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.

(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
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

11667 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Aug 2014 at 5:35 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2014-08-18 12:34:25 PM  

Alonjar: 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.


Instead you would rather kill him?
 
2014-08-18 12:34:55 PM  

serial_crusher: I'm pretty sure "busy streets" were among the places people were already allowed to carry prior to that law being passed. Thanks for playing though.


Yes, this was Gods will.
 
2014-08-18 12:36:40 PM  

Reverend Monkeypants: The truly criminal mind actually doesn't care. If they think the owner is armed then they just try to get the jump on them, not avoid the place


Really?
Then you should be able to find tons of stories of gun stores being robbed during business hours, no?
 
2014-08-18 12:37:21 PM  
You know this whole 'guns everywhere' law that all these idiots are crying about didn't really have anything to do with this incident.  In case no one actually bothered to read the article this incident happened OUTSIDE that bar.  There's no mention of weather or not the guy was in the bar or consuming alcohol.  Just that, again, it was NEAR a bar.  Maybe we'll get more information to that effect.  But until we do... we'll just have anti gun loosers on Fark going on about stupid bull shait they don't know anything about.
 
2014-08-18 12:42:04 PM  
You're only supposed to keep one in the chamber when black people are around.

Or if you're Nate Dogg and are about to make some bodies turn cold.
 
2014-08-18 12:42:31 PM  

ChaosStar: Then you should be able to find tons of stories of gun stores being robbed during business hours, no?


With fake guns, even..

However, most stories in the theme you're looking for involve someone shooting a customer as they leave the store and then relieving them of their recently-purchased gun. You can only carry so many anyway, after all.
 
2014-08-18 12:43:02 PM  

Alonjar: 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.


Would you have been able to draw on someone pointing a gun at you? I mean, they're nervous I bet, pointing a gun at you, finger on the trigger (maybe I'm assuming). You'd prolly have your gun in a holster with a strap on it. I haven't been in that situation (fortunately), so I'm trying to get a feel for the efficacy of carrying.
 
2014-08-18 12:43:56 PM  

Olo Manolo: 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.


 False. Even if he was a drunk, the law still stipulates that one can not be intoxicated while in possession of a firearm. Assuming he was drunk, he disregarded the law. Therefore, "it had absolutely nothing to do with this law being passed".


Incorrect. It says you cannot be intoxicated and in possession of a firearm while hunting or fishing. In general the law says nothing about being drunk and having a firearm, however discharging it while drunk is a felony. dont mistake your states laws for the GA laws.
 
2014-08-18 12:46:21 PM  

dascott: You're only supposed to keep one in the chamber when black people are around.

Or if you're Nate Dogg and are about to make some bodies turn cold.


You forgot the three around your neck.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-08-18 12:47:19 PM  

CJHardin: Yes, you are correct, I'd know nothing about worst case scenarios or combative situations with firearms.......


You insinuate that I said such, yet I did not. I said you choose not to prepare for such. Although, now that you mention it, I do call into questions your knowledge of combat situations since you say:

CJHardin: The ONLY time you'd have a round in the chamber is if you were about to initiate contact or you were on foot patrol in formation.


Now, I'll grant you that it was after your claimed service period but...
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/17/13329628-us-forces-in- af ghanistan-ordered-to-keep-weapons-loaded-at-all-times

So, it seems like the military realized that the way they trained your generation of soldier probably wasn't the best way to go about it. Perhaps you should look at updating your personal combat doctrine as well, no?
I think the official in the article answered your previous question about carrying with a round in the chamber quite sufficiently as well: "A senior military official told NBC News that the order "could save precious seconds" in responding to a so-called "green-on-blue" attack and hopefully save lives "

CJHardin: Also, go down N King St after 9 pm and tell me how friendly it is. Yes, Sumter and Florence are shiatholes but that doesn't mean that Charleston is without it's share of crime.


Again you put words in my mouth. I never said Charleston was crime free, I said it was closer to your "Niceville" than Beirut.
 
2014-08-18 12:48:39 PM  

skozlaw: ChaosStar: Then you should be able to find tons of stories of gun stores being robbed during business hours, no?

With fake guns, even..

However, most stories in the theme you're looking for involve someone shooting a customer as they leave the store and then relieving them of their recently-purchased gun. You can only carry so many anyway, after all.


One story does not disprove the point. Criminals avoid armed victims.
 
2014-08-18 12:53:26 PM  
A fully loaded magazine is not the same as a chamber in the round.
 
2014-08-18 12:53:31 PM  

CJHardin: lewismarktwo: 1911 was designed to be carried cocked and locked.  That's why it has the grip safety and the thumb safety.  Also, you don't weaken a spring by leaving it in a static state.  You weaken it by compressing and stretching it, ie normal cycling.

They made it where you could half cock it for a reason.  It prevents it from firing if it's dropped with the hammer down and inadvertently when the safety is off.  Carrying a round in the chamber is just fine with me.

As far as the springs are concerned, yes, springs do weaken under constant load, and they weaken much faster under repetitive load, thus the reason that springs in aircraft that assist in jettisoning things are replaced during routine maintenance.


Regardless of what Browning may have intended the half-cock on 1911's is *not* to be treated as a safe carry position or a typical half-cock safety.  Doing so is probably one of the best ways to unintentionally discharge a 1911.
 
2014-08-18 12:54:38 PM  
A magazinely loaded is not the same as a rounded chambermaid.
 
2014-08-18 12:58:56 PM  

SquiggsIN: I'm not pro-gun enough to think the NRA is sane but, I'm far too pro-gun to please most of Fark it seems.  I don't think we're really safer with more people carrying everywhere they go because people are stupid and they do stupid things.  Where I live it's really not unusual to see someone walk into a gas station or a restaurant with a gun on their hip and that doesn't bother me at all but, I'll keep my guns in my home/vehicles 99% of the time.

<Insert generic pro-gun sentiment>

cue : oh this thread again.jpg


I've been shooting guns most of my life, but it weirds me out to see random people openly carrying guns into a gas station or restaurant, even holstered.  Guns should only be visible on the range or in the field, where other people can expect them to be.  Keep them locked up at home or on a rack in your pickup or in a case in your car until you are ready to use them.

I don't think it should be *illegal* to open carry though.  Just because it makes me uncomfortable doesn't mean making it illegal is a good idea.

/Still, if the only people carrying guns were criminals, it would make the criminals a lot easier to spot.
 
2014-08-18 01:01:30 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: A fully loaded magazine is not the same as a chamber in the round.


I understand that, but had you read the article it has a sentence in it: "U.S. military officials told NBC News that the new order did not mean personnel were required to keep a round in the chamber.", so it was an option to do so if you wanted to. Hardly the impending contact condition the OP was referring to.
 
2014-08-18 01:06:49 PM  

ChaosStar: skozlaw: ChaosStar: Then you should be able to find tons of stories of gun stores being robbed during business hours, no?

With fake guns, even..

However, most stories in the theme you're looking for involve someone shooting a customer as they leave the store and then relieving them of their recently-purchased gun. You can only carry so many anyway, after all.

One story does not disprove the point. Criminals avoid armed victims.


LOL
 
2014-08-18 01:11:27 PM  

skozlaw: robrr2003: Which state exactly will let a person walk around with only a note from the local sheriff's office?

Mine.

It took me twenty minutes, I believe it cost $20 and the sheriff's office mailed me a nice little piece of paper less than two weeks later via certified mail.

I'm sure it's lapsed by now. I should probably get it renewed. I have it on good authority that there's just criminals, terrorists and bronies coming out of the goddamn woodwork to get me! Ahh!


Ok, So that's one.  You have a bit of a ways to go to get to "Most States".   Please continue, only 25 more to go.
 
2014-08-18 01:12:10 PM  

ChaosStar: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: A fully loaded magazine is not the same as a chamber in the round.

I understand that, but had you read the article it has a sentence in it: "U.S. military officials told NBC News that the new order did not mean personnel were required to keep a round in the chamber.", so it was an option to do so if you wanted to. Hardly the impending contact condition the OP was referring to.


I did read the article and I read it as not mentioning the option to carry a round in the chamber.
 
2014-08-18 01:20:44 PM  

robrr2003: Which state exactly will let a person walk around with only a note from the local sheriff's office?


s4.postimg.org
 
2014-08-18 01:24:07 PM  
FTFA: The gun accidentally discharged, and the bullet traveled across Helen's tourist-laden Main Street and struck the woman in the side.

I was told that guns don't kill.

/gun owner for 31 years
 
2014-08-18 01:26:00 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: I think the bigger issue is stupid. If we could find a way to fix stupid we would have it licked.


Natural selection.

/Common sense
//apparently both are oxymorons
 
2014-08-18 01:32:58 PM  

ChaosStar: If you don't want to plan for the worst case scenario, that's fine, it's your life to lose, but don't pretend like you're somehow in any position to judge those who want to have tools close to hand when surprises do happen.


I agree... that's why I carry a defibrillator around with me 24/7... just in case.
I've also began carrying scorpion anti-venom around with me in case one bites me, even though they don't live in this area.
 
2014-08-18 01:35:36 PM  

stonicus: that's why I carry a defibrillator around with me 24/7.


Actually in major cities there are AED units in every building.
 
2014-08-18 01:36:00 PM  

ChaosStar: CJHardin: Yes, you are correct, I'd know nothing about worst case scenarios or combative situations with firearms.......

You insinuate that I said such, yet I did not. I said you choose not to prepare for such. Although, now that you mention it, I do call into questions your knowledge of combat situations since you say:

CJHardin: The ONLY time you'd have a round in the chamber is if you were about to initiate contact or you were on foot patrol in formation.

Now, I'll grant you that it was after your claimed service period but...
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/17/13329628-us-forces-in- af ghanistan-ordered-to-keep-weapons-loaded-at-all-times

So, it seems like the military realized that the way they trained your generation of soldier probably wasn't the best way to go about it. Perhaps you should look at updating your personal combat doctrine as well, no?
I think the official in the article answered your previous question about carrying with a round in the chamber quite sufficiently as well: "A senior military official told NBC News that the order "could save precious seconds" in responding to a so-called "green-on-blue" attack and hopefully save lives "

CJHardin: Also, go down N King St after 9 pm and tell me how friendly it is. Yes, Sumter and Florence are shiatholes but that doesn't mean that Charleston is without it's share of crime.

Again you put words in my mouth. I never said Charleston was crime free, I said it was closer to your "Niceville" than Beirut.


I'm not going to even begin to tell you about how I am qualified in combat, but I am, and quite a few other Farkers have read the articles about me.

You question my knowledge of weapon statuses in the military and then post an article where a change to soldiers having mags in their weapons at all times is newsworthy.  That would provide evidence that before that story, soldiers were not "weapons black" at all times.  It just means they have a mag in the well.  They are not running around locked and loaded.

Yes, I know you never said that Charleston was crime free, but you alluded to the fact that it has less crime than XYZ.  I provided an example of a crime ridden area.  Conflating Charleston with Beirut is pedantic.

Also, a massive LOL at saying that I should consider "updating my personal combat doctrine".  This isn't the Thunderdome.  You are hilarious and laughable at the same time.
 
2014-08-18 01:38:22 PM  

Witty_Retort: FTFA: The gun accidentally discharged, and the bullet traveled across Helen's tourist-laden Main Street and struck the woman in the side.

I was told that guns don't kill.

/gun owner for 31 years


I think guns wound. In this case the bullet wounded the operator's hand. It was the bone fragments and other human debris on the front of the bullet that killed the tourist. So guns don't kill; bits of people do.
 
2014-08-18 01:39:08 PM  

doglover: stonicus: that's why I carry a defibrillator around with me 24/7.

Actually in major cities there are AED units in every building.


And there's probably a cop with a gun near every building in major cities as well.  But I can't rely on them, they may take too long to respond.  I need my own defibrillator on me at all times, just in case.
 
2014-08-18 01:42:18 PM  

n0nthing: CJHardin: lewismarktwo: 1911 was designed to be carried cocked and locked.  That's why it has the grip safety and the thumb safety.  Also, you don't weaken a spring by leaving it in a static state.  You weaken it by compressing and stretching it, ie normal cycling.

They made it where you could half cock it for a reason.  It prevents it from firing if it's dropped with the hammer down and inadvertently when the safety is off.  Carrying a round in the chamber is just fine with me.

As far as the springs are concerned, yes, springs do weaken under constant load, and they weaken much faster under repetitive load, thus the reason that springs in aircraft that assist in jettisoning things are replaced during routine maintenance.

Regardless of what Browning may have intended the half-cock on 1911's is *not* to be treated as a safe carry position or a typical half-cock safety.  Doing so is probably one of the best ways to unintentionally discharge a 1911.


No, the half-cocking feature is an additional safety measure, which apparently a lot of "gun enthusiasts" don't like.  The proper way to carry a 1911 is round in chamber, safety on, half cocked.  In the imaginary scenario that the gun people like to dream of, ninjas jump from the rafters and go straight for you with fire swords, or special forces Muslims or something.  What happens when they get a hold of your pistol by chance.  Most people understand a safety, but not many understand why a gun won't fire since the hammer looks cocked.  Also, it's safer than carrying with the hammer in the fire position.  You can argue that all you want but it's true.

I suppose that there are plenty of folks that would say that carrying the weapon on safe is for newbs as well, considering the Glock doesn't have a safety, so why should they use theirs?
 
2014-08-18 01:45:33 PM  
And in other news, 30 people were shot in Chicago last weekend.

And every weekend before or after.
 
2014-08-18 01:45:55 PM  

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.


It doesn't work that way, but you know that.  You decrease your odds of being killed by a firearm by ~60% if you...wait for it...don't want to kill yourself intentionally.  The vast majority of the rest of those "victims" are already violent criminals, they carry guns because they live "dangerously" (they're more likely to be killed in their "line of work"), in other words the guns they are carrying make them no more likely to be killed with one, a person who is likely to get their dumb ass shot is just more likely to also have a gun.
 
2014-08-18 01:56:41 PM  

Witty_Retort: FTFA: The gun accidentally discharged, and the bullet traveled across Helen's tourist-laden Main Street and struck the woman in the side.

I was told that guns don't kill.

/gun owner for 31 years


The gun didn't kill, the irresponsible gun owner did.  If he'd had a knife or a bat, he could just have easily stabbed or beaten her accidentally from across the street.

/Gun owner for 24 years
 
2014-08-18 02:08:26 PM  

stonicus: doglover: stonicus: that's why I carry a defibrillator around with me 24/7.

Actually in major cities there are AED units in every building.

And there's probably a cop with a gun near every building in major cities as well.  But I can't rely on them, they may take too long to respond.  I need my own defibrillator on me at all times, just in case.


People with a high probability of needing one will actually carry one with them at all times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implantable_cardioverter-defibrillator
 
2014-08-18 02:08:32 PM  

robrr2003: Ok, So that's one. You have a bit of a ways to go to get to "Most States". Please continue, only 25 more to go.


Are you just being a pedantic twat over a flippant remark or are you really under the impression that more than 4 in every 5 states don't have a shall-issue or no-permit-necessary policy toward concealed carry that enables pretty much anybody that can - at most - write their name and pass a background check to obtain a permit?

ChaosStar: One story does not disprove the point. Criminals avoid armed victims.


That must make concealed carry very useful then, huh? Do they just flee from the bulge or is there some sort of aura gentleman like the one in the article give off that lets criminals know to avoid them? Because I'd sure like to avoid them too so I don't get shot by accident by one of the retards.

deadlyplatypus: The vast majority of the rest of those "victims" are already violent criminals, they carry guns because they live "dangerously"...


Good thing we can so easily sort them out, huh?

It would sure suck of this woman had been shot by a violent criminal instead of an honest defender of the people.
 
2014-08-18 02:16:38 PM  

CJHardin: n0nthing: CJHardin: lewismarktwo: 1911 was designed to be carried cocked and locked.  That's why it has the grip safety and the thumb safety.  Also, you don't weaken a spring by leaving it in a static state.  You weaken it by compressing and stretching it, ie normal cycling.

They made it where you could half cock it for a reason.  It prevents it from firing if it's dropped with the hammer down and inadvertently when the safety is off.  Carrying a round in the chamber is just fine with me.

As far as the springs are concerned, yes, springs do weaken under constant load, and they weaken much faster under repetitive load, thus the reason that springs in aircraft that assist in jettisoning things are replaced during routine maintenance.

Regardless of what Browning may have intended the half-cock on 1911's is *not* to be treated as a safe carry position or a typical half-cock safety.  Doing so is probably one of the best ways to unintentionally discharge a 1911.

No, the half-cocking feature is an additional safety measure, which apparently a lot of "gun enthusiasts" don't like.  The proper way to carry a 1911 is round in chamber, safety on, half cocked.  In the imaginary scenario that the gun people like to dream of, ninjas jump from the rafters and go straight for you with fire swords, or special forces Muslims or something.  What happens when they get a hold of your pistol by chance.  Most people understand a safety, but not many understand why a gun won't fire since the hammer looks cocked.  Also, it's safer than carrying with the hammer in the fire position.  You can argue that all you want but it's true.

I suppose that there are plenty of folks that would say that carrying the weapon on safe is for newbs as well, considering the Glock doesn't have a safety, so why should they use theirs?


It is an additional safety feature but not in the sense that you're meant to be carrying it around in the half-cock position.  Sorry man, your belief is just patently untrue -- won't bother arguing with you as you'll have a tough time finding a reputable source that says otherwise.  This is strictly in regard to 1911 style handguns and as their are many variances there's certainly going to be differences in the safety issues (or lack thereof), but it is pretty well established that carrying a 1911 in the half-cock position is a bad thing to do.
 
2014-08-18 02:26:23 PM  
If only we had a magic mind reading machine that could determine if a gun buyer is going to be a responsible gun owner or not.
 
2014-08-18 02:32:47 PM  

AngryDragon: And in other news, 30 people were shot in Chicago last weekend.

And every weekend before or after.


It did slow down in the cold of winter
 
2014-08-18 02:35:14 PM  

n0nthing: CJHardin: n0nthing: CJHardin: lewismarktwo: 1911 was designed to be carried cocked and locked.  That's why it has the grip safety and the thumb safety.  Also, you don't weaken a spring by leaving it in a static state.  You weaken it by compressing and stretching it, ie normal cycling.

They made it where you could half cock it for a reason.  It prevents it from firing if it's dropped with the hammer down and inadvertently when the safety is off.  Carrying a round in the chamber is just fine with me.

As far as the springs are concerned, yes, springs do weaken under constant load, and they weaken much faster under repetitive load, thus the reason that springs in aircraft that assist in jettisoning things are replaced during routine maintenance.

Regardless of what Browning may have intended the half-cock on 1911's is *not* to be treated as a safe carry position or a typical half-cock safety.  Doing so is probably one of the best ways to unintentionally discharge a 1911.

No, the half-cocking feature is an additional safety measure, which apparently a lot of "gun enthusiasts" don't like.  The proper way to carry a 1911 is round in chamber, safety on, half cocked.  In the imaginary scenario that the gun people like to dream of, ninjas jump from the rafters and go straight for you with fire swords, or special forces Muslims or something.  What happens when they get a hold of your pistol by chance.  Most people understand a safety, but not many understand why a gun won't fire since the hammer looks cocked.  Also, it's safer than carrying with the hammer in the fire position.  You can argue that all you want but it's true.

I suppose that there are plenty of folks that would say that carrying the weapon on safe is for newbs as well, considering the Glock doesn't have a safety, so why should they use theirs?

It is an additional safety feature but not in the sense that you're meant to be carrying it around in the half-cock position.  Sorry man, your belief is just patently ...


Well how about this?  Given a 1911 with a round in the chamber, safety off:


Hammer down:  Weapon can not fire with trigger actuated, can discharge if hammer is struck by object or dropped.

Half cocked:   Weapon can not fire with trigger actuated, can not discharge if hammer is struck by object or dropped.

Hammer back:  Weapon will fire with trigger actuated, can not discharge if hammer is struck by object or dropped.


Only one of those modes does not allow the weapon to fire whether the trigger is pulled or the weapon is dropped or struck by an object.  Sounds like a safety feature and why they would allow you to half-cock the weapon, almost like the manufacture designed a half cocking function for something right?

Add in the actual safety switch and the grip safety and the gun is safer than in ANY other mode.

Arguments to that assertion?
 
2014-08-18 02:38:58 PM  

AngryDragon: Farkers bringing up an anti-gun thread 3 or 4 times a days is like freepers starting abortion threads on Right Wing America.  They're always the same, the same comments over and over, no constructive discussion ever, all by the usual suspects.

It's the law of the land.  Move on.


There are control freak A-holes all over the political spectrum.  Some people with superiority complex issues can't help but want to control others who are too ignorant to get it.
 
2014-08-18 02:56:45 PM  

skozlaw: cwbysfan: Because if you don't want stricter regulations on who operates a car & what state of mind they are in when operating it then you are a hypocrite

You should probably ask me about that then.cwbysfan: But where is the outrage? That is all I'm wondering.

You're just asking questions!



You are right I am, here's an action plan.  Quit talking about guns on the internet and feeding the 'outrage'.  Stop talking like we have to take guns away because someone might die*.  It shows in how many gun threads are on fark a day and they the comments exceed 200 nearly every time. We have so much to say on that topic but so little on the fact lives are lost in so many other reasons, and that is the point I'm trying to make here and it's being ignoring.  It is especially distrubing that all the anger seems to be coming from a stance of saving lives.

I suppose I do agree that the analgy is poor since they are way different things and have different uses & usages.  But if the end result is about lives lost then we're greasing the wrong wheel.

and I'm pretty sure you and I agree more than you think on gun control.  I want it difficult for them to be bought & stiffer penalties for misuse of them.  And unlike many other gun owners I'd like to have a reasonable discussion about it.

I wont ask you about that unless you want to speak of it by your own accord, dont want you to bring up the memories if they are unpleasant.  I've lost 4 people in car accidents: 2 drunk at the wheel, another veered off the road in rainy conditions and hit another car head on, another that was pinned in the car and we were told by Highway Patrol that if he wasn't obeying safety laws & regulations by wearing their seatbelt they would still be alive.

/*I know you haven't said those exact words in this thread or your stance on gun ownership.  So it's a generalized statement about the extremists of the group
// I know it's the hot topic and that is what everyone is talking about so there is that
///new to commenting & a simple country boy from OK so please forgive me for butchering this post.(know they come in threes, though)
 
2014-08-18 03:07:42 PM  

cwbysfan: and I'm pretty sure you and I agree more than you think on gun control.


I don't see how you'd know that when you haven't bothered to ask and all your opinions have been formed on the basis of my flippant mockery aimed at a number of Fark's most comically unhinged gun nuts.
 
2014-08-18 03:09:53 PM  

cwbysfan: skozlaw: cwbysfan: Because if you don't want stricter regulations on who operates a car & what state of mind they are in when operating it then you are a hypocrite

You should probably ask me about that then.cwbysfan: But where is the outrage? That is all I'm wondering.

You're just asking questions!


You are right I am, here's an action plan.  Quit talking about guns on the internet and feeding the 'outrage'.  Stop talking like we have to take guns away because someone might die*.  It shows in how many gun threads are on fark a day and they the comments exceed 200 nearly every time. We have so much to say on that topic but so little on the fact lives are lost in so many other reasons, and that is the point I'm trying to make here and it's being ignoring.  It is especially distrubing that all the anger seems to be coming from a stance of saving lives.

I suppose I do agree that the analgy is poor since they are way different things and have different uses & usages.  But if the end result is about lives lost then we're greasing the wrong wheel.

and I'm pretty sure you and I agree more than you think on gun control.  I want it difficult for them to be bought & stiffer penalties for misuse of them.  And unlike many other gun owners I'd like to have a reasonable discussion about it.

I wont ask you about that unless you want to speak of it by your own accord, dont want you to bring up the memories if they are unpleasant.  I've lost 4 people in car accidents: 2 drunk at the wheel, another veered off the road in rainy conditions and hit another car head on, another that was pinned in the car and we were told by Highway Patrol that if he wasn't obeying safety laws & regulations by wearing their seatbelt they would still be alive.

/*I know you haven't said those exact words in this thread or your stance on gun ownership.  So it's a generalized statement about the extremists of the group
// I know it's the hot topic and that is what everyone is talking about so there is t ...


Are you really trying to have a civil conversation with skozlaw?  If you haven't noticed he stopped trying to say something useful about two posts in.  The rest has been solely for his own gratification masturbation.
 
2014-08-18 03:14:18 PM  

skozlaw: robrr2003: Ok, So that's one. You have a bit of a ways to go to get to "Most States". Please continue, only 25 more to go.

Are you just being a pedantic twat over a flippant remark or are you really under the impression that more than 4 in every 5 states don't have a shall-issue or no-permit-necessary policy toward concealed carry that enables pretty much anybody that can - at most - write their name and pass a background check to obtain a permit?


I was just looking to see if you actually knew what you were talking about.. You don't and that's fine.
But don't let the fact you went completely off the rails stop your derp train from rolling.
 
2014-08-18 03:17:58 PM  

lewismarktwo: cwbysfan: skozlaw: cwbysfan: Because if you don't want stricter regulations on who operates a car & what state of mind they are in when operating it then you are a hypocrite

You should probably ask me about that then.cwbysfan: But where is the outrage? That is all I'm wondering.

You're just asking questions!


You are right I am, here's an action plan.  Quit talking about guns on the internet and feeding the 'outrage'.  Stop talking like we have to take guns away because someone might die*.  It shows in how many gun threads are on fark a day and they the comments exceed 200 nearly every time. We have so much to say on that topic but so little on the fact lives are lost in so many other reasons, and that is the point I'm trying to make here and it's being ignoring.  It is especially distrubing that all the anger seems to be coming from a stance of saving lives.

I suppose I do agree that the analgy is poor since they are way different things and have different uses & usages.  But if the end result is about lives lost then we're greasing the wrong wheel.

and I'm pretty sure you and I agree more than you think on gun control.  I want it difficult for them to be bought & stiffer penalties for misuse of them.  And unlike many other gun owners I'd like to have a reasonable discussion about it.

I wont ask you about that unless you want to speak of it by your own accord, dont want you to bring up the memories if they are unpleasant.  I've lost 4 people in car accidents: 2 drunk at the wheel, another veered off the road in rainy conditions and hit another car head on, another that was pinned in the car and we were told by Highway Patrol that if he wasn't obeying safety laws & regulations by wearing their seatbelt they would still be alive.

/*I know you haven't said those exact words in this thread or your stance on gun ownership.  So it's a generalized statement about the extremists of the group
// I know it's the hot topic and that is what everyone is talking about so ...


After I started reading more of the thread & notized his name coming up more often & what he was saying, I realized I was wasting my breath.

good on you skozlaw you got me, here is your hook back.  You have you're own color now so I wont be fooled again.
 
2014-08-18 03:18:23 PM  
Your freedoms stop where mine begin (and vice versa.) Gun ownership either needs to be severely restricted, so dumbasses like this can't get their hands on them without extensive training. Or, *gasp*, perhaps we should only allow the use of specific guns for certain uses (i.e. hunting, training purposes, etc.) and not just for everyone who has wet dreams about being some sort of hero.

/you could do the same thing with cars
//which are not protected by the Bill of Rights
 
2014-08-18 03:42:36 PM  

cwbysfan: good on you skozlaw you got me, here is your hook back


Ain't trolling you. You jumped in and tried to start an argument over what you imagined I might think about the topic. That's your own fault.

lewismarktwo: If you haven't noticed he stopped trying to say something useful about two posts in.


When did I try saying something useful?

robrr2003: But don't let the fact you went completely off the rails stop your derp train from rolling.


I'm not your writer, stumpy, make up your own wisecracks.
 
2014-08-18 03:48:24 PM  

doglover: But if you think you'll need a weapon, any kind of weapon, make sure your 0-attack time is as short as possible. Many fights are decided in the first attack. You want to be the one to make it.


Under that logic, wouldn't the only proper way to carry be in your hands, finger on the trigger, at all times? After all, drawing from a holster has to slow you down a second or so... If you can't spare the time to load a round into the chamber, surely you can't spare time to draw either?

At some point, the trade-off between ease/speed of use vs. how dangerous and likely to cause accidents it is needs to taken into account... Also, maybe reevaluate the actual likelihood that you'll ever be in a situation where you truly can't spare the few extra seconds a safer carrying method would require...
 
2014-08-18 04:08:06 PM  

stonicus: I agree... that's why I carry a defibrillator around with me 24/7... just in case.


Amusingly enough, I have an AED, but I'm also a first responder.
This doesn't make your comparison any less asinine, I just found it humorous.

CJHardin: I'm not going to even begin to tell you about how I am qualified in combat, but I am, and quite a few other Farkers have read the articles about me.


Something, something, gym, 26 minutes, does that one apply here? I can never keep track of the memes these days.

CJHardin: You question my knowledge of weapon statuses in the military and then post an article where a change to soldiers having mags in their weapons at all times is newsworthy. That would provide evidence that before that story, soldiers were not "weapons black" at all times. It just means they have a mag in the well. They are not running around locked and loaded.


I think I mentioned that it was before your service, in fact I just went and checked... yep, I did. Apparently you don't know weapon statuses in the military, as made clear by your statement here: On the FOB, you better not have a magazine in the weapon or a belt in your machine gun. unless you were strictly speaking about when you were in the service, but that's not what you were saying.

CJHardin: Yes, I know you never said that Charleston was crime free, but you alluded to the fact that it has less crime than XYZ. I provided an example of a crime ridden area.


To prove what point? That Charleston has a crime ridden area? I never said it didn't, so your provided example was relevant... how?

CJHardin: pedantic


I don't think that word means what you think it means....

CJHardin: Also, a massive LOL at saying that I should consider "updating my personal combat doctrine". This isn't the Thunderdome. You are hilarious and laughable at the same time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

I'll let you get to the gym now.
 
2014-08-18 04:13:28 PM  

ChaosStar: stonicus: I agree... that's why I carry a defibrillator around with me 24/7... just in case.

Amusingly enough, I have an AED, but I'm also a first responder.
This doesn't make your comparison any less asinine, I just found it humorous.


People are always talking about being prepared, or for protecting their family.  I have several friends, and my dad, who own guns for "protection" but don't have a fire extinguisher or a burglar alarm or even a damn list of emergency numbers on the fridge (and that one is free).  It's their right to own a gun, I just don't see why people have to lie to themselves and others about it trying to justify it.  Just say "I want one just because I want one!"  The fact they aren't honest with even themselves about it shows that deep down there's an acknowledgment of doubt as to the veracity of their actions.

As for being prepared, how far do you take it?  Should I care a sextant with me at all times so I can find my position in case a solar flare wipes out all power and GPS doesn't work anymore?
 
2014-08-18 04:46:01 PM  

skozlaw: Bit'O'Gristle: ...i choose to defend myself and not just lay down for it.

I chose not to live in a rejected Mad Max movie script. Seemed easier than your way.

cwbysfan: Because if you truly cared about the loss of life then you would cry and yell just as loud about making cars safer and mandatory lessons

Oh, yea, because if there's one thing that hasn't happened in the last 30 years it's massive advances in automotive safety.

Did you know my car literally can't crash into anything in front of it provided whatever the object is doesn't pull out with less than the minimum space physically required by the brakes to bring the car to a stop? My car is so wildly unsafe it stops itself. Has something like 8 air bags and the front end has been designed specifically to reduce impact injuies to pedestrians should it go off by accident and hit one.

Insane how little we've done in this field, huh?

WHEN are we going to focus on car safety in this country? WHEN!?


All that safety and cars still kill more people than guns...huh.
 
2014-08-18 04:51:11 PM  

just_intonation: Bit'O'Gristle: I think the bigger issue is stupid. If we could find a way to fix stupid we would have it licked.

Natural selection.

/Common sense
//apparently both are oxymorons


Natural Selection just says that successful breeders will pass on their genes. In the wild, predators would winnow the herd of slow and dumb, meaning the strongest and/or smartest pass their genes.

Trailer parks are about as far from the wild as you can get.

dascott: If only we had a magic mind reading machine that could determine if a gun buyer is going to be a responsible gun owner or not.


Corporations have spent millions researching psychological test for their employees. I could see something similar being made to throw up flags about those with personality or mental disorders. A computer could pull a couple dozen random questions from a bank of a few thousand.
In my perfect world, each test would have a variation of "How old is the Earth." Wrong answer immediately chucks the test. In addition would be various gun safety and reproductive health questions. Maybe a few basic "how government works" questions as well.
 
Displayed 50 of 370 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