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
    More: News, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth  
•       •       •

6858 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jun 2014 at 9:30 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 485 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report