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.

(Foodbeast)   So a dozen armed men walk into a Jack in the Box   (foodbeast.com) divider line 311
    More: Amusing, Jack in the Box, Dallas-Fort Worth  
•       •       •

8676 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 May 2014 at 5:57 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-06 12:44:38 AM  

Mikey1969: nijika: "F the safety of your kids and family I have a point to prove!"

While I think these chucklehead morons are stupid attention where's, please elaborate on how they were endangering anybody's safety.


Just look at Tacticool McOperator on the left holding his rifle at the ready in a family joint.  Once again, we would be giving him a huge benefit of the doubt to assume that his little toy there wasn't fully loaded and ready to rock.  

We could assume they have all the competence in the world, but that's contrary to being in a Jack In The Box waving around an AR to make a cheap point.  Responsible gun ownership and being a decent human being require that you understand the power of what you're holding.

It's not a toy.
 
2014-05-06 12:56:49 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: fusillade762: Theaetetus: JuggleGeek: The employee should have taken a pen and paper and written a note saying "We reserve the right not to serve assholes with weapons".

Or just said "GTFO, or you're trespassing." You don't need to have a specially written policy to refuse service to people carrying weapons.

[www.mydoorsign.com image 400x290]

/Ya, that doesn't work so well.  It has been tried.  You can't tell someone they are trespassing, when its a public access building like a fast food joint. There have been may court cases.


Name one - just one of these court cases where a business couldn't kick out a specific individual who they deemed to be a nuisance and they lost.  I am of course excluding cases where the business simply had a blanket policy of barring blacks or Jews or gays.

These assholes were looking for a reaction and they got it.  They may have a right to enter a business with a rifle in their hand, but once they are told to leave they lose that right at that particular business.

The only time I've seen someone open carry was in a convenience store.  He had a pistol in a holster and was waiting in line.  I thought it was pretty weird, but I didn't say anything or even walk out because I figured a robber wouldn't bother waiting in line.

I still believe it was meant to be provocative.  It wasn't a high crime area and even if a robber entered the place, I'd bet he would be the first person with a gun pointed at his head.  So, I guess it's a good thing.  It would have given me and everyone else a chance to get the hell out of there while the robber was busy disarming the ass hat who thinks he has to carry a gun everywhere.

/no, I'm not going to play hero
//I'll rescue a kitten or stop and help someone who is injured - that's not being a hero
///I'll leave the gun play and rushing into burning buildings for the cops and fire department
 
2014-05-06 01:09:58 AM  

Scrotastic Method: Mikey1969: lostcat: Callous: Isitoveryet: wow, those patriots are moar patriotic than any of you could ever fake being.

they are moar patriotic than Uncle Sam snorting coke off a hookers ass through a rolled up Constitution in church while segregating teh population into income groups.

/do all Americans suffer from an inferiority complex?

No, but it appears many have an irrational fear of weapons.

Explain to me how it's irrational to be afraid of a tool designed specifically to launch a small lead weight fast enough to go through a human body. Especially when that tool is in the hands of a complete stranger whose disposition you have no way of knowing.

That seems like an entirely rational fear.

It's no less rational then being afraid of a parked car suddenly running you over in a parking lot as you walk by. It doesn't matter what it is designed to do, both are dangerous when mishandled and inert the rest of the time.

The guns/cars simile is possibly the stupidest argument gun nuts make.

Because you'll ask why...a thing designed to kill people is not the same as a useful tool that can accidentally kill you when used improperly. If it were, a nuclear warhead would be the same as a spatula.


Because neither one is dangerous without something behind it. Neither one kills people unless someone misuses it, or there is a sudden failure of an onboard system. It doesn't matter WHAT the device was designed for. At all. This "but guns were specifically designed to kill people and cars were designed to go to the drive in" argument is what's weak. People who don't understand guns constantly bring out the 'cars and guns are apples and oranges' claim when they aren't. Both are items that if used correctly are safe.The danger is when they are used in attentively, incorrectly, or with malice.

There is nothing wrong with the simile. It's not a "strawman", and there is nothing about the comparison that is incorrect. It doesn't matter what a tool was designed to do.

And no, a nuclear weapon compared to a spatula is not the same at all. One has far reaching damage and the other can only kill if some determined person were to grind it into a prison shiv, thereby modifying it and repurposing it radically from its original design.
 
2014-05-06 01:15:20 AM  

tripleseven: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mikey1969: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mikey1969: Only a moron thinks that a gun just sitting there is "dangerous". It requires an outside force acting upon it.

Like a three-year-old.

/time2repeal2

[straw man variety assortment]

You see, cops and soldiers don't actually do anything special to secure their weapons than the average gun owner does.

[Uh, so?]

But that doesn't matter to someone with their mind made up, of course.

Oh, you haven't made up your mind on this?

Don't you get it? Inert objects aren't dangerous wharrrrgrrrblll!


And they aren't. I didn't realize that the anti gun crowd was so stupid. I will ask once again how the guns themselves pose any danger if nobody is there to touch them. Have you watched a gun just go off for no reason? Do you have documentation of it happening? We'd love to hear it. Until that trigger is pulled, NOTHING happens in the gun. They don't emit bullets at a predetermined time as a part of their function. Something has to set the primer off, and it's either mechanical action or something like heat. Until that moment, the gun itself is inactive.

I have repeated again and again that I think these people are dipshaits, but that doesn't change the fact that the "OMG a gun, we can't stand anywhere near it, lest it go off." crowd is going to corner the market in fainting couches. You haven't actually answered my questions yet. How is the gun itself actually dangerous, which is the point I have been consistently making?
 
2014-05-06 01:15:49 AM  
Another potential title to the story: "A Dozen Men with Small Penises Walk into a Jack in the Box"
 
2014-05-06 01:19:02 AM  

nijika: Mikey1969: nijika: "F the safety of your kids and family I have a point to prove!"

While I think these chucklehead morons are stupid attention where's, please elaborate on how they were endangering anybody's safety.

Just look at Tacticool McOperator on the left holding his rifle at the ready in a family joint.  Once again, we would be giving him a huge benefit of the doubt to assume that his little toy there wasn't fully loaded and ready to rock.  

We could assume they have all the competence in the world, but that's contrary to being in a Jack In The Box waving around an AR to make a cheap point.  Responsible gun ownership and being a decent human being require that you understand the power of what you're holding.

It's not a toy.


You mean the guy who is holding it up for the picture, but has his hand completely out of the trigger guard? That's actually how you safely hold a gun, so it doesn't accidentally discharge. While I will reiterate again that these guys are attention seeking morons, nothing that picture actually says "unsafe". The only person that's even touching their gun has it in a safe grip.
 
2014-05-06 01:26:17 AM  

These guys exercising their Second Amendment rights in this manner are about on the level of the Westboro Baptist Church exercising their First Amendment rights in the manner for which they're famous.

I think the Dude said it best:

i.qkme.me

 
2014-05-06 01:26:24 AM  

gfid: I still believe it was meant to be provocative.  It wasn't a high crime area


You do realize that people who open carry don't carry to the convenience store, then go home, change clothes and then go to the mall, right? They visit convenience stores just like you do. They are on their way from one place to another and they decide they want something to drink, or they need gas, maybe a hot dog or candy bar for the road. Just because that isn't a high crime area, it doesn't indicate that the convenience store is the only place he wears the gun. It's also quite possible the guy was an off duty cop. Many officers carry their weapon when off of work, or heading to and from the station. People will also carry their pistol when going to and from the shooting range, and for the same reason the cops will. It is far easier to use a holster for what it was meant to be used for than to have extra shiat in their hands when they are getting out of the car at the gun range, after they get home, or(in the case of a police officer) when they get to work.

There doesn't have to be ANYTHING provocative about it, and to assume that he was carrying it to provoke just because the Circle K was not in a "high crime area" is to jump to a conclusion with about 5% of the data. All you have is that he was carrying a gun on his hip. There is no more you can judge this on as you present it.
 
2014-05-06 02:32:10 AM  

Mikey1969: gfid: I still believe it was meant to be provocative.  It wasn't a high crime area

You do realize that people who open carry don't carry to the convenience store, then go home, change clothes and then go to the mall, right? They visit convenience stores just like you do. They are on their way from one place to another and they decide they want something to drink, or they need gas, maybe a hot dog or candy bar for the road. Just because that isn't a high crime area, it doesn't indicate that the convenience store is the only place he wears the gun. It's also quite possible the guy was an off duty cop. Many officers carry their weapon when off of work, or heading to and from the station. People will also carry their pistol when going to and from the shooting range, and for the same reason the cops will. It is far easier to use a holster for what it was meant to be used for than to have extra shiat in their hands when they are getting out of the car at the gun range, after they get home, or(in the case of a police officer) when they get to work.

There doesn't have to be ANYTHING provocative about it, and to assume that he was carrying it to provoke just because the Circle K was not in a "high crime area" is to jump to a conclusion with about 5% of the data. All you have is that he was carrying a gun on his hip. There is no more you can judge this on as you present it.


Why not leave it in the car?  I know, someone might break in.  I know my car gets broken into all the time when I stop for a few minutes at a convenience store.  That's why I lock it.  Okay, so maybe it was Serpico, Jr.

And I would expect people going in and out of a shooting range to be carrying guns.  You make it sounds like a really painstaking thing to put your gun in a case and stow it under the seat.  I correctly assessed that he was not a threat in that particular convenience store at that particular time.

It still made me a bit uneasy. and if I owned  a business,  my policy would be that I'm the only one allowed to carry a gun inside of it.  Or maybe my hired mercenaries.  (I remember after a string of robberies in the '70s some dry cleaners started hiring security guards with shotguns - it was probably mostly hype.  That shiat can't be cost effective.

Unless you intend to use your gun, you probably shouldn't carry it around and like I said if some thugs had entered the store with the intent of robbing it, he would have been the first person they pointed their guns at.

You can rationalize all you want, but normal people don't openly carry wherever they go and normal people don't expect to see anyone except cops or the armored car guys carrying weapons.
 
2014-05-06 04:00:54 AM  

gfid: my policy would be that I'm the only one allowed to carry


And I'm sure that all the criminals who would rob you otherwise will without fail obey your policy and never enter your business with a gun.
 
2014-05-06 05:12:05 AM  

Callous: gfid: my policy would be that I'm the only one allowed to carry

And I'm sure that all the criminals who would rob you otherwise will without fail obey your policy and never enter your business with a gun.


So you expect me to rely on my other customers who may be legally carrying and responsible to protect me?

Even if it makes some people uncomfortable?
 
2014-05-06 05:24:26 AM  

basemetal: The men were Open Carry Firearm demonstrators who were protesting their rights to carry firearms in public.

Protesting their rights........or demonstrating their rights.......?

/anyway, I hope the cops are called on you every time you carry your AR into a business/public place.
//you want a reaction, I hope you like police reaction
///I'm all for concealed carry, but carrying around your AR in public like that is just stupid.


"just stupid." <--- deserves repeating
I
 
2014-05-06 05:47:18 AM  

Callous: loaba: Callous: lostcat: Callous: Isitoveryet: wow, those patriots are moar patriotic than any of you could ever fake being.

they are moar patriotic than Uncle Sam snorting coke off a hookers ass through a rolled up Constitution in church while segregating teh population into income groups.

/do all Americans suffer from an inferiority complex?

No, but it appears many have an irrational fear of weapons.

Explain to me how it's irrational to be afraid of a tool designed specifically to launch a small lead weight fast enough to go through a human body. Especially when that tool is in the hands of a complete stranger whose disposition you have no way of knowing.

That seems like an entirely rational fear.

If someone is actually threatening you with it, then it rational.  The mere presence is not.

The mere presence of one man, rifle slung, walking into your store does not go unnoticed. Now make that a dozen - is that not a WTF kind of deal? Yeah, you exercise caution, if for no other reason then you have to assume those weapons are loaded.

Actually 1 would be more concerning than 12.  It's not uncommon for 1 guy to rob a place with a long gun, although far less common then with a handgun.

But I've never heard of 12 doing it.  I would assume they have some other agenda.  In fact anymore than 2 I'm going to assume they're not there to do anything illegal.

Also it matters how they are carrying them.  If they are slung over their shoulders, no worries.  If they are holding them in any of the ready positions that might indicate bad intentions.

I would at least consider it careless/dangerous and ask them to leave if they don't shoulder them.


Nah, a group of armed douchbags is just as bad as a loner, and as for the semantics of whether or not a gun is being pointed - if I'm in a store or business & a group of guys come in open-carrying rifles, I'm leaving.

And for those who might suspect a "double standard" - that includes armed douchebags with badges.

I'm a gun owner & sorry to say, too many other gun owners suck at basic safety rules.

Every indoor range I've been to has had damage to the ceilings, the stall dividers , and snarky signs that say things like "we reserve the right to send you home if you can't hit the target"
 
2014-05-06 05:49:03 AM  

Tuskan_Roeder: I'm a pro-gun, pro-concealed carry, pro-open carry, prior CCW permit holding combat vet gun nut, and I came here to say these guys are douchers.  Please don't judge the pro-gun movement by the likes of these AW'ing fegits.


If reasonable gun owners were more vocal about not defending the wack jobs, it would be a lot easier to believe there were more reasonable gun owners.

Stand up for reasonable safety laws. Stand up for background checks. Stand up for training certifications. Or what ever you think will help keep guns out of the hands of people who would be dangerous with them.

But the vast majority of the pro-gun movement kowtows to the NRA, and worse, let's the NRA speak for them. If you don't want to be associated with these kinds of idiots, do something to help keep these kinds of idiots in check.
 
2014-05-06 05:54:22 AM  

JuggleGeek: The Flexecutioner: these guys weren't choosing to threaten people with their rifles.  stop inaccurately describing the scenario to fit your outrage.

Why did the employees hide and call the cops?

Because they felt threatened.  Which is exactly what the gun nuts wanted.


1) You can't read minds - either of Jack-In-the-Box workers or gun nuts.

2) The gun nuts wanted food, and to make a point about the 2nd Amendment. It was a stupid point, and they went about it stupidly, and they're wrong-headed farkwits. But then, so is anyone who thinks they can read minds because they read a news article on the interwebs.
 
2014-05-06 06:01:40 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: Tuskan_Roeder: I'm a pro-gun, pro-concealed carry, pro-open carry, prior CCW permit holding combat vet gun nut, and I came here to say these guys are douchers.  Please don't judge the pro-gun movement by the likes of these AW'ing fegits.

If reasonable gun owners were more vocal about not defending the wack jobs, it would be a lot easier to believe there were more reasonable gun owners.

Stand up for reasonable safety laws. Stand up for background checks. Stand up for training certifications. Or what ever you think will help keep guns out of the hands of people who would be dangerous with them.

But the vast majority of the pro-gun movement kowtows to the NRA, and worse, let's the NRA speak for them. If you don't want to be associated with these kinds of idiots, do something to help keep these kinds of idiots in check.


nah, not standing up for background checks, fingerprints, training, or any of that worthless "feel good" legislation. background checks are already required at every licensed dealer in the country. every single one. even at gun shows. there is no gun show loophole.

the government doesnt have any right to build dossiers on gun owners, nor the right to track gun ownership. Give me a trustworthy government & we'll talk about it, but since sept 11th, we've had a power-grabby government & they haven't earned any trust through their actions since then .
 
2014-05-06 08:17:17 AM  
Meh.. Open carry isnt my thing but it was probably the safest Jack in the Box in the country that day.
 
2014-05-06 08:35:32 AM  

gfid: Mikey1969: gfid: I still believe it was meant to be provocative.  It wasn't a high crime area

You do realize that people who open carry don't carry to the convenience store, then go home, change clothes and then go to the mall, right? They visit convenience stores just like you do. They are on their way from one place to another and they decide they want something to drink, or they need gas, maybe a hot dog or candy bar for the road. Just because that isn't a high crime area, it doesn't indicate that the convenience store is the only place he wears the gun. It's also quite possible the guy was an off duty cop. Many officers carry their weapon when off of work, or heading to and from the station. People will also carry their pistol when going to and from the shooting range, and for the same reason the cops will. It is far easier to use a holster for what it was meant to be used for than to have extra shiat in their hands when they are getting out of the car at the gun range, after they get home, or(in the case of a police officer) when they get to work.

There doesn't have to be ANYTHING provocative about it, and to assume that he was carrying it to provoke just because the Circle K was not in a "high crime area" is to jump to a conclusion with about 5% of the data. All you have is that he was carrying a gun on his hip. There is no more you can judge this on as you present it.

Why not leave it in the car?  I know, someone might break in.  I know my car gets broken into all the time when I stop for a few minutes at a convenience store.  That's why I lock it.  Okay, so maybe it was Serpico, Jr.

And I would expect people going in and out of a shooting range to be carrying guns.  You make it sounds like a really painstaking thing to put your gun in a case and stow it under the seat.  I correctly assessed that he was not a threat in that particular convenience store at that particular time.

It still made me a bit uneasy. and if I owned  a business,  my policy would be that I'm the only one allowed to carry a gun inside of it.  Or maybe my hired mercenaries.  (I remember after a string of robberies in the '70s some dry cleaners started hiring security guards with shotguns - it was probably mostly hype.  That shiat can't be cost effective.

Unless you intend to use your gun, you probably shouldn't carry it around and like I said if some thugs had entered the store with the intent of robbing it, he would have been the first person they pointed their guns at.

You can rationalize all you want, but normal people don't openly carry wherever they go and normal people don't expect to see anyone except cops or the armored car guys carrying weapons.


Because people put it on their hop where it's easier to carry and they leave it there. They don't fark around with it. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp. Put it where it's easiest to transport and leave it there. Easy peasy.

And he could have been carrying just to carry. Still doesn't mean that he was trying to be provocative. Not all people who carry a gun are trying to scare you, just like not everyone in a nice muscle car wants to race you at a stoplight.

You may need to drag a fainting couch around for when you get the vapors.
 
2014-05-06 11:43:23 AM  
Mikey1969: repurposing it radically from its original design.

Thank you for making my point for me. A gun's design? Make a thing dead. A car's design? Transport things.
 
2014-05-06 11:57:05 AM  

Scrotastic Method: Mikey1969: repurposing it radically from its original design.

Thank you for making my point for me. A gun's design? Make a thing dead. A car's design? Transport things.


You know what? It doesn't matter at all. A car can kill you just as dead, and neither are going to kill you without an outside agent acting upon them, as I have stated multiple time. You don't have a :point:, you have an irrational fear. Those are not the same thing, just FYI.
 
2014-05-06 01:18:09 PM  
Are a poorly trimmed beard and moobs a requirement to open carry or is more of a side effect?
 
2014-05-06 01:40:16 PM  

Mikey1969: Scrotastic Method: Mikey1969: repurposing it radically from its original design.

Thank you for making my point for me. A gun's design? Make a thing dead. A car's design? Transport things.

You know what? It doesn't matter at all. A car can kill you just as dead, and neither are going to kill you without an outside agent acting upon them, as I have stated multiple time. You don't have a :point:, you have an irrational fear. Those are not the same thing, just FYI.


Worrying about every car driving down the street? Irrational fear. Worrying about an unknown human walking down the street with a military-looking weapon? Reason for concern.

Cars have lots of reasons for existing beyond killing humans. The guns pictured in TFA do not. Stop with the broken metaphor.

/I don't have an irrational fear of guns. A Remington 1187 was under the tree when I was 11. I used to be a ranked competitive shooter. I taught my wife to shoot this summer on a Glock 17 and a Walther PPK just in case some craziness occurred and she needed to know how these things worked -- because I didn't want her to have an irrational fear of weapons.
//I do have a fear of good ol' boys dumb enough to parade around with pretend soldier-boy weapons.
///But I don't care that they all own cars.
 
2014-05-06 03:30:46 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Mikey1969: Scrotastic Method: Mikey1969: repurposing it radically from its original design.

Thank you for making my point for me. A gun's design? Make a thing dead. A car's design? Transport things.

You know what? It doesn't matter at all. A car can kill you just as dead, and neither are going to kill you without an outside agent acting upon them, as I have stated multiple time. You don't have a :point:, you have an irrational fear. Those are not the same thing, just FYI.

Worrying about every car driving down the street? Irrational fear. Worrying about an unknown human walking down the street with a military-looking weapon? Reason for concern.

Cars have lots of reasons for existing beyond killing humans. The guns pictured in TFA do not. Stop with the broken metaphor.

/I don't have an irrational fear of guns. A Remington 1187 was under the tree when I was 11. I used to be a ranked competitive shooter. I taught my wife to shoot this summer on a Glock 17 and a Walther PPK just in case some craziness occurred and she needed to know how these things worked -- because I didn't want her to have an irrational fear of weapons.
//I do have a fear of good ol' boys dumb enough to parade around with pretend soldier-boy weapons.
///But I don't care that they all own cars.


So how many humans did the two of you kill?
 
2014-05-06 04:31:46 PM  

Callous: So how many humans did the two of you kill?


Don't forget to bold the rest of the quote: "in case some craziness occurred and she needed to know how these things worked -- because I didn't want her to have an irrational fear of weapons. "

Yes. She should know how a deadly weapon that's not uncommon in our society works. If I fight with a guy with a gun, if there's a zombie apocalypse, if some action movie-type crap happens in our life and she needs to know how to handle a gun, I want her to know. Yet there are zero firearms in our home. Because I don't expect to ever actually have to kill a human.
 
2014-05-06 05:06:56 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Callous: So how many humans did the two of you kill?

Don't forget to bold the rest of the quote: "in case some craziness occurred and she needed to know how these things worked -- because I didn't want her to have an irrational fear of weapons. "

Yes. She should know how a deadly weapon that's not uncommon in our society works. If I fight with a guy with a gun, if there's a zombie apocalypse, if some action movie-type crap happens in our life and she needs to know how to handle a gun, I want her to know. Yet there are zero firearms in our home. Because I don't expect to ever actually have to kill a human.


You said they are only good for killing humans.  You also said you taught her how to use one.  How many humans did the two of you kill?  Or are they actually good for something other than killing humans?
 
2014-05-06 05:34:44 PM  

Callous: Scrotastic Method: Callous: So how many humans did the two of you kill?

Don't forget to bold the rest of the quote: "in case some craziness occurred and she needed to know how these things worked -- because I didn't want her to have an irrational fear of weapons. "

Yes. She should know how a deadly weapon that's not uncommon in our society works. If I fight with a guy with a gun, if there's a zombie apocalypse, if some action movie-type crap happens in our life and she needs to know how to handle a gun, I want her to know. Yet there are zero firearms in our home. Because I don't expect to ever actually have to kill a human.

You said they are only good for killing humans.  You also said you taught her how to use one.  How many humans did the two of you kill?  Or are they actually good for something other than killing humans?


In my previous response I listed three examples of situations where I'd be okay with her shooting something -- to save my (or really any) life, to kill a zombie, or some unforeseen bizarre/statistically improbable situation from the movies.

Note that the Jack in the Box guys we're talking about had no reasonable expectation any of that would happen to them, so I'm still firmly against their dick gun waving, but it's not a wholly unreasonable position I have: in favor of stricter gun control yet still wanting people I care about to know how to handle a gun.
 
2014-05-06 06:01:37 PM  

Callous: Scrotastic Method: Callous: So how many humans did the two of you kill?

Don't forget to bold the rest of the quote: "in case some craziness occurred and she needed to know how these things worked -- because I didn't want her to have an irrational fear of weapons. "

Yes. She should know how a deadly weapon that's not uncommon in our society works. If I fight with a guy with a gun, if there's a zombie apocalypse, if some action movie-type crap happens in our life and she needs to know how to handle a gun, I want her to know. Yet there are zero firearms in our home. Because I don't expect to ever actually have to kill a human.

You said they are only good for killing humans.  You also said you taught her how to use one.  How many humans did the two of you kill?  Or are they actually good for something other than killing humans?



Guns are great for practicing for killing humans, too!  This is why most shooting ranges sell you the paper targets with the convienient human shape printed right on there, with the highest points marked on the spots that kill people the best.

Seriously, yes guns and cars are both tools---and are both dangerous to bystanders and operators if mishandled.  But you're being deliberately obtuse to pretend that the primary design goal of a gun *isn't* to be killing people and animals quickly at a distance.  That's why people invented the things in the first place.  The fact that it's fun to shoot at targets and blast apart watermelons is just a side benefit.
 
2014-05-06 06:01:40 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Callous: Scrotastic Method: Callous: So how many humans did the two of you kill?

Don't forget to bold the rest of the quote: "in case some craziness occurred and she needed to know how these things worked -- because I didn't want her to have an irrational fear of weapons. "

Yes. She should know how a deadly weapon that's not uncommon in our society works. If I fight with a guy with a gun, if there's a zombie apocalypse, if some action movie-type crap happens in our life and she needs to know how to handle a gun, I want her to know. Yet there are zero firearms in our home. Because I don't expect to ever actually have to kill a human.

You said they are only good for killing humans.  You also said you taught her how to use one.  How many humans did the two of you kill?  Or are they actually good for something other than killing humans?

In my previous response I listed three examples of situations where I'd be okay with her shooting something -- to save my (or really any) life, to kill a zombie, or some unforeseen bizarre/statistically improbable situation from the movies.

Note that the Jack in the Box guys we're talking about had no reasonable expectation any of that would happen to them, so I'm still firmly against their dick gun waving, but it's not a wholly unreasonable position I have: in favor of stricter gun control yet still wanting people I care about to know how to handle a gun.


So you're okay with people being able to defend themselves only in places you approve of and only with the tools you approve of.  Everyone else just gets to be a victim.

You still didn't answer my question.  How many humans did you and you wife kill?  Or was your statement ridiculous hyperbole and they are useful for more than just killing humans?
 
2014-05-06 06:05:12 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Callous: Scrotastic Method: Callous: So how many humans did the two of you kill?

Don't forget to bold the rest of the quote: "in case some craziness occurred and she needed to know how these things worked -- because I didn't want her to have an irrational fear of weapons. "

Yes. She should know how a deadly weapon that's not uncommon in our society works. If I fight with a guy with a gun, if there's a zombie apocalypse, if some action movie-type crap happens in our life and she needs to know how to handle a gun, I want her to know. Yet there are zero firearms in our home. Because I don't expect to ever actually have to kill a human.

You said they are only good for killing humans.  You also said you taught her how to use one.  How many humans did the two of you kill?  Or are they actually good for something other than killing humans?


Guns are great for practicing for killing humans, too!  This is why most shooting ranges sell you the paper targets with the convienient human shape printed right on there, with the highest points marked on the spots that kill people the best.

Seriously, yes guns and cars are both tools---and are both dangerous to bystanders and operators if mishandled.  But you're being deliberately obtuse to pretend that the primary design goal of a gun *isn't* to be killing people and animals quickly at a distance.  That's why people invented the things in the first place.  The fact that it's fun to shoot at targets and blast apart watermelons is just a side benefit.


In my experience target shooting is their primary use.  Billions of rounds are fired every year, yet there aren't billions of people and animals shot.
 
2014-05-06 06:20:23 PM  
Callous:

In my experience target shooting is their primary use.  Billions of rounds are fired every year, yet there aren't billions of people and animals shot.

The nominal reason why you go target shooting is so that when you do take your gun out for its designed purpose for hunting or for self-defense you are accurate and quick, and less likely to endanger others around you.  But if your primary purpose is really and truly target shooting, congrats, you bought yourself a toy.

I willingly admit my guns are essentially toys, and my AR isn't any more of a tool than a pitching wedge, really.  Saying the main USE of my guns are as target shooting toys for entertainment is true---but the design intent of it is to punch holes in living tissue, and to lose sight of that is how stupid accidents happen when dickbags don't respect the killing power of the gun they think is just for shooting at targets.
 
2014-05-06 06:29:19 PM  

Callous: You still didn't answer my question.  How many humans did you and you wife kill?  Or was your statement ridiculous hyperbole and they are useful for more than just killing humans?


I did answer your question, because my answer is C) I wanted my wife to be prepared for a bad situation.

My stance is akin to the renter's insurance policy I have: I don't actually expect my apartment to burn down, but I'd like to be able to handle that situation. Or maybe it's more like A dude with a black belt that never gets in an actual fight. As far as guns go, I hope my wife never has to point a gun at a living thing, but if she has to I'd like her to know how.

Would you argue that the guns I mentioned, a Glock 17 and a Walther PPK, were invented for other reasons than to kill human beings? One is carried by more police and security than any other weapon in the world, the other is best known as the preferred sidearm of James Bond and Sterling Archer. Or are you the one being ridiculous and ignoring my actual point?
 
2014-05-06 06:34:06 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Callous:

In my experience target shooting is their primary use.  Billions of rounds are fired every year, yet there aren't billions of people and animals shot.

The nominal reason why you go target shooting is so that when you do take your gun out for its designed purpose for hunting or for self-defense you are accurate and quick, and less likely to endanger others around you.  But if your primary purpose is really and truly target shooting, congrats, you bought yourself a toy.

I willingly admit my guns are essentially toys, and my AR isn't any more of a tool than a pitching wedge, really.  Saying the main USE of my guns are as target shooting toys for entertainment is true---but the design intent of it is to punch holes in living tissue, and to lose sight of that is how stupid accidents happen when dickbags don't respect the killing power of the gun they think is just for shooting at targets.


I don't hunt.  I rarely ever carry, but this choice is based on my assessment of the risk regarding where I'm going..  I don't have any intention of forcing my choices on others and I object to anyone else forcing their choices on others as well.  That's how you end up with things like gay marriage bans.
 
2014-05-06 06:37:15 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Callous: You still didn't answer my question.  How many humans did you and you wife kill?  Or was your statement ridiculous hyperbole and they are useful for more than just killing humans?

I did answer your question, because my answer is C) I wanted my wife to be prepared for a bad situation.

My stance is akin to the renter's insurance policy I have: I don't actually expect my apartment to burn down, but I'd like to be able to handle that situation. Or maybe it's more like A dude with a black belt that never gets in an actual fight. As far as guns go, I hope my wife never has to point a gun at a living thing, but if she has to I'd like her to know how.

Would you argue that the guns I mentioned, a Glock 17 and a Walther PPK, were invented for other reasons than to kill human beings? One is carried by more police and security than any other weapon in the world, the other is best known as the preferred sidearm of James Bond and Sterling Archer. Or are you the one being ridiculous and ignoring my actual point?


So if all they are good for is killing humans how did you teach her how to use one without killing humans?  Or was it just hyperbole?

A Corvette is designed to go 200 MPH so therefore they should be banned because they have no other use right?
 
2014-05-06 07:04:57 PM  

Callous: Bonzo_1116: Callous:

In my experience target shooting is their primary use.  Billions of rounds are fired every year, yet there aren't billions of people and animals shot.

The nominal reason why you go target shooting is so that when you do take your gun out for its designed purpose for hunting or for self-defense you are accurate and quick, and less likely to endanger others around you.  But if your primary purpose is really and truly target shooting, congrats, you bought yourself a toy.

I willingly admit my guns are essentially toys, and my AR isn't any more of a tool than a pitching wedge, really.  Saying the main USE of my guns are as target shooting toys for entertainment is true---but the design intent of it is to punch holes in living tissue, and to lose sight of that is how stupid accidents happen when dickbags don't respect the killing power of the gun they think is just for shooting at targets.

I don't hunt.  I rarely ever carry, but this choice is based on my assessment of the risk regarding where I'm going..  I don't have any intention of forcing my choices on others and I object to anyone else forcing their choices on others as well.  That's how you end up with things like gay marriage bans.


So if you don't hunt, and you rarely carry, why did you get a gun in the first place?  And when you do carry, is it concealed or open? I personally never carry open or otherwise.  I prefer to stay away from life situations where that kind of question would even come up.

As far as I'm concerned, these guys can carry all day long into whatever establishment welcomes them. But they shouldn't really be surprised when people freak the f*ck out.
 
2014-05-06 07:17:01 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Callous: Bonzo_1116: Callous:

In my experience target shooting is their primary use.  Billions of rounds are fired every year, yet there aren't billions of people and animals shot.

The nominal reason why you go target shooting is so that when you do take your gun out for its designed purpose for hunting or for self-defense you are accurate and quick, and less likely to endanger others around you.  But if your primary purpose is really and truly target shooting, congrats, you bought yourself a toy.

I willingly admit my guns are essentially toys, and my AR isn't any more of a tool than a pitching wedge, really.  Saying the main USE of my guns are as target shooting toys for entertainment is true---but the design intent of it is to punch holes in living tissue, and to lose sight of that is how stupid accidents happen when dickbags don't respect the killing power of the gun they think is just for shooting at targets.

I don't hunt.  I rarely ever carry, but this choice is based on my assessment of the risk regarding where I'm going..  I don't have any intention of forcing my choices on others and I object to anyone else forcing their choices on others as well.  That's how you end up with things like gay marriage bans.

So if you don't hunt, and you rarely carry, why did you get a gun in the first place?  And when you do carry, is it concealed or open? I personally never carry open or otherwise.  I prefer to stay away from life situations where that kind of question would even come up.

As far as I'm concerned, these guys can carry all day long into whatever establishment welcomes them. But they shouldn't really be surprised when people freak the f*ck out.


Marksmanship is an activity/skill I enjoy.  I've never shot at a human(or animal) shaped target that I can remember.  I only carry concealed.  I do my best to stay away from places that feel I need to carry in but sometimes it's somewhere I have to go.
 
2014-05-06 07:20:54 PM  

Callous: So if all they are good for is killing humans how did you teach her how to use one without killing humans?  Or was it just hyperbole?

A Corvette is designed to go 200 MPH so therefore they should be banned because they have no other use right?


Jesus Christ. Are you super dense or super bored?

When you're driving your Corvette you might be going 200mph. You might also be going to get groceries or see a movie or any number of things that require your body to go from point A to point B -- the automobile's reason for being. But when you're firing a gun, even in the best cases, you're practicing to make something dead. Which is, of course, the firearm's reason for being. Yes, that's what I was doing with my wife -- showing her how to make something dead.

The fact that something didn't die is because you need not do something to its fullest to practice being better at that thing.  I don't need to play a full 9 innings of baseball with 17 other dudes to get better at baseball. I can stand in front of a pitching machine and take a few hundred swings and that's practice. But it's not baseball. Likewise, a firing range isn't what that gun was for. And as I pointed out above, I was a competitive shooter. I used to pull 49/50s all the time on sporting clays. But Remington didn't make my gun (I was a teen and pops wasn't fronting me no Beretta) to blow up clays. They built it to snag ducks out of the sky. Tasty, tasty ducks. And fat, slow geese. And pheasant. All the sporting clays were ever really for? Making me better at killing shiat with the deathstick in my hands.

/reminds me of Eastbound and Down -- "The Olympics? Nah man, I play sports. I'm not trying to be the best at exercising
//firing range is exercise, dead things being sports in that there parallel quote...guess that makes Jody Hill the gun.
 
2014-05-06 08:06:29 PM  

unknownshooter: 100 Watt Walrus: Tuskan_Roeder: I'm a pro-gun, pro-concealed carry, pro-open carry, prior CCW permit holding combat vet gun nut, and I came here to say these guys are douchers.  Please don't judge the pro-gun movement by the likes of these AW'ing fegits.

If reasonable gun owners were more vocal about not defending the wack jobs, it would be a lot easier to believe there were more reasonable gun owners.

Stand up for reasonable safety laws. Stand up for background checks. Stand up for training certifications. Or what ever you think will help keep guns out of the hands of people who would be dangerous with them.

But the vast majority of the pro-gun movement kowtows to the NRA, and worse, let's the NRA speak for them. If you don't want to be associated with these kinds of idiots, do something to help keep these kinds of idiots in check.

nah, not standing up for background checks, fingerprints, training, or any of that worthless "feel good" legislation. background checks are already required at every licensed dealer in the country. every single one. even at gun shows. there is no gun show loophole.

the government doesnt have any right to build dossiers on gun owners, nor the right to track gun ownership. Give me a trustworthy government & we'll talk about it, but since sept 11th, we've had a power-grabby government & they haven't earned any trust through their actions since then .


Understandable POV. But something has to be done to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who are unstable or irresponsible (like these idiots and most of the clowns at the Bundy ranch). What do you suggest?
 
2014-05-06 08:14:13 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Callous: So if all they are good for is killing humans how did you teach her how to use one without killing humans?  Or was it just hyperbole?

A Corvette is designed to go 200 MPH so therefore they should be banned because they have no other use right?

Jesus Christ. Are you super dense or super bored?

When you're driving your Corvette you might be going 200mph. You might also be going to get groceries or see a movie or any number of things that require your body to go from point A to point B -- the automobile's reason for being. But when you're firing a gun, even in the best cases, you're practicing to make something dead. Which is, of course, the firearm's reason for being. Yes, that's what I was doing with my wife -- showing her how to make something dead.

The fact that something didn't die is because you need not do something to its fullest to practice being better at that thing.  I don't need to play a full 9 innings of baseball with 17 other dudes to get better at baseball. I can stand in front of a pitching machine and take a few hundred swings and that's practice. But it's not baseball. Likewise, a firing range isn't what that gun was for. And as I pointed out above, I was a competitive shooter. I used to pull 49/50s all the time on sporting clays. But Remington didn't make my gun (I was a teen and pops wasn't fronting me no Beretta) to blow up clays. They built it to snag ducks out of the sky. Tasty, tasty ducks. And fat, slow geese. And pheasant. All the sporting clays were ever really for? Making me better at killing shiat with the deathstick in my hands.

/reminds me of Eastbound and Down -- "The Olympics? Nah man, I play sports. I'm not trying to be the best at exercising
//firing range is exercise, dead things being sports in that there parallel quote...guess that makes Jody Hill the gun.


You just can't seem to grasp the concept that guns have more than one purpose.  One is to shoot human beings.  I don't go to the range to practice killing people.  I go to improve my skill and score on a bullseye target.
 
2014-05-06 08:16:39 PM  

100 Watt Walrus: But something has to be done


Those words get used to justify almost every restriction on rights. Terrorists in the world? Something has to be done, let's spy on our citizens! Let's grope and feel random passengers on airlines!  Pervs stalk and abuse children, which is already a crime? Something has to be done, let's give teenagers a few years apart in age sex offender status for life! An inconsequential fringe group gets mouthy? Something has to be done!
 
2014-05-06 08:54:57 PM  

Callous: You just can't seem to grasp the concept that guns have more than one purpose.  One is to shoot human beings.  I don't go to the range to practice killing people.  I go to improve my skill and score on a bullseye target.


And like I said, all the best marksmanship in the world only makes you good at using guns. It doesn't change why guns were invented or what their true purpose is.
 
2014-05-06 08:56:16 PM  

Callous: I only carry concealed.  I do my best to stay away from places that feel I need to carry in but sometimes it's somewhere I have to go.


Aha! Hypocrite. So your innocent time at the range really IS preparation to shoot at a person, if need be, and your gun is really is more to you than a simple recreational tool. You farking dishonest dickhead.
 
2014-05-06 09:03:11 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Callous: I only carry concealed.  I do my best to stay away from places that feel I need to carry in but sometimes it's somewhere I have to go.

Aha! Hypocrite. So your innocent time at the range really IS preparation to shoot at a person, if need be, and your gun is really is more to you than a simple recreational tool. You farking dishonest dickhead.


If you think simple marksmanship prepares you for a self defense situation you are grossly under informed.
 
2014-05-06 09:25:33 PM  
Callous:

You just can't seem to grasp the concept that guns have more than one purpose.  One is to shoot human beings.  I don't go to the range to pract ...

Sure guns now have more than one "purpose" or usage pattern--but the fact remains that the primary design intent for firearms is to kill things.  The ones that are in fact purpose-built and designed for target shooting look nothing like the firearms that the vast majority of gunowners have.

Like these things:
www.eberlestock.com

as opposed to these:
img.photobucket.com

Target 22 pistols are downright freaky looking, and are clearly not intended to put a cap in anybody's ass but some regulation target downrange.
ccdl.us
 
2014-05-06 09:56:58 PM  

Callous: Scrotastic Method: Callous: I only carry concealed.  I do my best to stay away from places that feel I need to carry in but sometimes it's somewhere I have to go.

Aha! Hypocrite. So your innocent time at the range really IS preparation to shoot at a person, if need be, and your gun is really is more to you than a simple recreational tool. You farking dishonest dickhead.

If you think simple marksmanship prepares you for a self defense situation you are grossly under informed.


And if you think concealed carrying a firearm in a place you think might be scary isn't directly at odds with your "guns are hobbies and have nothing to do with shooting people for me" claims, you're either stupid or a liar.
 
2014-05-06 09:58:32 PM  

Bonzo_1116: but the fact remains that the primary design intent for firearms is to kill things.


Maybe, but amazingly enough they're responsible for a lot less death than things whose supposed primary design is for something other than killing things.
 
2014-05-06 10:16:06 PM  

pedrop357: Bonzo_1116: but the fact remains that the primary design intent for firearms is to kill things.

Maybe, but amazingly enough they're responsible for a lot less death than things whose supposed primary design is for something other than killing things.


I thought car-related deaths and gun deaths were about neck and neck now, mostly because cars are so much safer now than they used to be.  There was a long and strident thread about it a few months back.

I'm fairly sure the number of hours spent in cars outpaces the number of hours spent handling firearms, though.  I wonder what the numbers are for deaths/injuries per hour of usage.
 
2014-05-06 10:16:40 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Callous: Scrotastic Method: Callous: I only carry concealed.  I do my best to stay away from places that feel I need to carry in but sometimes it's somewhere I have to go.

Aha! Hypocrite. So your innocent time at the range really IS preparation to shoot at a person, if need be, and your gun is really is more to you than a simple recreational tool. You farking dishonest dickhead.

If you think simple marksmanship prepares you for a self defense situation you are grossly under informed.

And if you think concealed carrying a firearm in a place you think might be scary isn't directly at odds with your "guns are hobbies and have nothing to do with shooting people for me" claims, you're either stupid or a liar.


I never said that.  I said they have more than one purpose.
 
2014-05-06 10:56:11 PM  

Boojum2k: 100 Watt Walrus: But something has to be done

Those words get used to justify almost every restriction on rights. Terrorists in the world? Something has to be done, let's spy on our citizens! Let's grope and feel random passengers on airlines!  Pervs stalk and abuse children, which is already a crime? Something has to be done, let's give teenagers a few years apart in age sex offender status for life! An inconsequential fringe group gets mouthy? Something has to be done!


Point taken. But how about some suggestions from the gun owners instead of just shooting down (pardon!) everyone else's ideas?
 
2014-05-06 11:24:34 PM  

100 Watt Walrus: Boojum2k: 100 Watt Walrus: But something has to be done

Those words get used to justify almost every restriction on rights. Terrorists in the world? Something has to be done, let's spy on our citizens! Let's grope and feel random passengers on airlines!  Pervs stalk and abuse children, which is already a crime? Something has to be done, let's give teenagers a few years apart in age sex offender status for life! An inconsequential fringe group gets mouthy? Something has to be done!

Point taken. But how about some suggestions from the gun owners instead of just shooting down (pardon!) everyone else's ideas?



I think the background check to filter out violent felons / wife beaters / people so crazy they've been legal judged incompetent is just dandy, and I wish there was a good way for the system that dealers use was available to the general public, so I could do a person-to-person transaction without going to the local gun store to do the sale.  I also think that open carry is a whole lot less problematic than concealed carry, as it's obvious that you've got a gun so people are watching to see if you pull any stupid shiat. And the sort of folk you might pull stupid shiat on you are forewarned and hopefully decide not to bother.  It's a deterrent.

With concealed carry, you don't know if the guy next to you might be packing and so it's not really a deterrent. And frankly, if folks are going to be walking around with concealed weaponry, I'd much prefer that people who do so are at least not nutbags, so I'd say that the minimum requirement for concealed carry ought to be the same background check you'd have to pass if you were buying a weapon in the first place.  So a person that owns a gun that they didn't buy (inherited from a relative, say) they'd just get the background check and good to go to conceal carry.
 
2014-05-06 11:30:23 PM  

100 Watt Walrus: But how about some suggestions from the gun owners instead of just shooting down (pardon!) everyone else's ideas?


Start basic firearm safety in elementary school. My parents had basic safety so ingrained in me that I don't even point toy guns directly at people, unless it is clearly a water pistol or nerf gun, and then only by specific intent. That doesn't mean hand the kids real guns, it means educate the children. Replace irrational fear with responsible caution, it'll eliminate a good number of accidental shootings. It's a fundamental right, our education system is failing to teach new generations how to exercise their rights responsibly, in more areas than just this one.
 
Displayed 50 of 311 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report