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.

(Atlanta Journal Constitution)   Step 1) Pass law allowing people to carry guns anywhere Step 2) ??? Step 3) Have a handgun misfire on a busy street, killing one   (ajc.com) divider line 370
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

11573 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Aug 2014 at 5:35 AM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-18 09:00:46 AM  
You know, if you easily distracted commandos insist on being armed everywhere, I just don't care. I've given up and resigned myself to accepting this country's self destructiveness. That's just what we do. We must have what we want no matter the cost.

But I swear, if I get shot because one of you unitards is playing Johnny Ringo in the saloon with your cheapazz Glock outside of Dick's Sporting Goods, I'm gonna...well I don't know. Either die or shake my fist at you really sternly.
 
2014-08-18 09:02:30 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: /yes i did read your post.  I was referring more to the physiological aspect of knowing a populace is armed and able to defend itself. ie..in the criminals mind.  if you were going to rob a store, and there were 2 stores, one where you KNOW the owner is armed, and one where you KNOW the owner is not, which one would you pick to rob? That is what i was saying.


That's my point though, more armed states don't perform better than less armed states.  Like every other social issue the drivers of crime are both complex and varied.  Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do not solve or even alleviate the issue to any significant degree. I'm not saying you shouldn't protect yourself. If you feel that you should then by all means do, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this will solve crime or that crime is rampant.  Crime is not rampant and guns won't solve it.
 
2014-08-18 09:06:03 AM  

SquiggsIN: In addition, I fully believe that "gun free zones" like schools/colleges are nothing but an invitation for the crazies who DO want to do harm.


Oh.  Well, if you BELIEVE it, then it must be a sound basis for public policy!

firearms aren't going away even if you pass a hundred laws banning them.

Except for all the countries where disarmament initiatives DID result in a near-eradication of firearm-related crime.  But America must have too much exceptionalism for us to make our country safer that way.
 
2014-08-18 09:07:31 AM  

DubtodaIll: We really should outlaw accidents.


And while we're at it, lets also outlaw murder, that should really curb the gun violence problem... how did we not think of that before? Is there any problem legislation CAN'T solve?!
 
2014-08-18 09:08:02 AM  

badhatharry: Publikwerks: badhatharry: This is why we have the 2nd. It is to make sure we get to keep the 1st.

BTW - To quote Bullet Tooth Tony, "you've got your parties muddled up. There's no pussy here, just a dose that'll make you wish you were born a woman.."

The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

However - you use free speech, you can win. The pen is FAR more powerful than the sword.

You give way too much credit to our brave law enforcement officers.


Oh, don't get me wrong - they may still shoot you. But, if you try and use force to enact change, they WILL shoot you.
 
2014-08-18 09:08:23 AM  

GORDON: The test for concealed carry was WAY harder.


I'd suggest not nearly hard enough based on the evidence of the article.
 
2014-08-18 09:09:46 AM  

doglover: GodComplex: carrying with a round in the chamber

Why would you carry a gun without a round in the chamber?


Because you know the chances of you needing to be able to draw and fire in an instant are virtually zero, while the additional risk of having a round in the spout is considerable. On the extremely off chance that you actually ever would be better off drawing a handgun, the additional two seconds you need to rack the slide is going to decrease your "safety" by an infinitessimal percentage.
 
2014-08-18 09:11:14 AM  

cwolf20: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.

Because that's not one of the 'standard safety rules.'

Keeping your farking finger off the trigger, however, is one of them.

It's standard with most of the war veteran gun owners I know, and those they taught it to.

I wasn't taught to short magazines or keep the chamber empty. I was taught to carry the firearm in the manner that it is intended to be carried: with one in the pipe and a proper holster.

Never said they learned it on active duty.  My vietnam veteran uncle carries a Ruger, which has no safety.  One chamber empty.

Just in case someone says "I saw a ruger with a safety".  His does not have one, next?


There are lots of things that old timers do that doesn't make sense. Things like decocking a 1911, which is more dangerous than carrying as it was designed to be carried - cocked and locked.

It is my considered opinion, after thirty years of firearms experience, that if you're doing anything special so that you can pull the trigger and expect something other than a round being fired, you're doing it wrong.

Veteran, cop, or gun store counter jockey, the expectation should always be that pulling the trigger makes the gun fire. Anything else will make a person lax with their trigger discipline and then I'll have to hear their dumb ass saying 'It just went off.'
 
2014-08-18 09:12:35 AM  

thaylin: Olo Manolo: So in other words, somebody got shot and it had absolutely nothing to do with this law being passed?? "but,but, guns!"


"Man dies in car crash 3 days after eating ham sandwich. Ham sandwich under close investigation"

To be honest we dont know it had nothing to do with the law. If you read the article the man was a drunk, and bars are a place that they are allowed to carry guns now. So if he was coming from a bar then it does have something to do with the law.


That the law does not prohibit the consumption of alcohol by individuals who are carrying a firearm is a serious oversight.
 
2014-08-18 09:13:39 AM  

Egoy3k: Bit'O'Gristle: /yes i did read your post.  I was referring more to the physiological aspect of knowing a populace is armed and able to defend itself. ie..in the criminals mind.  if you were going to rob a store, and there were 2 stores, one where you KNOW the owner is armed, and one where you KNOW the owner is not, which one would you pick to rob? That is what i was saying.

That's my point though, more armed states don't perform better than less armed states.  Like every other social issue the drivers of crime are both complex and varied.  Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do not solve or even alleviate the issue to any significant degree. I'm not saying you shouldn't protect yourself. If you feel that you should then by all means do, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this will solve crime or that crime is rampant.  Crime is not rampant and guns won't solve it.


/Well, per your statement on "crime isn't rampant" that would depend on your view, and what city you live in.  Detroit and Chicago would like a word with you.
 
2014-08-18 09:14:25 AM  

skozlaw: GORDON: The test for concealed carry was WAY harder.

I'd suggest not nearly hard enough based on the evidence of the article.


Georgia has no requirement for obtaining a concealed-carry permit other than passing a background check and paying your money. There's no proficiency test or training requirement.

My two cents: concealed handguns carried by non-criminals have such a tiny effect on crime that it's not even worth talking about. They don't make unarmed people significantly less safe, and they don't make armed people significantly safer. Most people who get shot would have been shot even if they had a pistol on them (quite a number of them ARE armed). Concealed carry weapons are basically anti-gorilla amulets for the VAST majority of paranoids who carry them.
 
2014-08-18 09:17:14 AM  

Egoy3k: There were, 5,086 bank robberies in the US in 2011
A total of 3 people were killed who were not the actual robbers 2 of those were police officers.
there were 73 injuries that were not the perpetrator.

Arizona, Florida, and Texas had 210, 214, and 294 robberies and New York (the state) had 339.

California had 687.

Lets adjust these for population.  (robberies per 100,000 people)

CA 1.84
NY 1.75
FL 1.09
TX 1.11
AZ 3.18

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics -2 011/bank-crime-statistics-2011


In other words, bank robberies are neither a problem nor are the rampant in states with stricter gun laws in comparison with states with more relaxed gun control.

I could no go on to refute the regular robberies claim, and the violent crime stuff too but honestly I doubt you'll even read this.  Violent crime is way down in the US and it has nothing to do with guns or the lack of guns.  It's completely unrelated and to believe that you need a gun to protect yourself ask any person who does concealed carry how often they have actually drawn their firearm.  The answer will almost always be never.  Carry it all you want, it's your right but don't kid yourself into thinking you are just one trigger pull away from being a hero.  That's the sort of attitude that will get someone killed needlessly.



Playing with statistics is fun!  Violent crimes reported to police happen at a rate of roughly 400 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, per year in the US.   That  means your chance of being the victim of a violent crime is about 1 in 250, per year.  If you apply these odds to your lifespan, your chance of being the victim of a violent crime in your lifetime is about 1 in 3.

Of course,  way more crimes happen than are ever reported to the police, but either way... it  does happen and to act like you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning is simply foolish.  I've personally been robbed at gun point, and I sure wish I had a gun on me instead of having to rely on the kindness and clear-headed logic of a crack head for my safety, so there you go.
 
2014-08-18 09:17:53 AM  
The preamble supports a right to Pursue life.. does that include procuring sustenance? If so then my pursuit of happiness has  TON of other implications, but that's for another topic...

However, the Fourth Amendment is clearly not for hunting, survival, sports, personal protection, or recreation, it is to form a militia for to control a dissident and non-representative government. Did our forefathers expect you to still be able to hunt and provide food for your home, maybe even protect your home, state laws would certainly condone this interpretation, but it is not a 4A protected activity.

Given that most of what people use a gun for is not 4A protected, I question its place in modern society. Let the few states that still have "frontier" land handle living in that area independently with state law and federal exclusions.

I believe we should all know how to use guns, have access to them when needed for 4A reasons, and ideally never touch one outside the structured teaching environment. Ideally we should be able to live and die without ever needing to form a militia, and therefor never handle the weapons.

Lets have an armory at the lowest levels of government we can, and keep every single firearm needed to arm the local area at that armory. Responsibility to secure of the armory, and any liability therein, should belong to the ENTIRE community. Federally require gun education for every citizen, and make harsh penalties for possession of a firearm outside the few federal exclusions or in the act of a organized militia 

4A is protected, people know how to safely handle them, no one should ever have them in most circumstances allowing strict ass shiat punishments for possessing them. We can even figure out the complicated private ownership liability exchange issues, where people would want to own and maintain their own property, stored at the local armory.
 
2014-08-18 09:19:26 AM  

cwolf20: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.

Because that's not one of the 'standard safety rules.'

Keeping your farking finger off the trigger, however, is one of them.

It's standard with most of the war veteran gun owners I know, and those they taught it to.

I wasn't taught to short magazines or keep the chamber empty. I was taught to carry the firearm in the manner that it is intended to be carried: with one in the pipe and a proper holster.

Never said they learned it on active duty.  My vietnam veteran uncle carries a Ruger, which has no safety.  One chamber empty.

Just in case someone says "I saw a ruger with a safety".  His does not have one, next?


I personally think all single action handguns should have a thumb safety.  Down should always be off, or red dead.  Goddamn I can't stand it when they reverse the action.  I like the SR22 but they done farked up and reversed the safety.
 
2014-08-18 09:19:41 AM  

DrBrownCow: Publikwerks: That's not true - if the man had been visiting a bar(and since the police told the employees not to talk to the press, that seems likely) where he wouldn't have been able to carry before, had this been before the law change, he might have been unarmed and unable to therefor accidentally shoot the tourist.

1.  It isn't stated whether the guy had concealed carry permit in the first place.
2.  The law didn't make it OK to consume alcohol in a bar while in possession of a gun. If he was drinking, then he's clearly not following the law.
3.  If he wasn't drinking, then his negligence could have happened anywhere, and so the change in law still doesn't apply.



1. Irrelevant. You dont need one now. The law makes it more likely that someone will carry without a permit in these places.
2.  Incorrect. There is no law against carrying your weapon and drinking alcohol in GA unless you are hunting or fishing. It is only against the law to discharge your weapon while inebriated.
3. Except it more than likely would not have happened here, which means the law is still part of the problem.
 
2014-08-18 09:19:44 AM  

badhatharry: thaylin: badhatharry: thaylin: An employee who answered the telephone Sunday at the Old Heidelberg said the police had instructed the restaurant's staff not to speak to reporters.

WTF, so the cops dictate who can talk to now?

This is why we have the 2nd. It is to make sure we get to keep the 1st.

Really? It does not seem to be working.. And I hope you hold on to your guns when the government uses drones to drop bombs on you.

The threat of an armed uprising is still a pretty good deterrent to government tyranny. I would hope that the sheep will rise up before they start droning people.


I have never been able to accept this horseshiat argument. Politicians are not afraid of your guns. They fear your votes. It is the voting pattern of gun owners that prevents overreach of government, not their bullets.
 
2014-08-18 09:20:24 AM  
If only he had had some sort of mechanical and/or electronic safety, like one of those pistol-grip safeties or ring sensors, such that the gun wouldn't fire unless his hand was fully on it.
 
2014-08-18 09:21:17 AM  

Dimensio: That the law does not prohibit the consumption of alcohol by individuals who are carrying a firearm is a serious oversight.


This is an inaccurate statement.  You can carry inside establishments which serve alcohol, you cannot CCW while intoxicated.  The law was revised this way to allow people to carry inside restaurants etc with a full bar, like Applebees.  It was never intended to allow you to go drinking at the bar while carrying.
 
2014-08-18 09:21:37 AM  

Zafoquat: the Fourth Amendment is clearly not for hunting, survival, sports, personal protection, or recreation,


yeah, it's about your stuff being secure from illegal searches and seizures.
 
2014-08-18 09:22:28 AM  

Zafoquat: The preamble supports a right to Pursue life.. does that include procuring sustenance? If so then my pursuit of happiness has  TON of other implications, but that's for another topic...

However, the Fourth Amendment is clearly not for hunting, survival, sports, personal protection, or recreation, it is to form a militia for to control a dissident and non-representative government. Did our forefathers expect you to still be able to hunt and provide food for your home, maybe even protect your home, state laws would certainly condone this interpretation, but it is not a 4A protected activity.

Given that most of what people use a gun for is not 4A protected, I question its place in modern society. Let the few states that still have "frontier" land handle living in that area independently with state law and federal exclusions.


wisdems.org
 
2014-08-18 09:23:54 AM  

Zafoquat: The preamble supports a right to Pursue life.. does that include procuring sustenance? If so then my pursuit of happiness has  TON of other implications, but that's for another topic...

However, the Fourth Amendment is clearly not for hunting, survival, sports, personal protection, or recreation, it is to form a militia for to control a dissident and non-representative government. Did our forefathers expect you to still be able to hunt and provide food for your home, maybe even protect your home, state laws would certainly condone this interpretation, but it is not a 4A protected activity.

Given that most of what people use a gun for is not 4A protected, I question its place in modern society. Let the few states that still have "frontier" land handle living in that area independently with state law and federal exclusions.

I believe we should all know how to use guns, have access to them when needed for 4A reasons, and ideally never touch one outside the structured teaching environment. Ideally we should be able to live and die without ever needing to form a militia, and therefor never handle the weapons.

Lets have an armory at the lowest levels of government we can, and keep every single firearm needed to arm the local area at that armory. Responsibility to secure of the armory, and any liability therein, should belong to the ENTIRE community. Federally require gun education for every citizen, and make harsh penalties for possession of a firearm outside the few federal exclusions or in the act of a organized militia 

4A is protected, people know how to safely handle them, no one should ever have them in most circumstances allowing strict ass shiat punishments for possessing them. We can even figure out the complicated private ownership liability exchange issues, where people would want to own and maintain their own property, stored at the local armory.


/your perfect world sounds nice, but criminals don't generally respect / care about gun laws, so in your world, only criminals would have guns.  Everyone else who cares about the law would not.  Sounds fun yes?
 
2014-08-18 09:25:33 AM  

Publikwerks: The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.


Heres an example of people using their first amendment rights, and the police respecting them.


img.fark.net

Heres an example of people using their second amendment rights, getting mowed down by the law.

img.fark.net

Here is the difference in the way the government looks at these situations.
dl.dropboxusercontent.com

Ultimately you need the whole list of rights, because while the first amendment is a powerful tool for directing change you still need a balance of power and an orderly stage where that change  is allowed to happen.

You need your weapons, and proper representation, and to be counted at the polls, and your privacy, your right be treated fairly at trial, and so on...

Start peeling away at these other rights and the right to free speech no longer matters.
No one in power will be listening. No one in power will care.
 
2014-08-18 09:26:29 AM  

cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.


That's the right way to do things...if you're carrying an old (old) school single action revolver before they started introducing transfer bars (ie if the gun fell or was hit hard enough the hammer could connect with the firing pin and detonate the primer of a loaded round).  So for those, yeah you carried your 6 shooter with an empty under the hammer.  It didn't slow you down at all because you still had to manually cock it and all you really lost was the 6 round capacity.

Some people are anal retentive (or just have old habits) and do the same with more modern revolvers that do have the transfer bar installed -- I'm admittedly one as even though it makes perfect sense I have a hard time trusting it.

However, this is a pointless practice with anything other than revolvers.
 
2014-08-18 09:29:23 AM  

SquiggsIN: I don't think we're really safer with more people carrying everywhere they go because people are stupid and they do stupid things.


Ding ding ding!  We have a winner.  In any large population there will always be an abundance of stupid people and sure enough we see numerous incidents of stupidity each and every day.  Hell, there'd be no Fark if it wasn't so.  So, yes, let's make sure we don't limit access to deadly weapons for the general population.  Brilliant plan.  Anyone who disagrees is against FREEDOMZ!
 
MFK
2014-08-18 09:29:46 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: /yes i did read your post.  I was referring more to the physiological aspect of knowing a populace is armed and able to defend itself. ie..in the criminals mind.  if you were going to rob a store, and there were 2 stores, one where you KNOW the owner is armed, and one where you KNOW the owner is not, which one would you pick to rob? That is what i was saying.


You're right. We should always act as if the paranoid fantasies of the most paranoid among us are just a hair's breadth away from coming true.

what the hell world do you want to live in where perceived danger lurks behind every corner and everyone you come across is a potential mortal enemy and you can't even go to the CVS to pick up some Preparation H without feeling the need to make sure you've got the ability to end someone's life snugly nestled on your hip?

You do realize that people can and DO go about their daily lives without worrying the need for firepower right?
 
2014-08-18 09:30:36 AM  

Zafoquat: make harsh penalties for possession of a firearm outside the few federal exclusions or in the act of a organized militia


Your proposal is Unconstitutional.
 
2014-08-18 09:31:57 AM  

Alonjar: Dimensio: That the law does not prohibit the consumption of alcohol by individuals who are carrying a firearm is a serious oversight.

This is an inaccurate statement.  You can carry inside establishments which serve alcohol, you cannot CCW while intoxicated.  The law was revised this way to allow people to carry inside restaurants etc with a full bar, like Applebees.  It was never intended to allow you to go drinking at the bar while carrying.


What you say cannot be true, or individuals who blame the law for a negligent shooting committed by an intoxicated individual would be intellectually dishonest for doing so.
 
2014-08-18 09:33:49 AM  
"Unfortunate" is when your pants split, you f*cking idiot.  Your husband just offed someone out of stupidity and recklessness,
 
2014-08-18 09:36:33 AM  

mcsiegs: "Unfortunate" is when your pants split, you f*cking idiot.  Your husband just offed someone out of stupidity and recklessness,


Yea, but he did it while protecting himself and the people around him.
 
2014-08-18 09:37:38 AM  

badhatharry: jso2897: BlindRaise: Itstoearly: Meanwhile, in 2012, 33,561 people died in automobile accidents (more than 91 people per day, or more than one person every 16 minutes), but no one on fark complains that private transportation should be outlawed.

This is what I'm talking about! It's time we sat down and had a common sense discussion about car control in this Country.

Nah, f**k. We should just let people walk into car agencies and drive 'em away. Screw the "registration", and "drivers licenses". Making them get licenses infringes on their right to be secure in their persons and property.

Imagine you lived in the early days of America. Some town bureaucrat decides that everyone needs to register all their horses and wagons. The people would have told him to go fark himself.

But when cars came along they were new and dangerous. So everyone agreed that the government needed to regulate them. Idiots.


Well, that's not my point. My point is that if guns and cars are alike, we should regulate them alike. If they are NOT alike, we should knock it off with the stupid, snarky "analogies". They just come off as dumb.
 
2014-08-18 09:38:04 AM  

way south: Publikwerks: The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

Heres an example of people using their first amendment rights, and the police respecting them.


[img.fark.net image 850x478]

Heres an example of people using their second amendment rights, getting mowed down by the law.

[img.fark.net image 574x369]

Here is the difference in the way the government looks at these situations.
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x640]

Ultimately you need the whole list of rights, because while the first amendment is a powerful tool for directing change you still need a balance of power and an orderly stage where that change  is allowed to happen.

You need your weapons, and proper representation, and to be counted at the polls, and your privacy, your right be treated fairly at trial, and so on...

Start peeling away at these other rights and the right to free speech no longer matters.
No one in power will be listening. No one in power will care.


/Nice try, but im pretty sure that looting and burning down stores isn't a first amendment right.
 
2014-08-18 09:38:55 AM  

mcsiegs: "Unfortunate" is when your pants split, you f*cking idiot.  Your husband just offed someone out of stupidity and recklessness,


The tree of liberty must be watered with blood once in a while. She's just happy it wasn't her loved ones' blood.
 
2014-08-18 09:38:56 AM  

Zafoquat: The preamble supports a right to Pursue life.. does that include procuring sustenance? If so then my pursuit of happiness has  TON of other implications, but that's for another topic...

However, the Fourth Amendment is clearly not for hunting, survival, sports, personal protection, or recreation, it is to form a militia for to control a dissident and non-representative government. Did our forefathers expect you to still be able to hunt and provide food for your home, maybe even protect your home, state laws would certainly condone this interpretation, but it is not a 4A protected activity.

Given that most of what people use a gun for is not 4A protected, I question its place in modern society. Let the few states that still have "frontier" land handle living in that area independently with state law and federal exclusions.

I believe we should all know how to use guns, have access to them when needed for 4A reasons, and ideally never touch one outside the structured teaching environment. Ideally we should be able to live and die without ever needing to form a militia, and therefor never handle the weapons.

Lets have an armory at the lowest levels of government we can, and keep every single firearm needed to arm the local area at that armory. Responsibility to secure of the armory, and any liability therein, should belong to the ENTIRE community. Federally require gun education for every citizen, and make harsh penalties for possession of a firearm outside the few federal exclusions or in the act of a organized militia 

4A is protected, people know how to safely handle them, no one should ever have them in most circumstances allowing strict ass shiat punishments for possessing them. We can even figure out the complicated private ownership liability exchange issues, where people would want to own and maintain their own property, stored at the local armory.


I... don't think you know what the 4th amendment is about.  At all.
 
2014-08-18 09:40:06 AM  

Alonjar: Of course,  way more crimes happen than are ever reported to the police, but either way... it  does happen and to act like you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning is simply foolish.  I've personally been robbed at gun point, and I sure wish I had a gun on me instead of having to rely on the kindness and clear-headed logic of a crack head for my safety, so there you go.


This is just retarded.

Are you going to walk around all day long, with a gun drawn, pointing it at everyone you see, in case they MIGHT pull one on you?

No? Oh.

So what happens when "the crackhead" mugs you? Well, you certainly weren't expecting it, so this gun you wish to be carrying around wasn't exactly ready or accessible. So now he has a gun in your face, and is demanding your money. What exactly happens if you try to reach for a gun to "Defend yourself"? Oh, look at that, you just got shot in the face by the twitchy fingered crackhead, now you're dead and broke, instead of just broke.

Man, that gun sure did help keep you safe!

Oh, so it wasn't a concealed weapon you say? The crackhead could visibly see it? Hello, Mcfly, he's a crackhead, do you think he really cares? Same result. Gun in your face, you hand over your money, if you make even a slight movement towards your weapon, you get shot in the face.

Firearms should be illegal for 99.9% of the population. Only about 0.1% actually knows how to use them properly, and has the training to not get shot in the face in the above situation anyway. The majority of those people are military. (Though even a good portion of the military doesn't have the proper training for that type of stuff). They do absolutely NOTHING to make anyone safer. Best case scenario - the outcome of these situations ends up identical to how it would have if no firearms were involved - worst case scenario, the country coroner has a busy night.

Anyone arguing for guns for purposes of safety, must also, by following the same logic, support the tsa and all airport security involved. The right to carry is absolutely nothing more than security theater. It makes dumb, or insecure people feel safer, despite providing no actual security or safety.

I wish I could craft words better, but it is just really sad seeing the same dumb arguments over and over. Face the facts. There are only three reasons to carry a firearm.

#1: You wish to delude yourself into some  false sense of security

#2: You're an idiot who is overcompensating for other shortcomings.

#3: You are one of the very very VERY few people in the country(world really) who are properly trained, and experienced to actually carry one of these, know what to do and how to use it in a real-world situation, and have an actual reason other than "C UZ GOD SAID SO" (Hint: You aren't one of those people. Neither are you. You might be but probably not. Ok that guy is, but none of the rest of you are. Get over it).


We could go through the studies and statistics and all but prove that firearms don't make anyone safer, and a quite legitimate argument can be made that making them entirely illegal WOULD make people safer, because well, those numbers and studies actually exist. But forget logic or data, this is Fark, no one comes here to think. First round of makers mark is on me!
 
2014-08-18 09:41:42 AM  

way south: Publikwerks: The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

Heres an example of people using their first amendment rights, and the police respecting them.


[img.fark.net image 850x478]

Heres an example of people using their second amendment rights, getting mowed down by the law.

[img.fark.net image 574x369]

Here is the difference in the way the government looks at these situations.
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x640]

Ultimately you need the whole list of rights, because while the first amendment is a powerful tool for directing change you still need a balance of power and an orderly stage where that change  is allowed to happen.

You need your weapons, and proper representation, and to be counted at the polls, and your privacy, your right be treated fairly at trial, and so on...

Start peeling away at these other rights and the right to free speech no longer matters.
No one in power will be listening. No one in power will care.


And you have proven my point - The protesters in Fergusen might get shot at, but they have a chance at winning. I would say, a pretty good chance.

Clive Bundy is going to lose.

If you think Clive Bundy has won, well, talk to me in a year. Matter of fact, I bet you it happens some time after Nov. 4th. Election years are not good years to get into shootouts.

But after Nov 4th, shiats on. In a years time, he will be in jail or dead, and the government will be auctioning off his shiat.
 
2014-08-18 09:42:26 AM  

way south: Publikwerks: The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

Heres an example of people using their first amendment rights, and the police respecting them.


[img.fark.net image 850x478]

Heres an example of people using their second amendment rights, getting mowed down by the law.

[img.fark.net image 574x369]

Here is the difference in the way the government looks at these situations.
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x640]

Ultimately you need the whole list of rights, because while the first amendment is a powerful tool for directing change you still need a balance of power and an orderly stage where that change  is allowed to happen.

You need your weapons, and proper representation, and to be counted at the polls, and your privacy, your right be treated fairly at trial, and so on...

Start peeling away at these other rights and the right to free speech no longer matters.
No one in power will be listening. No one in power will care.


Good point - in a nation where redneck thief Cliven Bundy isn't compelled to obey the law, why should the citizens of Ferguson? It's almost as if they are some lower class of people who are expected to obey the law, while others of the right complexion are free to ignore it.
Then, people whine about "lawlessness".
Funnier than shiat, it is.
Michael Brown should have been old, fat, white and stupid - he'd be alive today.
 
2014-08-18 09:42:37 AM  

Publikwerks: And the Samurai trained for years and years before they were samurai.


Not really. They were samurai so they trained for years. Not vice versa. Caste society and all that.

It wasn't even a chicken or the egg thing. Lots of the more wealthy samurai didn't train so much, and many were giant dick weasels, which is how that whole 47 Ronin thing went down.

And there's no such think as a bokken. It's a bokuto in Japanese. Bokken is an English word made up by wannabes who don't even know the word "waster" already existed in English. And shinai are a relatively new toy invented and popularized during a major decline in the martial activity in Japan toward the later half of the Tokugawa period.

So I must disagree with your attempt at a philosophy on weapons. Especially since my career brings me in contact with a lot of people. I mean like A LOT of them. People are not like computers. In fact, sometimes they maliciously rebel against the system just to be assholes. Those types can even become robbers, murders, and rapists. So I'm tellin' you that if you feel the need for a pistol, you'd best have a round in that chamber or a good life insurance policy because the time it takes you to rack your gun is far longer than it will take you to be robbed, raped, or killed.

Now, if you don't feel the need for a pistol, and honestly why would you in 2014, that's a totally different thing.
 
2014-08-18 09:43:19 AM  
There was a case of a jogger running along side a canal. A guy ran up to him and shot him in the throat then took his wallet as he lay bleeding out.

It's too bad the jogger wasn't running with his equalizer in his hand. He might have been able to get a round off.
 
2014-08-18 09:43:55 AM  

MFK: Bit'O'Gristle: /yes i did read your post.  I was referring more to the physiological aspect of knowing a populace is armed and able to defend itself. ie..in the criminals mind.  if you were going to rob a store, and there were 2 stores, one where you KNOW the owner is armed, and one where you KNOW the owner is not, which one would you pick to rob? That is what i was saying.

You're right. We should always act as if the paranoid fantasies of the most paranoid among us are just a hair's breadth away from coming true.

what the hell world do you want to live in where perceived danger lurks behind every corner and everyone you come across is a potential mortal enemy and you can't even go to the CVS to pick up some Preparation H without feeling the need to make sure you've got the ability to end someone's life snugly nestled on your hip?

You do realize that people can and DO go about their daily lives without worrying the need for firepower right?


/sure, i totally respect your right to be a victim if you choose to do so. I choose not to be.  Have i insulted your choice? No.  Have i called you a liberal peace loving hippie or something of that nature? Just because I choose to be able to defend myself, doesn't in any sense make me paranoid. It makes me prepared in case something does happen. That doesn't mean i walk around with paranoid delusions of being a hero, it just means that i have chosen to be able to defend myself if need be.  Why does this disturb you so?  I don't worry about it at all actually, because i have the means to defend myself and my family if i have to. You either have the ability to defend yourself or you don't. No need to label or take it to the extreme right of paranoid.
 
2014-08-18 09:44:00 AM  

Publikwerks: In a years time, he will be in jail or dead


I've heard that before, and they never deliver.
 
2014-08-18 09:44:43 AM  

whistlerdash: So what happens when "the crackhead" mugs you? Well, you certainly weren't expecting it, so this gun you wish to be carrying around wasn't exactly ready or accessible. So now he has a gun in your face, and is demanding your money. What exactly happens if you try to reach for a gun to "Defend yourself"? Oh, look at that, you just got shot in the face by the twitchy fingered crackhead, now you're dead and broke, instead of just broke.


I am certain that you will be able to cite data showing that what you describe is the most common outcome for a lawful firearm carrier who is confronted by a criminal, and I therefore eagerly await the citations that validate your claim.
 
2014-08-18 09:47:43 AM  

jso2897: way south: Publikwerks: The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

Heres an example of people using their first amendment rights, and the police respecting them.


[img.fark.net image 850x478]

Heres an example of people using their second amendment rights, getting mowed down by the law.

[img.fark.net image 574x369]

Here is the difference in the way the government looks at these situations.
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x640]

Ultimately you need the whole list of rights, because while the first amendment is a powerful tool for directing change you still need a balance of power and an orderly stage where that change  is allowed to happen.

You need your weapons, and proper representation, and to be counted at the polls, and your privacy, your right be treated fairly at trial, and so on...

Start peeling away at these other rights and the right to free speech no longer matters.
No one in power will be listening. No one in power will care.

Good point - in a nation where redneck thief Cliven Bundy isn't compelled to obey the law, why should the citizens of Ferguson? It's almost as if they are some lower class of people who are expected to obey the law, while others of the right complexion are free to ignore it.
Then, people whine about "lawlessness".
Funnier than shiat, it is.
Michael Brown should have been old, fat, white and stupid - he'd be alive today.


/if Michael Brown had not robbed a store and beat a cops face in, he would be alive today.  Bad life decisions.

FTFY
 
2014-08-18 09:48:16 AM  

Alonjar: Dimensio: That the law does not prohibit the consumption of alcohol by individuals who are carrying a firearm is a serious oversight.

This is an inaccurate statement.  You can carry inside establishments which serve alcohol, you cannot CCW while intoxicated.  The law was revised this way to allow people to carry inside restaurants etc with a full bar, like Applebees.  It was never intended to allow you to go drinking at the bar while carrying.



Possession and/or discharge of a firearm while under the influence
It is against the law to be in possession of firearm while engaged in hunting and fishing activities or discharge a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug to the extent that it is unsafe for the person to discharge such firearm except in the defense of life, health, and property;
It is also against the law to discharge a firearm while engaged in any shooting activity while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug.
It is NO defense to violation of this law even if you are legally entitled to use such a drug (prescription).

You can legally get drunk off your ass in Georgia with a concealed weapon on you, as long as you don't fire it, or you're not out hunting.

That may not have been the intention of those who wrote the bill, but they are not the smartest people in the world, or even in the legislature.
 
2014-08-18 09:48:54 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: No need to label or take it to the extreme right of paranoid.


movieboozer.com

Go get 'em, shooter.

And, yea, statistically speaking, by carrying a gun around you are choosing to be a victim. There really isn't much more you could do to up your odds of being shot without resorting to running around begging for people to do it.

But. You know. Scary people on the subway or something, I guess.
 
2014-08-18 09:49:01 AM  
Safety, Mothertrucker. Can you use it?

/Beretta 92fs
 
2014-08-18 09:49:16 AM  

LazyMedia: Alonjar: Dimensio: That the law does not prohibit the consumption of alcohol by individuals who are carrying a firearm is a serious oversight.

This is an inaccurate statement.  You can carry inside establishments which serve alcohol, you cannot CCW while intoxicated.  The law was revised this way to allow people to carry inside restaurants etc with a full bar, like Applebees.  It was never intended to allow you to go drinking at the bar while carrying.


Possession and/or discharge of a firearm while under the influence
It is against the law to be in possession of firearm while engaged in hunting and fishing activities or discharge a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug to the extent that it is unsafe for the person to discharge such firearm except in the defense of life, health, and property;
It is also against the law to discharge a firearm while engaged in any shooting activity while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug.
It is NO defense to violation of this law even if you are legally entitled to use such a drug (prescription).

You can legally get drunk off your ass in Georgia with a concealed weapon on you, as long as you don't fire it, or you're not out hunting.

That may not have been the intention of those who wrote the bill, but they are not the smartest people in the world, or even in the legislature.


You should employ some fairness in your consideration: the authors are likely amongst the most educated individuals within the state of Georgia.
 
2014-08-18 09:50:43 AM  

Alonjar: Playing with statistics is fun!  Violent crimes reported to police happen at a rate of roughly 400 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, per year in the US.   That  means your chance of being the victim of a violent crime is about 1 in 250, per year.  If you apply these odds to your lifespan, your chance of being the victim of a violent crime in your lifetime is about 1 in 3.

Of course,  way more crimes happen than are ever reported to the police, but either way... it  does happen and to act like you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning is simply foolish.  I've personally been robbed at gun point, and I sure wish I had a gun on me instead of having to rely on the kindness and clear-headed logic of a crack head for my safety, so there you go.


Learning to read is also fun. I suggest you try it sometime. Maybe next time you'll understand and respond to the actual point being made instead of responding to the point you think is being made.

Also if you enjoy statistics you might want to have a more nuanced view than assuming that those 400 crimes per 100,000 people are equally distributed. They aren't.
 
2014-08-18 09:50:51 AM  

skozlaw: And, yea, statistically speaking, by carrying a gun around you are choosing to be a victim. There really isn't much more you could do to up your odds of being shot without resorting to running around begging for people to do it.


[citation needed]
 
2014-08-18 09:52:39 AM  

LazyMedia: doglover: GodComplex: carrying with a round in the chamber

Why would you carry a gun without a round in the chamber?

Because you know the chances of you needing to be able to draw and fire in an instant are virtually zero, while the additional risk of having a round in the spout is considerable. On the extremely off chance that you actually ever would be better off drawing a handgun, the additional two seconds you need to rack the slide is going to decrease your "safety" by an infinitessimal percentage.


Glad we have firearms and self defense experts on fark to set us all straight.
 
2014-08-18 09:54:22 AM  

skozlaw: Bit'O'Gristle: No need to label or take it to the extreme right of paranoid.

[movieboozer.com image 523x294]

Go get 'em, shooter.

And, yea, statistically speaking, by carrying a gun around you are choosing to be a victim. There really isn't much more you could do to up your odds of being shot without resorting to running around begging for people to do it.

But. You know. Scary people on the subway or something, I guess.


wow...your logic..well..needs work. So by what you're saying, your "logic" by carrying a sidearm to defend myself, I am making myself a "victim".  Hmmmmmm.  I fail to see how carrying CCW "begs" people to rob / assault me.  But whatever gets you through the day pal.
 
Displayed 50 of 370 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report