Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(WTKR)   Active shooter alert issued for Naval Medical Center Portsmouth. UPDATE: Not a shooter, but there wasn't an Active Stabber alert code   (wtkr.com) divider line 494
    More: News, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth  
•       •       •

6849 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jun 2014 at 9:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-06-06 09:32:21 AM  
Jesus H farking Christ, what the fark is going on out there?
 
2014-06-06 09:32:33 AM  
dilbert.com
 
2014-06-06 09:32:36 AM  
This is an isolated incident.
 
2014-06-06 09:32:48 AM  
Sigh, another gun thread.
 
2014-06-06 09:32:58 AM  
GRAB YOUR GUNS, EVERYONE!!!!!

/!!!!!
 
2014-06-06 09:33:08 AM  
 
2014-06-06 09:33:17 AM  
I'm sorry, there's a 40-day waiting list for shooting on a Federal medical facility.
 
2014-06-06 09:33:44 AM  
What has Obama done to cause all of these shootings?
 
2014-06-06 09:34:28 AM  
Stop it, whitey.
 
2014-06-06 09:34:30 AM  
Did the shooter fell jealous that Canada was getting all the mass shooting press? Goddamnit, WTF is wrong with people.
 
2014-06-06 09:34:42 AM  
All right! Come on, folks, let's see how long we can keep this streak going!
 
2014-06-06 09:35:00 AM  
It just never stops, does it?
 
2014-06-06 09:35:11 AM  

swaniefrmreddeer: Did the shooter fell jealous that Canada was getting all the mass shooting press? Goddamnit, WTF is wrong with people.


or the one at that school yesterday
 
2014-06-06 09:35:19 AM  
Jesus, crazy people, have some dignity and just jump off a bridge or something.
 
2014-06-06 09:35:31 AM  

MFAWG: Jesus H farking Christ, what the fark is going on out there?


This.
 
2014-06-06 09:35:35 AM  

swaniefrmreddeer: Did the shooter fell jealous that Canada was getting all the mass shooting press? Goddamnit, WTF is wrong with people.


We had one yesterday. America, fark yeah!
 
2014-06-06 09:35:45 AM  
They should put up signs that say "No shooting rampages allowed here".  That'll stop 'em.
 
2014-06-06 09:35:45 AM  
Woooooooooo!

Ready player one, can you beat the high score?
 
2014-06-06 09:35:55 AM  
The full moon and Friday the 13th are NEXT WEEK, people!  Everyone seems to be getting in early.

Maybe the are pissed off about all the anniveraries over the past week?  Tiennimen, Dday, Snowden, Springsteen's Born in the USA, etc...
 
2014-06-06 09:35:59 AM  
A white male in tan pants?

No way. Caucasian folk don't wear Dockers.
 
2014-06-06 09:36:05 AM  
Get out of my headlines, Canada!
 
2014-06-06 09:36:08 AM  
The only thing to stop a bad medical center with a gun is a good medical center with a gun. Someone attach a howitzer to Johns Hopkins and airlift it in.
 
2014-06-06 09:36:17 AM  

R.A.Danny: What has Obama done to cause all of these shootings?


Presidentin' while black?
 
2014-06-06 09:36:25 AM  
I just hope they can get the victims to a hospital in time.
 
2014-06-06 09:36:26 AM  
Active shooter or guy with an umbrella ella ella ella a a a a
 
2014-06-06 09:36:28 AM  

Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014


Oh hey, Elliot Rodger was number 100.
 
2014-06-06 09:36:31 AM  
inb4 graphs about declining gun deaths.
 
2014-06-06 09:36:33 AM  
That's a no good.
 
2014-06-06 09:36:48 AM  
That's 3 in a row! Go for one more!


/Worst game of Connect 4 ever....
 
2014-06-06 09:36:48 AM  
Whose turn is it to reset the clock?
 
2014-06-06 09:37:07 AM  
THIS IS A HOSPITAL! YOU CAN'T KILL PATIENTS WITH GUNS HERE!*

*That's why we have all these huge bottles of liquid opiates around here.

/palliative care. it's there for you. use as often and as much as you need. you may be dying but you don't have to suffer
 
2014-06-06 09:37:08 AM  
I'm starting to think that the news agencies send out interns on shooting rampages to spice things up on otherwise slow news days.

/getting desensitized to it
 
2014-06-06 09:37:08 AM  
Someone in the comments said someone just got stabbed.
 
2014-06-06 09:37:09 AM  
I'll just put this here.

www.mindhuestudio.com
 
2014-06-06 09:37:11 AM  
My money's on PTSD case who stopped taking his meds
 
2014-06-06 09:37:47 AM  
Reports are that someone got all stabby instead.

BAN ALL KNIVES!!1!
 
2014-06-06 09:37:49 AM  
MFAWG


Jesus H farking Christ, what the fark is going on out there?


This is what happens when you give military people guns.
 
2014-06-06 09:37:54 AM  
Damn, I used to live on Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth.
 
2014-06-06 09:38:04 AM  
The "Days Without a Mass Shooting in the USA" meter is just blinking "12:00" now.
 
2014-06-06 09:38:17 AM  
Relax, it's not a shooting.
 
2014-06-06 09:38:17 AM  

R.A.Danny: What has Obama done to cause all of these shootings?


Oh you know, the usual - eating crackers and spreading socialisms all over the damn place.
 
2014-06-06 09:38:18 AM  
"It referred to a white male suspect wearing tan pants."

So... pretty much any doctor.
 
2014-06-06 09:38:44 AM  

Delta1212: Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

Oh hey, Elliot Rodger was number 100.


Well... maybe he planned it that way.
 
2014-06-06 09:39:15 AM  
Sooo..has the active shooter actually shot anyone?
 
2014-06-06 09:39:16 AM  
NOT. THIS. shiat. AGAIN.   Or, different day, same bullshiat.
 
2014-06-06 09:39:29 AM  
That close to DC? That's some Bourne Identity shiat going down.
 
2014-06-06 09:39:32 AM  

kronicfeld: The only thing to stop a bad medical center with a gun is a good medical center with a gun. Someone attach a howitzer to Johns Hopkins and airlift it in.


Some kid managed to take down yesterdays shooter without a gun. I think we should send the kid to kick Wayne LaPierres ass, but that's just me.
 
2014-06-06 09:39:43 AM  
America, fark yeah.
 
2014-06-06 09:39:44 AM  

MFAWG: Jesus H farking Christ, what the fark is going on out there?


This is the culture we wanted in the US. Guns and violence are the solution to everything. Anything else is non-spanking pussy liberal claptrap. You best just sit back and enjoy it.
 
2014-06-06 09:39:48 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-06 09:39:50 AM  
This is getting STUPID
 
2014-06-06 09:39:51 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: R.A.Danny: What has Obama done to cause all of these shootings?

Oh you know, the usual - eating crackers and spreading socialisms all over the damn place.


I knew he looked like a racist cannibal!
 
2014-06-06 09:39:53 AM  
See, this is what happens when doctors aren't allowed to open carry or something.
 
2014-06-06 09:39:59 AM  
Farking christ on toast. Stop already! I haven't even had my coffee yet.
 
2014-06-06 09:40:04 AM  

Into the blue again: Delta1212: Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

Oh hey, Elliot Rodger was number 100.

Well... maybe he planned it that way.


That's like getting a specific comment number here. Too many other people trying to beat you.
 
2014-06-06 09:40:21 AM  
At least it's at a medical center.  Any victims will immediately be put on the waiting list.
 
2014-06-06 09:40:46 AM  
WTF.

Seriously?

Well, I'm certainly glad there are armed people out there. Armed and active.
 
2014-06-06 09:40:46 AM  
well it is a day that ends in Y so its not really surprising..
 
2014-06-06 09:40:47 AM  
"White male suspect wearing tan pants"...

WTF kind of description is that? Great jeorb, WTKR.

/suspect is also hatless
//this shiate isn't funny anymore.
 
2014-06-06 09:40:54 AM  
The alert went out just after 9:06 a.m. regarding an incident inside the hospital. It referred to a white male suspect wearing tan pants.


Probably pleated Dockers. Nothing says "I have nothing to live for, here comes suicide by rampage" like tan pleated Dockers.
 
2014-06-06 09:41:09 AM  

R.A.Danny: What has Obama done to cause all of these shootings?


He stirred the pot and told everyone to go get in peoples faces a couple years ago.
 
2014-06-06 09:41:25 AM  

MFAWG: Some kid managed to take down yesterdays shooter without a gun.


I've been told that that's just not possible. The only response to a gun is more guns. Obviously, the gunman was a liberal false-flag plant to make gun owners look bad.
 
2014-06-06 09:41:40 AM  
goddamit, I love the united states of armerica.
 
2014-06-06 09:41:53 AM  

LancePGH: At least it's at a medical center.  Any victims will immediately be put on the waiting list.


*golfclap*
 
2014-06-06 09:41:57 AM  

theorellior: MFAWG: Jesus H farking Christ, what the fark is going on out there?

This is the culture we wanted in the US. Guns and violence are the solution to everything. Anything else is non-spanking pussy liberal claptrap. You best just sit back and enjoy it.


My sister thinks it's permissiveness caused by having a LieBrul in the White House, and I'm not even kidding.

And yes, I've told her exactly what you just said: THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED!!!!
 
2014-06-06 09:42:10 AM  
Why don't we save the News Flash tag for when a week goes by without a mass shooting.
 
2014-06-06 09:42:30 AM  
I'm pro-2nd Amendment as anyone else but c'mon!

cdn2-b.examiner.com

What a 2nd Amendment supporter might look like.  YMMV
 
2014-06-06 09:42:35 AM  

Herb Utsmelz: Why don't we save the News Flash tag for when a week goes by without a mass shooting.


Or save it for an actual shooting?
 
2014-06-06 09:43:19 AM  
 
2014-06-06 09:43:19 AM  
Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.
 
2014-06-06 09:43:21 AM  
 
2014-06-06 09:43:36 AM  
Bang, bang, shoot em' up, destiny
Bang, bang, shoot em' up to the moon
Bang, bang, shoot em' up one, two, three
 
2014-06-06 09:43:37 AM  
Days since last shooting: 0


/sigh
 
2014-06-06 09:43:38 AM  

Into the blue again: Delta1212: Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

Oh hey, Elliot Rodger was number 100.

Well... maybe he planned it that way.


Possible. The day he did it, 2 days after number 99, is tied at 5 for the most mass shootings in a single day so far this year according to that list. You gotta imagine at least one of those guys was shooting for 100.
 
2014-06-06 09:44:01 AM  
Wake me when someone actually gets shot.
 
2014-06-06 09:44:51 AM  
"Only in the hottest years this happens, and this year, it grows hot'.
 
2014-06-06 09:45:26 AM  

Giltric: Or save it for an actual shooting?


Yeah, or that.
 
2014-06-06 09:45:35 AM  

apotheosis27: Days since last shooting: 0


/sigh


We will have to change this to Hours since last shooting
 
2014-06-06 09:45:46 AM  
Is this example of how an armed society is a polite society?
 
2014-06-06 09:45:55 AM  
 
2014-06-06 09:46:03 AM  
Sigh. I'm almost completely desensitized to this.
 
2014-06-06 09:46:20 AM  

Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.


Biweekly? Ha. There was a mass shooting for every day of the year in 2013.
 
2014-06-06 09:46:43 AM  

apotheosis27: Days since last shooting: 0


/sigh


I think we're going to have to switch to hours.
 
2014-06-06 09:46:52 AM  
The frequency of these events will eventually reach the point where bullets whizzing by your head as you walk down the dairy aisle is normal and to be expected.
 
2014-06-06 09:47:17 AM  
I like how when I go to the US section of Google News to see if there are any more articles about this, the very first stories at the top of the page is about the shooting... that took place yesterday in Seattle.


/Actually, I don't like that.
 
2014-06-06 09:47:21 AM  

browntimmy: Jesus, crazy people, have some dignity and just jump off a bridge or something.


But bridge jumpers don't get fark threads going like a shooting does.

If it's a stabbing, does the thread get called off....

....or do we just go to a thread where loads of people call for the banning of knives?
 
2014-06-06 09:47:41 AM  

theorellior: MFAWG: Jesus H farking Christ, what the fark is going on out there?

This is the culture we wanted in the US. Guns and violence are the solution to everything. Anything else is non-spanking pussy liberal claptrap. You best just sit back and enjoy it.


Heh, I was driving home yesterday and saw a jeep with a sticker that had a skull and reticle on it that said (no shiat): "Despite what your mommy told you, violence actually does solve problems". Granted, I live in Dallas so I probably shouldn't be surprised.
 
2014-06-06 09:47:43 AM  

eagles95: apotheosis27: Days since last shooting: 0


/sigh

We will have to change this to Hours since last shooting


You mean stabbing.
 
2014-06-06 09:47:47 AM  
It's ok, were overpopulated anyway.
 
2014-06-06 09:48:13 AM  
The suspect hasn't shot anybody. It was a stabbing. The facility issued an alert that is the same for an active shooter though, because there isn't one for an active stabber. So we've managed to go more than 1 day in the US without a mass shooting. Yay, America.
 
2014-06-06 09:48:13 AM  
Stabbing?
 
2014-06-06 09:48:21 AM  
Am I the only one who saw the article said the guy has a knife, not a gun?

/Active stabber
 
2014-06-06 09:48:25 AM  

Hobodeluxe: we had this happen in our region yesterday


"but what nobody understands is why it unexpectedly fired while he was driving."

It didnt 'unexpectedly fire", the idiot pulled the trigger doing something stupid he shouldnt have been doing.  If guns randomly just went off all the time like these idiots say they do, there'd be a huge shiatstorm.
 
2014-06-06 09:48:27 AM  

Delta1212: I like how when I go to the US section of Google News to see if there are any more articles about this, the very first stories at the top of the page is about the shooting... that took place yesterday in Seattle.


/Actually, I don't like that.


http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-celebrates-full-week-without -d eadly-mass-sh,29293/
 
2014-06-06 09:48:47 AM  
Probably a good guy with a gun taking out government employees.
 
2014-06-06 09:48:53 AM  

Giltric: R.A.Danny: What has Obama done to cause all of these shootings?

He stirred the pot and told everyone to go get in peoples faces a couple years ago.


Damn those years belonging to couples that make sentences look retarded!! Obama.
 
2014-06-06 09:49:31 AM  
img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-06 09:50:21 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Probably a good guy with a gun taking out government employees.


I see we are feeling trolltastic this morning.
 
2014-06-06 09:50:22 AM  

lenfromak: [img.fark.net image 640x494]


It's too early for your Derp.
 
2014-06-06 09:50:24 AM  

Delta1212: I like how when I go to the US section of Google News to see if there are any more articles about this, the very first stories at the top of the page is about the shooting... that took place yesterday in Seattle.


/Actually, I don't like that.


Since Google News is an aggregater it takes it time to pick up news stories, I find NBC's Breaking News is best for these sort of things http://www.breakingnews.com/

//subby
///news article updated it to stabbing well after I submitted
 
2014-06-06 09:51:03 AM  

eagles95: apotheosis27: Days since last shooting: 0


/sigh

We will have to change this to Hours since last shooting


Apparently we don't.  It was a stabbing.  Calling a Code White: Active Shooter is simply the fastest way to lock shiat down and keep the guy from stabbing anyone else.
 
2014-06-06 09:51:05 AM  

verbaltoxin: The suspect hasn't shot anybody. It was a stabbing. The facility issued an alert that is the same for an active shooter though, because there isn't one for an active stabber. So we've managed to go more than 1 day in the US without a mass shooting. Yay, America.


The day is young. Give it a few more hours.
 
2014-06-06 09:51:26 AM  
Gun availability has not changed, actually has gotten tougher since I was a kid by far. Gun homicide is actually down.

So why are guns such a problem now? Maybe because we hear of every single shooting as it happens?

Teach kids not to be bad people, problem solved.
 
2014-06-06 09:51:37 AM  

zedster: Delta1212: I like how when I go to the US section of Google News to see if there are any more articles about this, the very first stories at the top of the page is about the shooting... that took place yesterday in Seattle.


/Actually, I don't like that.

Since Google News is an aggregater it takes it time to pick up news stories, I find NBC's Breaking News is best for these sort of things http://www.breakingnews.com/

//subby
///news article updated it to stabbing well after I submitted


There wasn't even an active shooter alert. That was subby's doing.
 
2014-06-06 09:51:37 AM  
Mc Stabby on the run
 
2014-06-06 09:51:50 AM  

CruJones: Am I the only one who saw the article said the guy has a knife, not a gun?

/Active stabber


that was an update, original article just said code had gone out for active shooter
 
2014-06-06 09:52:13 AM  

mschwenk: HotWingConspiracy: Probably a good guy with a gun taking out government employees.

I see we are feeling trolltastic this morning.


What? This is the dream of the gun owner revolutionary. They talk about it all the time.
 
2014-06-06 09:52:16 AM  
Looks like Pete, the guy in charge of resetting the Days Since Last Random/Mass Shooting clock, is up for a bonus. And needs a vacation.
 
2014-06-06 09:52:21 AM  

Hack Patooey: Hobodeluxe: we had this happen in our region yesterday

"but what nobody understands is why it unexpectedly fired while he was driving."

It didnt 'unexpectedly fire", the idiot pulled the trigger doing something stupid he shouldnt have been doing.  If guns randomly just went off all the time like these idiots say they do, there'd be a huge shiatstorm.


Hush.  The administration is behind this story.  They plan on announcing a nationwide recall of every firearm in the nation.  You know, to have them checked out for safety purposes.
 
2014-06-06 09:52:31 AM  

TeamEd: Biweekly? Ha. There was a mass shooting for every day of the year in 2013.


...so 2014 is actually going to have to do something and lift it's game to match the standard set last year. Who knew?
 
2014-06-06 09:52:34 AM  
So no gun just a knife.
 
2014-06-06 09:53:10 AM  

Thunderpipes: Gun availability has not changed, actually has gotten tougher since I was a kid by far. Gun homicide is actually down.


Gun control works!
 
2014-06-06 09:53:19 AM  
Now for the lamentation and heartbreak that it was a stabbing and no assault rifles were involved.
 
2014-06-06 09:53:20 AM  
About time we ban all knives. Getting tired of this knife violence. Knives are only good for killing people. Can cut carrots with a butter knife, no reason for "assault knives" with their pointy tips and sharp blades.
 
2014-06-06 09:53:31 AM  

Thunderpipes: Gun availability has not changed, actually has gotten tougher since I was a kid by far. Gun homicide is actually down.

So why are guns such a problem now? Maybe because we hear of every single shooting as it happens?

Teach kids not to be bad people, problem solved.


Yay! An intelligent post for a change!
 
2014-06-06 09:53:37 AM  
Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org
 
2014-06-06 09:54:42 AM  
0 0 days without a mass shooting.*Sigh* Why bother?
 
2014-06-06 09:54:53 AM  

AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org


I'm pregnant
 
2014-06-06 09:55:09 AM  

Thunderpipes: About time we ban all knives. Getting tired of this knife violence. Knives are only good for killing people. Can cut carrots with a butter knife, no reason for "assault knives" with their pointy tips and sharp blades.


More people are killed with hammers than rifles each year.

/I heard that on TV last night and had to look it up, apparently true
 
2014-06-06 09:55:10 AM  
ugh, not this shiat again...
 
2014-06-06 09:55:10 AM  

youmightberight: So no gun just a knife.


Ah.  British style then.
 
2014-06-06 09:55:24 AM  

Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.


Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.
 
2014-06-06 09:55:40 AM  

lenfromak: [img.fark.net image 640x494]


Of course, because twenty wanna-be Rambo idiots with guns is so much better than just one.
 
2014-06-06 09:56:08 AM  

AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org


I'm pregnant. Too obvious.
 
2014-06-06 09:56:12 AM  

mschwenk: eagles95: apotheosis27: Days since last shooting: 0


/sigh

We will have to change this to Hours since last shooting

You mean stabbing.


I'm currently imagining an assault-handgun that fires knives...

/This makes a bayonet redundant, so a "pit-bull" is strapped below the barrel instead
//I'd be happy to accept a government grant to develop this weapons system concept
 
2014-06-06 09:57:29 AM  

mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant


mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant. Too obvious.


Okay okay, we heard you, congratulations.
 
2014-06-06 09:57:31 AM  

kittyhas1000legs: verbaltoxin: The suspect hasn't shot anybody. It was a stabbing. The facility issued an alert that is the same for an active shooter though, because there isn't one for an active stabber. So we've managed to go more than 1 day in the US without a mass shooting. Yay, America.

The day is young. Give it a few more hours.


I just wanted to proudly state that I refreshed comments before submitting a comment, and as a result didn't copy this post damn near word for word.

/it's the little things
 
2014-06-06 09:57:54 AM  
If I lived in a different country and was planning my summer vacation, I'd probably just cross USA off my list of possibilities.
 
2014-06-06 09:58:13 AM  
So, can we finally begin a discussion about high capacity pocket knives?
 
2014-06-06 09:58:35 AM  

mschwenk: Thunderpipes: Gun availability has not changed, actually has gotten tougher since I was a kid by far. Gun homicide is actually down.

So why are guns such a problem now? Maybe because we hear of every single shooting as it happens?

Teach kids not to be bad people, problem solved.

Yay! An intelligent post for a change!


Wife like typing detected?

It's the only way an intelligent post could come from TP.
 
2014-06-06 09:58:47 AM  

AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org


For a knife crime?

Well arent you stupid.
 
2014-06-06 09:58:53 AM  
So if I have a constitutional right to bare arms, why can't I own a machine gun or nuclear weapon? Neither is forbidden in the constitution.
 
2014-06-06 09:58:55 AM  
We've been downgraded from shooting to stabbing.

No need to reset the clock just yet.

But it's still early.
 
2014-06-06 09:59:42 AM  

Giltric: Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.

Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.


Yup. This has actually been going on sinve the late 1800's, probably earlier. Bombs and arson have been a more common weapon in mass killings though.
 
2014-06-06 09:59:43 AM  

lenfromak: img.fark.net


I wish I lived in your world, where no crime happens except in "gun-free" zones. Then I too could pretend domestic violence murders don't exist, a friend didn't shoot his best friend over a plate of left overs, a teenage boy didn't shoot his brother in an argument, then kill himself when he realized what he'd done. A 3 year old didn't shoot his 18 month old brother, a 6 year old didn't shoot his grandfather.

But that was all in the last 7 days. Let's ALL pretend no crime happens unless "gun free" is posted. Well except all that crime that WOULDN'T have happened were a gun not present.

You are an asshole and you are ruining America.
 
2014-06-06 09:59:53 AM  

Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014


The fun part about that site is that there is no set definition of 'mass shooting'.
 
2014-06-06 10:00:04 AM  

CruJones: Am I the only one who saw the article said the guy has a knife, not a gun?

/Active stabber


i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-06 10:00:16 AM  

verbaltoxin: The suspect hasn't shot anybody. It was a stabbing. The facility issued an alert that is the same for an active shooter though, because there isn't one for an active stabber. So we've managed to go more than 1 day in the US without a mass shooting. Yay, America.


We've still got 8 1/2 hours to go before the 24 hours since the Seattle University shooting are up.
 
2014-06-06 10:00:31 AM  

Mudgen: So, can we finally begin a discussion about high capacity pocket knives?


fark it. A pocket knife has uses besides stabbing something. A gun has literally NO OTHER PURPOSE than to kill something. Every other use it has is to practice killing something.

So just stop it. It's a stupid talking point, and you should feel stupid.
 
2014-06-06 10:00:38 AM  

haterade69: So if I have a constitutional right to bare arms, why can't I own a machine gun or nuclear weapon? Neither is forbidden in the constitution.


Just cut the sleeves off your shirts. Problem solved
 
2014-06-06 10:00:46 AM  
I think it's time we declare all schools and hospitals as Non Shooting Rampage Zones.
 
2014-06-06 10:01:27 AM  

haterade69: So if I have a constitutional right to bare arms, why can't I own a machine gun or nuclear weapon? Neither is forbidden in the constitution.


You can own a machine gun.

Technically, as long as your paperwork is in order and you had the money, you could own a nuclear device as well.
 
2014-06-06 10:01:36 AM  

verbaltoxin: The suspect hasn't shot anybody. It was a stabbing. The facility issued an alert that is the same for an active shooter though, because there isn't one for an active stabber. So we've managed to go more than 1 day in the US without a mass shooting. Yay, America.


The day is still young...
 
2014-06-06 10:02:03 AM  
Its a STABBING but that hasnt stopped the derp brigade from showing up. Also Im guessing the mods wont edit the headline because an active stabber thread just wont generate the traffic that an active shooter thread will.
 
2014-06-06 10:02:12 AM  

Publikwerks: CruJones: Am I the only one who saw the article said the guy has a knife, not a gun?

/Active stabber

[i.imgur.com image 621x189]


I lol'ed.
 
2014-06-06 10:02:46 AM  
haterade69

So if I have a constitutional right to bare arms, why can't I own a machine gun or nuclear weapon? Neither is forbidden in the constitution.

No one's coming to force you to wear sleeves.

/serious answer: context
 
2014-06-06 10:02:49 AM  
FTFA:   A service member was stabbed Friday morning near Naval Medical Center Portsmouth at Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads' Portsmouth Annex.

Mods, this is still news because it  wasn't a shooting in Portsmouth.
 
2014-06-06 10:03:02 AM  
Wow. All these incidents just happen to be taking place during my 10-day wait to pick up my first gun.

Let me qualify myself and put others at ease: a) I live in a rural area, and I was recently robbed; b) I got a .357 revolver for home defense, not some high-capacity pistol or AR-15; c) I am a white guy, but I'm not crazy.

Still, it's just kinda weirding me out.

On a related note, at every gun store I've been to I've had to put up with anti-Obama, anti-liberal small-talk from derping rednecks who assume I'm one of them. I just smile and nod. I've been tempted to fark with them and say I'm a socialist (I'm actually registered Green), but there are guns arounds and I'd probably be shot.
 
2014-06-06 10:03:03 AM  

tricycleracer: If I lived in a different country and was planning my summer vacation, I'd probably just cross USA off my list of possibilities.


No joke: many countries warn their tourists coming to the US about gun violence.
 
2014-06-06 10:03:10 AM  

R.A.Danny: Now for the lamentation and heartbreak that it was a stabbing and no assault rifles were involved.


To be fair, we don't yet know if the suspect had a gun that shoots knives.
 
2014-06-06 10:03:38 AM  

DeathByGeekSquad: Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

The fun part about that site is that there is no set definition of 'mass shooting'.


4 or more people shot is a mass shooting.
 
2014-06-06 10:04:35 AM  
can we stop calling shootings that happen to take place on a school where the person is obviously just taking out someone they know/ murdering one person "Another School Shooting!"?

/hate my local news
 
2014-06-06 10:05:03 AM  

Igor Jakovsky: Its a STABBING but that hasnt stopped the derp brigade from showing up. Also Im guessing the mods wont edit the headline because an active stabber thread just wont generate the traffic that an active shooter thread will.


But now we get to use it to see who likes to gnash teeth and wail without even reading the article, which is like 83% of farkers.   It's almost always the same ones who "have no hope any more" "why bother" etc.  Someone else can go deeper into motivations.
 
2014-06-06 10:05:16 AM  

Into the blue again: DeathByGeekSquad: Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

The fun part about that site is that there is no set definition of 'mass shooting'.

4 or more people shot is a mass shooting.


Nonsense, all people have mass.
 
2014-06-06 10:05:21 AM  

Tenga: Reports are that someone got all stabby instead.

BAN ALL KNIVES!!1!


At least SOMEONE read the article instead of going with the typical knee-jerk reaction like everyone above you did.
 
2014-06-06 10:05:37 AM  

Epicanis: mschwenk: eagles95: apotheosis27: Days since last shooting: 0


/sigh

We will have to change this to Hours since last shooting

You mean stabbing.

I'm currently imagining an assault-handgun that fires knives...

/This makes a bayonet redundant, so a "pit-bull" is strapped below the barrel instead
//I'd be happy to accept a government grant to develop this weapons system concept


I prefer the dogs that have bees in their mouth and shoot bees at you. Or sharks with frickin laser beams.
 
2014-06-06 10:05:47 AM  

Epicanis: I'm currently imagining an assault-handgun that fires knives...

/This makes a bayonet redundant, so a "pit-bull" is strapped below the barrel instead
//I'd be happy to accept a government grant to develop this weapons system concept


Sure, if you want a weapon for a little girl, or need to kill rats.  Real men use the FRANKLINATOR!  Invented by Ben Franklin for real patriots!

fc04.deviantart.net
 
2014-06-06 10:05:49 AM  

Giltric: Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.

Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.


Because 4 people being shot is only a problem when they're the right kind of people.
 
2014-06-06 10:06:34 AM  

nekom: It just never stops, does it?


Welcome to the the U.S. of NRA
 
2014-06-06 10:06:48 AM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Tenga: Reports are that someone got all stabby instead.

BAN ALL KNIVES!!1!

At least SOMEONE read the article instead of going with the typical knee-jerk reaction like everyone above you did.


Posted 9:18 am, June 6, 2014, by Becca Mitchell, Updated at 09:55am, June 6, 2014

The information that it was a stabbing and not a shooting was added around 9:30
 
2014-06-06 10:07:03 AM  

Mulchpuppy: kittyhas1000legs: verbaltoxin: The suspect hasn't shot anybody. It was a stabbing. The facility issued an alert that is the same for an active shooter though, because there isn't one for an active stabber. So we've managed to go more than 1 day in the US without a mass shooting. Yay, America.

The day is young. Give it a few more hours.

I just wanted to proudly state that I refreshed comments before submitting a comment, and as a result didn't copy this post damn near word for word.

/it's the little things


You're also not the only one who also thought the exact same thing when they read that.
 
MFK
2014-06-06 10:07:17 AM  

Giltric: Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.

Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.


yeah yeah, Giltric, we know. You have a gun fetish and will go to great lengths to minimize all of the killings that happen just so you can continue to fondle your firearms.
 
2014-06-06 10:07:35 AM  

ikanreed: tricycleracer: If I lived in a different country and was planning my summer vacation, I'd probably just cross USA off my list of possibilities.

No joke: many countries warn their tourists coming to the US about gun violence.


Even when violent crime is just as common in those countries. Gun crime is mostly an issue recolving around gang issues. Gangs have guns in Europe, they just don't make the news as often.
 
2014-06-06 10:07:55 AM  
If those stupid sonofabiatches would all have guns this wouldn't happen  ( except the shooter.. no wait.. he has a right to .. er.. the backgroun..  wait.. uh... BECAUSE fark YOU .. THAT"S WHY!! )

www.rawstory.com
 
2014-06-06 10:07:59 AM  

CruJones: Igor Jakovsky: Its a STABBING but that hasnt stopped the derp brigade from showing up. Also Im guessing the mods wont edit the headline because an active stabber thread just wont generate the traffic that an active shooter thread will.

But now we get to use it to see who likes to gnash teeth and wail without even reading the article, which is like 83% of farkers.   It's almost always the same ones who "have no hope any more" "why bother" etc.  Someone else can go deeper into motivations.


In fairness, the article has been updated since it was submitted. Originally it said there was an active shooter.
 
2014-06-06 10:08:46 AM  

Delta1212: Giltric: Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.

Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.

Because 4 people being shot is only a problem when they're the right kind of people.


Sure.

If you are a gangbanger or someone involved in criminal activity and you get shot, hell if 10k of you get shot while performing criminal activity i dont give a fark about your life.

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
 
2014-06-06 10:08:59 AM  
Remain calm, it's just the new republican health care plan being tested on veterans first.
 
2014-06-06 10:09:11 AM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Tenga: Reports are that someone got all stabby instead.

BAN ALL KNIVES!!1!

At least SOMEONE read the article instead of going with the typical knee-jerk reaction like everyone above you did.


But we can all agree that, whether it was a shooting or a stabbing, it's the Liberals' fault, right?
 
2014-06-06 10:09:15 AM  
"active shooter"

A service member was stabbed Friday morning near Naval Medical Center Portsmouth at Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads' Portsmouth Annex.
 
2014-06-06 10:09:16 AM  
 
2014-06-06 10:09:17 AM  
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2014-06-06 10:09:22 AM  

haterade69: So if I have a constitutional right to bare arms, why can't I own a machine gun or nuclear weapon? Neither is forbidden in the constitution.


You can have a machine gun. They're just crazy expensive and require a lot of extra paper work.
 
2014-06-06 10:09:23 AM  
www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-06-06 10:09:30 AM  
Victim was stabbed, not shot, therefore = gun debate over  forever

/suck it libs
 
2014-06-06 10:09:37 AM  
Hey, another shooting that will keep the anti-gun nuts entertained. One thing the anti-gun nuts will not tell you is they spend hours on end drooling over the non-stop coverage of a shooting. Anti-gun nuts love to hear about another shooting since they believe it furthers their cause, without non-stop coverage of shootings anti-gun nuts would not have a leg to stand on.
 
2014-06-06 10:09:50 AM  
i.imgur.com

"Because I'm stabby...."
 
2014-06-06 10:09:56 AM  
Nevermind the fact if it WAS a shooting, homicides by guns have been dropping for over 20 years.  But hurr, let's keep feigning anger over shootings.
 
2014-06-06 10:10:15 AM  
And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.
 
2014-06-06 10:10:34 AM  
Quick what's the hashtag?
 
2014-06-06 10:10:49 AM  

Thunderpipes: Gun availability has not changed, actually has gotten tougher since I was a kid by far. Gun homicide is actually down.

So why are guns such a problem now? Maybe because we hear of every single shooting as it happens?

Teach kids not to be bad people, problem solved.


You aren't wrong.
 
2014-06-06 10:10:54 AM  

MFK: Giltric: Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.

Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.

yeah yeah, Giltric, we know. You have a gun fetish and will go to great lengths to minimize all of the killings that happen just so you can continue to fondle your firearms.


Well if it is such a violent world out there with mass shooting happening every time someone blinks then why would you want to disarm me? By the rhetoric that gets spouted by the gun control types you just further reinforce that I need a gun.
 
2014-06-06 10:11:08 AM  

AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org


I expect that you are now extremely disappointed that this incident was a stabbing, rather than one that gives you an excuse to advocate for unreasonable restrictions.
 
2014-06-06 10:11:15 AM  

menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.


Are you off of your meds?
 
2014-06-06 10:11:22 AM  

SlothB77: "active shooter"

A service member was stabbed Friday morning near Naval Medical Center Portsmouth at Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads' Portsmouth Annex.


Hey, someone else who didn't bother to read the thread!
 
2014-06-06 10:11:39 AM  

MFAWG: Jesus H farking Christ, what the fark is going on out there?


Mentally ill people have laughably easy access to firearms?
 
2014-06-06 10:12:06 AM  
a sketch of the suspect has been released

img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-06 10:12:27 AM  
What gun nuts will not admit is that this incident vindicates a ban bayonet lugs.
 
2014-06-06 10:12:39 AM  

abhorrent1: Quick what's the hashtag?


#guncontrolbecausestabbings!!!!111
 
2014-06-06 10:13:20 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: MFAWG: Jesus H farking Christ, what the fark is going on out there?

Mentally ill people have laughably easy access to firearms knives?


Fixed.
 
2014-06-06 10:13:21 AM  
That's where I was born.
 
2014-06-06 10:13:40 AM  
amyldoanitrite

I've been tempted to fark with them and say I'm a socialist (I'm actually registered Green), but there are guns arounds and I'd probably be shot.

I really tend to doubt it. Knock yourself out. I prefer to say something they'll have to think about for a minute for the lulz.

"Well, I understand where you're coming from, but as a romantic tribalist living in a post-boom republic that requires a certain amount of latitudinal pragmatism..."

Then you take a breath, and while they think, talk about guns (form, function, price or preference, not politics). Brings it right back around.

"Oh, hey, is that a Sig? How do you like it?"
 
2014-06-06 10:13:50 AM  

Celerian: 0 0 days without a mass shooting.*Sigh* Why bother?


TIL:

Stabbing == Shooting

Mass == 1 victim.
 
2014-06-06 10:13:55 AM  

Dimensio: What gun nuts will not admit is that this incident vindicates a ban bayonet lugs.


Not bad! 7 out of 10!
 
2014-06-06 10:15:01 AM  
Its always the stupid farkers who haven't read the article or thread who wants more gun laws passed.

Why should we listen to you again?
 
2014-06-06 10:15:13 AM  
Jesus Christ, how many isolated incidents are we going to have this week?
 
2014-06-06 10:15:29 AM  
This is what, 3 in three days? Fark this.
 
2014-06-06 10:16:28 AM  

msqualia: Jesus Christ, how many isolated incidents are we going to have this week?


Well, this wasn't one so what a goose you are.
 
2014-06-06 10:16:29 AM  

nekom: It just never stops, does it?


No, it doesn't. Is it sad or normal at this point that my first reaction on reading the headline was: "Who the hell cares" ?

Because I don't. Nothing is ever going to change and it will never stop. If Newtown didn't make a damn bit of difference, nothing will.
 
2014-06-06 10:16:38 AM  

Giltric: Its always the stupid farkers who haven't read the article or thread who wants more gun laws passed.

Why should we listen to you again?


Have you noticed that most of the anti-gunners come across as mentally ill?
 
2014-06-06 10:16:59 AM  

mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant


Congratulations!
 
2014-06-06 10:17:23 AM  

Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!


Lol
 
2014-06-06 10:17:36 AM  

Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!


What, exactly, triggers this new filter?
 
2014-06-06 10:17:36 AM  

Rusty Shackleford: R.A.Danny: Now for the lamentation and heartbreak that it was a stabbing and no assault rifles were involved.

To be fair, we don't yet know if the suspect had a gun that shoots knives.


I heard it was a bayonet on the end of a light saber.
 
2014-06-06 10:17:44 AM  

R.A.Danny: msqualia: Jesus Christ, how many isolated incidents are we going to have this week?

Well, this wasn't one so what a goose you are.


There's always tomorrow.
 
2014-06-06 10:18:13 AM  

msqualia: Jesus Christ, how many isolated incidents are we going to have this week? (10:15:13 AM)


pag1107: This is what, 3 in three days? Fark this. (10:15:29 AM)


Oh someone please correct the headline, it's catching more of them.
 
2014-06-06 10:18:44 AM  

pag1107: This is what, 3 in three days? Fark this.


I suspect that more than three stabbing incidents have occurred in the previous three days; previous incidents likely received less widespread media coverage, however.
 
2014-06-06 10:18:46 AM  
Take that Canada!  We will show you how it's done

/wish this shiat wasn't a norm
 
2014-06-06 10:18:54 AM  

silvervial: nekom: It just never stops, does it?

No, it doesn't. Is it sad or normal at this point that my first reaction on reading the headline was: "Who the hell cares" ?

Because I don't. Nothing is ever going to change and it will never stop. If Newtown didn't make a damn bit of difference, nothing will.


So what should have changed after Newtown that would have prevented this stabbing of a single individual?
 
2014-06-06 10:19:02 AM  

msqualia: R.A.Danny: msqualia: Jesus Christ, how many isolated incidents are we going to have this week?

Well, this wasn't one so what a goose you are.

There's always tomorrow.


You can always hope.
 
2014-06-06 10:19:12 AM  

Dimensio: Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!

What, exactly, triggers this new filter?


Not sure, I think the mods change it depending on the thread. I usually get misquoted saying something about "weeners"
 
2014-06-06 10:19:24 AM  

frozenhotchocolate: stab


Hell it's in the headline of TFA:
Stabbing reported at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth; Search for suspect in progress
 
2014-06-06 10:19:51 AM  

Dimensio: pag1107: This is what, 3 in three days? Fark this.

I suspect that more than three stabbing incidents have occurred in the previous three days; previous incidents likely received less widespread media coverage, however.


Well, most homicides are gun homicides, and there are quite a few per day.  Can't cover all of them.
 
2014-06-06 10:19:54 AM  

Dimensio: Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!

What, exactly, triggers this new filter?


I think that particular one is a low rating on a scale of ten.  Leftovers from April Fools Day.  There's a few others still active.
 
2014-06-06 10:20:23 AM  
This was a pretty fun exercise in how the media manipulates the mindset of the masses.  The original story was completely wrong, but those who wanted to get spun up, did...and won't soon spin down.  It's fun to see how that dynamic works.

/Mass media is a bunch of numbskulls suffering from a serious case of Dunning--Kruger effect.
 
2014-06-06 10:20:48 AM  

Witness99: Dimensio: Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!

What, exactly, triggers this new filter?

Not sure, I think the mods change it depending on the thread. I usually get misquoted saying something about "weeners"


Zero out of ten


Trolympics score
 
2014-06-06 10:20:52 AM  
Mighty interesting how a stabbing becomes a shooting here on Fark.
 
2014-06-06 10:21:12 AM  
It's like every goddamned day we're having one of these threads now. it's frightening that we have to.
 
2014-06-06 10:21:40 AM  
Ban assault knives, because B-B-B- Benghazi!!!111!!
 
2014-06-06 10:21:50 AM  

fatty.fauntleroy: This was a pretty fun exercise in how the media manipulates the mindset of the masses.  The original story was completely wrong, but those who wanted to get spun up, did...and won't soon spin down.  It's fun to see how that dynamic works.


There've been two mass shootings in as many weeks.  You can't blame people for believing there might be another one and still being resentful from the last couple.
 
2014-06-06 10:22:06 AM  

Gosling: It's like every goddamned day we're having one of these threads now. it's frightening that we have to.


What? Stabbing threads?
 
2014-06-06 10:22:32 AM  

Unoriginal_Username: frozenhotchocolate: stab

Hell it's in the headline of TFA:
Stabbing reported at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth; Search for suspect in progress


Guess where it wasn't when this was Boobiesed. Go on, guess.
 
2014-06-06 10:22:51 AM  
ITT: Liberals pissed off that no one was shot.
 
2014-06-06 10:23:04 AM  

Nidiot: Gosling: It's like every goddamned day we're having one of these threads now. it's frightening that we have to.

What? Stabbing threads?


Did you see me give half a fark about the weapon?
 
2014-06-06 10:23:05 AM  

China White Tea: silvervial: nekom: It just never stops, does it?

No, it doesn't. Is it sad or normal at this point that my first reaction on reading the headline was: "Who the hell cares" ?

Because I don't. Nothing is ever going to change and it will never stop. If Newtown didn't make a damn bit of difference, nothing will.

So what should have changed after Newtown that would have prevented this stabbing of a single individual?


If this thread doesn't convince people to RTFA and thread before posting then nothing will. Nothing is ever going to change on Fark, and it will never stop.
 
2014-06-06 10:23:13 AM  
someone is going to have to update this chart to include a knife:

images.ridemonkey.comwww.kitchenknife.com
 
2014-06-06 10:23:15 AM  

amyldoanitrite: Wow. All these incidents just happen to be taking place during my 10-day wait to pick up my first gun.

Let me qualify myself and put others at ease: a) I live in a rural area, and I was recently robbed; b) I got a .357 revolver for home defense, not some high-capacity pistol or AR-15; c) I am a white guy, but I'm not crazy.

Still, it's just kinda weirding me out.

On a related note, at every gun store I've been to I've had to put up with anti-Obama, anti-liberal small-talk from derping rednecks who assume I'm one of them. I just smile and nod. I've been tempted to fark with them and say I'm a socialist (I'm actually registered Green), but there are guns arounds and I'd probably be shot.


From your post, I figure you have small girly wrists so, a .357 was probably not a good choice for you.
 
2014-06-06 10:23:33 AM  

Nidiot: msqualia: Jesus Christ, how many isolated incidents are we going to have this week? (10:15:13 AM)

pag1107: This is what, 3 in three days? Fark this. (10:15:29 AM)

Oh someone please correct the headline, it's catching more of them.


The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center would prefer that this headline, and other headlines at actual news websites, remain exactly the same.
 
2014-06-06 10:23:36 AM  

R.A.Danny: ITT: Liberals pissed off that no one was shot.


Are you stupid?  You sound stupid.
 
2014-06-06 10:23:39 AM  

Delta1212: Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

Oh hey, Elliot Rodger was number 100.


There is no way he would have killed anybody if he didn't have a gun. Except the people he killed without a gun.

Everyone ignore the drugs, meds, and psych problems he had, he had a gun.
 
2014-06-06 10:23:50 AM  

menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.


Hey, cletus, I hate to break it to you, but the murder rate keeps going down.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8286906/Gun-homicides-have-actually-gon e- down-once-again-proving-Fark-liberals-wrong-about-gun-control
 
2014-06-06 10:23:56 AM  

mschwenk: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Are you off of your meds?


Well apparently I am, if it was really just a stabbing and not a mass shooting.

Just give it a couple of hours and we'll have a mass shooting. We always do. Just tired of living in a society full of morons who are all armed to the teeth, I guess. I love America and this isn't the one I was born in. This is a parody of it.
 
2014-06-06 10:24:01 AM  

msqualia: R.A.Danny: ITT: Liberals pissed off that no one was shot.

Are you stupid?  You sound stupid.


You're hearing things.
 
2014-06-06 10:24:14 AM  
They just has a training exercise for this exact thing in Portsmouth yesterday!

Not even kidding.

*read the article*

a stabbing.  not a shooting.  Perpetrator is probably still mad about the tolls on the downtown and midtown tunnels.
 
2014-06-06 10:24:18 AM  
It was a knife gun. A gun that shoots knives.
 
2014-06-06 10:24:54 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: amyldoanitrite: Wow. All these incidents just happen to be taking place during my 10-day wait to pick up my first gun.

Let me qualify myself and put others at ease: a) I live in a rural area, and I was recently robbed; b) I got a .357 revolver for home defense, not some high-capacity pistol or AR-15; c) I am a white guy, but I'm not crazy.

Still, it's just kinda weirding me out.

On a related note, at every gun store I've been to I've had to put up with anti-Obama, anti-liberal small-talk from derping rednecks who assume I'm one of them. I just smile and nod. I've been tempted to fark with them and say I'm a socialist (I'm actually registered Green), but there are guns arounds and I'd probably be shot.

From your post, I figure you have small girly wrists so, a .357 was probably not a good choice for you.


My wrists are small and "girly", yet I am able to handle a .45ACP caliber compact handgun.

/Until I develop a flinch reflex that I must train out with a .22LR target pistol.
//Again.
 
2014-06-06 10:25:04 AM  

msqualia: fatty.fauntleroy: This was a pretty fun exercise in how the media manipulates the mindset of the masses.  The original story was completely wrong, but those who wanted to get spun up, did...and won't soon spin down.  It's fun to see how that dynamic works.

There've been two mass shootings in as many weeks.  You can't blame people for believing there might be another one and still being resentful from the last couple.


Judging by the comments still coming in, reading and getting facts is not what a certain group of people is interested in.
 
2014-06-06 10:25:19 AM  

Publikwerks: CruJones: Am I the only one who saw the article said the guy has a knife, not a gun?

/Active stabber

[i.imgur.com image 621x189]


That's obviously an AK-47. I've been watching CNN and that's what it is, I recognize it from there!
 
2014-06-06 10:25:35 AM  
Holy crap a knife? How many dead? Hundreds?
 
2014-06-06 10:25:40 AM  

R.A.Danny: msqualia: R.A.Danny: ITT: Liberals pissed off that no one was shot.

Are you stupid?  You sound stupid.

You're hearing things.


Huuuuuur.
 
2014-06-06 10:25:58 AM  

R.A.Danny: ITT: Liberals pissed off that no one was shot.


ITT: Gun nuts pissed off that no one was shot.
 
2014-06-06 10:26:33 AM  

msqualia: R.A.Danny: msqualia: R.A.Danny: ITT: Liberals pissed off that no one was shot.

Are you stupid?  You sound stupid.

You're hearing things.

Huuuuuur.


4 weeks a Farker? Who's alt are you?
 
2014-06-06 10:26:38 AM  

Nidiot: msqualia: fatty.fauntleroy: This was a pretty fun exercise in how the media manipulates the mindset of the masses.  The original story was completely wrong, but those who wanted to get spun up, did...and won't soon spin down.  It's fun to see how that dynamic works.

There've been two mass shootings in as many weeks.  You can't blame people for believing there might be another one and still being resentful from the last couple.

Judging by the comments still coming in, reading and getting facts is not what a certain group of people is interested in.


Facts do not fit their narrative. It's like Rush Limbaugh, but on a forum and for the left.
 
2014-06-06 10:27:28 AM  

topcon: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Hey, cletus, I hate to break it to you, but the murder rate keeps going down.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8286906/Gun-homicides-have-actually-gon e- down-once-again-proving-Fark-liberals-wrong-about-gun-control


And if that's true then it's obviously because we have guns everywhere. It just makes sense. I mean, I've noticed that the more insecticide I use, the more insects I have. The more fat I eat, the thinner I become. The more alcohol we drink, the more sober we are. It all makes equal sense so there's definitely a correlation here.
 
2014-06-06 10:27:34 AM  

Nidiot: Judging by the comments still coming in, reading and getting facts is not what a certain group of people is interested in.


Aren't Newsflash headlines known for dispensing with the jokes and just getting the basics of the story right?
 
2014-06-06 10:27:40 AM  
Meh it's America someone says there was a shooting and it's pretty hard to change minds as getting shot isn't exactly rare in the states.

As for a shooting today? its still early and a friday so grocery stores, movie theaters and the road ways are going to be packed with people. Some armed and some insane and some armed and insane. Since stopping those people from getting guns or weapons is socialism. The only good thing is summer vacation so that means one target rich environment is empty.
 
2014-06-06 10:27:46 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Nidiot: msqualia: fatty.fauntleroy: This was a pretty fun exercise in how the media manipulates the mindset of the masses.  The original story was completely wrong, but those who wanted to get spun up, did...and won't soon spin down.  It's fun to see how that dynamic works.

There've been two mass shootings in as many weeks.  You can't blame people for believing there might be another one and still being resentful from the last couple.

Judging by the comments still coming in, reading and getting facts is not what a certain group of people is interested in.

Facts do not fit their narrative. It's like Rush Limbaugh, but on a forum and for the left.


I have observed sufficient postings from "conservative" leaning Farkers to be aware that "facts" in general are anathema to most Fark posters.

/I will take screenshots from this discussion to use later after the mods delete this thread.
 
2014-06-06 10:28:00 AM  

Nidiot: HMS_Blinkin: MFAWG: Jesus H farking Christ, what the fark is going on out there?

Mentally ill people have laughably easy access to firearms knives?

Fixed.


Also, mentally ill people have laughably easy access to the Fark headline submission thingee, apparently.  We need to keep the delusional and paranoid insane away from Fark.

/I know, it's WAY too late.
 
2014-06-06 10:28:54 AM  

menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Hey, cletus, I hate to break it to you, but the murder rate keeps going down.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8286906/Gun-homicides-have-actually-gon e- down-once-again-proving-Fark-liberals-wrong-about-gun-control

And if that's true then it's obviously because we have guns everywhere. It just makes sense. I mean, I've noticed that the more insecticide I use, the more insects I have. The more fat I eat, the thinner I become. The more alcohol we drink, the more sober we are. It all makes equal sense so there's definitely a correlation here.


If topcon had claimed that the presence of firearms caused the reduction in homicides, then your sarcastic rejoinder would be meaningful. topcon did not, however, so yours is not.
 
2014-06-06 10:30:30 AM  

Gosling: Nidiot: Gosling: It's like every goddamned day we're having one of these threads now. it's frightening that we have to.

What? Stabbing threads?

Did you see me give half a fark about the weapon?


In that case, your complaint is unclear, are you upset at threads about killings in general, or at threads that end up being pro and anti gun folk arguing endlessly?
 
2014-06-06 10:31:14 AM  

Nidiot: msqualia: fatty.fauntleroy: This was a pretty fun exercise in how the media manipulates the mindset of the masses.  The original story was completely wrong, but those who wanted to get spun up, did...and won't soon spin down.  It's fun to see how that dynamic works.

There've been two mass shootings in as many weeks.  You can't blame people for believing there might be another one and still being resentful from the last couple.

Judging by the comments still coming in, reading and getting facts is not what a certain group of people is interested in.


You must be so thrilled to be correct about something.

What almost certainly happened was that the campus was shut down using the same protocol they use for an active shooter.  I've worked at an institution.  If they want us to lock the doors and stay away from the windows and move the clients to the center of the building, we just get a phone call that says "possible active shooter" so they can hang up and call the next building.  It's quicker than "someone got stabbed and we don't know if they've got a gun or if they want to break in."  If someone texts their boyfriend or something and they call the press, that's what gets out first.

And again, we're getting one mass every 7-30 days.  The "facts" aren't otherwise flattering to you, bro.
 
2014-06-06 10:31:21 AM  

tricycleracer: R.A.Danny: ITT: Liberals pissed off that no one was shot.

ITT: Gun nuts pissed off that no one was shot.


The important thing is that everyone is pissed off and remains pissed off in perpetuity.
 
2014-06-06 10:31:31 AM  
Umm... The headline when you click on the link says...
"Stabbing reported at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth; Search for suspect in progress"

Stabbing is different from shooting, unless you're shooting knives at things, then I guess it can be both.
 
2014-06-06 10:31:52 AM  

menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Hey, cletus, I hate to break it to you, but the murder rate keeps going down.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8286906/Gun-homicides-have-actually-gon e- down-once-again-proving-Fark-liberals-wrong-about-gun-control

And if that's true then it's obviously because we have guns everywhere. It just makes sense. I mean, I've noticed that the more insecticide I use, the more insects I have. The more fat I eat, the thinner I become. The more alcohol we drink, the more sober we are. It all makes equal sense so there's definitely a correlation here.


I did not claim nor do I think the presence of guns is why the murder rate is dropping and HAS dropped since the early 90's.  It is, however, a fact, which I know you can't stand being true.
 
MFK
2014-06-06 10:32:18 AM  

Giltric: MFK: Giltric: Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.

Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.

yeah yeah, Giltric, we know. You have a gun fetish and will go to great lengths to minimize all of the killings that happen just so you can continue to fondle your firearms.

Well if it is such a violent world out there with mass shooting happening every time someone blinks then why would you want to disarm me? By the rhetoric that gets spouted by the gun control types you just further reinforce that I need a gun.


you don't "need" a gun. You "want" them. You "covet" them. You really really "love" them. But you don't "need" one.
 
2014-06-06 10:32:35 AM  

mschwenk: Even when violent crime is just as common in those countries.


Only if you use misleading statistics(that bundle more things into the term "violent crime" than the FBI does).  There are countries that have crime rates near the US, but they aren't the ones issuing the warnings.
 
2014-06-06 10:32:47 AM  

zedster: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Tenga: Reports are that someone got all stabby instead.

BAN ALL KNIVES!!1!

At least SOMEONE read the article instead of going with the typical knee-jerk reaction like everyone above you did.

Posted 9:18 am, June 6, 2014, by Becca Mitchell, Updated at 09:55am, June 6, 2014

The information that it was a stabbing and not a shooting was added around 9:30


And all comments here were after 9:30.
 
2014-06-06 10:33:05 AM  
topcon Nevermind the fact if it WAS a shooting, homicides by guns have been dropping for over 20 years.  But hurr, let's keep feigning anger over shootings.

Shootings still seem significant, per this chart, so your enthusiasm may be premature.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expand ed_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls
 
2014-06-06 10:33:41 AM  

MFK: you don't "need" a gun. You "want" them. You "covet" them. You really really "love" them. But you don't "need" one.


Until you do. And then you "really" need one.
 
2014-06-06 10:33:47 AM  

ikanreed: tricycleracer: If I lived in a different country and was planning my summer vacation, I'd probably just cross USA off my list of possibilities.

No joke: many countries warn their tourists coming to the US about gun violence.


All you have to do is avoid the liberal paradises when you come here and you'll be safe.
 
2014-06-06 10:33:50 AM  

Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.


Mass shootings according to the FBI have not statistically increased. Some stupid liberal think tanks twisted some numbers to prove an assertion, but those without a political slant say no statistical increase.
 
2014-06-06 10:34:00 AM  

Dimensio: I have observed sufficient postings from "conservative" leaning Farkers to be aware that "facts" in general are anathema to most Fark posters.

/I will take screenshots from this discussion to use later after the mods delete this thread.


Shhh, I'm trying to prove that EXACT point here. It's like reading the comments section of Fox News about anything pertaining to the president. It's so lovely pointing things like this out and watch them try to dance around and spin it when they've been stone cold busted.

Alas, the trap was sprung prematurely.
 
2014-06-06 10:34:51 AM  

Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014


there was a nice big gap between 1/6 - 1/11 with none.  must have been bad weather.  and from 3/25 to 4/2.
 
2014-06-06 10:35:07 AM  
Anti-gun Farkers are shown as the idiots they are....it was a stabbing. So I guess there is a need to ban all knives as there is no real use for them....
 
2014-06-06 10:35:09 AM  
Today I learned that because some crimes are committed with knives, gun laws are unnecessary.

This is what the gun-juggalos actually believe.
 
2014-06-06 10:35:14 AM  

MFK: Giltric: MFK: Giltric: Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.

Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.

yeah yeah, Giltric, we know. You have a gun fetish and will go to great lengths to minimize all of the killings that happen just so you can continue to fondle your firearms.

Well if it is such a violent world out there with mass shooting happening every time someone blinks then why would you want to disarm me? By the rhetoric that gets spouted by the gun control types you just further reinforce that I need a gun.

you don't "need" a gun. You "want" them. You "covet" them. You really really "love" them. But you don't "need" one.


There are lots of things people dont need.

You dont seem to be qualified to make that decision for other people though.

Sorry you just arent as important as you think you are.
 
2014-06-06 10:35:26 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: ikanreed: tricycleracer: If I lived in a different country and was planning my summer vacation, I'd probably just cross USA off my list of possibilities.

No joke: many countries warn their tourists coming to the US about gun violence.

All you have to do is avoid the liberal paradises when you come here and you'll be safe.


Yes, being a French tourist in the middle of Mississippi is much safer.
 
2014-06-06 10:35:54 AM  
i1207.photobucket.com
good one, subby.
 
2014-06-06 10:35:56 AM  

Hobodeluxe: we had this happen in our region yesterday


his gun was literally removed from his cold dead hand
 
2014-06-06 10:36:16 AM  

Giltric: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

For a knife crime?

Well arent you stupid.


The only knife crime I've seen is when my wife used one of my nice santoku knives to open a goddamn shipping box from Amazon. She had previously used one to cut up a frozen pizza on a metal pizza pan.

She just doesn't understand.
 
2014-06-06 10:36:36 AM  

msqualia: Nidiot: msqualia: fatty.fauntleroy: This was a pretty fun exercise in how the media manipulates the mindset of the masses.  The original story was completely wrong, but those who wanted to get spun up, did...and won't soon spin down.  It's fun to see how that dynamic works.

There've been two mass shootings in as many weeks.  You can't blame people for believing there might be another one and still being resentful from the last couple.

Judging by the comments still coming in, reading and getting facts is not what a certain group of people is interested in.

You must be so thrilled to be correct about something.

What almost certainly happened was that the campus was shut down using the same protocol they use for an active shooter.  I've worked at an institution.  If they want us to lock the doors and stay away from the windows and move the clients to the center of the building, we just get a phone call that says "possible active shooter" so they can hang up and call the next building.  It's quicker than "someone got stabbed and we don't know if they've got a gun or if they want to break in."  If someone texts their boyfriend or something and they call the press, that's what gets out first.

And again, we're getting one mass every 7-30 days.  The "facts" aren't otherwise flattering to you, bro.



And we have been for decades:
www.boston.com
This is not a recent phenomenon.
 
2014-06-06 10:36:55 AM  

Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!


My favorite new filter.
 
2014-06-06 10:37:11 AM  
A thread full of stupid this is.
 
2014-06-06 10:37:25 AM  

SlothB77: Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

there was a nice big gap between 1/6 - 1/11 with none.  must have been bad weather.  and from 3/25 to 4/2.


a nice break with just your standard kids accidentally killing themselves and your run of the mill murders and related gun crimes
 
2014-06-06 10:37:36 AM  

Dimensio: Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!

What, exactly, triggers this new filter?


zero slash ten.
 
2014-06-06 10:37:38 AM  
Another false flag? Operation yank their knives going according to plan!
 
2014-06-06 10:37:53 AM  

det0321: topcon Nevermind the fact if it WAS a shooting, homicides by guns have been dropping for over 20 years.  But hurr, let's keep feigning anger over shootings.

Shootings still seem significant, per this chart, so your enthusiasm may be premature.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expand ed_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls


Yeah, the murder rate seems to be falling, but the proportion of murders which are committed with guns are about the same (between 65% and 69%).  Saying that gun murders are going down without mentioning that all murders are going down and the percent of murders which are committed with guns are about the same is misleading.

/lies, damn lies and statistics
 
2014-06-06 10:38:32 AM  

ferretman: Anti-gun Farkers are shown as the idiots they are....it was a stabbing. So I guess there is a need to ban all knives as there is no real use for them....


I think our deepest fears have been realized: someone invented a gun that shoots knives.
 
2014-06-06 10:38:45 AM  

Witness99: Rusty Shackleford: R.A.Danny: Now for the lamentation and heartbreak that it was a stabbing and no assault rifles were involved.

To be fair, we don't yet know if the suspect had a gun that shoots knives.

I heard it was a bayonet on the end of a light saber.



i65.photobucket.com
 
MFK
2014-06-06 10:39:33 AM  

Giltric: MFK: Giltric: MFK: Giltric: Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.

Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.

yeah yeah, Giltric, we know. You have a gun fetish and will go to great lengths to minimize all of the killings that happen just so you can continue to fondle your firearms.

Well if it is such a violent world out there with mass shooting happening every time someone blinks then why would you want to disarm me? By the rhetoric that gets spouted by the gun control types you just further reinforce that I need a gun.

you don't "need" a gun. You "want" them. You "covet" them. You really really "love" them. But you don't "need" one.

There are lots of things people dont need.

You dont seem to be qualified to make that decision for other people though.

Sorry you just arent as important as you think you are.


and you, my friend, are a part of the problem. Have a nice day.
 
2014-06-06 10:39:47 AM  

give me doughnuts: msqualia: Nidiot: msqualia: fatty.fauntleroy: This was a pretty fun exercise in how the media manipulates the mindset of the masses.  The original story was completely wrong, but those who wanted to get spun up, did...and won't soon spin down.  It's fun to see how that dynamic works.

There've been two mass shootings in as many weeks.  You can't blame people for believing there might be another one and still being resentful from the last couple.

Judging by the comments still coming in, reading and getting facts is not what a certain group of people is interested in.

You must be so thrilled to be correct about something.

What almost certainly happened was that the campus was shut down using the same protocol they use for an active shooter.  I've worked at an institution.  If they want us to lock the doors and stay away from the windows and move the clients to the center of the building, we just get a phone call that says "possible active shooter" so they can hang up and call the next building.  It's quicker than "someone got stabbed and we don't know if they've got a gun or if they want to break in."  If someone texts their boyfriend or something and they call the press, that's what gets out first.

And again, we're getting one mass every 7-30 days.  The "facts" aren't otherwise flattering to you, bro.


And we have been for decades:
[www.boston.com image 481x289]
This is not a recent phenomenon.


Oh, OK, so we've been putting up for this for an even more ridiculously long period of time than I'd recalled.  Great.

Next you're going to tell me that the real problem is that the media covers it.
 
2014-06-06 10:39:53 AM  
The know he's an active shooter because they found a bunch of exercise videos in his house.
 
2014-06-06 10:39:59 AM  

msqualia: Nidiot: msqualia: fatty.fauntleroy: This was a pretty fun exercise in how the media manipulates the mindset of the masses.  The original story was completely wrong, but those who wanted to get spun up, did...and won't soon spin down.  It's fun to see how that dynamic works.

There've been two mass shootings in as many weeks.  You can't blame people for believing there might be another one and still being resentful from the last couple.

Judging by the comments still coming in, reading and getting facts is not what a certain group of people is interested in.

You must be so thrilled to be correct about something.

What almost certainly happened was that the campus was shut down using the same protocol they use for an active shooter.  I've worked at an institution.  If they want us to lock the doors and stay away from the windows and move the clients to the center of the building, we just get a phone call that says "possible active shooter" so they can hang up and call the next building.  It's quicker than "someone got stabbed and we don't know if they've got a gun or if they want to break in."  If someone texts their boyfriend or something and they call the press, that's what gets out first.

And again, we're getting one mass every 7-30 days.  The "facts" aren't otherwise flattering to you, bro.


Well get to the point then, are you pro or anti gun?

All I'm noticing is the instant there is the slightest opportunity people are going "oh guns... quick... I get to do my rant on guns", regardless of what the story is.
 
2014-06-06 10:40:22 AM  

MFAWG: Mudgen: So, can we finally begin a discussion about high capacity pocket knives?

fark it. A pocket knife has uses besides stabbing something. A gun has literally NO OTHER PURPOSE than to kill something. Every other use it has is to practice killing something.

So just stop it. It's a stupid talking point, and you should feel stupid.


Bless your heart.  "Literally".  Really.  So target shooting does not exist.  Any way, it was just snark about posting a shooter alert for a stabbing.
 
2014-06-06 10:40:25 AM  
Shooter?  Subby must work for CNN.

Lemme guess, subject is described at 8.9 foot tall, purple, wearing a Sherman tank and hung like a hamster?
 
2014-06-06 10:40:53 AM  

give me doughnuts: msqualia: Nidiot: msqualia: fatty.fauntleroy: This was a pretty fun exercise in how the media manipulates the mindset of the masses.  The original story was completely wrong, but those who wanted to get spun up, did...and won't soon spin down.  It's fun to see how that dynamic works.

There've been two mass shootings in as many weeks.  You can't blame people for believing there might be another one and still being resentful from the last couple.

Judging by the comments still coming in, reading and getting facts is not what a certain group of people is interested in.

You must be so thrilled to be correct about something.

What almost certainly happened was that the campus was shut down using the same protocol they use for an active shooter.  I've worked at an institution.  If they want us to lock the doors and stay away from the windows and move the clients to the center of the building, we just get a phone call that says "possible active shooter" so they can hang up and call the next building.  It's quicker than "someone got stabbed and we don't know if they've got a gun or if they want to break in."  If someone texts their boyfriend or something and they call the press, that's what gets out first.

And again, we're getting one mass every 7-30 days.  The "facts" aren't otherwise flattering to you, bro.


And we have been for decades:

This is not a recent phenomenon.


Oh, well that's alright then.
 
2014-06-06 10:41:36 AM  

dr_blasto: Giltric: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

For a knife crime?

Well arent you stupid.

The only knife crime I've seen is when my wife used one of my nice santoku knives to open a goddamn shipping box from Amazon. She had previously used one to cut up a frozen pizza on a metal pizza pan.

She just doesn't understand.


One of the best knives i have is over 100 years old with prussian proofmarks. It allows me to cut meat imto paper thin slices that i can lay across a salt block to "cook".

My wife was using it to unscrew the back of a remote control for my grandsons remote control car.

Im talking so thin you can see through the carpaccio.
 
2014-06-06 10:41:40 AM  

NightOwl2255: MFK: you don't "need" a gun. You "want" them. You "covet" them. You really really "love" them. But you don't "need" one.

Until you do. And then you "really" need one.


Well I can't throw rocks well enough to get the birds out of the sky, so I do NEED them to hunt.
 
2014-06-06 10:41:44 AM  

Nidiot: All I'm noticing is the instant there is the slightest opportunity people are going "oh guns... quick... I get to do my rant on guns", regardless of what the story is.


You are learning the way of The Fark, young Padawan.
 
2014-06-06 10:42:24 AM  

topcon: menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Hey, cletus, I hate to break it to you, but the murder rate keeps going down.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8286906/Gun-homicides-have-actually-gon e- down-once-again-proving-Fark-liberals-wrong-about-gun-control

And if that's true then it's obviously because we have guns everywhere. It just makes sense. I mean, I've noticed that the more insecticide I use, the more insects I have. The more fat I eat, the thinner I become. The more alcohol we drink, the more sober we are. It all makes equal sense so there's definitely a correlation here.

I did not claim nor do I think the presence of guns is why the murder rate is dropping and HAS dropped since the early 90's.  It is, however, a fact, which I know you can't stand being true.


Well I'm glad that we can agree that my goal and desire is for there to be more innocent people murdered. Clearly that's what I want.

I'm glad if the homicide rate is dropping, of course. And if it is then it's doing so in spite of the ubiquity of deadly firearms, and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence. I hope it continues to fall despite the firearms-worshiping wild west town society we've been forced to live in.
 
2014-06-06 10:44:04 AM  
did the knife have a bayonet lug? a pistol grip?
 
2014-06-06 10:44:06 AM  

MFK: Giltric: MFK: Giltric: MFK: Giltric: Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.

Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.

yeah yeah, Giltric, we know. You have a gun fetish and will go to great lengths to minimize all of the killings that happen just so you can continue to fondle your firearms.

Well if it is such a violent world out there with mass shooting happening every time someone blinks then why would you want to disarm me? By the rhetoric that gets spouted by the gun control types you just further reinforce that I need a gun.

you don't "need" a gun. You "want" them. You "covet" them. You really really "love" them. But you don't "need" one.

There are lots of things people dont need.

You dont seem to be qualified to make that decision for other people though.

Sorry you just arent as important as you think you are.

and you, my friend, are a part of the problem. Have a nice day.


Ironic.
 
2014-06-06 10:44:35 AM  

msqualia: Saying that gun murders are going down without mentioning that all murders are going down and the percent of murders which are committed with guns are about the same is misleading.



No, it's not. It is perfectly accurate.
It's the people who blame the tool used and not the murderer, that see it as misleading.

www.gorillalol.com
 
2014-06-06 10:45:18 AM  
AspectRatio

Today I learned that because some crimes are committed with knives, gun laws are unnecessary.

Did anyone suggest repealing all the firearms laws in this country? A single person?
 
2014-06-06 10:46:01 AM  

Nidiot: msqualia: Nidiot: msqualia: fatty.fauntleroy: This was a pretty fun exercise in how the media manipulates the mindset of the masses.  The original story was completely wrong, but those who wanted to get spun up, did...and won't soon spin down.  It's fun to see how that dynamic works.

There've been two mass shootings in as many weeks.  You can't blame people for believing there might be another one and still being resentful from the last couple.

Judging by the comments still coming in, reading and getting facts is not what a certain group of people is interested in.

You must be so thrilled to be correct about something.

What almost certainly happened was that the campus was shut down using the same protocol they use for an active shooter.  I've worked at an institution.  If they want us to lock the doors and stay away from the windows and move the clients to the center of the building, we just get a phone call that says "possible active shooter" so they can hang up and call the next building.  It's quicker than "someone got stabbed and we don't know if they've got a gun or if they want to break in."  If someone texts their boyfriend or something and they call the press, that's what gets out first.

And again, we're getting one mass every 7-30 days.  The "facts" aren't otherwise flattering to you, bro.

Well get to the point then, are you pro or anti gun?

All I'm noticing is the instant there is the slightest opportunity people are going "oh guns... quick... I get to do my rant on guns", regardless of what the story is.


I don't think it's useful to banish all nuance by boiling anyone's position down to "pro" or "anti" gun.

I think Australia's gun control policy is about what I'd like to see here.  It's very effective.

I think the NRA, as the people most responsible for radicalizing the conversation, can collectively jump off a bridge.
 
2014-06-06 10:46:15 AM  

give me doughnuts: And we have been for decades:
www.boston.com


do you have a source for that data?  That's the kind of thing that I like keeping in my back pocket.
 
2014-06-06 10:46:21 AM  
i wonder how many people that scream about the nsa and their right to privacy being violated 180 and scream to ban guns to keep them safe.
 
2014-06-06 10:46:22 AM  
People finally snapping all over the country?
 
2014-06-06 10:46:47 AM  
A stabbing in Portsmouth ?   Well that's not really news.

That is what we call 'starting the weekend'...
 
2014-06-06 10:47:05 AM  

Giltric: Its always the stupid farkers who haven't read the article or thread who wants more gun laws passed.

Why should we listen to you again?


So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.
 
2014-06-06 10:47:05 AM  

msqualia: Next you're going to tell me that the real problem is that the media covers it.



No, I'm just saying that this is not a new problem.
 
2014-06-06 10:47:13 AM  

mrshowrules: SlothB77: Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

there was a nice big gap between 1/6 - 1/11 with none.  must have been bad weather.  and from 3/25 to 4/2.

a nice break with just your standard kids accidentally killing themselves and your run of the mill murders and related gun crimes


Why is it called gun crime? Most of it involves gangs and drugs. Why don't you call it gang or drug crime?
 
2014-06-06 10:47:51 AM  
I know we all love a good circle jerk, but there are over 10,000 gun homicides in the US every year, or an average of at least 27 a day. I'm not going to look up the official number, but it's higher than that.

So, rather than freaking out every time the news media decides there's nothing more interesting to report, why don't we have a real discussion about realistic policy in a country of 300,000,000 people?
 
2014-06-06 10:48:21 AM  
I've heard of medical specialization, but an entire hospital dedicated to bellybuttons seems a bit extreme.
 
2014-06-06 10:49:01 AM  

msqualia: I think Australia's gun control policy is about what I'd like to see here.  It's very effective.


A complete ban on all magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles, with mandatory surrender of currently owned rifles, is unreasonable and is Constitutionally dubious.

The state of California, which the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence ranks "highest" in their gun control idealism, could not even succeed in passing a ban on the transfer of magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles without a confiscation clause.
 
2014-06-06 10:49:05 AM  

theorellior: I'll just put this here.

[www.mindhuestudio.com image 600x548]


I guess that is equally as relevant here as any other thread
 
2014-06-06 10:49:34 AM  

Giltric: dr_blasto: Giltric: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

For a knife crime?

Well arent you stupid.

The only knife crime I've seen is when my wife used one of my nice santoku knives to open a goddamn shipping box from Amazon. She had previously used one to cut up a frozen pizza on a metal pizza pan.

She just doesn't understand.

One of the best knives i have is over 100 years old with prussian proofmarks. It allows me to cut meat imto paper thin slices that i can lay across a salt block to "cook".

My wife was using it to unscrew the back of a remote control for my grandsons remote control car.

Im talking so thin you can see through the carpaccio.


I feel that pain. Mine is fully capable of making see-through meats. It is a handmade Japanese damascus-blade. She basically did the knife equivalent of taking a Ferrari Enzo on a rally race.

Why do they insist on picking the nicest one to use as a goddamn screwdriver?
 
2014-06-06 10:49:36 AM  

Giltric: Im talking so thin you can see through the carpaccio.


So thin the in-laws will never come back?

/Anyone else remember that commercial?
 
2014-06-06 10:49:41 AM  
oh well...

We all know that this is Obama's doing. He has sent 100's of nutjobs out there with leagal guns to set up this crisis. This is the plan to repeal the 2nd.

/cannot happen soon enough
 
2014-06-06 10:49:49 AM  
Satan's Superfluous Nipple: amyldoanitrite: Wow. All these incidents just happen to be taking place during my 10-day wait to pick up my first gun.

Let me qualify myself and put others at ease: a) I live in a rural area, and I was recently robbed; b) I got a .357 revolver for home defense, not some high-capacity pistol or AR-15; c) I am a white guy, but I'm not crazy.

Still, it's just kinda weirding me out.

On a related note, at every gun store I've been to I've had to put up with anti-Obama, anti-liberal small-talk from derping rednecks who assume I'm one of them. I just smile and nod. I've been tempted to fark with them and say I'm a socialist (I'm actually registered Green), but there are guns arounds and I'd probably be shot.

From your post, I figure you have small girly wrists so, a .357 was probably not a good choice for you.


The only person of the female persuasion I've lent a .357 revolver to, who couldn't cope with firing it is my mom. It isn't her wrists. She's just old and frail.
 
2014-06-06 10:50:15 AM  

Snarfangel: I've heard of medical specialization, but an entire hospital dedicated to bellybuttons seems a bit extreme.


Maybe that was the stabbers problem. He went to get his oranges looked at and found out they only deal with belly buttons.
 
2014-06-06 10:50:34 AM  

msqualia: I think the NRA, as the people most responsible for radicalizing the conversation, can collectively jump off a bridge.


I like having people research who the main financial contributors and leaders of the NRA are, they usually fall back on the defense they are protecting their capitalistic right as job builders, not that the NRA is the voice of firearm and ammo manufacturers using jingoistic patriotism and 2nd Amendment rhetoric to keep the people living in fear and buying their products en masse.

Then again, Republicans love living in fear. They even call themselves God Fearing Christians. Personally, I'm a God Loving Agnostic that likes firearms, and knows when I'm being lead by the nose to make purchases (see Steam Summer Sale for instance).
 
2014-06-06 10:50:41 AM  

Fubini: I know we all love a good circle jerk, but there are over 10,000 gun homicides in the US every year, or an average of at least 27 a day. I'm not going to look up the official number, but it's higher than that.

So, rather than freaking out every time the news media decides there's nothing more interesting to report, why don't we have a real discussion about realistic policy in a country of 300,000,000 people?


The last year in which more than 10,000 "gun homicides" occurred in the United States of America was 2007. The total number decreased yearly from that year to 2011 (the last year for data is available).
 
2014-06-06 10:50:55 AM  
Sorry, ant-gun nuts. Read TFA. It was a stabbing.
 
2014-06-06 10:51:23 AM  

fireclown: give me doughnuts: And we have been for decades:
www.boston.com

do you have a source for that data?  That's the kind of thing that I like keeping in my back pocket.



I just did a GIS for "mass shooting statistics US" and picked that one. I looks as if it have been published in a number of outlets, but I don't know who originally produced it.
 
2014-06-06 10:51:29 AM  

give me doughnuts: msqualia: Saying that gun murders are going down without mentioning that all murders are going down and the percent of murders which are committed with guns are about the same is misleading.


No, it's not. It is perfectly accurate.
It's the people who blame the tool used and not the murderer, that see it as misleading.

[www.gorillalol.com image 600x321]


Look, if I need to hammer in a nail and I don't have a hammer, my life is going to be harder.  A hammer is made to push in nails.  It can be done without a hammer, but it is the tool that is best for the job.  Fewer nails will be driven in.  I am not "blaming" the tool for that.  The hammer didn't drive in the nails, it just made it very very easy.

Guns make killing people easier.  If you make them less available, fewer people are murdered, and fewer people commit suicide.  We have ran this experiment.  It has been borne out.
 
2014-06-06 10:53:11 AM  

amyldoanitrite: Wow. All these incidents just happen to be taking place during my 10-day wait to pick up my first gun.

Let me qualify myself and put others at ease: a) I live in a rural area, and I was recently robbed; b) I got a .357 revolver for home defense, not some high-capacity pistol or AR-15; c) I am a white guy, but I'm not crazy.

Still, it's just kinda weirding me out.

On a related note, at every gun store I've been to I've had to put up with anti-Obama, anti-liberal small-talk from derping rednecks who assume I'm one of them. I just smile and nod. I've been tempted to fark with them and say I'm a socialist (I'm actually registered Green), but there are guns arounds and I'd probably be shot.


Id have probably gone with a shotgun for home defense. But thats just me.

But yeah Ive been to the gun stores and the range and ive run into people who have never owned a gun that are buying one because someone told them that Obama is going to ban guns and they better get one before its to late.
 
2014-06-06 10:53:42 AM  

mrshowrules: So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.


We just did this in the other thread. Removing guns from society through prohibition does not necessarily reduce homicide rate. I'm not saying that it won't, I'm saying that we don't know if it will or will not. I'll go ahead and copy-paste for you. I was responding to someone else saying that we'd save "tens of thousands of lives" through gun prohibition.

We're currently barely breaking 10,000 gun homicides per year. In order to save "tens of thousands of lives every year" you'd have to presume that banning firearms will eliminate virtually all homicides committed with firearms. Consider that non-firearm weapons are currently used in 93% of non-fatal violent crimes, and in 32% of fatal violent crime, I have a hard time believing we're going to see a 90% reduction in homicides just because we've removed the weapon of choice.

The UK first banned semiautomatic shotguns and rifles in 1988, and then most semiautomatic handguns in 1997. Despite that, the overall homicide rate doesn't show any obvious reaction to those years (Figure 1.1), and in fact increased subsequently, and the overall violent crime rate went up as well.

The fact is that no one knows what effect a firearms ban will have on the homicide rate in the US. It's certainly not going to save "tens of thousands of lives". It's debatable whether it would save any statistically significant number of lives. It seems that things like the violent crime rate and the homicide rate are much more heavily influenced by large-scale social, economic, and demographic factors rather than the availability of specific weapons.
 
2014-06-06 10:54:26 AM  

msqualia: give me doughnuts: msqualia: Saying that gun murders are going down without mentioning that all murders are going down and the percent of murders which are committed with guns are about the same is misleading.


No, it's not. It is perfectly accurate.
It's the people who blame the tool used and not the murderer, that see it as misleading.

[www.gorillalol.com image 600x321]

Look, if I need to hammer in a nail and I don't have a hammer, my life is going to be harder.  A hammer is made to push in nails.  It can be done without a hammer, but it is the tool that is best for the job.  Fewer nails will be driven in.  I am not "blaming" the tool for that.  The hammer didn't drive in the nails, it just made it very very easy.

Guns make killing people easier.  If you make them less available, fewer people are murdered, and fewer people commit suicide.  We have ran this experiment.  It has been borne out.


How do you feel about nail guns?
 
2014-06-06 10:55:02 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: mrshowrules: SlothB77: Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

there was a nice big gap between 1/6 - 1/11 with none.  must have been bad weather.  and from 3/25 to 4/2.

a nice break with just your standard kids accidentally killing themselves and your run of the mill murders and related gun crimes

Why is it called gun crime? Most of it involves gangs and drugs. Why don't you call it gang or drug crime?


Most murders are committed by someone who knows the victim. We should start calling them "Acquaintance crimes" instead of murders. That would be more accurate.

/Calling all crimes committed with guns "drug crimes" makes as much sense as all crimes involving drugs being called "gun crimes" even if there are no guns involved.
 
2014-06-06 10:55:23 AM  

Delta1212: CruJones: Igor Jakovsky: Its a STABBING but that hasnt stopped the derp brigade from showing up. Also Im guessing the mods wont edit the headline because an active stabber thread just wont generate the traffic that an active shooter thread will.

But now we get to use it to see who likes to gnash teeth and wail without even reading the article, which is like 83% of farkers.   It's almost always the same ones who "have no hope any more" "why bother" etc.  Someone else can go deeper into motivations.

In fairness, the article has been updated since it was submitted. Originally it said there was an active shooter.


The mods changed the headline and proved me wrong.
 
2014-06-06 10:55:26 AM  
AK-47...Assault Knife-model 47

hardymag.com

/damn Dundee wannabees...
 
2014-06-06 10:55:51 AM  

SlothB77: someone is going to have to update this chart to include a knife:

[images.ridemonkey.com image 421x351][www.kitchenknife.com image 294x316]


No, it was an assault knife.
www.c22webdesign.com
 
2014-06-06 10:56:10 AM  

Dimensio: The last year in which more than 10,000 "gun homicides" occurred in the United States of America was 2007. The total number decreased yearly from that year to 2011 (the last year for data is available).


I dunno. Not according to Pew:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49- si nce-1993-peak-public-unaware/

In 2010 they report a firearm homicide rate of 3.6 per 100K people, and there are about 310 million people in the US, so 3.6 * 3100 = 11,160 firearm homicides.
 
2014-06-06 10:56:15 AM  
Next will be:

mngboxers.com
 
2014-06-06 10:56:20 AM  
Shooting at Atlanta Courthouse...

See folks, you just have to be patient for your daily shooting.
 
2014-06-06 10:56:35 AM  

Dimensio: Fubini: I know we all love a good circle jerk, but there are over 10,000 gun homicides in the US every year, or an average of at least 27 a day. I'm not going to look up the official number, but it's higher than that.

So, rather than freaking out every time the news media decides there's nothing more interesting to report, why don't we have a real discussion about realistic policy in a country of 300,000,000 people?

The last year in which more than 10,000 "gun homicides" occurred in the United States of America was 2007. The total number decreased yearly from that year to 2011 (the last year for data is available).


My statement is in error. Data is available through 2012; in the last year, total firearm homicides increased by 198 incidents (or a 2.2% increase from the 2011 data). The total was still below 10,000, however.
 
2014-06-06 10:56:41 AM  
just because the shooter chose to use a pistol that was a no-shot, solid barreled, non-pistol gripped handgun doesn't mean this wasn't a shooting.

/Glock makes some pretty dangerous no-shot, solid barreled, non-pistol gripped handguns. The should put a safety on those things
 
2014-06-06 10:58:01 AM  

MFAWG: Mudgen: So, can we finally begin a discussion about high capacity pocket knives?

fark it. A pocket knife has uses besides stabbing something. A gun has literally NO OTHER PURPOSE than to kill something. Every other use it has is to practice killing something.

So just stop it. It's a stupid talking point, and you should feel stupid.


So if I can prove any type of gun exists that has other uses besides "Practicing killing something", you'd be okay with wholesale ownership of them? This is the argument you make against restricting knives, so be careful.

Avalanche Control

Contruction

Olympic sports

Non-lethal Animal care and control

Must I really go on? Your argument is flawed, and it exposes your irrational fear of inanimate objects. But then again, your kind of people always seek to blame anything but the person involved for a crime. Blame the tools, blame the person's minority status, blame everything but the person, because that would be "Insensitive" or it might "Hurt their feelings". When tighter controls are implemented over those who are insane allowing those who are a risk to themselves and others to be locked up, then, and only then, shall we see any further improvement over the current statistics. Banning firearms or further restricting their sales solves the real problem the same way cutting the wires to your dash fixes a "Check engine" light: yes, the light goes away, but the root problem is still there and will continue to get worse the longer you drive.
 
2014-06-06 10:58:17 AM  

R.A.Danny: msqualia: R.A.Danny: msqualia: R.A.Danny: ITT: Liberals pissed off that no one was shot.

Are you stupid?  You sound stupid.

You're hearing things.

Huuuuuur.

4 weeks a Farker? Who's alt are you?


I think you sound stupid too, and I've been here for a little while.
 
2014-06-06 10:58:20 AM  

forgotmydamnusername: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: amyldoanitrite: Wow. All these incidents just happen to be taking place during my 10-day wait to pick up my first gun.

Let me qualify myself and put others at ease: a) I live in a rural area, and I was recently robbed; b) I got a .357 revolver for home defense, not some high-capacity pistol or AR-15; c) I am a white guy, but I'm not crazy.

Still, it's just kinda weirding me out.

On a related note, at every gun store I've been to I've had to put up with anti-Obama, anti-liberal small-talk from derping rednecks who assume I'm one of them. I just smile and nod. I've been tempted to fark with them and say I'm a socialist (I'm actually registered Green), but there are guns arounds and I'd probably be shot.

From your post, I figure you have small girly wrists so, a .357 was probably not a good choice for you.

The only person of the female persuasion I've lent a .357 revolver to, who couldn't cope with firing it is my mom. It isn't her wrists. She's just old and frail.


I was being snarky. You might want to get your snark detector checked. The retardation from the OP didn't warrant a serious response.
 
2014-06-06 10:58:52 AM  

dr_blasto: Giltric: dr_blasto: Giltric: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

For a knife crime?

Well arent you stupid.

The only knife crime I've seen is when my wife used one of my nice santoku knives to open a goddamn shipping box from Amazon. She had previously used one to cut up a frozen pizza on a metal pizza pan.

She just doesn't understand.

One of the best knives i have is over 100 years old with prussian proofmarks. It allows me to cut meat imto paper thin slices that i can lay across a salt block to "cook".

My wife was using it to unscrew the back of a remote control for my grandsons remote control car.

Im talking so thin you can see through the carpaccio.

I feel that pain. Mine is fully capable of making see-through meats. It is a handmade Japanese damascus-blade. She basically did the knife equivalent of taking a Ferrari Enzo on a rally race.

Why do they insist on picking the nicest one to use as a goddamn screwdriver?



Mine isn't a nice tall blade it has the carving knife profile.

henckelknives.net


The household tool kit was in the pantry next to the batteries.... o.O
 
2014-06-06 10:59:34 AM  

Fubini: The UK first banned semiautomatic shotguns and rifles in 1988, and then most semiautomatic handguns in 1997. Despite that, the overall homicide rate doesn't show any obvious reaction to those years (Figure 1.1), and in fact increased subsequently, and the overall violent crime rate went up as well.


You fail to understand the argument.

The United Kingdom imposed severe bans on firearms.
Australia also imposed severe bans on firearms.

Both nations show a lower homicide rate than the United States of America.

Therefore, the severe bans on firearms in those nations is responsible for their homicide rates being lower than the rate in the United States of America.

Examining the change in homicide rates in the nations after the imposition of strict firearm prohibitions is an irrelevant red herring.
 
2014-06-06 10:59:43 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: mrshowrules: SlothB77: Into the blue again: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

there was a nice big gap between 1/6 - 1/11 with none.  must have been bad weather.  and from 3/25 to 4/2.

a nice break with just your standard kids accidentally killing themselves and your run of the mill murders and related gun crimes

Why is it called gun crime? Most of it involves gangs and drugs. Why don't you call it gang or drug crime?


Because 'Blacks' or 'Hispanics'.....and that would be racist!
 
2014-06-06 10:59:47 AM  

ferretman: Anti-gun Farkers are shown as the idiots they are....it was a stabbing. So I guess there is a need to ban all knives as there is no real use for them....


Has someone on this thread suggested banning guns? I must have missed that.
 
2014-06-06 10:59:55 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-06 11:00:28 AM  

PisnNapalm: Umm... The headline when you click on the link says...
"Stabbing reported at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth; Search for suspect in progress"

Stabbing is different from shooting, unless you're shooting knives at things, then I guess it can be both.



pic.jpgdump.com
 
2014-06-06 11:02:03 AM  

S10Calade: [img.fark.net image 480x422]


pure bullshiat
 
2014-06-06 11:02:17 AM  

S10Calade: [img.fark.net image 480x422]


That is some BEAUTIFUL rhetoric there. Damn, I mean, that's just freaking amazing. It;s like Glenn Beck extolling the virtues of American Medicine as the best in the world until Obamacare, and now it's all sullied and he goes to Canada for his cranialanalectomies.
 
2014-06-06 11:03:23 AM  
Is this like a viral marketing campaign for the next movie in the 28 Days Later series?

/With simultaneous premiers in Canada and US
 
2014-06-06 11:03:32 AM  

Dimensio: Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!

What, exactly, triggers this new filter?


Zero slash 10.
 
2014-06-06 11:03:52 AM  

Fubini: Dimensio: The last year in which more than 10,000 "gun homicides" occurred in the United States of America was 2007. The total number decreased yearly from that year to 2011 (the last year for data is available).

I dunno. Not according to Pew:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49- si nce-1993-peak-public-unaware/

In 2010 they report a firearm homicide rate of 3.6 per 100K people, and there are about 310 million people in the US, so 3.6 * 3100 = 11,160 firearm homicides.


For some reason, I am inclined to trust the absolute number reported by a federal agency over an estimate derived from a reported per capita rate.

/The FBI data is also counting only "murders", though I doubt that excluding justified homicides would create that much of a difference.
 
2014-06-06 11:05:13 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-06 11:05:46 AM  

Fubini: The UK first banned semiautomatic shotguns and rifles in 1988, and then most semiautomatic handguns in 1997. Despite that, the overall homicide rate doesn't show any obvious reaction to those years (Figure 1.1), and in fact increased subsequently, and the overall violent crime rate went up as well.


The problem with that is that the UK's violent crime rate has been going up for decades, while ours has been in decline.  It is much more likely to be a third cause and not the availability of guns in the United States or the UK.
 
2014-06-06 11:05:47 AM  

mschwenk: Dimensio: Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!

What, exactly, triggers this new filter?

Zero slash 10.


I will likely be unaffected, then. I typically only report scores of potato.
 
2014-06-06 11:08:31 AM  

Giltric: Witness99: Dimensio: Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!

What, exactly, triggers this new filter?

Not sure, I think the mods change it depending on the thread. I usually get misquoted saying something about "weeners"

Zero out of ten


Trolympics score


LOL, I bet some moderator got tired of people giving them poor troll grades.  Why else the hell would you filter that except you got all pissy one day.
 
2014-06-06 11:08:38 AM  

Giltric: dr_blasto: Giltric: dr_blasto: Giltric: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

For a knife crime?

Well arent you stupid.

The only knife crime I've seen is when my wife used one of my nice santoku knives to open a goddamn shipping box from Amazon. She had previously used one to cut up a frozen pizza on a metal pizza pan.

She just doesn't understand.

One of the best knives i have is over 100 years old with prussian proofmarks. It allows me to cut meat imto paper thin slices that i can lay across a salt block to "cook".

My wife was using it to unscrew the back of a remote control for my grandsons remote control car.

Im talking so thin you can see through the carpaccio.

I feel that pain. Mine is fully capable of making see-through meats. It is a handmade Japanese damascus-blade. She basically did the knife equivalent of taking a Ferrari Enzo on a rally race.

Why do they insist on picking the nicest one to use as a goddamn screwdriver?


Mine isn't a nice tall blade it has the carving knife profile.

[henckelknives.net image 600x425]


The household tool kit was in the pantry next to the batteries.... o.O


i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-06 11:08:48 AM  
Well, one thing is apparent:  people who fear guns also fear guns when it's a knife.

/Myabe this is why they especially fear a bayaonet lug on a rifle.  Only the debil needs that.
 
2014-06-06 11:09:45 AM  

menschenfresser: mschwenk: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Are you off of your meds?

Well apparently I am, if it was really just a stabbing and not a mass shooting.

Just give it a couple of hours and we'll have a mass shooting. We always do. Just tired of living in a society full of morons who are all armed to the teeth, I guess. I love America and this isn't the one I was born in. This is a parody of it.


You do know violent crime rates have crashed since the 1960s, and that mass murders have been around for at least a hundred years? Its not actually happening more often, it just wasn't reported as much.
 
2014-06-06 11:10:11 AM  
But this incident will still be used as a data point for every chart generated for the next ten years to "prove" that mass shootings are on the rise and only by seizing and destroying every gun that isn't assigned to a liberal's personal team of security guards can anyone ever be safe.

/because it could have been a shooting
 
2014-06-06 11:13:58 AM  

mrshowrules: Giltric: Its always the stupid farkers who haven't read the article or thread who wants more gun laws passed.

Why should we listen to you again?

So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.


Unless the gun was owned by the person who was assaulted. Heaven forbid someone be able to protect themselves from an attacker.
 
2014-06-06 11:14:12 AM  
Boy, as soon as they announced it wasn't a gun, this thread emptied out. Only further proving the Faux Outrage of each side and their willingness to use tragedy to score political points against one another.
 
2014-06-06 11:15:29 AM  

jaybeezey: mrshowrules: Giltric: Its always the stupid farkers who haven't read the article or thread who wants more gun laws passed.

Why should we listen to you again?

So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.

Unless the gun was owned by the person who was assaulted. Heaven forbid someone be able to protect themselves from an attacker.


According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?
 
2014-06-06 11:15:34 AM  

Tatterdemalian: But this incident will still be used as a data point for every chart generated for the next ten years to "prove" that mass shootings are on the rise and only by seizing and destroying every gun that isn't assigned to a liberal's personal team of security guards can anyone ever be safe.

/because it could have been a shooting


Those craven people who keep using shootings to talk about guns, and who are not contrite when one of the four incidents this month was actually a stabbing.

You will need to replace least three monocles before the morrow, with all the popping.
 
2014-06-06 11:15:36 AM  

mschwenk: Dimensio: Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!

What, exactly, triggers this new filter?

Zero slash 10.


Have to find out.  I'm pregnant
 
2014-06-06 11:15:47 AM  

Igor Jakovsky: amyldoanitrite: Wow. All these incidents just happen to be taking place during my 10-day wait to pick up my first gun.

Let me qualify myself and put others at ease: a) I live in a rural area, and I was recently robbed; b) I got a .357 revolver for home defense, not some high-capacity pistol or AR-15; c) I am a white guy, but I'm not crazy.

Still, it's just kinda weirding me out.

On a related note, at every gun store I've been to I've had to put up with anti-Obama, anti-liberal small-talk from derping rednecks who assume I'm one of them. I just smile and nod. I've been tempted to fark with them and say I'm a socialist (I'm actually registered Green), but there are guns arounds and I'd probably be shot.

Id have probably gone with a shotgun for home defense. But thats just me.

But yeah Ive been to the gun stores and the range and ive run into people who have never owned a gun that are buying one because someone told them that Obama is going to ban guns and they better get one before its to late.


I considered a shotgun, but with the revolver I can also go out back and plink with .38s.
 
2014-06-06 11:16:14 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Boy, as soon as they announced it wasn't a gun, this thread emptied out. Only further proving the Faux Outrage of each side and their willingness to use tragedy to score political points against one another.


Okay, people, "BSAB" can be marked on your Fark bingo cards.
 
2014-06-06 11:16:20 AM  

ikanreed: mschwenk: Even when violent crime is just as common in those countries.

Only if you use misleading statistics(that bundle more things into the term "violent crime" than the FBI does).  There are countries that have crime rates near the US, but they aren't the ones issuing the warnings.


Just as gun crime reporting has misleading criterion.
 
2014-06-06 11:16:27 AM  

nekom: mschwenk: Dimensio: Witness99: mschwenk: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

I'm pregnant

Congratulations!

What, exactly, triggers this new filter?

Zero slash 10.

Have to find out.  I'm pregnant


My condolences.

/I hate children.
 
2014-06-06 11:18:54 AM  

Dimensio: According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?


Maybe the NRA should not have lobbied to outlaw the government's collecting of gun statistics so we could have a study by an organization with the means to provide accurate statistics (including the raw data, so gun advocates would have access to it).

Apparently they don't anticipate flattering statistics.
 
2014-06-06 11:20:43 AM  

msqualia: Dimensio: According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?

Maybe the NRA should not have lobbied to outlaw the government's collecting of gun statistics so we could have a study by an organization with the means to provide accurate statistics (including the raw data, so gun advocates would have access to it).

Apparently they don't anticipate flattering statistics.


I was not aware that "gun statistics" were not collected by any government agency. What, then, is the basis for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's report on murder by weapon used, which includes counts for various firearm categories?
 
2014-06-06 11:20:52 AM  

Dimensio: Fubini: Dimensio: The last year in which more than 10,000 "gun homicides" occurred in the United States of America was 2007. The total number decreased yearly from that year to 2011 (the last year for data is available).

I dunno. Not according to Pew:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49- si nce-1993-peak-public-unaware/

In 2010 they report a firearm homicide rate of 3.6 per 100K people, and there are about 310 million people in the US, so 3.6 * 3100 = 11,160 firearm homicides.

For some reason, I am inclined to trust the absolute number reported by a federal agency over an estimate derived from a reported per capita rate.

/The FBI data is also counting only "murders", though I doubt that excluding justified homicides would create that much of a difference.


Homicides include accidental deaths as well as justifiable homicides, not including suicide.  Accidental deaths are significant above age 14 but insignificant below age 14.  A  person that shoots themselves while cleaning a gun or shoots someone while hunting is a homicide for statistics.
 
2014-06-06 11:21:32 AM  
...and this is why we can't have anything nice.

In fairness, knives scare me a lot more than guns, and I work with knives every day. My father taught HTH, and knives and the use of entrenching tools, were part of that training, along with some other sundry objects, and a knife absolutely turns my insides to ice water, mainly because I have a fair understanding that someone who has trained with one can have you laid out before you even understand that what the heck is happening, and be gone before anyone notices that you've gone down. Accidents with knives are fair common in my profession, and in unskilled hands, a knife is damn scary. In untrained hands, a knife does a lot of very quiet damage. If you know it's coming, there are some things you can do, but unarmed against a knife is nothing you ever want to face, because unless you've got friends with you, or scream real, real, real loud, no one is going to realize what in the heck happened until afterwards. Knives are easy to hide, they can be ditched with alacrity, and with some skill, or even without, the damage that can be done in seconds is far greater than most folks seem to think. There is a reason that police are trained to NOT even attempt to draw a gun if someone is within 20' with a blade, because by the time you draw, someone can be on top of you, and sticking metal into things you'd rather not be perforated or opened to air. Past 21'? You got a chance. 30'? It's potting a target. Up close? Even with a weapon drawn? It's a toss up. Knives are a big NOPE in my book. I am not a fan of guns up close, but for damn certain, they don't scare me as much as a knife up close.
 
2014-06-06 11:21:42 AM  
What if someone with a gun shoots the knifer?  Are we all even then?
 
2014-06-06 11:22:42 AM  

tbeatty: A  person that shoots themselves while cleaning a gun irresponsibly playing with a gun and then later claiming to have been "cleaning" it or shoots someone while hunting is a homicide for statistics.

I have corrected a minor oversight.
 
2014-06-06 11:23:30 AM  

mschwenk: menschenfresser: mschwenk: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Are you off of your meds?

Well apparently I am, if it was really just a stabbing and not a mass shooting.

Just give it a couple of hours and we'll have a mass shooting. We always do. Just tired of living in a society full of morons who are all armed to the teeth, I guess. I love America and this isn't the one I was born in. This is a parody of it.

You do know violent crime rates have crashed since the 1960s, and that mass murders have been around for at least a hundred years? Its not actually happening more often, it just wasn't reported as much.


Yes, that's all undeniably true. I realize that there are multiple factors in play here and it isn't simply black and white. However, it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides, and that more guns would mean more homicides, with all other factors being equal (which of course they aren't). That's all, really.
 
2014-06-06 11:24:20 AM  

AngryDragon: [i.imgur.com image 562x229]


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-06-06 11:26:55 AM  

Dimensio: msqualia: Dimensio: According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?

Maybe the NRA should not have lobbied to outlaw the government's collecting of gun statistics so we could have a study by an organization with the means to provide accurate statistics (including the raw data, so gun advocates would have access to it).

Apparently they don't anticipate flattering statistics.

I was not aware that "gun statistics" were not collected by any government agency. What, then, is the basis for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's report on murder by weapon used, which includes counts for various firearm categories?


I didn't say they were entirely successful.  I say that's what they lobby for.  And they do.  They have made some headway.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

If they thought performing gun crime studies would reflect well on gun ownership, they wouldn't be lobbying so hard to stop research on gun crimes.

I don't think saying "But they haven't SUCCEEDED in preventing the government from collecting gun statistics entirely" is a good argument for you.
 
2014-06-06 11:28:31 AM  

msqualia: Dimensio: msqualia: Dimensio: According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?

Maybe the NRA should not have lobbied to outlaw the government's collecting of gun statistics so we could have a study by an organization with the means to provide accurate statistics (including the raw data, so gun advocates would have access to it).

Apparently they don't anticipate flattering statistics.

I was not aware that "gun statistics" were not collected by any government agency. What, then, is the basis for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's report on murder by weapon used, which includes counts for various firearm categories?

I didn't say they were entirely successful.  I say that's what they lobby for.  And they do.  They have made some headway.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

If they thought performing gun crime studies would reflect well on gun ownership, they wouldn't be lobbying so hard to stop research on gun crimes.

I don't think saying "But they haven't SUCCEEDED in preventing the government from collecting gun statistics entirely" is a good argument for you.


Are you claiming, then, that data would show that concealed weapons permit holders are more likely to have their weapon taken than to use it for successful self-defense during a confrontation were the National Rifle Association not working to suppress research, or were you simply changing the subject?
 
2014-06-06 11:30:08 AM  

S10Calade: [img.fark.net image 480x422]


TIL: Medical malpractice is standard practice under Fartcare.
 
2014-06-06 11:30:27 AM  

hubiestubert: ...and this is why we can't have anything nice.

In fairness, knives scare me a lot more than guns, and I work with knives every day. My father taught HTH, and knives and the use of entrenching tools, were part of that training, along with some other sundry objects, and a knife absolutely turns my insides to ice water, mainly because I have a fair understanding that someone who has trained with one can have you laid out before you even understand that what the heck is happening, and be gone before anyone notices that you've gone down. Accidents with knives are fair common in my profession, and in unskilled hands, a knife is damn scary. In untrained hands, a knife does a lot of very quiet damage. If you know it's coming, there are some things you can do, but unarmed against a knife is nothing you ever want to face, because unless you've got friends with you, or scream real, real, real loud, no one is going to realize what in the heck happened until afterwards. Knives are easy to hide, they can be ditched with alacrity, and with some skill, or even without, the damage that can be done in seconds is far greater than most folks seem to think. There is a reason that police are trained to NOT even attempt to draw a gun if someone is within 20' with a blade, because by the time you draw, someone can be on top of you, and sticking metal into things you'd rather not be perforated or opened to air. Past 21'? You got a chance. 30'? It's potting a target. Up close? Even with a weapon drawn? It's a toss up. Knives are a big NOPE in my book. I am not a fan of guns up close, but for damn certain, they don't scare me as much as a knife up close.


It is true that knife wounds are less survivable and most aren't expecting it.  Plus even a successful defense is bloody.

It's not true that police are trained not to draw on a knife within 20'.  That's considered the distance where a knife is considered an imminent deadly threat and a shooting is justified, gun drawn or not.  If they can't draw and shoot, the next step is controlling joints like the elbow or shoulder.  They will get cut and blood is slippery.  If they don't draw, it's most likely they didn't see the knife which is very common when someone attacks with a knife.
 
2014-06-06 11:30:46 AM  

Publikwerks: Giltric: dr_blasto: Giltric: dr_blasto: Giltric: AspectRatio: Take action now.
http://www.bradycampaign.org

For a knife crime?

Well arent you stupid.

The only knife crime I've seen is when my wife used one of my nice santoku knives to open a goddamn shipping box from Amazon. She had previously used one to cut up a frozen pizza on a metal pizza pan.

She just doesn't understand.

One of the best knives i have is over 100 years old with prussian proofmarks. It allows me to cut meat imto paper thin slices that i can lay across a salt block to "cook".

My wife was using it to unscrew the back of a remote control for my grandsons remote control car.

Im talking so thin you can see through the carpaccio.

I feel that pain. Mine is fully capable of making see-through meats. It is a handmade Japanese damascus-blade. She basically did the knife equivalent of taking a Ferrari Enzo on a rally race.

Why do they insist on picking the nicest one to use as a goddamn screwdriver?


Mine isn't a nice tall blade it has the carving knife profile.

[henckelknives.net image 600x425]


The household tool kit was in the pantry next to the batteries.... o.O


At least one of those is a pit bull.
 
2014-06-06 11:32:59 AM  

Delta1212: At least one of those is a pit bull.


And the one to the left of it is a Ducati.
 
2014-06-06 11:36:51 AM  

Dimensio: msqualia: Dimensio: msqualia: Dimensio: According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?

Maybe the NRA should not have lobbied to outlaw the government's collecting of gun statistics so we could have a study by an organization with the means to provide accurate statistics (including the raw data, so gun advocates would have access to it).

Apparently they don't anticipate flattering statistics.

I was not aware that "gun statistics" were not collected by any government agency. What, then, is the basis for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's report on murder by weapon used, which includes counts for various firearm categories?

I didn't say they were entirely successful.  I say that's what they lobby for.  And they do.  They have made some headway.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

If they thought performing gun crime studies would reflect well on gun ownership, they wouldn't be lobbying so hard to stop research on gun crimes.

I don't think saying "But they haven't SUCCEEDED in preventing the government from collecting gun statistics entirely" is a good argument for you.

Are you claiming, then, that data would show that concealed weapons permit holders are more likely to have their weapon taken than to use it for successful self-defense during a confrontation were the National Rifle Association not working to suppress research, or were you simply changing the subject?


You're the one claiming that the research that exists is biased because it's by an interested party.  Which is convenient given that the NRA has tried to thwart all studies by the organizations most poised to actually conduct studies.

Even if you don't agree with their conclusions, government studies come with the raw data, which the NRA could use if it was flattering.

I can't speculate what research which hasn't been conducted would say.  I can say that the National Rifle Association, self-proclaimed gun politics experts, act as if it would be absolutely damning.  That is noteworthy.
 
2014-06-06 11:37:23 AM  
menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.
 
2014-06-06 11:40:45 AM  

msqualia: You're the one claiming that the research that exists is biased because it's by an interested party.


On the contrary; I made a statement about claims stated by firearm prohibition advocates. I never stated that their claims were ever backed by anything purporting to be research. In fact, when I have requested citations for a claim that a lawful firearm carrier is more likely to have their firearm taken and used against them than to successfully use their firearm for self-defense, I receive nothing in response.

/In fairness, the claim itself is not necessarily common, but I have been presented with it on multiple occasions and by multiple individuals, and the response to a request for a citation has always been silence.
 
2014-06-06 11:42:22 AM  

Dimensio: tbeatty: A  person that shoots themselves while cleaning a gun irresponsibly playing with a gun and then later claiming to have been "cleaning" it or shoots someone while hunting is a homicide for statistics.
I have corrected a minor oversight.


Ummm, that's never trues as they are dead and don't make any claims. The cleaning supplies are a dead give-away though.

Unloading a semi-automatic is a strictly ordered sequence.  Since you have to break at least 2 safety rules to shoot yourself, there are a lot of unintentional discharges that are related to semi-automatics pistols.  Especially since some models require a trigger pull (i.e. Glock, Kahr, etc) to reset in order to remove the slide for cleaning.  Since there are a lot more injury free cleaning discharges, the deaths are likely cleaning related.  There are also unloading injuries that are usually not fatal.  A common one is when someone tries to unload chambered round by covering the ejection port with their hand to catch it.  If the ejector pin is bent, it hits the primer and discharges.  There's lots of nice hand injuries that show what an ejector pin can do when someone doesn't feel like picking an ejected round off the floor.
 
2014-06-06 11:42:31 AM  

swaniefrmreddeer: Did the shooter fell jealous that Canada was getting all the mass shooting press? Goddamnit, WTF is wrong with people.

Clearly you're new to Fark. There's nothing wrong with people. Only guns kill.
 
2014-06-06 11:43:21 AM  

unamused: menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.


And what about everyone who shows little violent history?

I am always told that the majority at responsible gun owners. Then, I the case of the fire chief who shot through his locked front door and killed a drunken partier who got lost on the way back to the party, that he wasn't a responsible gun owner.

How do we handle/prevent/screen for these cases?
 
2014-06-06 11:43:25 AM  

hubiestubert: Knives are a big NOPE in my book. I am not a fan of guns up close, but for damn certain, they don't scare me as much as a knife up close.


You have lost your mind, splattered on the back wall and spilling out of a football sized exist wound no doubt.
 
2014-06-06 11:43:43 AM  

tbeatty: Well, one thing is apparent:  people who fear guns also fear guns when it's a knife.

/Myabe this is why they especially fear a bayaonet lug on a rifle.  Only the debil needs that.


Especially when that bayonet lug is really just a strap loop.
 
2014-06-06 11:43:46 AM  

unamused: menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.


People will find a way to kill if they want to, obviously. But guns make it much, much easier to do than it otherwise would be. Saying that people will kill anyway so there's no point in curbing the availability of guns is like saying that if someone wants to break into your house then they'll find a way, so there's no point in locking your doors. We just shouldn't make it so easy, is all. Also, I didn't say anything about limiting confiscation to any group(s) so I'm not talking about just law-abiding people losing guns. I'm including "inner-city thugs" or whomever else you may have been referring to.
 
2014-06-06 11:45:34 AM  
msqualia

I can't speculate what research which hasn't been conducted would say. I can say that the National Rifle Association, self-proclaimed gun politics experts, act as if it would be absolutely damning. That is noteworthy.

To be fair, though, the NRA's opposition to such began after the Kellerman study. As an example of why the study was problematic, it concluded that people are forty-three more times likely to be murdered in their own home if they own a firearm, which is utterly preposterous (even Kellerman has admitted this was incorrect by at least an order of magnitude, which hardly inspires confidence).
 
2014-06-06 11:45:43 AM  

tbeatty: Ummm, that's never trues as they are dead and don't make any claims. The cleaning supplies are a dead give-away though.


I was addressing homicides that result from an individual who is "cleaning" a firearm manages to shoot a nearby person.


There are also unloading injuries that are usually not fatal. A common one is when someone tries to unload chambered round by covering the ejection port with their hand to catch it.

What type of idiot attempts to do such a thing? I always allow the chambered round to fall out of the firearm.
 
2014-06-06 11:47:45 AM  

Dimensio: What type of idiot attempts to do such a thing? I always allow the chambered round to fall out of the firearm.


Idiots with 9 fingers.
 
2014-06-06 11:47:54 AM  

menschenfresser: unamused: menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.

People will find a way to kill if they want to, obviously. But guns make it much, much easier to do than it otherwise would be. Saying that people will kill anyway so there's no point in curbing the availability of guns is like saying that if someone wants to break into your house then they'll find a way, so there's no point in locking your doors. We just shouldn't make it so easy, is all. Also, I didn't say anything about limiting confiscation to any group(s) so I'm not talking about just law-abiding people losing guns. I'm including "inner-city thugs" or whomever else you may have been referring to.


To compare the gun rights arguments to cars; they think all the control people would ban all cars. The other side thinks the rights people want formula 1 cars on the road and no traffic lights anymore. In reality, most people want the option to buy a sedan, convertible, or truck, and to have to take a basic driving test.

It's the 2% of loons on the extremes that poison the discussion for the rest of us.
 
2014-06-06 11:49:11 AM  

Elliot8654: unamused: menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.

And what about everyone who shows little violent history?

I am always told that the majority at responsible gun owners. Then, I the case of the fire chief who shot through his locked front door and killed a drunken partier who got lost on the way back to the party, that he wasn't a responsible gun owner.

How do we handle/prevent/screen for these cases?


Training courses that clearly explain the legal boundaries of a "justified" use of deadly force may be helpful.

The certified training course that I was required to undertake as a prerequisite for being issued a concealed deadly weapons permit by the state of Kentucky effectively explained explained circumstances that would justify a use of deadly force and circumstances that would not justify a use of deadly force.
 
2014-06-06 11:49:22 AM  

Elliot8654: unamused: menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.

And what about everyone who shows little violent history?

I am always told that the majority at responsible gun owners. Then, I the case of the fire chief who shot through his locked front door and killed a drunken partier who got lost on the way back to the party, that he wasn't a responsible gun owner.

How do we handle/prevent/screen for these cases?


You can't.  But, you can prevent repeat violent offenders.  that alone will reduce the death toll dramatically.  Lock them up, let the dope smokers out...majority of the problem solved.
 
2014-06-06 11:51:04 AM  

Elliot8654: menschenfresser: unamused: menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.

People will find a way to kill if they want to, obviously. But guns make it much, much easier to do than it otherwise would be. Saying that people will kill anyway so there's no point in curbing the availability of guns is like saying that if someone wants to break into your house then they'll find a way, so there's no point in locking your doors. We just shouldn't make it so easy, is all. Also, I didn't say anything about limiting confiscation to any group(s) so I'm not talking about just law-abiding people losing guns. I'm including "inner-city thugs" or whomever else you may have been referring to.

To compare the gun rights arguments to cars; they think all the control people would ban all cars. The other side thinks the rights people want formula 1 cars on the road and no traffic lights anymore. In reality, most people want the option to buy a sedan, convertible, or truck, and to have to take a basic driving test.

It's the 2% of loons on the extremes that poison the discussion for the rest of us.


Relevant.
 
2014-06-06 11:53:00 AM  

trappedspirit: hubiestubert: Knives are a big NOPE in my book. I am not a fan of guns up close, but for damn certain, they don't scare me as much as a knife up close.

You have lost your mind, splattered on the back wall and spilling out of a football sized exist wound no doubt.


hmmm, exist wound
 
2014-06-06 11:53:33 AM  

Dimensio: Training courses that clearly explain the legal boundaries of a "justified" use of deadly force may be helpful.


I firmly believe that if you injure someone, the definition of "justified" deadly force isn't going to protect you.  No matter where you are, or what the law actually says.  You enter that courtroom, you are spinning the big wheel 'o justice.
 
2014-06-06 11:54:11 AM  
Facetious_Speciest:  To be fair, though, the NRA's opposition to such began after the Kellerman study. As an example of why the study was problematic, it concluded that people are forty-three more times likely to be murdered in their own home if they own a firearm, which is utterly preposterous (even Kellerman has admitted this was incorrect by at least an order of magnitude, which hardly inspires confidence).

I think that Autism vaccine study in the Lancet set back disease control a hundred years, but I didn't demand all autism and vaccinations studies stop.
 
2014-06-06 11:55:16 AM  

menschenfresser: unamused: menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.

People will find a way to kill if they want to, obviously. But guns make it much, much easier to do than it otherwise would be. Saying that people will kill anyway so there's no point in curbing the availability of guns is like saying that if someone wants to break into your house then they'll find a way, so there's no point in locking your doors. We just shouldn't make it so easy, is all. Also, I didn't say anything about limiting confiscation to any group(s) so I'm not talking about just law-abiding people losing guns. I'm including "inner-city thugs" or whomever else you may have been referring to.


Homicide and suicide rates in prison are pretty high.  Can't imagine how as there are no guns.
 
2014-06-06 11:55:17 AM  

Dimensio: Elliot8654: unamused: menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.

And what about everyone who shows little violent history?

I am always told that the majority at responsible gun owners. Then, I the case of the fire chief who shot through his locked front door and killed a drunken partier who got lost on the way back to the party, that he wasn't a responsible gun owner.

How do we handle/prevent/screen for these cases?

Training courses that clearly explain the legal boundaries of a "justified" use of deadly force may be helpful.

The certified training course that I was required to undertake as a prerequisite for being issued a concealed deadly weapons permit by the state of Kentucky effectively explained explained circumstances that would justify a use of deadly force and circumstances that would not justify a use of deadly force.


So can we make these courses free or subsidized and require at least semi-regular refreshers/renewal to maintain ownership/usage of firearms?
 
2014-06-06 11:55:18 AM  
Just realized this, we can solve all this instantly.

Just outlaw murder.
 
2014-06-06 11:56:16 AM  

menschenfresser: I'm not talking about just law-abiding people losing guns. I'm including "inner-city thugs" or whomever else you may have been referring to.


That is not possible.  The Russian Mafia did just fine getting guns for illegal activities in the Soviet Union.  If someone is willing to commit murder and face the DP, all your crappy minor gun laws become irrelevant.  They are only relevant to the poor schlep who pays his parking tickets when he gets one.
 
2014-06-06 11:57:59 AM  

Elliot8654: Dimensio: Elliot8654: unamused: menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.

And what about everyone who shows little violent history?

I am always told that the majority at responsible gun owners. Then, I the case of the fire chief who shot through his locked front door and killed a drunken partier who got lost on the way back to the party, that he wasn't a responsible gun owner.

How do we handle/prevent/screen for these cases?

Training courses that clearly explain the legal boundaries of a "justified" use of deadly force may be helpful.

The certified training course that I was required to undertake as a prerequisite for being issued a concealed deadly weapons permit by the state of Kentucky effectively explained explained circumstances that would justify a use of deadly force and circumstances that would not justify a use of deadly force.

So can we make these courses free or subsidized and require at least semi-regular refreshers/renewal to maintain ownership/usage of firearms?


I do not know that regular refresher courses are warranted, unless the laws on the matter change frequently. However, if the courses are free and/or subsidized I would find mandatory repetition less objectionable.

/Courses regarding proper handling of firearms may also be useful; the one deficiency of the Kentucky certified concealed weapons permit training requirement is a lack of instruction regarding proper holstering and handling.
 
2014-06-06 11:58:47 AM  

Dimensio: My condolences.

/I hate children.


Too bad your parents didn't feel the same way.

/HATE kids? Really?
 
2014-06-06 11:59:18 AM  
msqualia

I think that Autism vaccine study in the Lancet set back disease control a hundred years, but I didn't demand all autism and vaccinations studies stop.

You're not a political organisation with a singular focus through which every single other thing in the world is seen, either. :\ To the NRA, a government-funded study with obvious falsehoods and a refusal to release raw data seems like an obvious assault on a constitutional right for the purpose of social change.
 
2014-06-06 12:00:33 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: tricycleracer: R.A.Danny: ITT: Liberals pissed off that no one was shot.

ITT: Gun nuts pissed off that no one was shot.


Well, those two groups encompass the entirety of the US, according to Fark threads.  So, yeah, you're both right.

The important thing is that everyone is pissed off and remains pissed off in perpetuity.

Speak for yourself... I'm happy most days because even when groups of >4 people aren't being shot in the US on a given day, I can just turn to international news and find some group of >4 people getting shot somewhere.  Ain't modern mass media grand?! ٩(^‿^)۶
 
2014-06-06 12:01:50 PM  

peterthx: Dimensio: My condolences.

/I hate children.

Too bad your parents didn't feel the same way.

/HATE kids? Really?


I am pedophobic. Proximity to small children induces anxiety. The more prominent their presence (whether through numbers, visibility or noise), the more intense the anxiety.

I recognize that my reaction is irrational, and that it is my problem and not theirs. Nonetheless, the reaction is there.
 
2014-06-06 12:04:26 PM  

Dimensio: peterthx: Dimensio:

I am pedophobic.


That is certainly better than the other kind.

/Chris Hansen looks dejected
 
2014-06-06 12:05:32 PM  

menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Hey, cletus, I hate to break it to you, but the murder rate keeps going down.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8286906/Gun-homicides-have-actually-gon e- down-once-again-proving-Fark-liberals-wrong-about-gun-control

And if that's true then it's obviously because we have guns everywhere. It just makes sense. I mean, I've noticed that the more insecticide I use, the more insects I have. The more fat I eat, the thinner I become. The more alcohol we drink, the more sober we are. It all makes equal sense so there's definitely a correlation here.

I did not claim nor do I think the presence of guns is why the murder rate is dropping and HAS dropped since the early 90's.  It is, however, a fact, which I know you can't stand being true.

Well I'm glad that we can agree that my goal and desire is for there to be more innocent people murdered. Clearly that's what I want.

I'm glad if the homicide rate is dropping, of course. And if it is then it's doing so in spite of the ubiquity of deadly firearms, and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence. I hope it continues to fall despite the firearms-worshiping wild west town society we've been forced to live in.


Can you cite relevant data souurces from England and Australia showing the homicide rate before and after they enacted very strict gun control laws and bans?  (I'm being quite serious...)
 
2014-06-06 12:06:47 PM  

Seraphym: Dimensio: peterthx: Dimensio:

I am pedophobic.

That is certainly better than the other kind.

/Chris Hansen looks dejected


I thought I was the only one scared of feet.
 
2014-06-06 12:06:55 PM  

unamused: menschenfresser: I'm not talking about just law-abiding people losing guns. I'm including "inner-city thugs" or whomever else you may have been referring to.

That is not possible.  The Russian Mafia did just fine getting guns for illegal activities in the Soviet Union.  If someone is willing to commit murder and face the DP, all your crappy minor gun laws become irrelevant.  They are only relevant to the poor schlep who pays his parking tickets when he gets one.


I'd like to thank both you and Dimensio for contributing some facts to our discussion. The more facts we have, the more informed decisions we can make. I'm not convinced that the availability of guns is totally unrelated to the level of homicide, but I do want to have as many facts as possible in forming my positions. I may be prone to snark sometimes but I really do want the best for this great country, like I think you guys do, too.
 
2014-06-06 12:10:47 PM  

menschenfresser: unamused: menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.

People will find a way to kill if they want to, obviously. But guns make it much, much easier to do than it otherwise would be. Saying that people will kill anyway so there's no point in curbing the availability of guns is like saying that if someone wants to break into your house then they'll find a way, so there's no point in locking your doors. We just shouldn't make it so easy, is all. Also, I didn't say anything about limiting confiscation to any group(s) so I'm not talking about just law-abiding people losing guns. I'm including "inner-city thugs" or whomever else you may have been referring to.


Guns are a symptom. Perhaps it's time to stop talking about the symptoms, and instead focus on the actual disease. Focusing only on symptoms doesn't do much more than mask the problems. It is short term thinking, that does little to alleviate the problems we face. It's easier to look at the symptoms, but it doesn't make the problems go away. If anything, the gun control debate simply masks the larger issues.

The issues are crime and safety. You want to deal with crime, then we have to look at economic stability and mobility, we have to look at education--access as well as the skills we are teaching, retention rates, and opportunities--we need to look at health care--bodily as well as mental--and we need to likewise address social justice issues, and perhaps an examination of our drug laws on top of it all. THOSE issues aren't exactly easy. So, instead, we have discussions about the tools used in violence, and looking at symptoms. We have folks blaming the guns themselves, we have folks who are blaming the music that people listen to, we have them blaming video games, movies, and other media, and all of these things ARE indeed symptoms, when taken together, but that doesn't address the underlying issues that cause folks to gravitate towards these things. If we deal only with the tools, we're not going to make a dent in things. We have made some strides over the years, but we are still a long ways from coming out of the darkness. And with increasing economic instability, with further fractionating of the population into cultural and ideological clades, we see division of the populace whereupon folks do NOT accept that their neighbors are even of the same tribe, let alone same nation. That itself increases the rationale that these others are not deserving of the same treatment, or respect, and that division only increases the distance that allows folks to put folks into a mental box space that says "others" are meet and proper targets--not just for violence, but as a rationale to remove rights since they aren't "our" people. THAT is the real issue. We are training folks to break down the inhibitions that most humans have against seriously harming other humans, and it's social conditioning that we continue to pile on that isn't intentional, but we keep applying that pressure to force people to make choices, and increasingly, with divisions between our populace that makes those decision trees easier to take towards piling on hurt to others. That unintentional training is the larger issue. Police, the military, they take deliberate steps to train folks to make the leap to be able to do harm, under the proper circumstances. As a society, we're not taking that same care with this unintentional training. We need to stop looking at one another as being so terribly different. We need to come together, not keep slicing up how incredibly different we are. Our politics right now is a symptom of the issues we face as a society, and these fractionating divides need to slow, because we are slicing ourselves away from one another, at a time when we need to pull together, and work together. And stop using bullsh*t to justify it, so that we can feel smug that OUR side is right, while EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG. That's just not going to work. And it's not working now.
 
2014-06-06 12:15:08 PM  

hubiestubert: Guns are a symptom. Perhaps it's time to stop talking about the symptoms, and instead focus on the actual disease. Focusing only on symptoms doesn't do much more than mask the problems. It is short term thinking, that does little to alleviate the problems we face. It's easier to look at the symptoms, but it doesn't make the problems go away. If anything, the gun control debate simply masks the larger issues.


Another well-thought-out contribution, if I may say. Very good points for thinking and broadening the scope to include more than just black/white binary factors.
 
2014-06-06 12:19:15 PM  

Farkage: menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Hey, cletus, I hate to break it to you, but the murder rate keeps going down.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8286906/Gun-homicides-have-actually-gon e- down-once-again-proving-Fark-liberals-wrong-about-gun-control

And if that's true then it's obviously because we have guns everywhere. It just makes sense. I mean, I've noticed that the more insecticide I use, the more insects I have. The more fat I eat, the thinner I become. The more alcohol we drink, the more sober we are. It all makes equal sense so there's definitely a correlation here.

I did not claim nor do I think the presence of guns is why the murder rate is dropping and HAS dropped since the early 90's.  It is, however, a fact, which I know you can't stand being true.

Well I'm glad that we can agree that my goal and desire is for there to be more innocent people murdered. Clearly that's what I want.

I'm glad if the homicide rate is dropping, of course. And if it is then it's doing so in spite of the ubiquity of deadly firearms, and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence. I hope it continues to fall despite the firearms-worshiping wild west town society we've been forced to live in.

Can you cite relevant data souurces from England and Australia showing the homicide rate before and after they enacted very strict gun control laws and bans?  (I'm being quite serious...)


Australia:
www.gunsandcrime.org

England:
2.bp.blogspot.com
(Note that the largest spike may be a result of a number of corpses found in a single location were counted as homicides for that year, despite the murders likely being spread over multiple years).

The "strict" laws imposed in both nations mandated surrender of currently owned firearms, without any "grandfathering", meaning that any effect of the ban should be immediately visible (though not necessarily immediately complete).
 
2014-06-06 12:20:59 PM  
I will note also that the graphs were located through a Google search using the terms "australia homicide rate per year" and "england homicide rate per year". I did not seek any specific sites for them.
 
2014-06-06 12:22:31 PM  
Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.
 
2014-06-06 12:25:08 PM  

msqualia: Dimensio: According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?

Maybe the NRA should not have lobbied to outlaw the government's collecting of gun statistics so we could have a study by an organization with the means to provide accurate statistics (including the raw data, so gun advocates would have access to it).

Apparently they don't anticipate flattering statistics.


Do you think the gun the murderer brings with him into your home to murder you should be counted under the category "you are likely to be murdered by a gun if a gun is in your home"?

If any of these students at the university yesterday owned a gun but were prohibited from carrying it on campus should they have their ownership of a gun used against them in a study when a study counts how many gunshot victims own guns and they try to claim owning a gun doesnt protect you?

Because they did that too, which is what prompted the Dickey amendment in the first place
 
2014-06-06 12:30:50 PM  

Dimensio: Farkage: menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Hey, cletus, I hate to break it to you, but the murder rate keeps going down.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8286906/Gun-homicides-have-actually-gon e- down-once-again-proving-Fark-liberals-wrong-about-gun-control

And if that's true then it's obviously because we have guns everywhere. It just makes sense. I mean, I've noticed that the more insecticide I use, the more insects I have. The more fat I eat, the thinner I become. The more alcohol we drink, the more sober we are. It all makes equal sense so there's definitely a correlation here.

I did not claim nor do I think the presence of guns is why the murder rate is dropping and HAS dropped since the early 90's.  It is, however, a fact, which I know you can't stand being true.

Well I'm glad that we can agree that my goal and desire is for there to be more innocent people murdered. Clearly that's what I want.

I'm glad if the homicide rate is dropping, of course. And if it is then it's doing so in spite of the ubiquity of deadly firearms, and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence. I hope it continues to fall despite the firearms-worshiping wild west town society we've been forced to live in.

Can you cite relevant data souurces from England and Australia showing the homicide rate before and after they enacted very strict gun control laws and bans?  (I'm being quite serious...)

Australia:
[www.gunsandcrime.org image 610x256]

England:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 632x472]
(Note that the largest spike may be a result of a number of corpses foun ...


I knew you would have it.  I was specifically asking the person that made the claim " and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence."  :)
 
2014-06-06 12:36:18 PM  

hubiestubert: ...and this is why we can't have anything nice.

In fairness, knives scare me a lot more than guns, and I work with knives every day. My father taught HTH, and knives and the use of entrenching tools, were part of that training, along with some other sundry objects, and a knife absolutely turns my insides to ice water, mainly because I have a fair understanding that someone who has trained with one can have you laid out before you even understand that what the heck is happening, and be gone before anyone notices that you've gone down. Accidents with knives are fair common in my profession, and in unskilled hands, a knife is damn scary. In untrained hands, a knife does a lot of very quiet damage. If you know it's coming, there are some things you can do, but unarmed against a knife is nothing you ever want to face, because unless you've got friends with you, or scream real, real, real loud, no one is going to realize what in the heck happened until afterwards. Knives are easy to hide, they can be ditched with alacrity, and with some skill, or even without, the damage that can be done in seconds is far greater than most folks seem to think. There is a reason that police are trained to NOT even attempt to draw a gun if someone is within 20' with a blade, because by the time you draw, someone can be on top of you, and sticking metal into things you'd rather not be perforated or opened to air. Past 21'? You got a chance. 30'? It's potting a target. Up close? Even with a weapon drawn? It's a toss up. Knives are a big NOPE in my book. I am not a fan of guns up close, but for damn certain, they don't scare me as much as a knife up close.


I had a link to a bunch of medical stats where they claimed a knife which can make a 3 inch deep gash in you from your shoulder to belly button can cause more damage than the wound channel a bullet leaves behind.

Dull knives are even more dangerous in a food prep environment because people press harder when cutting. And a well maintained sharp knife will cut you without pain. You won't feel the cut but you will feel the blood running down your hand.
 
2014-06-06 12:36:48 PM  
HOLY HELL this thread is funny as shiat!
 
2014-06-06 12:38:04 PM  

Farkage: I knew you would have it. I was specifically asking the person that made the claim " and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence." :)


That was me. I'm not claiming to be certain on the claim, which is why I added the qualifier "almost" to it. However, I think it's logical to assume that fewer firearms means fewer firearms deaths, unless we're actually going to argue that more firearms leads to fewer firearms deaths, which seems like nonsense.

If the evidence shows no change in homicides after a gun confiscation, then that's obviously significant. I'm in no position to argue with evidence. It is, however, counter to logic - at least to me.
 
2014-06-06 12:39:33 PM  

Thunderpipes: Gun availability has not changed, actually has gotten tougher since I was a kid by far. Gun homicide is actually down.

So why are guns such a problem now? Maybe because we hear of every single shooting as it happens?

Teach kids not to be bad people, problem solved.


Guns are harder to get and gun homicides are down... hrm.
 
2014-06-06 12:39:44 PM  

devilEther: The frequency of these events will eventually reach the point where bullets whizzing by your head as you walk down the dairy aisle is normal and to be expected.


When I was a junior in high school in Decatur IL there were grocery store shootings every day over the holidays. Gangs were literally shooting up the ceilings in the dairy aisle as some kind of initiation thing.

That was in 1992-93. So I'd say that we've been in that stage for a while.
 
2014-06-06 12:39:51 PM  

msqualia: Dimensio: msqualia: Dimensio: msqualia: Dimensio: According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?

Maybe the NRA should not have lobbied to outlaw the government's collecting of gun statistics so we could have a study by an organization with the means to provide accurate statistics (including the raw data, so gun advocates would have access to it).

Apparently they don't anticipate flattering statistics.

I was not aware that "gun statistics" were not collected by any government agency. What, then, is the basis for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's report on murder by weapon used, which includes counts for various firearm categories?

I didn't say they were entirely successful.  I say that's what they lobby for.  And they do.  They have made some headway.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

If they thought performing gun crime studies would reflect well on gun ownership, they wouldn't be lobbying so hard to stop research on gun crimes.

I don't think saying "But they haven't SUCCEEDED in preventing the government from collecting gun statistics entirely" is a good argument for you.

Are you claiming, then, that data would show that concealed weapons permit holders are more likely to have their weapon taken than to use it for successful self-defense during a confrontation were the National Rifle Association not working to suppress research, or were you simply changing the subject?

You're the one claiming that the research that exists is biased because it's by an interested party.  Which is convenient given that the NRA has tried to thwart all studies by the organizations most poised to actually conduct studies.

Even if you don't agree with their conclusions, government studies come with the raw data, which the NRA could use if i ...



Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, explained his aim was to make the public see firearms as "dirty, deadly-and banned." (Quoted in William Raspberry, "Sick People With Guns,"  The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1994.)

 Dr. Katherine Christoffel and Dr. Robert Tanz of the Children's Hospital in Chicago, explained their "plan to do to handguns what their profession has done to cigarettes ... turn gun ownership from a personal-choice issue to a repulsive, anti-social health hazard." (Harold Henderson, "Policy: Guns 'n Poses,"  Chicago Reader, Dec. 16, 1994.)

It seems that the data would not be able to speak for itself, they would do with the data what they want to get it to say what they want which is guns should be banned.
 
2014-06-06 12:40:34 PM  

Fubini: I know we all love a good circle jerk, but there are over 10,000 gun homicides in the US every year, or an average of at least 27 a day. I'm not going to look up the official number, but it's higher than that.

So, rather than freaking out every time the news media decides there's nothing more interesting to report, why don't we have a real discussion about realistic policy in a country of 300,000,000 people?


No offense see, but 10k out of 3 million is random noise. More people die of awful life choices such as obesity, yet we dont force candy licenses on people.

You have to undrrstand benefit versus cost. You are regulating an insignificant statistic.
 
2014-06-06 12:45:58 PM  
menschenfresser

If the evidence shows no change in homicides after a gun confiscation, then that's obviously significant. I'm in no position to argue with evidence. It is, however, counter to logic - at least to me.

I would submit that some of the lack of expected change may be due to the fact that, despite what we might anecdotally think due to media coverage, the fact is that the vast majority of legal firearm owners do not engage in criminal activity with firearms. If the majority of those responsible for murders by firearm are illegal operators, then confiscating the firearms of those who weren't responsible for the murders in the first place will, logically, have very little effect on homicide rates.

There's the argument that fewer legitimate firearm owners means fewer firearms to be stolen and then used for murder, which is somewhat sensible, but is generally a longer-term thing than can be illustrated in studies from the last few decades.
 
2014-06-06 12:47:51 PM  

Dimensio: England:


that spike was from ONE soccer match. ONE. And that was only because there wasn't anyone with a gun to stop the fisticuffs.

And to be fair here, fisticuffs is kind of a dangerous game to play at the best of times, and englanders know how to fisticuffs pretty good, so it was only a matter of time after the ban on guns that a spike in homersides from 'other' would happen.

/your 'spike' is a matter of 5, which is kindof a shyte 'spike' by anyone's measure.
 
2014-06-06 12:49:04 PM  

menschenfresser: Farkage: I knew you would have it. I was specifically asking the person that made the claim " and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence." :)

That was me. I'm not claiming to be certain on the claim, which is why I added the qualifier "almost" to it. However, I think it's logical to assume that fewer firearms means fewer firearms deaths, unless we're actually going to argue that more firearms leads to fewer firearms deaths, which seems like nonsense.

If the evidence shows no change in homicides after a gun confiscation, then that's obviously significant. I'm in no position to argue with evidence. It is, however, counter to logic - at least to me.


I actually posted an excellent article by factcheck.org yesterday on gun laws versus crime,(http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ ) and at best you can say for certain there was zero correlation.  In that instance we should, as a whole, go with freedom of choice or else we are banning things we don't happen to like.

/And yes, I really wish people would sttop killing each other
 
2014-06-06 12:53:06 PM  

Fubini: I know we all love a good circle jerk, but there are over 10,000 gun homicides in the US every year, or an average of at least 27 a day. I'm not going to look up the official number, but it's higher than that.

So, rather than freaking out every time the news media decides there's nothing more interesting to report, why don't we have a real discussion about realistic policy in a country of 300,000,000 people?


Exactly.

But it's more sensational when a white, mentally ill young man does it out of vengeance than when a non white criminal does it. Where's the story in that?
 
2014-06-06 01:08:03 PM  

jaybeezey: mrshowrules: Giltric: Its always the stupid farkers who haven't read the article or thread who wants more gun laws passed.

Why should we listen to you again?

So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.

Unless the gun was owned by the person who was assaulted. Heaven forbid someone be able to protect themselves from an attacker.


Do you have the memory of a gold fish.  Three armed highly trained RCMP were murdered by a gun nut yesterday.  You think a bunch of armed civilians would have fared better?
 
2014-06-06 01:10:27 PM  

Dimensio: jaybeezey: mrshowrules: Giltric: Its always the stupid farkers who haven't read the article or thread who wants more gun laws passed.

Why should we listen to you again?

So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.

Unless the gun was owned by the person who was assaulted. Heaven forbid someone be able to protect themselves from an attacker.

According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?


Stats don't lie.  People lie with stats, like you just did.  The real stat is that the hand gun you purchased is more likely to kill you (accidentally, taken from you or including suicide) than save your life in self-defense.
 
2014-06-06 01:10:36 PM  

mrshowrules: jaybeezey: mrshowrules: Giltric: Its always the stupid farkers who haven't read the article or thread who wants more gun laws passed.

Why should we listen to you again?

So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.

Unless the gun was owned by the person who was assaulted. Heaven forbid someone be able to protect themselves from an attacker.

Do you have the memory of a gold fish.  Three armed highly trained RCMP were murdered by a gun nut yesterday.  You think a bunch of armed civilians would have fared better?



What about three gun nuts? That way, it's three against one.
 
2014-06-06 01:13:16 PM  

S10Calade: [img.fark.net image 480x422]


Obviously, the answer is tort reform.
 
2014-06-06 01:13:48 PM  
www.fatwallet.com
 
2014-06-06 01:14:19 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.


That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.  Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.  The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.
 
2014-06-06 01:19:16 PM  
I haven't seen it on Fark yet but this morning some nut job with guns and explosives was killed when he was attempting to occupy the courthouse in Cumming, Ga.  Dude was about to go Columbine.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/police-activity-around-forsyth-courthou se /ngFsZ/
 
2014-06-06 01:19:53 PM  

uttertosh: Dimensio: England:

that spike was from ONE soccer match. ONE. And that was only because there wasn't anyone with a gun to stop the fisticuffs.

And to be fair here, fisticuffs is kind of a dangerous game to play at the best of times, and englanders know how to fisticuffs pretty good, so it was only a matter of time after the ban on guns that a spike in homersides from 'other' would happen.

/your 'spike' is a matter of 5, which is kindof a shyte 'spike' by anyone's measure.


That spike (18/1,000,000 vs 11.5/1,000,000) in a nation of 53 million people is a difference of 325 murders per year.
 
2014-06-06 01:22:49 PM  

mrshowrules: Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.


img.fark.net

Who's pretending? In the short run, if anything, it cost lives.
 
2014-06-06 01:23:48 PM  

mrshowrules: Facetious_Speciest: Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.

That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.  Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.  The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.


Just out of curiosity why does someone from Canada care so intensely about American gun laws/policy?
 
2014-06-06 01:25:50 PM  
mrshowrules

That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.

So if I look at a chart of American homicide rates by type of weapon, what do you think I see? Do it yourself...what do you see?

Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.

I am sure it saved at least two lives, somehow. But the actual firearm homicide rate (if we take the posted graph as accurate) demonstrates that there was little actual change that can immediately be ascribed to the ban, overall.

The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.

This is, somewhat ironically, a dishonest statement. I haven't advocated an "unencumbered right," despite your assertion.
 
2014-06-06 01:26:55 PM  

KidneyStone: I haven't seen it on Fark yet but this morning some nut job with guns and explosives was killed when he was attempting to occupy the courthouse in Cumming, Ga.  Dude was about to go Columbine.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/police-activity-around-forsyth-courthou se /ngFsZ/


That can't be true we were all just told that using a gun for defense or to stop a crime always results in your own death.
 
2014-06-06 01:29:37 PM  
are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?
 
2014-06-06 01:32:42 PM  
Has the whole world gone CRAZY?!

/MARK IT ZERO
 
2014-06-06 01:33:02 PM  

CADMonkey79: mrshowrules: Facetious_Speciest: Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.

That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.  Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.  The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.

Just out of curiosity why does someone from Canada care so intensely about American gun laws/policy?


Well there's a lot of cultural "bleed" due to both proximity and a large degree of shared culture in general. Maybe that's why.

It's also possible that it's just an interesting philosophical debate for people in a cerebral sense.
 
2014-06-06 01:33:45 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.

We just did this in the other thread. Removing guns from society through prohibition does not necessarily reduce homicide rate.

It does actually.

I'm not saying that it won't, I'm saying that we don't know if it will or will not. I'll go ahead and copy-paste for you. I was responding to someone else saying that we'd save "tens of thousands of lives" through gun prohibition.

We're currently barely breaking 10,000 gun homicides per year. In order to save "tens of thousands of lives every year" you'd have to presume that banning firearms will eliminate virtually all homicides committed with firearms. Consider that non-firearm weapons are currently used in 93% of non-fatal violent crimes, and in 32% of fatal violent crime, I have a hard time believing we're going to see a 90% reduction in homicides just because we've removed the weapon of choice.


What if it only saves the lives only a few thousand people and we made things less fun for gun hobbyists everywhere?  That would be too horrific to contemplate.

The UK first banned semiautomatic shotguns and rifles in 1988, and then most semiautomatic handguns in 1997. Despite that, the overall homicide rate doesn't show any obvious reaction to those years (Figure 1.1), and in fact increased subsequently, and the overall violent crime rate went up as well.

 On 31 December 1996, prior to the large-calibre handgun ban, there were 133,600 FACs on issue in England and Wales; by 31 December 1997 it had fallen to 131,900. The following year, after the .22 handgun ban, the number stood at 131,900. On 31 December 2001, five years after the large calibre ban, the number had fallen to 119,600 and 117,700 the following year?  Reduced homicides does not match-up with the passage of the law but it does match-up with less people having these guns which was as a direct result of the legislation.

The fact is that no one knows what effect a firearms ban will have on the homicide rate in the US. It's certainly not going to save "tens of thousands of lives". It's debatable whether it would save any statistically significant number of lives. It seems that things like the violent crime rate and the homicide rate are much more heavily influenced by large-scale social, economic, and demographic factors rather than the availability of specific weapons.


False again.  Less guns means less homicides.  Period.  Full-stop.  Of course it is not going to save 10,000 people per year.  What would be a relevant threshold for you?
 
2014-06-06 01:37:05 PM  

stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?


Knives aren't sexy like guns. Stop being a killjoy.
 
2014-06-06 01:37:47 PM  

Dimensio: The United Kingdom imposed severe bans on firearms.
Australia also imposed severe bans on firearms.

Both nations show a lower homicide rate than the United States of America.

Therefore, the severe bans on firearms in those nations is responsible for their homicide rates being lower than the rate in the United States of America.


That's a pretty naive way of looking at it. Both of countries have their own cultures that lead, in aggregate, to some crime rate. The idea that the US *should* have the same crime rate at Australia or the UK, and the thought that the *primary* reason we don't is guns, is a pretty huge and unwarranted assumption in my opinion.

Through the 80's, up until their first major firearms prohibition in 1988, the UK had a homicide rate of about 1 per 100,000 people. The US had a rate of about 8.5 per 100,000 people during the same time period.

At that time, the citizens of both countries had relatively equitable access to firearms. If firearms availability was the only thing at play, then they should have had similar homicide rates. Obviously, there are multiple things at play that drive homicide and violent crime. The notion that the US *should* have the same crime rate as other countries is debatable and the idea that firearms are solely responsible for our higher homicide rate is frankly ridiculous. Firearms are used in less than a 1/3 or the total homicides in the US.
 
2014-06-06 01:38:57 PM  

CADMonkey79: mrshowrules: Facetious_Speciest: Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.

That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.  Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.  The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.

Just out of curiosity why does someone from Canada care so intensely about American gun laws/policy?


First, I like Americans but secondly, American policy/laws is having a direct impact on Canada.  Our economy/policies/culture is so derivative of the US it is pathetic.   You should check our equivalent NRA up here (NFA), they are following the NRA approach like a farking how-to guide.  Including releasing a letter yesterday blaming Canada's gun control laws for the murder of RCMP officers by that gun nut.
 
2014-06-06 01:43:18 PM  

Witness99: stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?

Knives aren't sexy like guns. Stop being a killjoy.


Nope. Knives are a damn lot scarier. Knives are close. They're personal. You can lash out with a knife by accident, you can pick one up in the heat of passion, but they're all about being right there. It's hard to come up with a "it just went off" excuse with a blade. Maybe, "he tripped and fell on that big ass blade" but not sixteen or seventeen times. Knives are when you absolutely, positively HAVE to see someone's lights go out, or you want things to hurt for a long while. Personal.
 
2014-06-06 01:47:14 PM  

This text is now purple: mrshowrules: Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.

[img.fark.net image 610x256]

Who's pretending? In the short run, if anything, it cost lives.


This is one of the most thorough, neutral and comprehensive studies on the subject:

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf 

With just under a decade of post-NFA deaths data now available, key
studies based on time series data have agreed that there has been a
significant fall in the number of firearm suicides in Australia since 1997.
Firearm homicides also appear to have declined substantially, though with
a smaller number of deaths per year, it is more difficult to be sure that this
change was related to the NFA. At a minimum, there is some time series
evidence against the notion that stricter gun laws have led to increases in
total homicides.
 
2014-06-06 01:51:03 PM  

mrshowrules: False again.  Less guns means less homicides.  Period.  Full-stop.  Of course it is not going to save 10,000 people per year.  What would be a relevant threshold for you?


You have yet to demonstrate this point effectively (meaning, with statistically significant data).

Less guns will of course mean less gun homicides, but it doesn't necessarily mean fewer total homicides. Case in point, in the US we have more than 2/3rds of our homicides committed without firearms. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be fewer total homicides, I'm saying that nobody knows what the real effect would be. The lack of a significant effect doesn't mean anything either, because as you point out these policy decisions can take a long time to have broad-scale effect.

What threshold I think is acceptable doesn't matter here, because so far I have yet to see a statistically significant decline in the overall homicide rate of a country that has enacted a gun ban. Furthermore, I don't make policy decisions based on "If it saves X number of people's lives, then we should do it!"

The US is a country with 315,000,000 people, with an annual death rate of about 2,500,000. It would be great if we could save 1000 lives for free and for no inconvenience to the other 315,000,000 people who survive them, but that's not how policy works in the real world.
 
2014-06-06 02:00:20 PM  

menschenfresser: CADMonkey79: mrshowrules: Facetious_Speciest: Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.

That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.  Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.  The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.

Just out of curiosity why does someone from Canada care so intensely about American gun laws/policy?

Well there's a lot of cultural "bleed" due to both proximity and a large degree of shared culture in general. Maybe that's why.

It's also possible that it's just an interesting philosophical debate for people in a cerebral sense.


In a gun control thread?  Started the weekend a little early eh?
 
2014-06-06 02:02:36 PM  

Witness99: stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?

Knives aren't sexy like guns. Stop being a killjoy.


take it back!

i1207.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-06 02:06:07 PM  

mrshowrules: This is one of the most thorough, neutral and comprehensive studies on the subject:

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf


"neutral and comprehensive"

1) Random low-ranked journal
2) Doesn't give numbers for gun homicides
3) Disclaims multiple other studies finding different results

Stopped reading there.
 
2014-06-06 02:08:45 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: False again.  Less guns means less homicides.  Period.  Full-stop.  Of course it is not going to save 10,000 people per year.  What would be a relevant threshold for you?

You have yet to demonstrate this point effectively (meaning, with statistically significant data).

Less guns will of course mean less gun homicides, but it doesn't necessarily mean fewer total homicides. Case in point, in the US we have more than 2/3rds of our homicides committed without firearms. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be fewer total homicides, I'm saying that nobody knows what the real effect would be. The lack of a significant effect doesn't mean anything either, because as you point out these policy decisions can take a long time to have broad-scale effect.

What threshold I think is acceptable doesn't matter here, because so far I have yet to see a statistically significant decline in the overall homicide rate of a country that has enacted a gun ban. Furthermore, I don't make policy decisions based on "If it saves X number of people's lives, then we should do it!"

The US is a country with 315,000,000 people, with an annual death rate of about 2,500,000. It would be great if we could save 1000 lives for free and for no inconvenience to the other 315,000,000 people who survive them, but that's not how policy works in the real world.


It would be nice if the GOP didn't block CDC from officially looking at homicide and gun violence epidemically.  However, failing that, this is the largest study of its kind and spanning the most years.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?jo ur nalCode=ajph

The conclusions are summarized in many articles but basically more guns, more murders.

Free Republic's summary here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3066226/posts
 
2014-06-06 02:11:55 PM  

stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?


It's like...I know this sounds crazy but...the anti-gun nuts are crying and whining because a gun wasn't involved.


assets.nydailynews.com
 
2014-06-06 02:20:04 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: False again.  Less guns means less homicides.  Period.  Full-stop.  Of course it is not going to save 10,000 people per year.  What would be a relevant threshold for you?

You have yet to demonstrate this point effectively (meaning, with statistically significant data).

Less guns will of course mean less gun homicides, but it doesn't necessarily mean fewer total homicides. Case in point, in the US we have more than 2/3rds of our homicides committed without firearms. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be fewer total homicides, I'm saying that nobody knows what the real effect would be. The lack of a significant effect doesn't mean anything either, because as you point out these policy decisions can take a long time to have broad-scale effect.

What threshold I think is acceptable doesn't matter here, because so far I have yet to see a statistically significant decline in the overall homicide rate of a country that has enacted a gun ban. Furthermore, I don't make policy decisions based on "If it saves X number of people's lives, then we should do it!"

The US is a country with 315,000,000 people, with an annual death rate of about 2,500,000. It would be great if we could save 1000 lives for free and for no inconvenience to the other 315,000,000 people who survive them, but that's not how policy works in the real world.


Honestly, in any fark gun thread or even in the real life, have you ever seen anyone post or offer up a policy idea/law that not only would have a significant impact (prevent mass shootings) but also ever have a chance of actually be passed into law?
 
2014-06-06 02:25:14 PM  
I just wanted to pop in and say that  mrshowrules is doing yeoman's work. Keep it up, bud.
 
2014-06-06 02:26:44 PM  

John Buck 41: stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?

It's like...I know this sounds crazy but...the anti-gun nuts are crying and whining because a gun wasn't involved.
[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x414]


I guess that's how a really stupid person might read it.
 
2014-06-06 02:27:44 PM  
If we really want the murder rate rate to go down (no matter what sort of weapon is used), then we should all stop being the kind of people who could murder someone.
 
2014-06-06 02:31:03 PM  

msqualia: John Buck 41: stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?

It's like...I know this sounds crazy but...the anti-gun nuts are crying and whining because a gun wasn't involved.
[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x414]

I guess that's how a really stupid person might read it.


You're not getting that vibe?
 
2014-06-06 02:33:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I just wanted to pop in and say that  mrshowrules is doing yeoman's work. Keep it up, bud.


mrshowrules is asking Captain Kirk to sign the daily duty roster?
 
2014-06-06 02:48:40 PM  
It's about time congress gets off it's ass and does something about these mass stabbings.  You know EXACTLY what I mean.  Time to ban knives.

NOT ONE MORE!!!

NOT ONE MORE!!!

NOT ONE MORE!!!

NOT ONE MORE!!!
 
2014-06-06 02:50:36 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-06 03:03:35 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: This is one of the most thorough, neutral and comprehensive studies on the subject:

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

"neutral and comprehensive"

1) Random low-ranked journal
2) Doesn't give numbers for gun homicides
3) Disclaims multiple other studies finding different results

Stopped reading there.


Disclaims?  WTF "disclaims" mean?

Anyways.  Do you have a better study, I'd be happy to look at it.
 
2014-06-06 03:06:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I just wanted to pop in and say that  mrshowrules is doing yeoman's work. Keep it up, bud.


Thank you.  Had to look up your reference and I like it.

/lifts head a bit higher
 
2014-06-06 03:07:31 PM  

BeerLion: [i.imgur.com image 850x248]


In your mind what does this demonstrate?
 
2014-06-06 03:16:30 PM  
2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1
 
2014-06-06 03:30:33 PM  

mrshowrules: Disclaims?  WTF "disclaims" mean?


Disclaim - verb - refuse to acknowledge; deny

They say in their intro that there are several other studies of the Australian gun buyback that found no significant correlation between the policy and the homicide rate, but this particular paper claims to have a better statistical method that does find some difference.

I'm not buying it.
 
2014-06-06 03:41:59 PM  

verbaltoxin: Okay, people, "BSAB" can be marked on your Fark bingo cards.


No, I'm saying anyone who uses a tragedy to advance a political agenda needs to be taken out to the woodshed and whooped.
 
2014-06-06 03:42:41 PM  
I know how to get Government off our backs.
Get the private sector out of the public sector.
 
2014-06-06 03:43:08 PM  

mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1


d) assault rifle, pepper gas bombs, explosives, home made tire spikes, one deputy shot in leg, shooter pining for the fjords

/it's on CNN, can't believe it's not on Fark
 
2014-06-06 03:43:36 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: Disclaims?  WTF "disclaims" mean?

Disclaim - verb - refuse to acknowledge; deny

They say in their intro that there are several other studies of the Australian gun buyback that found no significant correlation between the policy and the homicide rate, but this particular paper claims to have a better statistical method that does find some difference.

I'm not buying it.


Referencing studies that have alternate findings is the opposite of refusing to acknowledge or denying?  "Disclaims" is an odd term and you are most certainly not using the term properly in this context.   Anyways, where is your citation to a superior study?
 
2014-06-06 03:48:45 PM  
As much as I want to get into an internet argument with a guy who attacks word semantics, I think I'm going to pass today.
 
2014-06-06 03:49:57 PM  

CADMonkey79: CADMonkey79: KidneyStone: I haven't seen it on Fark yet but this morning some nut job with guns and explosives was killed when he was attempting to occupy the courthouse in Cumming, Ga.  Dude was about to go Columbine.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/police-activity-around-forsyth-courthou se /ngFsZ/

That can't be true we were all just told that using a gun for defense or to stop a crime always results in your own death.


Probably why it hasn't been posted here.
 
2014-06-06 03:54:59 PM  

Fubini: As much as I want to get into an internet argument with a guy who attacks word semantics, I think I'm going to pass today.


When you use a word in exactly the opposite way it was intended, that is not semantics.  Forget the word.  Which superior study are you claiming was not acknowledged?
 
2014-06-06 05:40:38 PM  

mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1


In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?
 
2014-06-06 05:48:46 PM  

mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1


And your a) example was in Canada and it was a hunting rifle.  Case in point that stricter gun laws didn't help.

There was an elevator attack on 2 kids by a knife wielding mental health treatee stranger in New York.  You mean the press didn't cover the mass elevator knifing in New York but covered the school shooter with a shotgun?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/brooklyn-stabbing-suspect-mee ts -angry-crowd-faces-judge-for-first-time/
 
2014-06-06 06:20:16 PM  

AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?


only that in a small (non-scientifical sample), not only did guns make outcome worse, more powerful guns made outcomes worse still.  It proves nothing that shouldn't be known by common sense anyways.

static.fjcdn.com
 
2014-06-06 06:23:44 PM  

tbeatty: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

And your a) example was in Canada and it was a hunting rifle.  Case in point that stricter gun laws didn't help.

There was an elevator attack on 2 kids by a knife wielding mental health treatee stranger in New York.  You mean the press didn't cover the mass elevator knifing in New York but covered the school shooter with a shotgun?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/brooklyn-stabbing-suspect-mee ts -angry-crowd-faces-judge-for-first-time/


I wasn't aware the laws of physics worked differently in Canada.  I see you missed my disclaimer as well.

 Is your position really that a person having a mental meltdown or opting for a murder spree will have better results with a knife than a shotgun and a shotgun versus a semi-automatic rifle or hand gun?
 
2014-06-06 06:27:07 PM  

msqualia: Dimensio: According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?

Maybe the NRA should not have lobbied to outlaw the government's collecting of gun statistics so we could have a study by an organization with the means to provide accurate statistics (including the raw data, so gun advocates would have access to it).

Apparently they don't anticipate flattering statistics.


Ya mean studies like this?

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319
 
2014-06-06 06:27:45 PM  

AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?


and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..
 
2014-06-06 06:41:10 PM  

mrshowrules: When you use a word in exactly the opposite way it was intended, that is not semantics.


Oh, ok, so you get to judge the "intent" behind words now?

For one, my usage is perfectly reasonable, AND dictionary correct.

Two, someone who thinks that they are the sole arbiter of right and wrong is not worth having a debate with.
 
2014-06-06 06:54:05 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: When you use a word in exactly the opposite way it was intended, that is not semantics.

Oh, ok, so you get to judge the "intent" behind words now?

For one, my usage is perfectly reasonable, AND dictionary correct.

Two, someone who thinks that they are the sole arbiter of right and wrong is not worth having a debate with.


I didn't want to judge/guess at the intent of your words, that is why I asked you to clarify.   You are the one belabouring your use of the term.  I asked you to cite a better study on this issue, thrice now.  You know, the study that was "disclaimed".

I'm sure you think the use of your word was perfectly cromulent and let's assume you were/are correct.  What study, did the study I cite, ignore and let's discuss the relative merit of each study.
 
2014-06-06 06:54:50 PM  

mrshowrules: tbeatty: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

And your a) example was in Canada and it was a hunting rifle.  Case in point that stricter gun laws didn't help.

There was an elevator attack on 2 kids by a knife wielding mental health treatee stranger in New York.  You mean the press didn't cover the mass elevator knifing in New York but covered the school shooter with a shotgun?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/brooklyn-stabbing-suspect-mee ts -angry-crowd-faces-judge-for-first-time/

I wasn't aware the laws of physics worked differently in Canada.  I see you missed my disclaimer as well.

 Is your position really that a person having a mental meltdown or opting for a murder spree will have better results with a knife than a shotgun and a shotgun versus a semi-automatic rifle or hand gun?


Actually, if they chose to, yes.  Knife wounds to the same areas as bullets are almost always more lethal.  A firearm adds range.  But you missed the point that it is the mindset of the perpetrator.  Newton wouldn't have changed much if it was a knife or a sword as the victims were confined.  If your argument is that a scary looking assault weapon is less lethal than a regular hunting rifle, I'd agree.  The scary looking 9mm MP5 submachine gun the RCMP officer had was no match for the hunting rifle the shooter had.  A class IIIA ballistic vest would stop the MP5 but no hunting rifle large enough for, say, deer.  A ballistic vest would not stop a knife either.
 
2014-06-06 07:05:21 PM  

tbeatty: mrshowrules: tbeatty: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

And your a) example was in Canada and it was a hunting rifle.  Case in point that stricter gun laws didn't help.

There was an elevator attack on 2 kids by a knife wielding mental health treatee stranger in New York.  You mean the press didn't cover the mass elevator knifing in New York but covered the school shooter with a shotgun?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/brooklyn-stabbing-suspect-mee ts -angry-crowd-faces-judge-for-first-time/

I wasn't aware the laws of physics worked differently in Canada.  I see you missed my disclaimer as well.

 Is your position really that a person having a mental meltdown or opting for a murder spree will have better results with a knife than a shotgun and a shotgun versus a semi-automatic rifle or hand gun?

Actually, if they chose to, yes.  Knife wounds to the same areas as bullets are almost always more lethal.  A firearm adds range.  But you missed the point that it is the mindset of the perpetrator.  Newton wouldn't have changed much if it was a knife or a sword as the victims were confined. If your argument is that a scary looking assault weapon is less lethal than a regular hunting rifle, I'd agree.  The scary looking 9mm MP5 submachine gun the RCMP officer had was no match for the hunting rifle the shooter had.  A class IIIA ballistic vest would stop the MP5 but no hunting rifle large enough for, say, deer.  A ballistic vest would not stop a knife either.


That bolded part is the your new favourite label.  Congrats.
 
2014-06-06 07:44:26 PM  
mrshowrules:
That bolded part is the your new favourite label.  Congrats.

That's okay.  Yours is dipshiat.
 
2014-06-06 08:38:55 PM  

mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..


58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.
 
2014-06-06 08:59:50 PM  

mrshowrules: tbeatty: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

And your a) example was in Canada and it was a hunting rifle.  Case in point that stricter gun laws didn't help.

There was an elevator attack on 2 kids by a knife wielding mental health treatee stranger in New York.  You mean the press didn't cover the mass elevator knifing in New York but covered the school shooter with a shotgun?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/brooklyn-stabbing-suspect-mee ts -angry-crowd-faces-judge-for-first-time/

I wasn't aware the laws of physics worked differently in Canada.  I see you missed my disclaimer as well.

 Is your position really that a person having a mental meltdown or opting for a murder spree will have better results with a knife than a shotgun and a shotgun versus a semi-automatic rifle or hand gun?


Depending on when and where they wanted to go, yeah, a knife might be better. Guns are loud. They're noisy. They smell a lot. They put fear up in the air. A knife? Sort of quiet. I decided to go off at work, I can guarantee at least three to four deaths in the kitchen before anyone is even aware that there's a problem. Heck, I could probably bag our bartender and a couple of stool sitters while they wonder what the commotion in the back is about, and get the keys to her bike and be out the back while everyone runs for the front. Circle the block, and then there's a whole 'nother restaurant of rubberneckers to pop before they know what's going on. A dash through the parking lot, and through the bushes, and to another bike, and I'm vapor in the wind. Mind you, that is the sort of murder spree that is usually involved with far more ritualistic elements, because a knife is close up. It means you REALLY have to want it. Most folks who go that route, they're far more careful. It's called less a "murder spree" than "serial killing" and oddly enough, the folks who go that route are often fair successful for a long, long, long time. You want to kill a lot of people? Guns are for the amateurs and wannabes who NEED the attention, at least in the murder sense.

So, if we really want to breed a better class of killer, let's take the guns away, and force folks to plan their murder sprees better. Maybe take up an axe like in the Villisca case--which yielded 8 dead, including six children. Then there's the 1993 Greenough Family massacre. The Kumundini Axe Massacre in '85--that was 23 folks, and not a shot expended. Elifasi Msomi fit the serial killer motif with 15 axe kills in '55. Victor Licata inspired the whole Reefer Madness thing with his own kills, which were attributed to weed. Well, and the axe he chopped his family up with. The Axeman of New Orleans bagged 8, usually with an axe that the victims owned. For simple snaps, there's also the Meeks Family murders, though one daughter did escape. Austin had the Servant Girl Annihilator. There's also the Mary Russel murders, where the ship's captain snapped and carved up his crew with an axe and a crowbar, but that was in the 1800s, and let's face it shot and ball at the time weren't so easy to roll out and just massacre folks with. Then there's 2010's oseph Ntshongwana who hacked up four men, and wounded a fourth, but that was in retaliation for the gang rape and HIV infection of his daughter, so maybe that's not so much "snapping" as going Old Skool. There are plenty of examples of folks just cold rolling and massacring folks without the aid of guns. Rawanda anyone? Lots of machetes and ill will to go around there. You take guns away, or make them more difficult to get, without actually addressing the reasons that folks snap, you're not really going to stop folks from the ill will or the desire to kill. We can force them to get up close, personal, and maybe get a taste for it.

Or we can maybe focus on the reasons folks snap like this in the first place, and deal with that. But, hey, I'm a dreamer I guess.
 
2014-06-06 09:31:01 PM  

MFK: Giltric: MFK: Giltric: Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.

Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.

yeah yeah, Giltric, we know. You have a gun fetish and will go to great lengths to minimize all of the killings that happen just so you can continue to fondle your firearms.

Well if it is such a violent world out there with mass shooting happening every time someone blinks then why would you want to disarm me? By the rhetoric that gets spouted by the gun control types you just further reinforce that I need a gun.

you don't "need" a gun. You "want" them. You "covet" them. You really really "love" them. But you don't "need" one.


Umm, the copperhead I killed in the yard yesterday begs to differ.
 
2014-06-06 09:32:01 PM  

AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.


And lets not kid ouselves.  At those "death by guns tragicomedies" where they read the names, Tamerlan Tsarnaev  was somberly listed as a victim of gun violence.  Nevermind, he just bombed the Boston Marathon, killed a police officer and got in a shootout with police leaving him dead.  Not all deaths are equal.or evil.
 
2014-06-06 09:33:00 PM  

AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.


Actually not.  I'm including suicides in total people shot to death.  You brought up a self inflicted illness so apples to apples.
 
2014-06-06 11:12:32 PM  

mrshowrules: only that in a small (non-scientifical sample), not only did guns make outcome worse, more powerful guns made outcomes worse still. It proves nothing that shouldn't be known by common sense anyways.


Compare Firearms to any and all other weapons. How do the numbers match? Setting guns against things not meant to kill like cars, doctors, toothbrushes, Soda and thumbtacks really doesn't compare well. How do guns match up against other weapons like crossbows, bows, swords, pikes and maces? I'm betting they come out WAY ahead do to efficiency of use and speed of re-use.
 
2014-06-06 11:17:32 PM  
I bet it was a Glock.
www.coltelleriacollini.it
 
2014-06-07 01:27:37 AM  

mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.

Actually not.  I'm including suicides in total people shot to death.  You brought up a self inflicted illness so apples to apples.


So suicide would be cured by gun removal?  Have you noticed that the suicide kits don't include firearms?
 
2014-06-07 01:46:48 AM  

This text is now purple: uttertosh: Dimensio: England:

that spike was from ONE soccer match. ONE. And that was only because there wasn't anyone with a gun to stop the fisticuffs.

And to be fair here, fisticuffs is kind of a dangerous game to play at the best of times, and englanders know how to fisticuffs pretty good, so it was only a matter of time after the ban on guns that a spike in homersides from 'other' would happen.

/your 'spike' is a matter of 5, which is kindof a shyte 'spike' by anyone's measure.

That spike (18/1,000,000 vs 11.5/1,000,000) in a nation of 53 million people is a difference of 325 murders per year.


like I said, ONE soccer match.
 
2014-06-07 06:57:08 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: mrshowrules: only that in a small (non-scientifical sample), not only did guns make outcome worse, more powerful guns made outcomes worse still. It proves nothing that shouldn't be known by common sense anyways.

Compare Firearms to any and all other weapons. How do the numbers match? Setting guns against things not meant to kill like cars, doctors, toothbrushes, Soda and thumbtacks really doesn't compare well. How do guns match up against other weapons like crossbows, bows, swords, pikes and maces? I'm betting they come out WAY ahead do to efficiency of use and speed of re-use.


The only thing that outpaces guns are cars.  Cars are necessary to society.  Guns (or at least many types of guns) are only necessary to hobbyists who like to pretend they are soldiers.
 
2014-06-07 07:01:39 AM  

tbeatty: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.

Actually not.  I'm including suicides in total people shot to death.  You brought up a self inflicted illness so apples to apples.

So suicide would be cured by gun removal?  Have you noticed that the suicide kits don't include firearms?


Just if you are going to mention smoking related death stats, you cannot in fairness compare that to homicides in which the victim had no say in the matter.   Apples to apples, homicides to homicides and accidents to accidents is a better comparison.  I prefer to focus on homicides.  More guns more suicides as per the study I cited earlier.
 
2014-06-07 07:02:36 AM  

mrshowrules: tbeatty: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.

Actually not.  I'm including suicides in total people shot to death.  You brought up a self inflicted illness so apples to apples.

So suicide would be cured by gun removal?  Have you noticed that the suicide kits don't include firearms?

Just if you are going to mention smoking related death stats, you cannot in fairness compare that to homicides in which the victim had no say in the matter.   Apples to apples, homicides to homicides and accidents to accidents is a better comparison.  I prefer to focus on homicides.  More guns more suicides homicides as per the study I cited earlier.

 
Correction
 
2014-06-07 01:52:39 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-06-07 03:22:14 PM  

mrshowrules: mrshowrules: tbeatty: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.

Actually not.  I'm including suicides in total people shot to death.  You brought up a self inflicted illness so apples to apples.

So suicide would be cured by gun removal?  Have you noticed that the suicide kits don't include firearms?

Just if you are going to mention smoking related death stats, you cannot in fairness compare that to homicides in which the victim had no say in the matter.   Apples to apples, homicides to homicides and accidents to accidents is a better comparison.  I prefer to focus on homicides.  More guns more suicides homicides as per the study I cited earlier.
 
Correction


Funny, because gun ownership is going up while gun deaths are going down.  In every category.  Look at age adjusted death rates.  Look at firearms.  Then a lot of other causes.  There's a better CDC report that breaks it down by age.  Accidental deaths below age 14 are practically non-existent for firearms.    Suicides rate is rather steady.  homicide rate is declining.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
 
Displayed 494 of 494 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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