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.

(CNN)   If the Vegas shooter had been trying to stockpile cold medicine instead of guns, he would have been sitting in jail long ago   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Methamphetamine, Mandalay Bay Resort, street drug methamphetamine, 30-day period, Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, federal act sets, National Precursor Log, Drug Diversion Investigators  
•       •       •

3615 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 10:20 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2017-10-06 09:54:50 AM  
68 votes:
I just buy meth now

/They never ask for an ID
2017-10-06 10:05:27 AM  
16 votes:
When Sudafed is outlawed only outlaws will have Sudafed.

//amidoingitright?
2017-10-06 10:28:01 AM  
13 votes:
My new favorite...


img.fark.netView Full Size
2017-10-06 10:25:06 AM  
13 votes:
This is why I just collect the Americium in fire alarms. Everyone thinks I'm just being safe when I'm really building my own nuclear reactor.
2017-10-06 10:40:33 AM  
11 votes:
img.fark.netView Full Size
2017-10-06 10:30:29 AM  
8 votes:

d23: but but but but Kennedy on Fox Business just told me yesterday that if trucks drove into a crowd we wouldn't regulate trucks!

Though, oops, we do regulate trucks.  So confusing.


We're pretty close to having self driving trucks eliminate the jobs of drivers... so why not develop self-shooting guns to put mass shooters out of business?
2017-10-06 10:52:09 AM  
6 votes:
We don't need to drag politics into this issue that is clearly all the Democrats fault. No amount of regulation could have prevented this tragedy, except for perhaps Barack Obama's anti-gun deregulation of bump stocks, which should not be reexamined in any meaningful way by congress, at all. Nancy Pelosi should step down.

It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.
2017-10-06 10:32:06 AM  
6 votes:
Our founding fathers could never have predicted Breaking Bad.
2017-10-06 10:31:01 AM  
6 votes:

js34603: Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.


One puts holes in things at a distance and the other clears nasal passages. Personally, I find that I need my nasal passages cleared more often than I need holes put in things relatively far away from me.

/only occasionally have I considered trying to clear my sinuses with a gun
2017-10-06 11:04:54 AM  
5 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

2,996 dead by the use of knives.


Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!
2017-10-06 10:36:47 AM  
5 votes:

Aidan: js34603: Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.

One puts holes in things at a distance and the other clears nasal passages. Personally, I find that I need my nasal passages cleared more often than I need holes put in things relatively far away from me.

/only occasionally have I considered trying to clear my sinuses with a gun


Clear your sinuses?  Pfft, rookie.

img.fark.netView Full Size
2017-10-06 09:11:33 AM  
5 votes:
Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.
2017-10-06 12:19:50 PM  
4 votes:

ZeroPly: GDubDub: Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?

It's because there's a big divide between, say, gun owners in the Midwest, and someone in Manhattan who's never even fired one.

Where I am, it's completely normal for someone to have 15 or 20 guns, even if they're not a collector. It's rare for a gun owner to have less than 3 or 4 (including handguns) if they shoot regularly. Think of it like shoes. Someone in a Nigerian village might wonder why an American would need 8 different pairs of shoes. But when you start talking about a couple of pairs of dress shoes, some running shoes, golf shoes, hiking, etc etc, it adds up fast.

It's not stockpiling in a lot of these cases. Someone might have three AR15's with different configurations on them so they don't have to keep moving around optics or their suppressor. So trying to limit the number of guns someone can have is an automatic deal-breaker, and gets that owner out of the conversation and onto the NRA membership list.


So farking what?? Who gives a shiat about your hobby?? Take up golf, hiking or knitting or something.  Your hobby is farking up a bunch of innocent people.  Let's allow strict regulation of guns (we won't get a total ban) and you can still have your lame hobby if you really want it and don't break too many laws.  Sheesh.
2017-10-06 11:02:06 AM  
4 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

2,996 dead by the use of knives.


Knife:
img.fark.netView Full Size

Plane:
img.fark.netView Full Size


There is a slight difference between the two.
2017-10-06 10:39:35 AM  
4 votes:
We need to start prescribing guns.
2017-10-06 10:46:32 AM  
3 votes:
There's no constitutional right to health care!

/chessmate liberdinos
2017-10-06 08:06:12 PM  
2 votes:

ChicagoKev: capn' fun: Maybe. But making it inconvenient is part of the idea. It's how you gradually move people off of one type of gun to another while still allowing everyone to have a gun.

The government should never be in the business of making it inconvenient to exercise a constitutional right.

Imagine the outrage if it was suggested that requiring ID to vote on election day was reasonable so long as people still had the option to mail in their absentee ballot, with the suggestion that the goal was to gradually move people off ofday-of secret ballots?


I'm talking about a specific type of firearms. Not voting rights or anything else. Along with an alternative to purchase and own other types of firearms while still making the first available with a few more steps towards ownership. That is a rasonable plan that could make a genuine difference and still respect the 2nd Amendment.
2017-10-06 12:46:01 PM  
2 votes:

FlyingBacon: /not a trump supporter
//not a libtard as well.
///just a middle of the road guy.
////last, stay off of my lawn!


*angrily eyes number of slashies....
2017-10-06 11:53:50 AM  
2 votes:

ZeroPly: FlyingBacon: d23: Petit_Merdeux: Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!

The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?

Anyway, I know this was a joke, but it's very Poe-ish.  Especially since "libtard" is basically just a word for "person who did something or holds belief I don't like" to so many Trump voters.

The word libtard been around before Trump ran for president. So they arent all Trump voters. Liberals dont like it when someone group everybody in one place but you are doing it yourself so knock it off.

/not a trump supporter
//not a libtard as well.
///just a middle of the road guy.
////last, stay off of my lawn!

As a liberal (except on guns), I absolutely LOVE it when someone uses "libtard". That's the equivalent of my opposition showing up to a town hall meeting in full camo, while I've shown up in a suit.


Wearing a suit doesnt make you smarter. Its like lipstick on a pig.
2017-10-06 11:53:24 AM  
2 votes:

question_dj: Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!


What can I make with stuff I can buy at Wall Mart?
Like Bleach, Ammonia, BBs. Nails. Pipe. Pipe ends, Baking soda, H2O2, Powdered laundry soap. A 5 gallon gas can, batteries, Alarm clocks, Wires, and frozen avocodos. (Just to toss off the DHS reading this )
2017-10-06 11:51:07 AM  
2 votes:
Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.
2017-10-06 11:42:28 AM  
2 votes:
I bought some mucinex that my doctor recommended once. It wasn't prescription but I guess it was the stronger stuff they keep behind the counter at the pharmacy. I had to sign something, put my finger on the POS scanner, register as a sex offender, give a DNA sample and have a microchip implanted in my neck.

Well, maybe not all that but it kinda felt like that. I wasn't buying 100 boxes or anything. Just one with like 12 pills. Seems to be working though. They've totally gotten rid of the meth problem in Murica!
2017-10-06 10:55:40 AM  
2 votes:
Or if he had tried to buy and install a non-restricted flow showerhead.
2017-10-06 10:45:30 AM  
2 votes:
Thank God he wasn't lobbing Jarts from the 32nd floor. Of course, he would have had to gone to Mexico to buy those.
2017-10-06 10:26:20 AM  
2 votes:

d23: but but but but Kennedy on Fox Business just told me yesterday that if trucks drove into a crowd we wouldn't regulate trucks!

Though, oops, we do regulate trucks.  So confusing.


We should regulate guns too. I cant believe the United States doesn't regulate guns.
d23 [BareFark]
2017-10-06 10:23:29 AM  
2 votes:
but but but but Kennedy on Fox Business just told me yesterday that if trucks drove into a crowd we wouldn't regulate trucks!

Though, oops, we do regulate trucks.  So confusing.
2017-10-06 06:49:33 PM  
1 vote:

ZeroPly: capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?

If you're living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house, and someone graciously offered to move you into a studio apartment, would you agree?

Right now I can walk into my gun store, do a background check, and walk out with a semi-auto rifle in under 30 minutes. That's the service standard that needs to be met. And don't say it's not possible - it doesn't take airlines 3 months to determine if someone is on the no-fly list.

Build a system where anyone can run a background check and get an answer in under a minute, then go through another screen to confirm the transfer. I'm just talking about semi-autos, not NFA. If a seller refuses to use the system, they take on the liability for whatever the weapon is eventually used for, and I don't know anyone who would want that. Right now I can sell my AR-15 to a guy in the Walmart parking lot that I've never met before, and it's completely legal, so this would be a huge jump forward. This model would tear the gray market in half.

The US has the best IT infrastructure and resources on the planet, why does everyone keep assuming that this is impossible? It's 2017, we shouldn't have to be dealing with "tax stamps".


The point of the tax stamp and the delay is twofold: first, to disincentivize people from buying Class III guns, and second, to provide adequate time for an actual, reasonably thorough background check. The idea is that if most consumers walk into a store and have two rifles to choose from-say, an AR-15 and a Remington bolt action in .223 (and trust me-if auch a reclassification happened Remington would start pumping them out), they're going to go with the on-the-spot check and save the cost of the tax stamp and walk out with the bolt gun. They still walk out with a gun-just not a semi-auto. If they really want one, then they can plan ahead and still be able to buy one, as long as there are no issues with the comprehensive background check.

As for the overall process, it is archaic by design. Any attempt to digitize, streamline, or simplify it is immediately shouted down as a "slippery sloap" to confiscation. Because some people don't want to simply be able to own guns-they want to own them secretly. And that is another part of the overall problem.
2017-10-06 06:39:29 PM  
1 vote:

give me doughnuts: ZeroPly: In a similar vein, you're not going to reduce mass shootings by inconveniencing legal gun owners.


Until this guy decided he really hated bro-country fans, he was a "legal gun owner."
If he were repeatedly "inconvenienced" during his eleven month span of acquiring weapons, ammunition, and accessories, perhaps he would have been brought to the attention of the law enforcement community.

We don't actually know what will or will not reduce mass shootings until we actually try something. But instead of doing that, we just have candle-light vigils and wait for the next mass shooting.


We must do something!
This is something.
We must do This!

Great logic there. No way it could fail.
2017-10-06 05:52:30 PM  
1 vote:

ZeroPly: capn' fun: The last suppressor I bought cost me a tax stamp and about six months of playing with other toys until the paperwork went through. I toyed with the idea of going through the hoops when I had the opportunity to buy a fully automatic .45 Thompson, but it wasn't the process that stopped me, it was the farkwit who I was planning on buying from constantly jacking the price up every the closer and closer it got to my actually having the paperwork ready. I decided to spend the money on a couple of new, non-Class III toys and a vacation instead.

Sorry-just as I'm never going to be able to convince you that having to pay a few hundred bucks and wait isn't an undue burden on owning a particular kind of gun, you're never going to convince me that it is. I've gone through the process, and it really isn't that big a deal as long as you plan ahead. And if "the shiat hits the fan!" in the meantime and I genuinely thought I'd have to survive in the apocalypse, I'd rather have my 870 over any of my AR-15s, anyway.

And this is a big part of the problem. When the healthcare debate was going on, no one would have agreed to a system where you mailed paperwork to the government, and then 6 months later you'd get something mailed back to you, then you have insurance. No, let's make an online system, because we're not in 1982 any more.

But for guns, it's completely cool with people if gun owners have to put up with that, because it's not THEM that's being inconvenienced. That contributes significantly to the rift between the two sides.

I'm not agreeing to any system that involves a 6 month turnaround time for an approval. I work in IT, and if someone can't do better than that, they're f*cking logistically incompetent, and not worth dealing with.


Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?
2017-10-06 05:35:07 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: The last suppressor I bought cost me a tax stamp and about six months of playing with other toys until the paperwork went through. I toyed with the idea of going through the hoops when I had the opportunity to buy a fully automatic .45 Thompson, but it wasn't the process that stopped me, it was the farkwit who I was planning on buying from constantly jacking the price up every the closer and closer it got to my actually having the paperwork ready. I decided to spend the money on a couple of new, non-Class III toys and a vacation instead.

Sorry-just as I'm never going to be able to convince you that having to pay a few hundred bucks and wait isn't an undue burden on owning a particular kind of gun, you're never going to convince me that it is. I've gone through the process, and it really isn't that big a deal as long as you plan ahead. And if "the shiat hits the fan!" in the meantime and I genuinely thought I'd have to survive in the apocalypse, I'd rather have my 870 over any of my AR-15s, anyway.


And this is a big part of the problem. When the healthcare debate was going on, no one would have agreed to a system where you mailed paperwork to the government, and then 6 months later you'd get something mailed back to you, then you have insurance. No, let's make an online system, because we're not in 1982 any more.

But for guns, it's completely cool with people if gun owners have to put up with that, because it's not THEM that's being inconvenienced. That contributes significantly to the rift between the two sides.

I'm not agreeing to any system that involves a 6 month turnaround time for an approval. I work in IT, and if someone can't do better than that, they're f*cking logistically incompetent, and not worth dealing with.
2017-10-06 04:55:13 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: It wouldn't be about making gun control advocates "feel good"; it would be about keeping the most dangerous categories of guns out of the hands of people who can't-or won't-submit to a background check and the responsibilities of owning them. Or can't even be bothered to plan ahead in purchasing them.


You are really bad at this.  Every mass shooter has planned ahead.   They're no the most dangerous category of weapons.

The people who can't/won't submit to a background check will just get another weapons; the black market will be full of pre-registry firearms to choose from.  NFA background checks are against the same NICS system that over-the-counter checks are done from.

What sort of stats do you have to show that people who commit crimes with semi-auto weapons do so shortly after buying their gun, or even just months later?

We're not going to wait 10+ months, spend an extra $200, and leave ourselves open to confiscation and inability to buy new ones just to let people like you play out some silly, poorly thought out test.
2017-10-06 04:21:33 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.


Let me ask you a counter question...

Suppose every time you needed to buy a car, you had to submit fingerprints and paperwork, and then wait 8 months for a green light. And if the paperwork got messed up, there's no service guarantee on when the feds will have it straightened out for you.

Would you be OK with that system, if you were reasonably confident that it would reduce traffic fatalities by say 10%? And this is a hypothetical - I'm not saying 10% is a correct number. I'm just asking if saving that number of lives every year would be worth the personal inconvenience to you.
2017-10-06 04:03:30 PM  
1 vote:

Corn_Fed: Callous: Corn_Fed: pedrop357: Corn_Fed: ZeroPly: 
Okay, so four guns. How would this proposal sound to you:

If you voluntarily agree to give up ownership of all your guns permanently, you get $1 million. You could still rent guns at a range and have fun with them there, but not take them outside the range. Perhaps even retain the four guns you own, but they would be kept at a gun range, and never allowed outside of it. (There would be severe penalties for breaking the agreement)

Would that voluntary approach with significant financial incentive sound reasonable to you? Something you would conceivably agree to?

No.

Fair enough. I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of gun owners, especially those making modest incomes, who would see such money as game-changing. And a voluntary approach with a tempting amount of money is a better approach than threatening to confiscate/ban people's guns.

What other rights do you think the government should be able to buy away from the citizenry?

Everyone's got a price. It's voluntary. Why would you have a problem with something that's voluntary? Does this proposal scare you because it would likely divide the gun crowd, with many choosing to take the money?


Start the ball rolling with voting rights or search and seizure rights and let us see how it works.
$1 million to permanently waive your 4th amendment rights or $1million to permanently waive voting rights.
2017-10-06 03:32:09 PM  
1 vote:

ZeroPly: Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?

Far fewer than you're thinking. I only target shoot, and I'm more about precision than variety, so here's my current "arsenal":

Sig P226 - for bowling pin and other target competitions
Colt AR-15 - (of course) for rapid fire and "fun", and because I miss shooting M4's
Savage 338 Lapua - for intermediate distance shooting, currently on loan to a buddy
Barrett M99 .416 bolt action - my favorite, for shooting at 600 to 1000 yard range

Of course, add in a reloading bench, spotter scopes, chronographs, etc, and it's more of a money pit than a hobby...


Okay, so four guns. How would this proposal sound to you:

If you voluntarily agree to give up ownership of all your guns permanently, you get $1 million. You could still rent guns at a range and have fun with them there, but not take them outside the range. Perhaps even retain the four guns you own, but they would be kept at a gun range, and never allowed outside of it. (There would be severe penalties for breaking the agreement)

Would that voluntary approach with significant financial incentive sound reasonable to you? Something you would conceivably agree to?
2017-10-06 03:24:53 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but the idea is that anyone who is willing to take the time and spend the money to have them will also have been properly vetted, and their guns won't simply "disappear" in into the fog of private sales or being "gifted" to friends and relatives. It would have the added benefit of preventing almost all of the "cleaning incidents" and other accidental discharges from the asinine "one in the pipe" mentality, and it would be a LOT harder for toddlers and small children to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they stumble on a non semi-auto.

As for everyone else, they can still hunt, sport shoot, cowboy shoot, biathlon, 3-gun, defend their homes or businesses, plink varmints, conceal carry, and any other gun-related activity with a bolt or lever action rifle, a pump or breach shotgun, or a revolver.

As a regular shooter, this idea just won't fly. It takes months to get a Class III license and transfer, and a lot of paperwork. When I bought my Sig P226, I pointed to the one I wanted on the shelf, gave them my credit card, and literally walked out 30 minutes later with the pistol, a few hundred rounds of ammo, and a "call us if you don't like it" from the guy at the counter. That's what I'm used to right now, and more importantly, that's what all gun owners in Missouri are used to. We like our system.

On behalf of every person I regularly shoot with, they will fight you tooth-and-nail if you expect them to get a Class III license just to get a 9mm semi-auto.

On the other hand, tracking would work, and tracking is good. Set up a usable tracking system, and you keep those semi-autos from disappearing into the gray market. I'm 100% with you there, IF the tracking system is well thought out, and not a bureaucratic federal nightmare that involves weeks of waiting.

I've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. Bu ...


Exactly, and no one will object to making a Constitutionally protected right prohibitively expensive for the poor.  That's why we have poll taxes and voter registration fees.  Gotta keep that riff-raff out.

And just imagine how well that would have worked to prevent the millionaire Vegas mass murderer from doing what he did.
2017-10-06 03:03:25 PM  
1 vote:

Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?


There is one way to find out, show up at his place in the middle of the night, unwelcome.
2017-10-06 02:49:53 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but the idea is that anyone who is willing to take the time and spend the money to have them will also have been properly vetted, and their guns won't simply "disappear" in into the fog of private sales or being "gifted" to friends and relatives. It would have the added benefit of preventing almost all of the "cleaning incidents" and other accidental discharges from the asinine "one in the pipe" mentality, and it would be a LOT harder for toddlers and small children to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they stumble on a non semi-auto.

As for everyone else, they can still hunt, sport shoot, cowboy shoot, biathlon, 3-gun, defend their homes or businesses, plink varmints, conceal carry, and any other gun-related activity with a bolt or lever action rifle, a pump or breach shotgun, or a revolver.


As a regular shooter, this idea just won't fly. It takes months to get a Class III license and transfer, and a lot of paperwork. When I bought my Sig P226, I pointed to the one I wanted on the shelf, gave them my credit card, and literally walked out 30 minutes later with the pistol, a few hundred rounds of ammo, and a "call us if you don't like it" from the guy at the counter. That's what I'm used to right now, and more importantly, that's what all gun owners in Missouri are used to. We like our system.

On behalf of every person I regularly shoot with, they will fight you tooth-and-nail if you expect them to get a Class III license just to get a 9mm semi-auto.

On the other hand, tracking would work, and tracking is good. Set up a usable tracking system, and you keep those semi-autos from disappearing into the gray market. I'm 100% with you there, IF the tracking system is well thought out, and not a bureaucratic federal nightmare that involves weeks of waiting.
2017-10-06 02:35:55 PM  
1 vote:

ArthurVandelay: pedrop357: ...population:police ratio of around 1:160...

[img.fark.net image 500x480]


That or the Blues Brothers would have worked.
2017-10-06 02:31:03 PM  
1 vote:

WillJM8528: pedrop357: WillJM8528: ZeroPly: WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.

Take all those numbers, add them together, and then compare to the number of handgun deaths this year alone.

Mass shootings account for a tiny portion of gun homicides, but a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Focusing on them is like focusing on Ebola while heart disease and diabetes run rampant, and are far easier to prevent.

I'm not focusing, merely DISCUSSING AT THIS TIME. Telling me I can't discuss mass shootings because other types of murder occur and account for more deaths merely ensures nothing EVER gets done.

To continue your medical analogy, it's like telling me I can't take the splinter out of my finger because I also need a heart transplant.

You know what else gets nothing done?  Gun control.

Damn near every first world nation on the surface of the Earth would like a word with you.


Apples to oranges.  Lower population, different demographics, minimal or no history of mass civilian armament.  From what I can remember, none were colonies that used arms to fight their independence.

Even big cities with gun control are comparatively safe. I lived in NYC for several years and I think their gun control works fairly well.

NYC's crime rate isn't that much better than rest of the country, and they have a massive police presence to help it out.  NYC has a population:police ratio of around 1:160, which is way more just about anywhere else.  Why are New Yorkers compared to so many more less policed areas?
2017-10-06 01:58:19 PM  
1 vote:

WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.


Take all those numbers, add them together, and then compare to the number of handgun deaths this year alone.

Mass shootings account for a tiny portion of gun homicides, but a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Focusing on them is like focusing on Ebola while heart disease and diabetes run rampant, and are far easier to prevent.
2017-10-06 01:18:36 PM  
1 vote:

gar1013: followed by a raging inferno of jet fuel that melted steel beams.


Impossible Alex Jones has assured me that Jet Fuel has no effect on steel beams
2017-10-06 01:17:08 PM  
1 vote:

MattytheMouse: We don't need to drag politics into this issue that is clearly all the Democrats fault. No amount of regulation could have prevented this tragedy, except for perhaps Barack Obama's anti-gun deregulation of bump stocks, which should not be reexamined in any meaningful way by congress, at all. Nancy Pelosi should step down.


If he hadn't had a bump stock, he could never have fired the gun just as fast as his finger would allow.  Nope, not possible.

It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
Hell, a bunch of pro-gun control idiots went on a twitter storm talking about gun control, only to find out later that the incident was a knife attack stopped by a cop with a gun.
2017-10-06 12:45:16 PM  
1 vote:

ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.


I disagree. It's going to happen.

We can debate the root causes, but the severity and frequency of these massacres has been steadily increasing. If close to 600 people killed or wounded in 10 minutes isn't enough to shift the political will, then it will be the next one (or fifth, seventh, etc.) with 750 victims, or even 1000. If you had predicted this time last week what Paddock has done, most people would have thought you were crazy. But here we all are. And I believe that someone else eventually will do worse, now that they have his example to follow and no practical restrictions will be put in place.

Eventually, the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to get tired of having their personal safety subordinated to the 2nd Amendment. And no amount of money poured into videos, ads, social media, or otherwise by the NRA or other groups will dissuade them from voting against politicians who support the status quo.
2017-10-06 12:42:47 PM  
1 vote:

FlyingBacon: The Vegas shooter will always be a mystery. Just the way he wants it. He knew that we will be talking about him for years to come. Mystery always keep people talking.


I'm not sure why this is a mystery.

A society saturated in (and infatuated with) instruments of death has its scheduled biweekly mass murder. We love celebrity, wealth, and violence...not human life. Hell, we spent a trillion dollars on an flying weapon of death but we kick, scream and protest when someone suggests we provide healthcare TO OUR FARKING SELVES.

This violence IS who we are. The female orgasm is a mystery. Not this shooting.
2017-10-06 12:37:59 PM  
1 vote:

ZeroPly: dk47: ZeroPly: GDubDub: Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?

It's because there's a big divide between, say, gun owners in the Midwest, and someone in Manhattan who's never even fired one.

Where I am, it's completely normal for someone to have 15 or 20 guns, even if they're not a collector. It's rare for a gun owner to have less than 3 or 4 (including handguns) if they shoot regularly. Think of it like shoes. Someone in a Nigerian village might wonder why an American would need 8 different pairs of shoes. But when you start talking about a couple of pairs of dress shoes, some running shoes, golf shoes, hiking, etc etc, it adds up fast.

It's not stockpiling in a lot of these cases. Someone might have three AR15's with different configurations on them so they don't have to keep moving around optics or their suppressor. So trying to limit the number of guns someone can have is an automatic deal-breaker, and gets that owner out of the conversation and onto the NRA membership list.

So farking what?? Who gives a shiat about your hobby?? Take up golf, hiking or knitting or something.  Your hobby is farking up a bunch of innocent people.  Let's allow strict regulation of guns (we won't get a total ban) and you can still have your lame hobby if you really want it and don't break too many laws.  Sheesh.

Here's a list of people who care about my hobby:

1 - all my elected state officials, since I vote in every last election
2 - all my elected local officials, since I vote in every last election
3 - national candidates, who care about my state officials staying happy
4 - other elected officials, since I regularly send them personally written letters
5 - the NRA, since I pay my dues and tell them exactly what I want the ...


There you go making my point for me: 1. shiatheads 2. shiatheads 3. shiatheads 4. shiatheads 5. assholes.

Wanna know why nobody cares about regulating my hobbies?  'Cause nobody gets killed because of them.
2017-10-06 12:34:12 PM  
1 vote:

Norfolking Chance: geggam: Cdr.Murdock: The US Constitution can only giveth rights, it can't taketh away.  So even IF you did away with the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, you would have a far larger issue on the state level.  This is just two examples, and merely scratches the surface.

Th Constitution doesnt grant rights. The Bill of Rights acknowledge rights that shall not be infringed. If you look at the Declaration of Independence you will see where the Founders used Natural law as the source of their right to revolt. 

Natural law means rights are inherent upon birth.

Yet natural law or the constitution didn't stop the founding fathers (or their decedents) from buying, selling and abusing humans as they would cattle.

The US Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) is a flawed document because it was written by humans a long time ago. Society and technology changes and this will change what is a right. Privacy is a right that is nearly completely missing from the US Constitution and yet is very important today. Just like the concept of slavery is reviled by most people.


Slavery is reviled you say but every day I see another wage slave go so deep in debt they can never escape. 

Calling the Constitution obsolete is interesting ( read stupid ) . Perhaps you can get some folks together and have a civil war and write a better one. 

Im doubting it though
2017-10-06 12:33:59 PM  
1 vote:

ZeroPly: In a similar vein, you're not going to reduce mass shootings by inconveniencing legal gun owners.



Until this guy decided he really hated bro-country fans, he was a "legal gun owner."
If he were repeatedly "inconvenienced" during his eleven month span of acquiring weapons, ammunition, and accessories, perhaps he would have been brought to the attention of the law enforcement community.

We don't actually know what will or will not reduce mass shootings until we actually try something. But instead of doing that, we just have candle-light vigils and wait for the next mass shooting.
2017-10-06 12:25:49 PM  
1 vote:

Corn_Fed: Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.


Just because one solution won't work in this instance that's not a reason to force another ineffective solution on the people that didn't commit the crime.
2017-10-06 12:25:34 PM  
1 vote:

geggam: Cdr.Murdock: The US Constitution can only giveth rights, it can't taketh away.  So even IF you did away with the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, you would have a far larger issue on the state level.  This is just two examples, and merely scratches the surface.

Th Constitution doesnt grant rights. The Bill of Rights acknowledge rights that shall not be infringed. If you look at the Declaration of Independence you will see where the Founders used Natural law as the source of their right to revolt. 

Natural law means rights are inherent upon birth.


Yet natural law or the constitution didn't stop the founding fathers (or their decedents) from buying, selling and abusing humans as they would cattle.

The US Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) is a flawed document because it was written by humans a long time ago. Society and technology changes and this will change what is a right. Privacy is a right that is nearly completely missing from the US Constitution and yet is very important today. Just like the concept of slavery is reviled by most people.
2017-10-06 12:12:07 PM  
1 vote:
Just as a case in point.. my husband had hip surgery last week.. I needed to get him a refill on the pain meds (low dosage of oxycodon)..
I had to drive to the Dr. to pick up the script.
They can't call them in.
They can't have refills on them.
When I got to the pharmacy, they didn't have enough in stock to fill the script.
They can't partial fill. If you take the partial amount, you can't come back for what they owe you.
They can't call to other pharmacies to see if they have the drug in stock. It is illegal for them to tell anyone over the phone what they have in stock.
So 4 pharmacies later, I found one that had the amount needed.
They need to scan your driver's license. People cannot pick up the drug for you unless they have it in hand.
You need to sign your name in several places.
The state keeps track of how many pills you have been prescribed. If you get too many, the pharmacy can deny it to you.

If you go to a gun show here, and have a permit, you can walk out with 2 guns ..
2017-10-06 11:53:56 AM  
1 vote:
A 64 year old man killed 58 people in 10 minutes from a 32nd floor window and what does America talk about? It's allergies.

A lunatic kills his mother, steals her arsenal and goes on a killing spree in a classroom of 7 years olds and what do we talk about? Mortal Kombat.

Two kids flip their shiat and go on a rampage through their High School mowing down students and what do we blame? Marilyn Manson.

We are a nation of horrible, horrible people. That's really all there is to it. Gun owners are in favor of the mass murder of children so long as it means they don't have to fill out some extra paperwork and everyone else just doesn't care.
2017-10-06 11:52:20 AM  
1 vote:

GDubDub: question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!

What's wrong with showing ID?  What's wrong with the limit?  Sheesh.  Yet you quit buying it for these reasons.  Have a drug history?


Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little pseudoephedrine deserve neither liberty or pseudoephedrine.

Ben "Sudafed" Franklin
2017-10-06 11:40:13 AM  
1 vote:

FlyingBacon: d23: Petit_Merdeux: Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!

The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?

Anyway, I know this was a joke, but it's very Poe-ish.  Especially since "libtard" is basically just a word for "person who did something or holds belief I don't like" to so many Trump voters.

The word libtard been around before Trump ran for president. So they arent all Trump voters. Liberals dont like it when someone group everybody in one place but you are doing it yourself so knock it off.

/not a trump supporter
//not a libtard as well.
///just a middle of the road guy.
////last, stay off of my lawn!


As a liberal (except on guns), I absolutely LOVE it when someone uses "libtard". That's the equivalent of my opposition showing up to a town hall meeting in full camo, while I've shown up in a suit.
2017-10-06 11:39:15 AM  
1 vote:

Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.


Bare Sudafed? Like....naked?

\Oh my!!!
2017-10-06 11:38:55 AM  
1 vote:

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]


Interesting that dickhead had to make the distinction "white man".

White guilt at it's finest, Fark him right in his insecure, grandstanding arsehole.
2017-10-06 11:17:37 AM  
1 vote:
JohnCarter: The challenge is (registering guns) not the act of registering guns, it's what will be done long term with the information?  Historically many governments, as they move towards totalitarianism, have not been huge fans of private gun ownership.  Not saying that is a viable outcome, but it is within the realm of possibilities.

That being said, not 100% sure how we put in place a system to keep up with purchases.  Many of us have more than the 1 gun per person.  At an abstract level, recording how many is probably not a bad thing.  At that practical level, it does concern one.

Argument has been made, well you have to register your cars.  Not necessarily, only registration is needed for operating on public roads.  If I have 10 acres someplace, I can keep them there, drive them around, no license tag needed.

Yes, dude bought a lot of guns in a short period.  Not sure how to reasonably corral that detail and not cause angst among the, while polite, heavily armed segment of the population

The arguments against registration and collection of registration information ring hollow, to me. The 2nd Amendment may guarantee a right to bear arms, and Heller may interpret that right to belong to individuals, but neither the Constitution nor any legal decision since it was ratified guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms secretly. Even a CCW owner who carries a concealed firearm still has to obtain the permit to do so. Also, mandatory registration and tracking actually could make a difference in preventing another Las Vegas by making sure that an individual who is stockpiling an absurd amount of weapons, ammunition, and tannerite in a short period of time pops up on someone's radar.
2017-10-06 11:13:22 AM  
1 vote:
img.fark.netView Full Size
2017-10-06 11:05:00 AM  
1 vote:

Aidan: /only occasionally have I considered trying to clear my sinuses with a gun



Preach, brother!
2017-10-06 11:04:07 AM  
1 vote:

ChrisDe: Thank God he wasn't lobbing Jarts from the 32nd floor. Of course, he would have had to gone to Mexico to buy those.


Please tell me more about these mexican jarts.  Might have to take a road trip
2017-10-06 10:59:52 AM  
1 vote:

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Well, technically, pharmaceuticals (mostly legal ones) kill far more people than guns do.

So ... in this case, it kinda makes sense. Regulate the thing that kills more people.

Having said that, the drugs that kill the most people every day are not opioids being used by hardcore addicts. Prescription medication kills more people by far, just from regular side effects and adverse reactions. They kill so many people, we don't exactly how many people they kill

Drugs actually are dangerous, yo.


Cars kill FAR more people than guns. ~35k a year. And that's pretty heavily regulated too.
2017-10-06 10:57:25 AM  
1 vote:
Having to show your DL when buying sudafed is more onerous than having to go through a background check?
2017-10-06 10:44:36 AM  
1 vote:
I keep seeing memes like this.

Oh after 1 shoe bomber we have to take off our shoes, but guns!!!!

Oh you can't buy pot, but guns!!!!

Using stupid, laws to encourage the implementation of other laws is illogical.
2017-10-06 10:31:23 AM  
1 vote:

weddingsinger: stop hiding behind the 2nd.  It says 'well-regulated' and even if you want to argue it doesn't apply to individuals, we can literally change decide the law, as a country, via an amendment, if enough people were to agree


That's why the NRA is so frothy.  They can see the writing on the wall.
2017-10-06 10:30:58 AM  
1 vote:
Well, technically, pharmaceuticals (mostly legal ones) kill far more people than guns do.

So ... in this case, it kinda makes sense. Regulate the thing that kills more people.

Having said that, the drugs that kill the most people every day are not opioids being used by hardcore addicts. Prescription medication kills more people by far, just from regular side effects and adverse reactions. They kill so many people, we don't exactly how many people they kill

Drugs actually are dangerous, yo.
2017-10-06 10:25:27 AM  
1 vote:
Hard to believe two distinct and separate things are regulated differently. Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.

 But they're regulated differently?!?? I'm literally choking on my gluten free non gmo muffin and my half soy double chai mocha choca latte in surprise.
2017-10-06 09:22:18 AM  
1 vote:
Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!
 
Displayed 66 of 66 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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