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  
•       •       •

8413 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 9:57 AM (36 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 08:09:33 PM  

Callous: iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: This text is now purple: iq_in_binary: 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.

So the NFA stopped the mob from using machine guns.

The same mobsters that were stopped from killing people by murder laws and from importing and selling liquor by Prohibition, right? Those mobsters?

This had nothing at all to do with public distaste for notorious mob hits, the rise of (much safer) wire fraud, and the collapse of the illicit alcohol trade, right?

Find me another usage of a Thompson in a crime after the passage of the NFA anywhere. The only one you'll find is kind of a moot point because it was a Sheriff. All of which can still get Thompsons if they wanted to anyway. They're exempt from the NFA Registry restrictions.

And keep in mind that Thompsons were still legal for purchase directly from the factory up until 1986. They're still legal for purchase today, they just have to be on the registry and you're getting it from a private citizen.

So because I was able to point out several occasions of non-registered machine guns being used in crimes after the NFA you are now moving the goalposts to just Thompsons?

I said ANY NFA weapon.

He was trying to make the point that the repealing of Prohibition was the reason mobsters stopped using their favorite weapon. My point was that they could still get them, and yet they stopped using them.

And he was right and you are flailing around trying to double down on a ridiculous point.


Oh so the 30 years of violence among the Irish and Italian gangs that occurred after Prohibition never happened? Constant hits and handgun shootings didn't continue all the way into the 1950s and 60s?

History would like a word with you.

The fighting didn't stop for quite some time. The level of violence went down though, because they couldn't use the weapons they used to, despite still having access to them.
 
2014-04-09 08:11:16 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dr Jack Badofsky: 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.

Crikey! Here's a lovely example of the "we can kill with things that aren't firearms, so let's not take any constructive steps with respect to them" argument in the wild. This bold critter is not easily scared off, and it can't be shamed, not even by pointed, sarcastic ridicule. It will keep popping up.

/Exactly nobody murdered at Columbine was killed with a bomb.



Crickey!  They were bad judges at determining how much explosive to use, or, quite possibly, they were used a s a diversion!  *Gasp!*.  I know, nobody killed anybody with a bomb in the U.S.A...except that the very first school mass-killing was carried out by using....*DEAR GOD!*.... A bomb, made by a pissed off janitor.  If only people would realize NOBODY USES BOMBS ANYMORE......Remember when those gunmen killed all of those people in the Murrah building?  Me too!
 
2014-04-09 08:11:19 PM  
The Ten Commandments are laws, but that doesn't stop criminals because they don't follow laws. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?
 
2014-04-09 08:11:43 PM  

Callous: iq_in_binary: Firethorn: iq_in_binary: Bonus, once we negotiate the repeal of the Hughes amendment in return for the expansion of it, IT DOESN'T BAN anything.

But as the Hughes amendment shows, it can become a ban easily enough.

Only on new registries. But in order to accomplish the expansion of the NFA, they have to repeal it.

That's a ban.

The "assault weapons" ban prohibited the purchase of new "assault weapons" but grandfathered the ones already in circulation.  The Hughes amendment did EXACTLY the same thing.  Call it what it is, it's a ban.  And so if we get the Hughes Amendment repealed and then add everything to the NFA, what's stopping them from enacting the Hughes Amendment again?


There won't really be a call to do it because the gun violence problem in this country will dissipate quite rapidly.
 
2014-04-09 08:20:22 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: 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.


According to the subsequent investigation, the Columbine kids originally planned to kill hundreds of people with bombs in the cafeterias; then stand outside and shoot the people trying to escape the carnage; and finally leave more bombs to kill first responders.  Their goal was, simply put, to outdo Timothy McVeigh and become the most notorious mass killers in American history.  The bombs didn't work, however, so they went with a plan B of just going in and shooting people.

That being said, of course it counts as a shooting.
 
2014-04-09 08:36:55 PM  

Callous: Yes, but exactly everybody killed at Oklahoma City was.

168 Death
680+ injured

The method isn't the problem, the cause(crazy) is.


Hold on a second:  the OK City bombing wasn't caused by "crazy."  McVeigh wasn't mentally ill, like sideshow Bob or Adam Lanza.  He was fully in command of his mental faculties.

McVeigh belonged to the reactionary militia set, the people who start prepping whenever a Democrat is elected president because tyranny and they're coming to take your guns and Amerika UN FEMA manacle boxcars.

If you remember that era, you'll remember that a lot of people were playing militia in the woods and participating in a subculture steeped in black helicopter conspiracy theories.  There were several planned domestic terror attacks by other people in the subculture, but the FBI managed to catch them in time.  A lot of that fad dissipated after the bombing, which was exactly the opposite of McVeigh's expectations:  he thought his act against the federal government would signal a popular revolt.

So in that case, the cause wasn't crazy, the cause was a surge in bircher prepper sovereign citizen militia conspiracy folk.  You know, like we have now.  Remember that the next time you argue that the government should address the "cause" rather than limit firearms---what exactly would it look like if the government addressed the cause?
 
2014-04-09 08:45:19 PM  

Xcott: Dr Jack Badofsky: 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.

According to the subsequent investigation, the Columbine kids originally planned to kill hundreds of people with bombs in the cafeterias; then stand outside and shoot the people trying to escape the carnage; and finally leave more bombs to kill first responders.  Their goal was, simply put, to outdo Timothy McVeigh and become the most notorious mass killers in American history.  The bombs didn't work, however, so they went with a plan B of just going in and shooting people.

That being said, of course it counts as a shooting.


His claim was that Columbine could have been prevented if certain safeguards were in place.  I agree 100% it was a shooting, but I was just showing that guns weren't all they had, and as you explained, actually (could have) used the bombs in an effort to increase their level of success (but ultimately did not).
 
2014-04-09 08:48:51 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Xcott: Dr Jack Badofsky: 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.

According to the subsequent investigation, the Columbine kids originally planned to kill hundreds of people with bombs in the cafeterias; then stand outside and shoot the people trying to escape the carnage; and finally leave more bombs to kill first responders.  Their goal was, simply put, to outdo Timothy McVeigh and become the most notorious mass killers in American history.  The bombs didn't work, however, so they went with a plan B of just going in and shooting people.

That being said, of course it counts as a shooting.

His claim was that Columbine could have been prevented if certain safeguards were in place.  I agree 100% it was a shooting, but I was just showing that guns weren't all they had, and as you explained, actually (could have) used the bombs in an effort to increase their level of success (but ultimately did not).


By "he", I mean demaL-demaL-yeH
 
2014-04-09 08:50:06 PM  

iq_in_binary: 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.


Machine gun massacres weren't common before the NFA.  The St. Valentines massacre (7 dead) is the most famous, and outside of spree criminals, was pretty much the only one.
 
2014-04-09 09:24:09 PM  

Click Click D'oh: iq_in_binary: 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.

Machine gun massacres weren't common before the NFA.  The St. Valentines massacre (7 dead) is the most famous, and outside of spree criminals, was pretty much the only one.


Correction, it was the largest.

Massacre isn't really the right word. Hits, I guess I should say. Whether it was one or two people at a time, or 7 like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.
 
2014-04-09 09:26:39 PM  

doglover: The Bestest: doglover: Belias: I don't think it can reasonably be argued that a knife is as deadly as a gun.

At least you admit it's just a feeling.

Knives and guns are both deadly.

Would you not accept as fact though that there is a higher chance of inflicting a fatal wound, both accidentally and intentionally, with a gun than with a knife?

Absolutely not. Knives are way scary. Also there's guns and then there's guns. There's knives and there's knives.

A 6" knife is like a .22 revolver or very powerful pellet gun. A deer rifle is more akin to a glaive.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 517x527]

You wanna tell me a .306 round does more or less tissue damage than a naginata? I think it's academic at that point.


The .308 leaves a bigger exit wound.

I want to know which does more tissue damage: a 120mm mortar round or a 120mm HE round from a tank.
 
2014-04-09 09:50:18 PM  

iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: This text is now purple: iq_in_binary: 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.

So the NFA stopped the mob from using machine guns.

The same mobsters that were stopped from killing people by murder laws and from importing and selling liquor by Prohibition, right? Those mobsters?

This had nothing at all to do with public distaste for notorious mob hits, the rise of (much safer) wire fraud, and the collapse of the illicit alcohol trade, right?

Find me another usage of a Thompson in a crime after the passage of the NFA anywhere. The only one you'll find is kind of a moot point because it was a Sheriff. All of which can still get Thompsons if they wanted to anyway. They're exempt from the NFA Registry restrictions.

And keep in mind that Thompsons were still legal for purchase directly from the factory up until 1986. They're still legal for purchase today, they just have to be on the registry and you're getting it from a private citizen.

So because I was able to point out several occasions of non-registered machine guns being used in crimes after the NFA you are now moving the goalposts to just Thompsons?

I said ANY NFA weapon.

He was trying to make the point that the repealing of Prohibition was the reason mobsters stopped using their favorite weapon. My point was that they could still get them, and yet they stopped using them.

And he was right and you are flailing around trying to double down on a ridiculous point.

Oh so the 30 years of violence among the Irish and Italian gangs that occurred after Prohibition never happened? Constant hits and handgun shootings did ...


Wrong.  The level of violence went down because of The Comission.

Do you really think that organized crime suddenly decided to follow the law and registered their machine guns?  If you do you are delusional.
 
2014-04-09 09:52:29 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: His claim was that Columbine could have been prevented if certain safeguards were in place. I agree 100% it was a shooting, but I was just showing that guns weren't all they had, and as you explained, actually (could have) used the bombs in an effort to increase their level of success (but ultimately did not).


Practically speaking, the guns were all they had.  They tried to build bombs, but they didn't work because they were kids who couldn't successfully build a bomb.  If they didn't have guns, there wouldn't have been a massacre:  the bombs wouldn't work, and they'd have nothing else to do except maybe get caught.

We occasionally hear the argument that gun control is futile because killers could simply use bombs, but building bombs seems to be fairly difficult.  Anyone can fire a gun, and people can practice firing guns; building a bomb requires some technical skills, and it's hard to rehearse or check your work.
 
2014-04-09 09:55:01 PM  

Callous: Do you really think that organized crime suddenly decided to follow the law and registered their machine guns?  If you do you are delusional.



Especially considering that most of them were stolen for National Guard and police armories to start with.
 
2014-04-09 09:56:01 PM  

Theaetetus: Degenz: Theaetetus: Plus, it requires that the person either (i) is seeking treatment  and the mental health professional has determined that they're an imminent threat to themselves or others that requires breaching confidentiality; or (ii) has already done something pretty violent and been arrested or committed.
It's certainly not proactive in any sense.

This is why you are farkied as "circle jerking moron."

Because I stated the two current conditions under which background checks would prevent a mentally ill person from purchasing a gun?

What other recitation of facts causes you to flip out and start name calling? "The sky is blue"? "Water is wet"? "You're a jerk"?


No, because you're wrong, and you totally ignored the most important thing I said. A doctor cannot simply place your name into some database of persons banned from possessing firearms. He can testify at a hearing called to determine your mental competency and thereby participate in a process that results in your rights being removed. But then your wife could do the same thing if she thinks you're crazy and can't manage your affairs.

I'm actually against the proliferation of firearms because I'm a victim of gun violence, having been shot multiple times in a robbery attempt and barely survived. I have so much lead in my chest I set off metal detectors at airports and courthouses. And I can't have an MRI done because it would suck the bullet fragments in my chest through a bunch of organs and other tissue.

So you'd think I'd be totally gun control, but I'm not because what these morons want to do is trash a bunch of other constitutional rights to achieve their objective, the same way the Pro Life movement is chipping away reproductive rights for women by making abortion doctors conform to impossibly onerous regulations.

I don't want doctors or anyone else deciding what my rights are without judicial review. If you don't like the Bill of Rights then get busy repealing it. Oh wait...
 
2014-04-09 10:02:20 PM  

Xcott: Dr Jack Badofsky: His claim was that Columbine could have been prevented if certain safeguards were in place. I agree 100% it was a shooting, but I was just showing that guns weren't all they had, and as you explained, actually (could have) used the bombs in an effort to increase their level of success (but ultimately did not).

Practically speaking, the guns were all they had.  They tried to build bombs, but they didn't work because they were kids who couldn't successfully build a bomb.  If they didn't have guns, there wouldn't have been a massacre:  the bombs wouldn't work, and they'd have nothing else to do except maybe get caught.

We occasionally hear the argument that gun control is futile because killers could simply use bombs, but building bombs seems to be fairly difficult.  Anyone can fire a gun, and people can practice firing guns; building a bomb requires some technical skills, and it's hard to rehearse or check your work.


I would agree that building a Murrah building-sized bomb would take some planning, and for a kid is too much work, but any kid willing to do a little trial and error can get a small pipe bomb dialed in with not much trouble.  I, uh, don't know firsthand....some kids in, uh...the next town over did though.  I read it in the paper.
 
2014-04-09 10:09:30 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Xcott: Dr Jack Badofsky: His claim was that Columbine could have been prevented if certain safeguards were in place. I agree 100% it was a shooting, but I was just showing that guns weren't all they had, and as you explained, actually (could have) used the bombs in an effort to increase their level of success (but ultimately did not).

Practically speaking, the guns were all they had.  They tried to build bombs, but they didn't work because they were kids who couldn't successfully build a bomb.  If they didn't have guns, there wouldn't have been a massacre:  the bombs wouldn't work, and they'd have nothing else to do except maybe get caught.

We occasionally hear the argument that gun control is futile because killers could simply use bombs, but building bombs seems to be fairly difficult.  Anyone can fire a gun, and people can practice firing guns; building a bomb requires some technical skills, and it's hard to rehearse or check your work.

I would agree that building a Murrah building-sized bomb would take some planning, and for a kid is too much work, but any kid willing to do a little trial and error can get a small pipe bomb dialed in with not much trouble.  I, uh, don't know firsthand....some kids in, uh...the next town over did though.  I read it in the paper.


How to build a pipe bomb from household chemicals

Wow that was tough.....  I can't imagine anyone else could figure that out.
 
2014-04-09 10:14:11 PM  

bobothemagnificent: Picture of the offending student:
[img.fark.net image 346x146]
Next up for banning: Anything that is sharp.

Guns, knives, brass knuckles, bows, crossbows, polearms, tanks, bazookas, explosives, spoons, crowbars, baseball bats, lacrosse sticks, candlesticks, hammers, and even prison shanks: they are all tools.

Tools do not kill people.

The people kill people, and they generally use something to do it.  If you want to stop violence, taking away tool might slow them down.  The one who are really determined will find a way to do it with something else that you would never think of.

Second point on gun control: All gun control does is prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining guns, which is their constitutional right.  Do you really think a criminal is going to bother to go to a gun store?

I'm also going to go out on a limb and besides mental issues, predict that bullying was involved in some way, shape, manner, or form, in this incident.


That is perhaps the most sensible thing I've seen you post.

The tools aren't the issue. They are a symptom. The question isn't about the weapons, but why folks choose to use them in the fist place. Our nation has a problem with violence, it has a problem with economic stability for a fair chunk of the population, and we've got issues with domestic, education, and health policy that lead folks on some very shaky ground. Until we deal with these issues, and in a substantive way, we are going to continue to have issues. Taking tools isn't going to solve anything, if we don't address the instability that leads folks to violence. We tackle the underlying causes, and we cut down on the violence.

Health care and education both are large issues, as well as economic stability, and until we take these issues head on, we're not going to make a dent in issues of public safety, where crime is concerned. We can arm the populace to the teeth, and it's not going to make a dent in it, and we can take all the guns and knives, and make all sorts of things illegal, but until we can take on the causes of the violence, they're both stop gaps and only looking at symptoms.
 
2014-04-09 10:23:24 PM  
I fully expected this thread to be filled with gun nuts jizzing themselves and making sarcastic comments about banning "assault knives" or whatever, but it makes me pretty sad that the top comments are not more supportive for the students who were injured in what must have been a terrifying attack.
 
2014-04-09 10:26:28 PM  

Callous: iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: This text is now purple: iq_in_binary: 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.

So the NFA stopped the mob from using machine guns.

The same mobsters that were stopped from killing people by murder laws and from importing and selling liquor by Prohibition, right? Those mobsters?

This had nothing at all to do with public distaste for notorious mob hits, the rise of (much safer) wire fraud, and the collapse of the illicit alcohol trade, right?

Find me another usage of a Thompson in a crime after the passage of the NFA anywhere. The only one you'll find is kind of a moot point because it was a Sheriff. All of which can still get Thompsons if they wanted to anyway. They're exempt from the NFA Registry restrictions.

And keep in mind that Thompsons were still legal for purchase directly from the factory up until 1986. They're still legal for purchase today, they just have to be on the registry and you're getting it from a private citizen.

So because I was able to point out several occasions of non-registered machine guns being used in crimes after the NFA you are now moving the goalposts to just Thompsons?

I said ANY NFA weapon.

He was trying to make the point that the repealing of Prohibition was the reason mobsters stopped using their favorite weapon. My point was that they could still get them, and yet they stopped using them.

And he was right and you are flailing around trying to double down on a ridiculous point.

Oh so the 30 years of violence among the Irish and Italian gangs that occurred after Prohibition never happened? Constant hits and handgun ...


And yet in the year and 6 months between the Commission asserting its power and the NFA, the trend of swiss cheese bodies in alleys and doorsteps stopped, like magic. And yet, over 20 hits in 2 cities still occurred in that time that would have previously, if norms had kept up, been swiss cheese.

You're not getting it. They still had access to those Thompsons, one of the Irish enforcers even had a Steyr M1912 that was gifted to him from an officer in the war (I can't remember which book I read that from, if you REALLY want a cite I'll go back and read some notes)

The reason? The higher ups, as most smart criminals today would have too, realized that the Tax Stamp was essentially a brick that could be hung around their necks. You had to stamp your gun if you didn't want to get popped for it, and possession without a stamp was also a crime AND additional circumstantial evidence that a prosecution could make look like a means. All of a sudden the prosecution had a piece of convincing evidence in their hands to present to a jury in the time before widely accepted ballistic science, with no way for you to refute what they were presenting.

"The man was murdered with a .45ACP machine gun! Witnesses said it sounded like a warzone! This man, who is a known gangster, has one registered in his name and is known to have been a rival of the deceased!"

VS.

"The man was murdered with a .45ACP machine gun! Witnesses said it sounded like a warzone! This man, who is a known gangster, had one in his possession illegally and is known to have been a rival of the deceased!"

It was a lose-lose for them to keep using NFA weapons. It's not the same reason it would be a panacea to our gun crimes today, but it was effective in its intent.
 
2014-04-09 10:26:38 PM  
hubiestubert:  and until we take these issues head on, we're not going to make a dent in issues of public safety

I thought that argument was settled.
www.bigfishink.com
 
2014-04-09 10:31:44 PM  

iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: This text is now purple: iq_in_binary: 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.

So the NFA stopped the mob from using machine guns.

The same mobsters that were stopped from killing people by murder laws and from importing and selling liquor by Prohibition, right? Those mobsters?

This had nothing at all to do with public distaste for notorious mob hits, the rise of (much safer) wire fraud, and the collapse of the illicit alcohol trade, right?

Find me another usage of a Thompson in a crime after the passage of the NFA anywhere. The only one you'll find is kind of a moot point because it was a Sheriff. All of which can still get Thompsons if they wanted to anyway. They're exempt from the NFA Registry restrictions.

And keep in mind that Thompsons were still legal for purchase directly from the factory up until 1986. They're still legal for purchase today, they just have to be on the registry and you're getting it from a private citizen.

So because I was able to point out several occasions of non-registered machine guns being used in crimes after the NFA you are now moving the goalposts to just Thompsons?

I said ANY NFA weapon.

He was trying to make the point that the repealing of Prohibition was the reason mobsters stopped using their favorite weapon. My point was that they could still get them, and yet they stopped using them.

And he was right and you are flailing around trying to double down on a ridiculous point.

Oh so the 30 years of violence among the Irish and Italian gangs that occurred after Prohibition never happened? Constant hits an ...


So they were afraid of being prosecuted for having a weapon without a tax stamp but not for murder?
 
2014-04-09 10:53:19 PM  

Callous: iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: Callous: iq_in_binary: This text is now purple: iq_in_binary: 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.

So the NFA stopped the mob from using machine guns.

The same mobsters that were stopped from killing people by murder laws and from importing and selling liquor by Prohibition, right? Those mobsters?

This had nothing at all to do with public distaste for notorious mob hits, the rise of (much safer) wire fraud, and the collapse of the illicit alcohol trade, right?

Find me another usage of a Thompson in a crime after the passage of the NFA anywhere. The only one you'll find is kind of a moot point because it was a Sheriff. All of which can still get Thompsons if they wanted to anyway. They're exempt from the NFA Registry restrictions.

And keep in mind that Thompsons were still legal for purchase directly from the factory up until 1986. They're still legal for purchase today, they just have to be on the registry and you're getting it from a private citizen.

So because I was able to point out several occasions of non-registered machine guns being used in crimes after the NFA you are now moving the goalposts to just Thompsons?

I said ANY NFA weapon.

He was trying to make the point that the repealing of Prohibition was the reason mobsters stopped using their favorite weapon. My point was that they could still get them, and yet they stopped using them.

And he was right and you are flailing around trying to double down on a ridiculous point.

Oh so the 30 years of violence among the Irish and Italian gangs that occurred after Prohibition never happened? Co ...


They realized that there was now an extra piece of evidence that could be used to convince a jury.

Prosecution of mobsters up until about 1946 was a joke because of A: lack of hard evidence due to no real science behind connecting the concrete evidence left at the scene to the shooters and B: Judges and Grand Juries (in the states where they applied) being corrupt themselves and willing to toe the line between seeming and obvious corruption in the mobster's favor. Now all of a sudden having your name tied to the same type of murder weapon, on top of all the other circumstantial evidence the G-Man usually brought to bear (again, this is before forensic science or forensic accounting really existed, but the G-Man was usually good at gathering witnesses) was an actual piece of semi-quasi hard evidence (again, pre-ballistic or accounting science). We had fingerprints, sure. But it was still in its infancy and gathering prints from brass was a crap shoot at best. Several famous gangsters got off that way.

The NFA was a direct tie between the accused and the supposed murder weapon. That turned out to be a bit too much over the "obviously corrupt" line for many of the aforementioned.

So yeah, like I said, the NFA worked.
 
2014-04-09 11:03:08 PM  

iq_in_binary: They realized that there was now an extra piece of evidence that could be used to convince a jury.

Prosecution of mobsters up until about 1946 was a joke because of A: lack of hard evidence due to no real science behind connecting the concrete evidence left at the scene to the shooters and B: Judges and Grand Juries (in the states where they applied) being corrupt themselves and willing to toe the line between seeming and obvious corruption in the mobster's favor. Now all of a sudden having your name tied to the same type of murder weapon, on top of all the other circumstantial evidence the G-Man usually brought to bear (again, this is before forensic science or forensic accounting really existed, but the G-Man was usually good at gathering witnesses) was an actual piece of semi-quasi hard evidence (again, pre-ballistic or accounting science). We had fingerprints, sure. But it was still in its infancy and gathering prints from brass was a crap shoot at best. Several famous gangsters got off that way.

The NFA was a direct tie between the accused and the supposed murder weapon. That turned out to be a bit too much over the "obviously corrupt" line for many of the aforementioned.

So yeah, like I said, the NFA worked.


So you're still going with the "Mobsters obeyed the NFA and registered their murder weapons" narrative?  You're a lost cause or a fool, I'm not sure which.
 
2014-04-09 11:11:48 PM  

KhamanV: 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.


The crisis would also have prompted the authorities to send choppers since they had no idea how badly anyone was hurt. The equipment and personnel on LifeFlight is far superior to ambulances.
 
2014-04-09 11:15:40 PM  

iq_in_binary: Click Click D'oh: iq_in_binary: 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.

Machine gun massacres weren't common before the NFA.  The St. Valentines massacre (7 dead) is the most famous, and outside of spree criminals, was pretty much the only one.

Correction, it was the largest.

Massacre isn't really the right word. Hits, I guess I should say. Whether it was one or two people at a time, or 7 like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.


They managed 5 at the Boston Massacre, and they didn't even have machine guns.  We're too quick with that word.  Have been for 400 years.
 
2014-04-09 11:32:46 PM  

vegaswench: 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.


While there is a lack of services, not to mention practical layers/degrees of services, you can't make people go if they don't want to.

I recently witnessed a family trying to convince their off-her-meds older mother to get help. She didn't kill anyone but did make a mess of her own and her elderly mother's finances, wrecked her car, got thrown out of her apartment, tried to wreck a marriage by relentlessly pursuing the man, and wouldn't be forthcoming about a serious illness. After she was committed for a short while, it took a lot to happen to try to do that. Still can't force her to take her meds tho.

I do agree the wrong people will get weapons whether they're banned or not.
 
2014-04-09 11:36:29 PM  
Thoughts and prayers to the survivors. 

That kid just looks... like he's from a dark and evil place. Something's not right.

It's really just... insidious. With a gun, you know you were shot, but with a knife, you can bleed for quite a while before you realize it. 

*shudders*
 
2014-04-10 12:22:47 AM  

sporkmaker: I fully expected this thread to be filled with gun nuts jizzing themselves and making sarcastic comments about banning "assault knives" or whatever, but it makes me pretty sad that the top comments are not more supportive for the students who were injured in what must have been a terrifying attack.


Yes, that IS sad.

Guess I'll take a stab at it.
 
2014-04-10 12:36:14 AM  

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.


Heh...I wish the "knives are as dangerous as guns" crowd would get off the internet, and get on the phone to the Pentagon.

Apparently, we've been wasting tons of taxpayer dollars over the years, by issuing our soldiers rifles to go with their bayonets...
 
2014-04-10 12:58:47 AM  

Callous: Dr Jack Badofsky: Xcott: Dr Jack Badofsky: His claim was that Columbine could have been prevented if certain safeguards were in place. I agree 100% it was a shooting, but I was just showing that guns weren't all they had, and as you explained, actually (could have) used the bombs in an effort to increase their level of success (but ultimately did not).

Practically speaking, the guns were all they had.  They tried to build bombs, but they didn't work because they were kids who couldn't successfully build a bomb.  If they didn't have guns, there wouldn't have been a massacre:  the bombs wouldn't work, and they'd have nothing else to do except maybe get caught.

We occasionally hear the argument that gun control is futile because killers could simply use bombs, but building bombs seems to be fairly difficult.  Anyone can fire a gun, and people can practice firing guns; building a bomb requires some technical skills, and it's hard to rehearse or check your work.

I would agree that building a Murrah building-sized bomb would take some planning, and for a kid is too much work, but any kid willing to do a little trial and error can get a small pipe bomb dialed in with not much trouble.  I, uh, don't know firsthand....some kids in, uh...the next town over did though.  I read it in the paper.

How to build a pipe bomb from household chemicals

Wow that was tough.....  I can't imagine anyone else could figure that out.


It doesn't even have to kill people to be effective.  Mix some incendiary with a bunch of liquid soap or Vaseline, and you've got stuff that sticks  and burns after it explodes!  Throw bleach into the mix and.....poison.
 
2014-04-10 02:32:06 AM  

iq_in_binary: 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.


No. I am NOT. Because what I said was banning one type of weapon just forces someone determined to use a weapon for violence to choose another TYPE of weapon. Until YOU can show me one instance where an assailant gave up his plan for killing because he couldn't get a specific type weapon the NFA banned YOU are wrong.
 
2014-04-10 02:38:57 AM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Dr Jack Badofsky: Xcott: Dr Jack Badofsky: 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.

According to the subsequent investigation, the Columbine kids originally planned to kill hundreds of people with bombs in the cafeterias; then stand outside and shoot the people trying to escape the carnage; and finally leave more bombs to kill first responders.  Their goal was, simply put, to outdo Timothy McVeigh and become the most notorious mass killers in American history.  The bombs didn't work, however, so they went with a plan B of just going in and shooting people.

That being said, of course it counts as a shooting.

His claim was that Columbine could have been prevented if certain safeguards were in place.  I agree 100% it was a shooting, but I was just showing that guns weren't all they had, and as you explained, actually (could have) used the bombs in an effort to increase their level of success (but ultimately did not).

By "he", I mean demaL-demaL-yeH


Read the farking article I linked: Registration significantly reduces straw man sales. Licensing reduces it even further. SCOTUS says both are perfectly Constitutional.
 
2014-04-10 08:14:19 AM  
Dual-wielding 1-handers?  Noob warrior. That's like a 5% DPS loss.
 
2014-04-10 09:25:47 AM  
 Maybe the kids stabbed were afraid to gang up and take him down immediately because they'd get suspended for being in a fight; that would be current school administrator logic.
 
2014-04-10 11:09:57 AM  

Callous: How to build a pipe bomb from household chemicals

Wow that was tough..... I can't imagine anyone else could figure that out.


So if it really is that easy, then why didn't the Columbine bombs work?  I mean, the instructions are out there, right?   Apparently it's just a matter of having access to the instructions, right?

You can also Google "how to play the guitar," "how to wrestle an alligator," and "how to make meth."  Wow, that was tough, I guess any idiot can do all of those things too after reading a web page.

Dr Jack Badofsky: It doesn't even have to kill people to be effective. Mix some incendiary with a bunch of liquid soap or Vaseline, and you've got stuff that sticks and burns after it explodes! Throw bleach into the mix and.....poison.


This is basically how 9th graders think chemistry works after reading the Anarchists' Cookbook.

No, if you "throw bleach into the mix" you don't get poison.  How the hell is that poison?  You can pour bleach straight from the bottle onto someone's head and, if he doesn't get it in his eyes and can go somewhere to shower off, the primary health risk is your subsequent ass whupping.

I guess you can make poison gas by mixing bleach and ammonia, but that's not something that just happens if you "throw bleach into the mix," any more than you get a working gun by throwing some bullets into a box of metal parts.
 
2014-04-10 11:48:20 AM  

Xcott: I guess you can make poison gas by mixing bleach and ammonia, but that's not something that just happens if you "throw bleach into the mix," any more than you get a working gun by throwing some bullets into a box of metal parts.


Unless you're Bolt Crank.

/so, nothing is obscure on FARK, eh?
 
2014-04-10 02:57:02 PM  

Xcott: Callous: How to build a pipe bomb from household chemicals

Wow that was tough..... I can't imagine anyone else could figure that out.

So if it really is that easy, then why didn't the Columbine bombs work?  I mean, the instructions are out there, right?   Apparently it's just a matter of having access to the instructions, right?

You can also Google "how to play the guitar," "how to wrestle an alligator," and "how to make meth."  Wow, that was tough, I guess any idiot can do all of those things too after reading a web page.

Dr Jack Badofsky: It doesn't even have to kill people to be effective. Mix some incendiary with a bunch of liquid soap or Vaseline, and you've got stuff that sticks and burns after it explodes! Throw bleach into the mix and.....poison.

This is basically how 9th graders think chemistry works after reading the Anarchists' Cookbook.

No, if you "throw bleach into the mix" you don't get poison.  How the hell is that poison?  You can pour bleach straight from the bottle onto someone's head and, if he doesn't get it in his eyes and can go somewhere to shower off, the primary health risk is your subsequent ass whupping.

I guess you can make poison gas by mixing bleach and ammonia, but that's not something that just happens if you "throw bleach into the mix," any more than you get a working gun by throwing some bullets into a box of metal parts.


Who says bleach has to be mixed in with the incendiary portion (could be a secondary reaction)?  Hell, you could use any number of things, chlorine tablets, ammonia, etc. and use it any number of ways to add to the effectiveness of a device.  Like I said, it doesn't have to maim through concussion, it just has to make people do what you want it to, be it direct them a certain direction (ex: out of a room), or whatever.  I may have a 9th grade understanding of chemistry, but your ingenuity is even worse.  Again, trial and error.  Kids have plenty of time on their hands, and lots of household chemicals.  Btw, a mix of bleach, detergent and a couple other things in very easy to acquire amounts can blow a house off its foundation.
 
2014-04-10 02:57:12 PM  

Xcott: Callous: How to build a pipe bomb from household chemicals

Wow that was tough..... I can't imagine anyone else could figure that out.

So if it really is that easy, then why didn't the Columbine bombs work?  I mean, the instructions are out there, right?   Apparently it's just a matter of having access to the instructions, right?

You can also Google "how to play the guitar," "how to wrestle an alligator," and "how to make meth."  Wow, that was tough, I guess any idiot can do all of those things too after reading a web page.

Dr Jack Badofsky: It doesn't even have to kill people to be effective. Mix some incendiary with a bunch of liquid soap or Vaseline, and you've got stuff that sticks and burns after it explodes! Throw bleach into the mix and.....poison.

This is basically how 9th graders think chemistry works after reading the Anarchists' Cookbook.

No, if you "throw bleach into the mix" you don't get poison.  How the hell is that poison?  You can pour bleach straight from the bottle onto someone's head and, if he doesn't get it in his eyes and can go somewhere to shower off, the primary health risk is your subsequent ass whupping.

I guess you can make poison gas by mixing bleach and ammonia, but that's not something that just happens if you "throw bleach into the mix," any more than you get a working gun by throwing some bullets into a box of metal parts.


Notice how terrorists rarely pull something like that off? There's a good reason: as you say, you can't just, "throw bleach into the mix."

And thank the Gods. The terrorists really are Keystone Khemists.
 
2014-04-10 03:58:03 PM  

Xcott: You can also Google "how to play the guitar," "how to wrestle an alligator," and "how to make meth." Wow, that was tough, I guess any idiot can do all of those things too after reading a web page.


I don't recommend trying all three at once, however...
 
2014-04-10 05:09:21 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Like I said, it doesn't have to maim through concussion, it just has to make people do what you want it to, be it direct them a certain direction (ex: out of a room), or whatever.


Well, I'm convinced.  No point in gun control, because a would-be school shooter could simply build a home-brew device that can tragically direct people in a certain direction, or whatever.

Or maybe the killer could let a sheepdog into the gymnasium and wait till it herds everyone to death.
 
2014-04-10 11:58:51 PM  

Callous: Wrong. The level of violence went down because of The Comission.

Do you really think that organized crime suddenly decided to follow the law and registered their machine guns? If you do you are delusional.


Very interesting.  That would take the mob from 'primitive tribe' all the way up to 'oligarchy'.  No wonder the violence rate dropped...
 
Displayed 42 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 »
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