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 77
    More: News, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth  
•       •       •

6788 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jun 2014 at 9:30 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-06-06 09:38:04 AM  
6 votes:
The "Days Without a Mass Shooting in the USA" meter is just blinking "12:00" now.
2014-06-06 09:39:44 AM  
5 votes:

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 09:59:43 AM  
4 votes:

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 09:35:45 AM  
3 votes:
They should put up signs that say "No shooting rampages allowed here".  That'll stop 'em.
2014-06-06 09:35:19 AM  
3 votes:
Jesus, crazy people, have some dignity and just jump off a bridge or something.
2014-06-06 10:09:22 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:08:46 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:06:48 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:51:26 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:48:13 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:39:48 AM  
2 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-06-06 09:33:08 AM  
2 votes:
2014-06-06 09:32:33 AM  
2 votes:
dilbert.com
2014-06-06 09:32:21 AM  
2 votes:
Jesus H farking Christ, what the fark is going on out there?
2014-06-07 06:57:08 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-06-06 01:37:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:33:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:14:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:10:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:49:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:25:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:28:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:21:32 AM  
1 votes:
...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 11:18:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:02:03 AM  
1 votes:

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


pure bullshiat
2014-06-06 10:59:34 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:49:41 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:36:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:35:09 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:28:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:40 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:26:38 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:25:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:25:35 AM  
1 votes:
Holy crap a knife? How many dead? Hundreds?
2014-06-06 10:23:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:23:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:23:36 AM  
1 votes:

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


Are you stupid?  You sound stupid.
2014-06-06 10:23:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:22:51 AM  
1 votes:
ITT: Liberals pissed off that no one was shot.
2014-06-06 10:20:23 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:11:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:11:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:10:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:10:15 AM  
1 votes:
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.
MFK
2014-06-06 10:07:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:02:03 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:01:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:00:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:59:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:57:54 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:55:24 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:55:10 AM  
1 votes:

youmightberight: So no gun just a knife.


Ah.  British style then.
2014-06-06 09:53:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:53:20 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:52:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:51:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:51:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:47:47 AM  
1 votes:
It's ok, were overpopulated anyway.
2014-06-06 09:46:03 AM  
1 votes:
Sigh. I'm almost completely desensitized to this.
2014-06-06 09:42:30 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:42:10 AM  
1 votes:
Why don't we save the News Flash tag for when a week goes by without a mass shooting.
2014-06-06 09:40:46 AM  
1 votes:
well it is a day that ends in Y so its not really surprising..
2014-06-06 09:40:21 AM  
1 votes:
At least it's at a medical center.  Any victims will immediately be put on the waiting list.
2014-06-06 09:39:32 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:39:29 AM  
1 votes:
That close to DC? That's some Bourne Identity shiat going down.
2014-06-06 09:39:16 AM  
1 votes:
NOT. THIS. shiat. AGAIN.   Or, different day, same bullshiat.
2014-06-06 09:38:17 AM  
1 votes:
Relax, it's not a shooting.
2014-06-06 09:37:54 AM  
1 votes:
Damn, I used to live on Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth.
2014-06-06 09:37:47 AM  
1 votes:
Reports are that someone got all stabby instead.

BAN ALL KNIVES!!1!
2014-06-06 09:37:11 AM  
1 votes:
My money's on PTSD case who stopped taking his meds
2014-06-06 09:37:09 AM  
1 votes:
I'll just put this here.

www.mindhuestudio.com
2014-06-06 09:37:07 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:36:48 AM  
1 votes:
That's 3 in a row! Go for one more!


/Worst game of Connect 4 ever....
2014-06-06 09:35:55 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:34:28 AM  
1 votes:
Stop it, whitey.
2014-06-06 09:33:17 AM  
1 votes:
I'm sorry, there's a 40-day waiting list for shooting on a Federal medical facility.
 
Displayed 77 of 77 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report