in_binary: Handguns, shotguns in general, and non SBR semi auto rifles aren't under the control of the NFA.

And control does work, otherwise you'd be able to find me more than 2 instances in the 80 year history of the NFA of stamped weapons being used in crimes. Go ahead, find more. I'll wait.

Until you do, you're wrong.

So you're okay with the crimes what were committed with illegally owned machine guns?  Or do you just not count those because they don't fit the narrative of the NFA working?


Oh please FIND me a bank robbery in the US performed with an M60 or select fire M16. Don't bother with the crimes committed with illegally modified SKSs or VEPRs. If the NFA included all semi autos like I proposed those weapons wouldn't be on the streets, in much the same way the thousands and thousands of stamped Thompsons in the hands of citizens haven't been used in crimes in 80 years.
 
2014-04-09 04:13:17 PM

shower_in_my_socks: If he'd had a gun, there would be 20 people DEAD, not injured.

But please proceed with the ridiculous comparisons.


And if a teacher had a gun there may have been far fewer injuries.  But instead they had to tackle the kid.

See I can speculate too.
 
2014-04-09 04:16:03 PM
I started teaching the year that Columbine happened.  Over the years this sort of story has become the new normal.  But I do find a number of things that are critical in our understanding of why this happens:

1.  They typically happen in the Spring...why?  Perhaps because people have had a year of being fed up and people are tired.

2.  It is typically the case that the individual was, in some way, marginalized if not bullied.  In some cases it seems that the perpetrator is autism spectrum, in other cases they are nerdy, but in any event...the bottom line is parents and schools are still not doing enough to stop the culture of bullying.

One might suggest that they've always had bullying.  My counter would be that it was not as pervasive given social media, people didn't have access to weapons that they do today, and we now have twenty years of incidents that those students can look at that says "when you've had enough...grab a knife, machete, gun, or all the above and start taking people out."

The discussion about the weapon is meaningless.  In the culture that we presently enjoy, when people are pushed to this extreme, they will do something to lash out.
 
2014-04-09 04:16:06 PM

syrynxx: Shan: voluntarily went to a psychiatrist. Not because he was depressed or suicidal; but to talk to someone who was a neutral party and gain understanding of why the marriage didn't work. Because he did so; he was denied a security clearance which was required for his job; and subsequently had to be let go

That's the sort of thing that is an obstacle to implementing more effective mental-health screening of firearm purchases.  It might dissuade people with problems from seeking professional help in the first place, which might supply them with drugs to stabilize their condition before it turned serious.


That's why the whole thing is a sticky-wicket.  Unless you somehow make mental-health exams mandatory for  everyone there will always be the possibility of a nutter getting his hands on a firearm through legal means.  If Joe Blow is schizophrenic; but doesn't realize it; and has never been to a doc about it; no system is going to red-flag him; but if you make mental exams mandatory you open up another can of worms entirely.

You can't say that "anybody wanting to buy a gun needs to go to a psych first for an exam" because then there's the issue of the doc potentially putting a personal bias on the results (remember; we still live in a world where some pharmacists refuse to give out birth-control and other BS); so the only way to be truly  fair is for the exams to be required for everyone regardless.  Which means you've got 300+ million people going for a service, which might only be of use to 1% of the population; and of that 1% how many might actually cause a problem for others? 1%?  0.1%?  That would be like making everyone take a yearly MRI  just in case.  Nevermind the cost; privacy issues etc.

I'm sure there's a solution out there that everyone could be happy with; I just don't know what it is.  At least making whats already in place now  effective would be a decent start.
 
2014-04-09 04:23:47 PM

shower_in_my_socks: If he'd had a gun, there would be 20 people DEAD, not injured.

But please proceed with the ridiculous comparisons.


That's a really silly thing to say.
 
2014-04-09 04:25:32 PM

kronicfeld: The answer is to release wild boars into the local ecosystem so that residents are incentivized to carry firearms.


I'm sorry, did you say "wild whores"?

No?  Pardon me.  Carry on then.

/one can always hope
 
2014-04-09 04:30:52 PM

iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: The gangs didn't stop warring after Prohibition was repealed. They simply moved on to other activities. Do keep in mind that the families didn't really start getting dismantled and deported until 1946. Even then the fighting still continued, it just continued mostly in Italy and only direct hit attempts and various spats in major cities in the US.

So are you conceding that NFA had little to nothing to do with it and the end of Prohibition did it or what?

If you had read what I just said you'd have known that the families didn't stop warring until well into the 50's. They were around for another decade until the FBI was even able to start making a dent in their numbers via convictions and deportations. But machine gun massacres stopped immediately after the passage of the NFA. You'd know that if you knew anything about gun crime and statistics.

I'm a card carrying and certified gunsmith, you're not going to sway me with crap until you go out and find an example of the NFA's failures.


You are aware that the people that are going to follow the NFA are the type of people that aren't the problem in the first place?  You are aware that there still have been murders with machine guns since the NFA, and not with just legal ones?

Remember this?

Remember this? - And all these people died for your beloved registry.  They were raided because they had unregistered NFA covered weapons.

That's just of the top of my head.

All that your statement about regulation working because only 2 crimes have been committed with registered machine guns says is that people that obey the law tend to obey the law.  The people you have to worry about are the ones that don't obey the law and will never register their machine guns.
 
2014-04-09 04:33:12 PM

iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: Handguns, shotguns in general, and non SBR semi auto rifles aren't under the control of the NFA.

And control does work, otherwise you'd be able to find me more than 2 instances in the 80 year history of the NFA of stamped weapons being used in crimes. Go ahead, find more. I'll wait.

Until you do, you're wrong.

So you're okay with the crimes what were committed with illegally owned machine guns?  Or do you just not count those because they don't fit the narrative of the NFA working?

Oh please FIND me a bank robbery in the US performed with an M60 or select fire M16. Don't bother with the crimes committed with illegally modified SKSs or VEPRs. If the NFA included all semi autos like I proposed those weapons wouldn't be on the streets, in much the same way the thousands and thousands of stamped Thompsons in the hands of citizens haven't been used in crimes in 80 years.


I already did, the North Hollywood Shootout.

Now get back under your bridge.
 
2014-04-09 04:34:47 PM

starsrift: Actions like this are done by impulsive people. Impulsive people who grab the nearest firearms they have access to (typically shotguns or rifles, assault or otherwise) and perpetrate their headline-making spree of madness.


I'd say that it's a mix.  Still, good old FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
Some select figures from 2012(because it takes a couple years to collate all this stuff and get the reports out):
Hanguns: 6,371
Rifles: 322
Shotguns: 303(Note:  There is only 2 in at least the last 6 that it was lower than rifles)
Knives/cutting: 1,589
Blunt objects: 518(baseball bats and such)
Personal weapons: 678 (hands, fists, feet)

In other words, twice as many people are beaten to death with 'bare hands' than are killed by rifles.

It's getting safer as well:
Totals starting in 2007 - 14,916; 14,224; 13,752; 13,164; 12,795; 12,765(2012)

NickelP: is there a single school shooting a gun registration would have stopped?


Haven't seen one identified yet.  Either the nut wasn't identified as a nut or they obtained the weapons illegally anyways.

d23: 1) We don't know exactly the best way to write a "gun safety" law.
2) Therefore, lets not do it.


My standard is that any 'gun safety' law should inconvenience those that would commit violence than those that won't.  Roughly speaking, the writers of the law should be able to express how the law will actually make us safer.

Take a hypothetical law banning bayonet lugs.  Now, while bayonet lug bans have been attached to various gun control bills they have never been a stand alone, but I'm keeping it simple.

In order to assess the potential effectiveness of our bayonet lug ban, we should probably look at how many people have been hurt or killed by knives attached to guns. (Searches around a bit).  Hmmm...  If there are any cases it's certainly *statistically insignificant*, we'd be better off banning baseball bats and such.

That's the issue with most proposed regulations - they target mostly 'assault rifles', IE a subset of all rifles, and rifles as a category is responsible for less than 1/20th the deaths of hanguns, per FBI statistics.  They're responsible for 1/5th the homicides of knives/sharp objects, and even under bare hands/feet.

Then you get 'feel-good' legislation like out of NY that says that 10 round magazines are legal, but it's illegal to load more than seven.  Is a criminal bent on murder going to only load 7?  No!  So who does it affect?  The gun owner who's actually trying to be legal, and they are(by and large) not the ones we're worried about!
 
2014-04-09 04:42:02 PM

Callous: iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: The gangs didn't stop warring after Prohibition was repealed. They simply moved on to other activities. Do keep in mind that the families didn't really start getting dismantled and deported until 1946. Even then the fighting still continued, it just continued mostly in Italy and only direct hit attempts and various spats in major cities in the US.

So are you conceding that NFA had little to nothing to do with it and the end of Prohibition did it or what?

If you had read what I just said you'd have known that the families didn't stop warring until well into the 50's. They were around for another decade until the FBI was even able to start making a dent in their numbers via convictions and deportations. But machine gun massacres stopped immediately after the passage of the NFA. You'd know that if you knew anything about gun crime and statistics.

I'm a card carrying and certified gunsmith, you're not going to sway me with crap until you go out and find an example of the NFA's failures.

You are aware that the people that are going to follow the NFA are the type of people that aren't the problem in the first place?  You are aware that there still have been murders with machine guns since the NFA, and not with just legal ones?

Remember this?

Remember this? - And all these people died for your beloved registry.  They were raided because they had unregistered NFA covered weapons.

That's just of the top of my head.

All that your statement about regulation working because only 2 crimes have been committed with registered machine guns says is that people that obey the law tend to obey the law.  The people you have to worry about are the ones that don't obey the law and will never register their machine guns.


All illegally converted. And none NFA stamped.

You seem to be missing the point here. There are millions of NFA firearms in the hands of American civilians. In 80 years, they've been used in crimes TWICE. Expanding the NFA to all semiautos would have prevented those crimes you listed as examples of the NFA's failure despite being proof of its effectiveness (none of those weapons were NFA stamped).

Thanks for making my point for me.
 
2014-04-09 04:45:01 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: True to his idiotic form, Wolf Blitzer is calling this a "school shooting".  Asshole.


i1182.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-09 04:50:26 PM
Whichever kid pulled the fire alarm probably deserves a sundae. Students are trained to evacuate during a fire, not so much during a knife-spree by some asshole with two kitchen knives.
 
2014-04-09 04:51:31 PM

iq_in_binary: Expanding the NFA to all semiautos


I know this is a pet topic of yours, but you're really missing the point of the NFA when it was implemented in 1934.  The $200 tax stamp fee was a huge amount - so much so that many people got rid of their weapons rather than pay it.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MediaPages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid =1 59
{
In regard to the tax stamp, keep in mind, $200 was equivalent to 5 months wages in 1934! It seems the transfer tax was meant as a deterrent to machinegun ownership in itself. That same $200 in 1934 would be the equivalent of perhaps $20,000 in 2008. Just be thankful the tax has not been raised to keep up with the times.
}

An online inflation calculator shows that it's more like $3500, but still - you want to slap a $3500 tax on a $350 pistol?  Tell me how that's not a defacto ban.
 
2014-04-09 04:53:48 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Whichever kid pulled the fire alarm probably deserves a sundae. Students are trained to evacuate during a fire, not so much during a knife-spree by some asshole with two kitchen knives.


If you want the building you're in evacuated, yell fire.

If you want the building you're in filled up, yell rape.
 
2014-04-09 04:59:02 PM

iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: The gangs didn't stop warring after Prohibition was repealed. They simply moved on to other activities. Do keep in mind that the families didn't really start getting dismantled and deported until 1946. Even then the fighting still continued, it just continued mostly in Italy and only direct hit attempts and various spats in major cities in the US.

So are you conceding that NFA had little to nothing to do with it and the end of Prohibition did it or what?

If you had read what I just said you'd have known that the families didn't stop warring until well into the 50's. They were around for another decade until the FBI was even able to start making a dent in their numbers via convictions and deportations. But machine gun massacres stopped immediately after the passage of the NFA. You'd know that if you knew anything about gun crime and statistics.

I'm a card carrying and certified gunsmith, you're not going to sway me with crap until you go out and find an example of the NFA's failures.

You are aware that the people that are going to follow the NFA are the type of people that aren't the problem in the first place?  You are aware that there still have been murders with machine guns since the NFA, and not with just legal ones?

Remember this?

Remember this? - And all these people died for your beloved registry.  They were raided because they had unregistered NFA covered weapons.

That's just of the top of my head.

All that your statement about regulation working because only 2 crimes have been committed with registered machine guns says is that people that obey the law tend to obey the law.  The people you have to worry about are the ones that don't obey the law and will never register their machine guns.

All illegally converted. And none NFA stamped.

You seem to be missing the point here. There are millions of NFA firearms in the hands of American civilians. In 80 years, they've been used in crimes TWICE. Expanding th ...


No you seem to be missing the point.  The mob didn't stop shooting people with machine guns because they had to start registering them.  They stopped because the cause of the violence(making money on illegal booze) went away with the end of prohibition.

The fact that registered weapons are used in so few crimes isn't a testament to the registry being effective, it's a testament that people that obey the law tend to obey the law.  Registration doesn't work because the only people that register their guns are the ones that aren't the problem in the first place.

The NFA came about because of the emotional knee jerk reaction to the St Valentines Day Massacre.  Not because the machine gun was the weapon of choice for criminals.
 
2014-04-09 05:04:49 PM

syrynxx: iq_in_binary: Expanding the NFA to all semiautos

I know this is a pet topic of yours, but you're really missing the point of the NFA when it was implemented in 1934.  The $200 tax stamp fee was a huge amount - so much so that many people got rid of their weapons rather than pay it.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MediaPages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid =1 59
{
In regard to the tax stamp, keep in mind, $200 was equivalent to 5 months wages in 1934! It seems the transfer tax was meant as a deterrent to machinegun ownership in itself. That same $200 in 1934 would be the equivalent of perhaps $20,000 in 2008. Just be thankful the tax has not been raised to keep up with the times.
}

An online inflation calculator shows that it's more like $3500, but still - you want to slap a $3500 tax on a $350 pistol?  Tell me how that's not a defacto ban.


And that meant what to a mobster? He wasn't exactly working for wages.

No the reasons the NFA works are many:

First, it creates a registry.

Second, while it allows transfers, it ensures the transferee is eligible to own the weapon.

Third, it confiscates. If the stamp and the owner don't match up, the weapon is destroyed. How many years before the illicit guns on chicago's streets are cleaned up? I'd give it two.

No need to raise the stamp prices.
 
2014-04-09 05:05:30 PM
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!! THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY STAGED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO DEMONSTRATE HOW EVIL GUNS ARE COMPARED TO OTHER WEAPONS!!! THOSE OF US WHO ARE NOT DUMB ENOUGH TO HAVE TO WOOL PULLED OVER OUR EYES WILL BE STOCKING UP ON GUNS AND AMMO!!! THAT KENYAN IS AFTER YOUR GUNS!!! AND, I AM GOING TO BE READY FOR HIM!!!
 
2014-04-09 05:05:55 PM

Shan: That's why the whole thing is a sticky-wicket.  Unless you somehow make mental-health exams mandatory for  everyone there will always be the possibility of a nutter getting his hands on a firearm through legal means.  If Joe Blow is schizophrenic; but doesn't realize it; and has never been to a doc about it; no system is going to red-flag him; but if you make mental exams mandatory you open up another can of worms entirely.

You can't say that "anybody wanting to buy a gun needs to go to a psych first for an exam" because then there's the issue of the doc potentially putting a personal bias on the results (remember; we still live in a world where some pharmacists refuse to give out birth-control and other BS); so the only way to be truly  fair is for the exams to be required for everyone regardless.  Which means you've got 300+ million people going for a service, which might only be of use to 1% of the population; and of that 1% how many might actually cause a problem for others? 1%?  0.1%?  That would be like making everyone take a yearly MRI  just in case.  Nevermind the cost; privacy issues etc.


That's pretty expensive.   It would be cheaper to just ban all guns unless you legitimately need one.
 
2014-04-09 05:11:12 PM

iq_in_binary: syrynxx: iq_in_binary: Expanding the NFA to all semiautos

I know this is a pet topic of yours, but you're really missing the point of the NFA when it was implemented in 1934.  The $200 tax stamp fee was a huge amount - so much so that many people got rid of their weapons rather than pay it.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MediaPages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid =1 59
{
In regard to the tax stamp, keep in mind, $200 was equivalent to 5 months wages in 1934! It seems the transfer tax was meant as a deterrent to machinegun ownership in itself. That same $200 in 1934 would be the equivalent of perhaps $20,000 in 2008. Just be thankful the tax has not been raised to keep up with the times.
}

An online inflation calculator shows that it's more like $3500, but still - you want to slap a $3500 tax on a $350 pistol?  Tell me how that's not a defacto ban.

And that meant what to a mobster? He wasn't exactly working for wages.

No the reasons the NFA works are many:

First, it creates a registry.

Second, while it allows transfers, it ensures the transferee is eligible to own the weapon.

Third, it confiscates. If the stamp and the owner don't match up, the weapon is destroyed. How many years before the illicit guns on chicago's streets are cleaned up? I'd give it two.

No need to raise the stamp prices.


And what does it do about all the ones that will never be registered that are actually used in crimes?  Oh, that's right, nothing.
 
Displayed 50 of 742 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report