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.

(Sydney Morning Herald)   Booze kills roughly three times as many people per year than guns. When will it be time to have a discussion about high capacity pint glasses and assault bourbons?   ( smh.com.au) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

3326 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2014 at 12:34 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2014-06-27 12:29:29 PM  

stan unusual: thefatbasturd: stan unusual: Let's have the discussion when distillers start optimizing their product for its lethality or its knock down power and sell it to us as a means of defending our homes against the government's "jack booted thugs" or home invaders.  Until then, just STFU.

Or, you know, optimizing their product to make you farked up stupid and a danger to others all the while selling it to us as a refreshing way to relax.

Alcohol doesn't just jump in  your mouth- it's an inanimate object. Don't blame the alcohol gun, blame the alcoholic shooter.  It's not alcohol gun that's the problem, it's mentally ill people with alcohol that are the problem.  Regulations on alcohol violate my Twenty-first Amendment rights.  Liquor licenses are the first step towards prohibition. Obama is coming for your alcohol.  Everclear- get your man card back. When Alcohol is outlawed only outlaws will have alcohol.

One shot of alcohol won't  kill you, but one shot from a gun can.  No one formulates their alcoholic beverage with an eye to insuring it will kill you or anyone else.  Get it now?


Welcome to the gun rights side.  Get it now?

\21st Amendment has nothing to do with you having a right to drink or even purchase alcohol.
 
2014-06-27 12:30:49 PM  

John Buck 41: Is this a gun thread? A booze thread? Both? Cool!


BATF: my kind of store!
(especially when the 'B' stands for Bewbies!)
 
2014-06-27 12:33:42 PM  

HeadLever: TuteTibiImperes: Turn off the gushing fountain of guns and eventually the supply of illicit guns will dry up.

Better repeal the Second Amendment first.  Good luck with that.


Gun nuts are making that easier and easier.
 
2014-06-27 12:44:59 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: pueblonative: I even hear that there is this new type of weapon. One that can project these hard metel objects called bullets. You don't think that will catch on, do you? Oh shiat i think I need another trip to the store.

I wonder why the gun stores don't have intimidating bouncers at the door, but alcohol establishments regularly employ them.

It's almost as if the people who sell booze associate it with violence and have to be prepared for it.


Never been to a pawn brokerage have you?
 
2014-06-27 12:50:07 PM  

pueblonative: Gun nuts are making that easier and easier.


You say that, but what was you latest successful gun control legislation on the federal level?  From the sound of your post, you should be passing legislation right an left. I'll be waiting right here for your response.
 
2014-06-27 12:52:37 PM  

HeadLever: stan unusual: Get it now?

That you are good at false equivalencies?  Yep.  Clear as Everclear (before you slam it).


All the false equivalences were NRA slogans with alcohol substituted for guns.  That you cannot admit the logically fallacies involved speaks volumes.
 
2014-06-27 12:53:08 PM  

HeadLever: pueblonative: Gun nuts are making that easier and easier.

You say that, but what was you latest successful gun control legislation on the federal level?  From the sound of your post, you should be passing legislation right an left. I'll be waiting right here for your response.


You mean moderated legislation that seeks to stem bad actors and make the industry more accountable as to a full on gun ban because the other side keeps refusing to compromise?  I wish I was.  And with the way you keep throwing temper tantrums, it's a matter of time before you wish you were too.
 
2014-06-27 12:57:02 PM  

deadlyplatypus: stan unusual: thefatbasturd: stan unusual: Let's have the discussion when distillers start optimizing their product for its lethality or its knock down power and sell it to us as a means of defending our homes against the government's "jack booted thugs" or home invaders.  Until then, just STFU.

Or, you know, optimizing their product to make you farked up stupid and a danger to others all the while selling it to us as a refreshing way to relax.

Alcohol doesn't just jump in  your mouth- it's an inanimate object. Don't blame the alcohol gun, blame the alcoholic shooter.  It's not alcohol gun that's the problem, it's mentally ill people with alcohol that are the problem.  Regulations on alcohol violate my Twenty-first Amendment rights.  Liquor licenses are the first step towards prohibition. Obama is coming for your alcohol.  Everclear- get your man card back. When Alcohol is outlawed only outlaws will have alcohol.

One shot of alcohol won't  kill you, but one shot from a gun can.  No one formulates their alcoholic beverage with an eye to insuring it will kill you or anyone else.  Get it now?

Welcome to the gun rights side.  Get it now?

\21st Amendment has nothing to do with you having a right to drink or even purchase alcohol.


You're a farking moron.  Everyone of those statements is false but when we substitute gun for alcohol in your little mind they magically become true and I've come over to the gun rights side. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with concealed weapons.  Psychiatrists have a name for your sort of thinking- they call it delusional.
 
2014-06-27 12:59:03 PM  

stan unusual: All the false equivalences were NRA slogans with alcohol substituted for guns


Since alcohol and guns have vastly different uses and characteristics, there is an inherent incongruence in trying to equate the two.  Hence - false equivalence.

That you cannot admit the logically fallacies involved speaks volumes.

If you want to speak to the logical fallacy of the NRA slogans, then you should refrain from using fallacies of your own. If you can do that, then you may actually sway someone that approaches such things in an intellectually honest fashion.
 
2014-06-27 01:00:08 PM  

stan unusual: deadlyplatypus: stan unusual: thefatbasturd: stan unusual: Let's have the discussion when distillers start optimizing their product for its lethality or its knock down power and sell it to us as a means of defending our homes against the government's "jack booted thugs" or home invaders.  Until then, just STFU.

Or, you know, optimizing their product to make you farked up stupid and a danger to others all the while selling it to us as a refreshing way to relax.

Alcohol doesn't just jump in  your mouth- it's an inanimate object. Don't blame the alcohol gun, blame the alcoholic shooter.  It's not alcohol gun that's the problem, it's mentally ill people with alcohol that are the problem.  Regulations on alcohol violate my Twenty-first Amendment rights.  Liquor licenses are the first step towards prohibition. Obama is coming for your alcohol.  Everclear- get your man card back. When Alcohol is outlawed only outlaws will have alcohol.

One shot of alcohol won't  kill you, but one shot from a gun can.  No one formulates their alcoholic beverage with an eye to insuring it will kill you or anyone else.  Get it now?

Welcome to the gun rights side.  Get it now?

\21st Amendment has nothing to do with you having a right to drink or even purchase alcohol.

You're a farking moron.  Everyone of those statements is false but when we substitute gun for alcohol in your little mind they magically become true and I've come over to the gun rights side. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with concealed weapons.  Psychiatrists have a name for your sort of thinking- they call it delusional.


I'lll make you a bet- you put your gun in your mouth and take a shot. I'll put a shot f alcohol in my mouth for each one.  The winner is the last one alive.
 
2014-06-27 01:02:43 PM  

HeadLever: stan unusual: All the false equivalences were NRA slogans with alcohol substituted for guns

Since alcohol and guns have vastly different uses and characteristics, there is an inherent incongruence in trying to equate the two.  Hence - false equivalence.

That you cannot admit the logically fallacies involved speaks volumes.

If you want to speak to the logical fallacy of the NRA slogans, then you should refrain from using fallacies of your own. If you can do that, then you may actually sway someone that approaches such things in an intellectually honest fashion.


You are welcome to take the bet I proposed to deadplatypus.
 
2014-06-27 01:04:47 PM  

pueblonative: You mean moderated legislation that seeks to stem bad actors and make the industry more accountable as to a full on gun ban because the other side keeps refusing to compromise?


But you said this was getting easier and easier. Where are the results from 'us' making this easy for 'you'. Or are you lying about something? Again, you did not answer my question.  I'll post it again, in case you mis-read it the first time -what was you latest successful gun control legislation on the federal level?

It's a simple question.  Let's see if you have the intellectual honesty to directly answer.

I wish I was.

You wish you were what?
 
2014-06-27 01:07:05 PM  

stan unusual: You are welcome to take the bet I proposed to deadplatypus


Sure, I'll use this one.

www.goldenideal.com
 
2014-06-27 01:09:40 PM  

HeadLever: stan unusual: You are welcome to take the bet I proposed to deadplatypus

Sure, I'll use this one.

[www.goldenideal.com image 850x732]


That's not a gun.  Let me laugh harder.
 
2014-06-27 01:12:26 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: thefatbasturd: TuteTibiImperes: moeburn:

But again, if I had to go to the states, a handgun would be the first thing on my list of necessities, because you're all farking nuts and I don't trust any of you.

Unfortunately that thought process is what's responsible for the sky-high rates of gun violence in the US.  The data is pretty clear that nations with more gun restrictions, less access to guns, and fewer guns on the streets have much lower rates of gun violence.  The US leads the developed world in both firearms per capita and gun deaths per capita.  Looking at the data compared to other developed nations the relationship is almost linear - we have about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland, and a little over twice as many gun deaths per capita.  We have a little over 3x the guns per capita of France, and about 3x the per capita gun deaths.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that someone has to be monumentally thick not to get it - reduce the number of guns, and we'll reduce the number of gun deaths.

Most people have no problem taking guns from criminals, but they cling to their own vociferously.  They don't seem to get the connection that to make the entire country a safer place that they need to be willing to let their guns go.

You don't need a handgun in the US, you really don't need any gun, but I'd be willing to make exceptions for basic rifles and shotguns for hui hunters and those that choose to live out in the boonies where wild animal attacks could be an issue.  I've lived my entire life without owning a gun, and I've never been in a position where I've wished I had one.  Of my circle of friends none own guns, and none have ever needed one.

We can solve the problem, we just need to admit to ourselves that the world isn't such a scary place and that there's no reason for most of us to have guns.

You tell me how you plan to use a law/laws to take the guns from the criminals who by definition have no broblem ignoring laws and maybe we'll talk.

Turn off the gushing fountain of guns and eventually the supply of illicit guns will dry up. That means that hand guns, assault weapons, and most gun shops need to go.  It means that law abiding citizens will have to turn in most of their weapons as well (I'd support reimbursement for fair market value).

When the guns have been greatly reduced the guns criminals use will be taken away when they're found.  Over time the criminals' guns will be almost entirely taken away, and with the supply of guns in general greatly constricted they won't be able to easily replace them.


So we just disarm the millions of responsible gun owners for YEARS while letting the small minority of peoe who an to use guns AGAINST them stay fully armed? BRILLIANT!!!!!! I am all for it...
 
2014-06-27 01:13:06 PM  

stan unusual: That's not a gun.


Darn, you noticed.
 
2014-06-27 01:16:08 PM  

stan unusual: thefatbasturd: stan unusual: Let's have the discussion when distillers start optimizing their product for its lethality or its knock down power and sell it to us as a means of defending our homes against the government's "jack booted thugs" or home invaders.  Until then, just STFU.

Or, you know, optimizing their product to make you farked up stupid and a danger to others all the while selling it to us as a refreshing way to relax.

Alcohol doesn't just jump in  your mouth- it's an inanimate object. Don't blame the alcohol, blame the alcoholic.  It's not alcohol that's the problem, it's mentally ill people with alcohol that are the problem.  Regulations on alcohol violate my Twenty-first Amendment rights.  Liquor licenses are the first step towards prohibition. Obama is coming for your alcohol.  Everclear- get your man card back. When Alcohol is outlawed only outlaws will have alcohol.

One shot of alcohol won't  kill you, but one shot from a gun can.  No one formulates their alcoholic beverage with an eye to insuring it will kill you or anyone else.  Get it now?


Oh I get it. But hey DO formulate it to make it much more tempting to do one MORE... then one more... and so on until you are farked up beyond reason and a danger to yourself and others. GET IT NOW?
 
2014-06-27 01:18:28 PM  

stan unusual: deadlyplatypus: stan unusual: thefatbasturd: stan unusual: Let's have the discussion when distillers start optimizing their product for its lethality or its knock down power and sell it to us as a means of defending our homes against the government's "jack booted thugs" or home invaders.  Until then, just STFU.

Or, you know, optimizing their product to make you farked up stupid and a danger to others all the while selling it to us as a refreshing way to relax.

Alcohol doesn't just jump in  your mouth- it's an inanimate object. Don't blame the alcohol gun, blame the alcoholic shooter.  It's not alcohol gun that's the problem, it's mentally ill people with alcohol that are the problem.  Regulations on alcohol violate my Twenty-first Amendment rights.  Liquor licenses are the first step towards prohibition. Obama is coming for your alcohol.  Everclear- get your man card back. When Alcohol is outlawed only outlaws will have alcohol.

One shot of alcohol won't  kill you, but one shot from a gun can.  No one formulates their alcoholic beverage with an eye to insuring it will kill you or anyone else.  Get it now?

Welcome to the gun rights side.  Get it now?

\21st Amendment has nothing to do with you having a right to drink or even purchase alcohol.

You're a farking moron.  Everyone of those statements is false but when we substitute gun for alcohol in your little mind they magically become true and I've come over to the gun rights side. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with concealed weapons.  Psychiatrists have a name for your sort of thinking- they call it delusional.


easy there killer.  You honestly believe the the gun/alcohol/car decides to kill people and then makes it happen?  Talk about delusional.  You assign human qualities and intent to things that CAN'T think.  You're wrong, the 2nd Amendment covers bearing arms in ANY capacity, unless you can show how it DOESN'T also apply to concealed weapons.

\your delusions are ABSOLUTELY proven by you claiming the bolded statement is false.

\\ explain how alcohol is an animate object.

\\\ won't resort to calling names like you....get it together man
 
2014-06-27 01:24:10 PM  

deadlyplatypus: stan unusual: thefatbasturd: stan unusual: Let's have the discussion when distillers start optimizing their product for its lethality or its knock down power and sell it to us as a means of defending our homes against the government's "jack booted thugs" or home invaders.  Until then, just STFU.

Or, you know, optimizing their product to make you farked up stupid and a danger to others all the while selling it to us as a refreshing way to relax.

Alcohol doesn't just jump in  your mouth- it's an inanimate object. Don't blame the alcohol gun, blame the alcoholic shooter.  It's not alcohol gun that's the problem, it's mentally ill people with alcohol that are the problem.  Regulations on alcohol violate my Twenty-first Amendment rights.  Liquor licenses are the first step towards prohibition. Obama is coming for your alcohol.  Everclear- get your man card back. When Alcohol is outlawed only outlaws will have alcohol.

One shot of alcohol won't  kill you, but one shot from a gun can.  No one formulates their alcoholic beverage with an eye to insuring it will kill you or anyone else.  Get it now?

Welcome to the gun rights side.  Get it now?

\21st Amendment has nothing to do with you having a right to drink or even purchase alcohol.


Exactly. Prohibition and the repeal of it had NOTHING to do with you using alcohol. It prohibited the manufacture and importof alcohol.
 
2014-06-27 01:31:00 PM  

deadlyplatypus: stan unusual: deadlyplatypus: stan unusual: thefatbasturd: stan unusual: Let's have the discussion when distillers start optimizing their product for its lethality or its knock down power and sell it to us as a means of defending our homes against the government's "jack booted thugs" or home invaders.  Until then, just STFU.

Or, you know, optimizing their product to make you farked up stupid and a danger to others all the while selling it to us as a refreshing way to relax.

Alcohol doesn't just jump in  your mouth- it's an inanimate object. Don't blame the alcohol gun, blame the alcoholic shooter.  It's not alcohol gun that's the problem, it's mentally ill people with alcohol that are the problem.  Regulations on alcohol violate my Twenty-first Amendment rights.  Liquor licenses are the first step towards prohibition. Obama is coming for your alcohol.  Everclear- get your man card back. When Alcohol is outlawed only outlaws will have alcohol.

One shot of alcohol won't  kill you, but one shot from a gun can.  No one formulates their alcoholic beverage with an eye to insuring it will kill you or anyone else.  Get it now?

Welcome to the gun rights side.  Get it now?

\21st Amendment has nothing to do with you having a right to drink or even purchase alcohol.

You're a farking moron.  Everyone of those statements is false but when we substitute gun for alcohol in your little mind they magically become true and I've come over to the gun rights side. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with concealed weapons.  Psychiatrists have a name for your sort of thinking- they call it delusional.

easy there killer.  You honestly believe the the gun/alcohol/car decides to kill people and then makes it happen?  Talk about delusional.  You assign human qualities and intent to things that CAN'T think.  You're wrong, the 2nd Amendment covers bearing arms in ANY capacity, unless you can show how it DOESN'T also apply to concealed weapons.

\your delusions are ABSOLUTELY proven by ...


You read Swift's  A Modest Proposal as a culinary treatise, didn't you?
 
2014-06-27 01:34:40 PM  

thefatbasturd: deadlyplatypus: stan unusual: thefatbasturd: stan unusual: Let's have the discussion when distillers start optimizing their product for its lethality or its knock down power and sell it to us as a means of defending our homes against the government's "jack booted thugs" or home invaders.  Until then, just STFU.

Or, you know, optimizing their product to make you farked up stupid and a danger to others all the while selling it to us as a refreshing way to relax.

Alcohol doesn't just jump in  your mouth- it's an inanimate object. Don't blame the alcohol gun, blame the alcoholic shooter.  It's not alcohol gun that's the problem, it's mentally ill people with alcohol that are the problem.  Regulations on alcohol violate my Twenty-first Amendment rights.  Liquor licenses are the first step towards prohibition. Obama is coming for your alcohol.  Everclear- get your man card back. When Alcohol is outlawed only outlaws will have alcohol.

One shot of alcohol won't  kill you, but one shot from a gun can.  No one formulates their alcoholic beverage with an eye to insuring it will kill you or anyone else.  Get it now?

Welcome to the gun rights side.  Get it now?

\21st Amendment has nothing to do with you having a right to drink or even purchase alcohol.

Exactly. Prohibition and the repeal of it had NOTHING to do with you using alcohol. It prohibited the manufacture and importof alcohol.


And the Second Amendment has nothing to do with banning concealed weapons, Nor does it ban regulation of gun sales or when and where you can possess a gun outside of your home according to DC v Heller.
 
2014-06-27 01:43:35 PM  

stan unusual: Nor does it ban regulation of gun sales or when and where you can possess a gun outside of your home according to DC v Heller.


Heller did not directly address possession of guns outside anything.  It only addressed the right as being an individual right with the standard notion that all rights are not absolute.  Per the decision, it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
 
2014-06-27 01:50:31 PM  

naughtyrev: From my cold, dead hands!


Done in 1.
 
2014-06-27 01:53:36 PM  

deadlyplatypus: stan unusual: deadlyplatypus: stan unusual: thefatbasturd: stan unusual: Let's have the discussion when distillers start optimizing their product for its lethality or its knock down power and sell it to us as a means of defending our homes against the government's "jack booted thugs" or home invaders.  Until then, just STFU.

Or, you know, optimizing their product to make you farked up stupid and a danger to others all the while selling it to us as a refreshing way to relax.

Alcohol doesn't just jump in  your mouth- it's an inanimate object. Don't blame the alcohol gun, blame the alcoholic shooter.  It's not alcohol gun that's the problem, it's mentally ill people with alcohol that are the problem.  Regulations on alcohol violate my Twenty-first Amendment rights.  Liquor licenses are the first step towards prohibition. Obama is coming for your alcohol.  Everclear- get your man card back. When Alcohol is outlawed only outlaws will have alcohol.

One shot of alcohol won't  kill you, but one shot from a gun can.  No one formulates their alcoholic beverage with an eye to insuring it will kill you or anyone else.  Get it now?

Welcome to the gun rights side.  Get it now?

\21st Amendment has nothing to do with you having a right to drink or even purchase alcohol.

You're a farking moron.  Everyone of those statements is false but when we substitute gun for alcohol in your little mind they magically become true and I've come over to the gun rights side. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with concealed weapons.  Psychiatrists have a name for your sort of thinking- they call it delusional.

easy there killer.  You honestly believe the the gun/alcohol/car decides to kill people and then makes it happen?  Talk about delusional.  You assign human qualities and intent to things that CAN'T think.  You're wrong, the 2nd Amendment covers bearing arms in ANY capacity, unless you can show how it DOESN'T also apply to concealed weapons.

\your delusions are ABSOLUTELY proven by ...


1. You miss the point regarding the problems that inanimate objects can pose and the need for regulation of them. It is a non-sequitur to claim that such regulations are dependent on assigning human qualities to them.  You
2. Concealed firearms aren't protected by the Second Amendment: Like most rights, the rights secured by the Second Amendment are not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.  For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the  Second Amendment nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) You can whine all you want, but the scope of the Second Amendment is defined by SCOTUS, not the NRA, GOA or anyone else.  When I was in law school, the accepted scope of the Second Amendment was that expressed by Justice Stevens in his dissent in Heller which I found convincing. The majority opinion written by Justice Scalia changed that and despite the fact that I don't find his argument convincing, it is the law and defines the scope of the Second Amendment and I must accept it as such.  You, the NRA and the GOA can't point to Constitutional law as requiring their desired policies and at the same time reject the legitimacy of SCOTUS rulings on the Second Amendment without being hypocrites.
 
2014-06-27 01:57:18 PM  

HeadLever: stan unusual: Nor does it ban regulation of gun sales or when and where you can possess a gun outside of your home according to DC v Heller.

Heller did not directly address possession of guns outside anything.  It only addressed the right as being an individual right with the standard notion that all rights are not absolute.  Per the decision, it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose


DC v Heller addressed only the possession of handguns inside the home under DC regulations requiring registration and trigger locks.  Registration wasn't struck down, only the trigger lock requirement and the ban on possessing operable registered weapons were.
 
2014-06-27 02:07:03 PM  

stan unusual: Registration wasn't struck down.


Registration was more dealt with on the McDonald case.
 
2014-06-27 02:43:51 PM  
Alcohol sucks. If there was any other legal self-medication I would do that instead.
 
2014-06-27 02:46:15 PM  
A few years back, my aunt (dad's side) died after having a few too many drinks at her birthday party and passing out on her back, on the bed. She suffocated on her own vomit.

My other aunt (dad's side) died after being killed by a drunk driver a year before that.

Two months ago, my uncle (mom's side) died of diabetic dehydration, caused by one too many whisky binges.

The number of family members killed by a gun: 0.
 
2014-06-27 03:09:57 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Good analogy! If only you gun nuts would "drink" yourselves to death rather than forcing your "liquor" into the brains of others.


If only you drunks would stop turning the highways into a bloodbath and causing 40% of all violent crimes maybe I would give a fark about what you have to say.
 
2014-06-27 03:20:48 PM  

stan unusual: HeadLever: stan unusual: You are welcome to take the bet I proposed to deadplatypus

Sure, I'll use this one.

[www.goldenideal.com image 850x732]

That's not a gun.  Let me laugh harder.


I'll take 30 shots with my pistol in 60 seconds. You take 30 shots of alcohol in 60 seconds.
 
2014-06-27 03:26:48 PM  

thefatbasturd: LazerFish: thefatbasturd: Yeah keep telling yourself and your brain dead friends that is the argument being made and you can ignore the actual FACTS that are really being pointed out to you.

Facts are great, but RELEVANT facts are what matter.

And the FACT that if your supposed goal is "preventing death", the numbers show that gun deaths are actually MUCH rarer than you try to make them out and that there are many things causing death at a MUCH higher rate you could spend your time working on is pretty relevant.


So,  since more people OD on pills than on heroin, heroin should be ignored?

You know people do work on those other problems too, right? The only reason the people who want gun control have to be so in-your-face is because the gun nuts are too. It's not "more guns all the time" vs "no guns ever", there is a lot of gray area between, you just never hear from those people.
 
2014-06-27 03:57:31 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: thefatbasturd: TuteTibiImperes: moeburn:

But again, if I had to go to the states, a handgun would be the first thing on my list of necessities, because you're all farking nuts and I don't trust any of you.

Unfortunately that thought process is what's responsible for the sky-high rates of gun violence in the US.  The data is pretty clear that nations with more gun restrictions, less access to guns, and fewer guns on the streets have much lower rates of gun violence.  The US leads the developed world in both firearms per capita and gun deaths per capita.  Looking at the data compared to other developed nations the relationship is almost linear - we have about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland, and a little over twice as many gun deaths per capita.  We have a little over 3x the guns per capita of France, and about 3x the per capita gun deaths.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that someone has to be monumentally thick not to get it - reduce the number of guns, and we'll reduce the number of gun deaths.

Most people have no problem taking guns from criminals, but they cling to their own vociferously.  They don't seem to get the connection that to make the entire country a safer place that they need to be willing to let their guns go.

You don't need a handgun in the US, you really don't need any gun, but I'd be willing to make exceptions for basic rifles and shotguns for hui hunters and those that choose to live out in the boonies where wild animal attacks could be an issue.  I've lived my entire life without owning a gun, and I've never been in a position where I've wished I had one.  Of my circle of friends none own guns, and none have ever needed one.

We can solve the problem, we just need to admit to ourselves that the world isn't such a scary place and that there's no reason for most of us to have guns.

You tell me how you plan to use a law/laws to take the guns from the criminals who by definition have no broblem ignoring laws and maybe we'll talk.

Turn off the gushing fountain of guns and eventually the supply of illicit guns will dry up. That means that hand guns, assault weapons, and most gun shops need to go.  It means that law abiding citizens will have to turn in most of their weapons as well (I'd support reimbursement for fair market value).

When the guns have been greatly reduced the guns criminals use will be taken away when they're found.  Over time the criminals' guns will be almost entirely taken away, and with the supply of guns in general greatly constricted they won't be able to easily replace them.


Yes. We see how gun restrictions in mexico, chicago, d.c., etc have all dried up the supply of guns in those areas.
 
2014-06-27 03:58:06 PM  

LazerFish: thefatbasturd: LazerFish: thefatbasturd: Yeah keep telling yourself and your brain dead friends that is the argument being made and you can ignore the actual FACTS that are really being pointed out to you.

Facts are great, but RELEVANT facts are what matter.

And the FACT that if your supposed goal is "preventing death", the numbers show that gun deaths are actually MUCH rarer than you try to make them out and that there are many things causing death at a MUCH higher rate you could spend your time working on is pretty relevant.

So,  since more people OD on pills than on heroin, heroin should be ignored?

You know people do work on those other problems too, right? The only reason the people who want gun control have to be so in-your-face is because the gun nuts are too. It's not "more guns all the time" vs "no guns ever", there is a lot of gray area between, you just never hear from those people.


What utter horse shiat. Because gun owners are TOTALLY screaming "more guns all the time". Because gun OWNERS start the debate and not the gun control advocates screaming "more laws! More restrictions!" Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Gun control advocates started the fight, and I don't see how gun owners are wrong for saying "every time this comes up you guys claim you only want to change things a LITTLE bit, and then when it doesn't work, its a little bit more... a little bit more... a little bit more. So now we are saying 'enough'."
 
2014-06-27 04:35:34 PM  
www.harikari.com
 
2014-06-27 04:38:10 PM  
also, gun NUTS start the debate by shooting up an elementary school
 
2014-06-27 04:40:31 PM  
and yes, now i'm just trolling you
 
2014-06-27 05:40:13 PM  
90% of the world's problems are caused by alcohol and religion.
 
2014-06-27 06:08:38 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I don't have to worry about a guy on the street trying to rob me with a bottle of schnapps.  If a kid finds his dad case of Coors he isn't going to kill himself or his friend with it.  A maniac can't use a fifth of rum to kill dozens of unsuspecting people.


I'd disagree with you on that last point, but that's in combination with driving drunk. And it's usually not intentional.
 
2014-06-27 06:17:30 PM  

pueblonative: Okay chucklefark. Enlighten us about the positives of killing a person. I'm sure you'll have no problems doing that.


Are you really that dumb? Or just a troll that won't quit? Just in case you're only dumb, and need teaching:

1) Guns can do more than kill people. Sometimes, simply having a gun can scare away those who would do you harm - even without killing anyone!!!!11!

2) Killing someone wishing to do me harm (and probably do the same to someone else tomorrow, and someone else the day after, and someone else the day after, etc) IS a good thing. One less Bad Guy(tm) in the world.
 
2014-06-27 06:28:02 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Turn off the gushing fountain of guns and eventually the supply of illicit guns will dry up. That means that hand guns, assault weapons, and most gun shops need to go. It means that law abiding citizens will have to turn in most of their weapons as well (I'd support reimbursement for fair market value).

When the guns have been greatly reduced the guns criminals use will be taken away when they're found. Over time the criminals' guns will be almost entirely taken away, and with the supply of guns in general greatly constricted they won't be able to easily replace them.



Um, we can't stop illegal immigrants from coming over the border as it is. If guns became rare, and thus valuable, What's to stop illegals from bringing over a backpack of guns when they come, and thus being able to fund themselves when they get here? Not to mention guns being brought in by organized crime, etc??

Prohibition. Does. Not. Work.
 
2014-06-27 06:30:54 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: Vodka. With a little fresh lime juice and San Pellegrino lemon soda. More refreshing than Sprite.



graphics.samsclub.com 

 
Al!
2014-06-27 06:33:14 PM  
The only think that'll stop a good guy with scotch is... Hey!  Wait a second!  The only think that'll stop a ... a ... The only thing that'll stip... oh bother.  The only thing that'll stop a good guy with a scotch is a bad g... The only thing that'll stop a bad guy with beer is me.  Barkeep!  One more!
 
2014-06-27 07:38:50 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: stan unusual: HeadLever: stan unusual: You are welcome to take the bet I proposed to deadplatypus

Sure, I'll use this one.

[www.goldenideal.com image 850x732]

That's not a gun.  Let me laugh harder.

I'll take 30 shots with my pistol in 60 seconds. You take 30 shots of alcohol in 60 seconds.


As long as your shots go into your mouth I won't have any worries about having to do more than 2 or three.  Might want to leave a number for me to contact your next of kin before you take that first one.
 
2014-06-27 07:43:42 PM  
Back to the point of the thread- I've been drinking some of this lately. Very interesting stuff that won a double gold at the San Francisco World Spirits competition:  www.thedrinksreport.com
 
2014-06-27 07:56:38 PM  

stan unusual: Lenny_da_Hog: stan unusual: HeadLever: stan unusual: You are welcome to take the bet I proposed to deadplatypus

Sure, I'll use this one.

[www.goldenideal.com image 850x732]

That's not a gun.  Let me laugh harder.

I'll take 30 shots with my pistol in 60 seconds. You take 30 shots of alcohol in 60 seconds.

As long as your shots go into your mouth I won't have any worries about having to do more than 2 or three.  Might want to leave a number for me to contact your next of kin before you take that first one.


That wouldn't happen unless I were drunk.
 
2014-06-27 08:59:19 PM  

thefatbasturd: So you agree that the answer is a better mental health system and NOT more gun laws? Cool!


As a general rule, proper mental health treatment would prevent just as many murders as gun control laws would.  But there is not any reason why would couldn't have decent mental heath coverage AND rational gun control laws.

I don't support gun confiscation because it would require Constitutional changes (and wouldn't work anyway), but it seems irrational to me that a private citizen with no dealer's license should be allowed to buy more than, say, 50 guns a year.  Is there any rational need for that?  Besides trafficking, I mean.
 
2014-06-27 09:07:00 PM  

Low Budget Dave: but it seems irrational to me that a private citizen with no dealer's license should be allowed to buy more than, say, 50 guns a year.


We don't limit the number of words that the press can use, do we?  Many times guns can be sound investments and this purchase may not be related to anything other than making money in the long term.

Now if you get into the realm of buying and selling on a regular basis, then the ATF may eventually want to know what you FFL number is.
 
2014-06-27 10:41:16 PM  

HeadLever: We don't limit the number of words that the press can use, do we?  Many times guns can be sound investments and this purchase may not be related to anything other than making money in the long term.


Statistically, about 20% of all the guns recovered at a crime scene were originally purchased in a multiple sale.  Collectors tend to buy one or two per month, while traffickers tend to buy one or two per week.  Guns sold in multiple sales are about 60% more likely to be used in a crime.

Virginia's one-gun-a-month law - which was in effect from 1993 to 2012 and prohibited the purchase of more than one handgun per person in any 30-day period - reduced the number of crime guns traced to Virginia dealers by about 70%.  Virginia initially adopted its law after the state became recognized as a primary source of crime guns recovered in states in the northeastern U.S.

Free speech is protected by the Constitution to keep the government from censoring the press.  Even so, there are limits.  Obscenity, fighting words, military secrets, there is actually a long list.

Gun nuts always repeat the same tired arguments that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right not only to own guns, but to do so in a manner that is completely unregulated and unlimited.  In fact, the second amendment does not protect the right to gun trafficking, or to any other activity that presents a clear and present danger to the lives of others.

Although the Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment grants rights to individuals and not just militias (which seems to violate the stated intent), the SCOTUS has also held repeatedly that the right is not unlimited, and is subject to regulation.

All we are talking about is what regulations are reasonable, practical and effective.  I personally believe that a multiple sales law would meet all three criteria, but that is just a personal opinion.  If it were up to me, I would require all owners to take extensive training to get a concealed carry permit, and to also carry insurance.

I would also require universal background checks, but only about 90% of the entire country agrees with me.
 
2014-06-27 11:20:39 PM  

Low Budget Dave: Free speech Right to Bear Arms is protected by the Constitution to keep the government from censoring the press people.  Even so, there are limits.


Gun nuts always repeat the same tired arguments that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right not only to own guns, but to do so in a manner that is completely unregulated and unlimited.


Strawman.  if that is always the case, cite one in this thread.  Or anywhere for that matter.


All we are talking about is what regulations are reasonable, practical and effective.

Which means different things to different people.  What may be reasonable for those that live in DC may not be reasonable to those that live in Montana.
 
2014-06-28 12:03:41 AM  

fredklein: 1) Guns can do more than kill people. Sometimes, simply having a gun can scare away those who would do you harm - even without killing anyone!!!!11!


Yeah, scare them...with the fear of killing them.


2) Killing someone wishing to do me harm (and probably do the same to someone else tomorrow, and someone else the day after, and someone else the day after, etc) IS a good thing. One less Bad Guy(tm) in the world.

Most killings are done by somebody who knows you so the odds are rather slim that anybody else has pissed him off to the point where he's tired of your shiat.  Contrary to popular belief there are not rogue mobs of people specifically seeking you dead...unless you know a whole lot more people than I would care to wager on.


it's something that has to be done, but that doesn't make it good by itself.  Good wouldn't have you killing another person in the first place.
 
Displayed 50 of 351 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | 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





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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