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.

(Yahoo)   Now there're some folk 'round these parts who'll tell ya they remember a time when the "days since a mass shooting" sign sometimes had two digits on it, but, I think they must be very old, or very great liars   ( yahoo.com) divider line
    More: News, television station KCRA, Police, Rancho Tehama School, Tehama County Assistant, Tehama County Sheriff, shooting spree, Tehama County, California, Sheriff Phil Johnston  
•       •       •

6849 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Nov 2017 at 3:41 PM (4 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



492 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
4 days ago  
Dead elementary students? Surely this will be what it takes to bring about reform in gun control at long last.
 
4 days ago  
Fake news or something
 
4 days ago  
Sure is a shame that once again there's absolutely nothing we could ever do to put a stop to gun violence.
 
4 days ago  
The guns are reported to be in stable condition.
 
4 days ago  
It's up to 5 now.
Let's talk about it sometime next spring.
 
4 days ago  

Subtonic: Dead elementary students? Surely this will be what it takes to bring about reform in gun control at long last.


FTA: Shots were fired at the school and some people were injured at the campus but no students or staff members died, Corning Union Elementary School District administrative assistant Jeanine Quist said by phone.

/Yes, I know, correcting a mistake means that I advocate doing nothing about gun violence.
 
4 days ago  
kids, today's lesson is: Freedom

I can't bring myself to care anymore.  wooooooooooooo freedom
 
4 days ago  

skyotter: The guns are reported to be in stable condition.


thank jesus.
 
4 days ago  

Omnidirectional Punching: Sure is a shame that once again there's absolutely nothing we could ever do to put a stop to gun violence.


If California had tough laws banning pistol grips and adjustable stocks on rifles then this shooting would not have happened.
 
4 days ago  
Hey, shut this thread down dammit. Now is not the time to talk about guns. Tomorrow won't be either. I might have some time in late 2038 if you'd like to make an appointment....

...no wait, sorry, that time isn't appropriate either...
 
4 days ago  
I am sad. Too soon to know the whole story. Not too soon to be sad.
 
4 days ago  
img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  
Yawn.  Thoughts and prayers.
 
4 days ago  
vignette.wikia.nocookie.net
Picture of the suspect.
 
4 days ago  
I've wondered about contaigon factor, like with contaigon suicides after the public announcement of a famous person's suicide. That's why it's "a suspected accidental overdose" in the news, not "pilled himself to death".
 
4 days ago  
img.washingtonpost.com
 
4 days ago  

Russ1642: [img.fark.net image 850x850]


When seconds matter, policy will arrive in decades.
 
4 days ago  
"I thought this only happens to places like L.A. or New York," said Jose Garcia - local man who lives in a cave
 
4 days ago  
First you must define 'mass shooting'.  I don't consider three 'mass'.
 
4 days ago  

hawks9nkh: 3 is now a mass shooting? Hell, that's Chiraq on a good day.


Because people opposed to gun control cite Chicago's gun violence solely for the purpose of explaining why gun control does not work (all the while ignoring that Chicago's per capita gun violence is actually fairly low) and not at all because they're upset that a black guy from Chicago was once president.
 
4 days ago  

Poopspasm: hawks9nkh: 3 is now a mass shooting? Hell, that's Chiraq on a good day.

15, last I heard. 5 dead, 10 injured.


The shooter doesn't count.
 
4 days ago  

hawks9nkh: 3 is now a mass shooting? Hell, that's Chiraq on a good day.


5 is now a mass shooting? Hell that didn't even make the leaderboard.
 
4 days ago  
The GOP credo: a child is created at the moment of conception and becomes an adult when molested by a conservative unless caught up in a mass shooting by a patriot.
 
4 days ago  
 
4 days ago  
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: Subtonic: Dead elementary students? Surely this will be what it takes to bring about reform in gun control at long last.

FTA: Shots were fired at the school and some people were injured at the campus but no students or staff members died, Corning Union Elementary School District administrative assistant Jeanine Quist said by phone.

/Yes, I know, correcting a mistake means that I advocate doing nothing about gun violence.


Initial reports are sketchy.  It was 5 dead, 2 kids, now 4, only wounded kids... Give it a minute and I sure my post will be correct.
 
4 days ago  
img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  
img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: Subtonic: Dead elementary students? Surely this will be what it takes to bring about reform in gun control at long last.

FTA: Shots were fired at the school and some people were injured at the campus but no students or staff members died, Corning Union Elementary School District administrative assistant Jeanine Quist said by phone.

/Yes, I know, correcting a mistake means that I advocate doing nothing about gun violence.


True, but the fact that any kids are being airlifted to the hospital because of ANOTHER shooting is enough.
 
4 days ago  

bikerbob59: First you must define 'mass shooting'.  I don't consider three 'mass'.


That's the most American thing I've read in quite a while.
 
4 days ago  

bikerbob59: First you must define 'mass shooting'.  I don't consider three 'mass'.


Are we really going to start Crocodile Dundee-ing mass shootings?
 
4 days ago  

SoCalChris: NBC LA is reporting 5 dead, including two students.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/cal​ifornia/Fatal-Tehama-County-Shooting-4​57497863.html


Now is not the time to update us.
 
4 days ago  

rummonkey: the fact that any kids are being airlifted to the hospital because of ANOTHER shooting is enough.


It's not enough. Gun nuts need MORE freedom!  More death for their death cult is needed.  This is what they want.
 
4 days ago  

Subtonic: Dimensio: Subtonic: Dead elementary students? Surely this will be what it takes to bring about reform in gun control at long last.

FTA: Shots were fired at the school and some people were injured at the campus but no students or staff members died, Corning Union Elementary School District administrative assistant Jeanine Quist said by phone.

/Yes, I know, correcting a mistake means that I advocate doing nothing about gun violence.

Initial reports are sketchy.  It was 5 dead, 2 kids, now 4, only wounded kids... Give it a minute and I sure my post will be correct.


Can we be certain that some of the dead have not since come back to life?
 
4 days ago  
Some reports say he was a felon.  Might want to look into passing a law making it illegal to have guns if you're a felon.
 
4 days ago  
It's time for America's favorite game.... Thoughts and Prayers!

California, come on down! Have we got some amazing thoughts and prayers for you today!!

*queue theme music*
 
4 days ago  
img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  
Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.
 
4 days ago  

Russ1642: bikerbob59: First you must define 'mass shooting'.  I don't consider three 'mass'.

That's the most American thing I've read in quite a while.


The GoFundMe pages set up to help the victims of mass shootings avoid medical bankruptcy is the most American thing I've read in a while.
 
4 days ago  

skyotter: The guns are reported to be in stable condition.


Yes. They are smart guns. The person pulling the trigger has nothing to do with it. People no longer have responsibility in the Great Liberal Renaissance you are currently experiencing. Its wonderful!
 
4 days ago  
And THIS is why you don't jump on the news immediately after these stories:

School shooting in Tehama County leaves at least three dead
3 dead, shooter killed at Tehama County school - KCRA.com

In reality, there are 5 dead people, including the shooter, and NOBODY at the school is dead. This seems to be some kind of spree at multiple locations, but the news headlines specifically say that there are dead kids AT the school. Even the headline of TFA was wrong up until a few minutes ago.
 
4 days ago  
I really hate to ask this:

Are shootings in the US really news flash worthy anymore?

As long as the issue isn't being addressed in a meaningful way, it's the new normal.
 
4 days ago  

bikerbob59: First you must define 'mass shooting'.  I don't consider three 'mass'.


There's several definitions. There's even several tracking websites. Some of them exclude gang violence, for example. It gets very political.

Anyways, twenty or more dead is about what I expect from a triple-thread mass shooting.
 
4 days ago  
If only it were illegal to kill someone... because laws um...stop people from doing things, right?

In seriousness, this crap HAS gone on.  It's with social media & the internet that we hear about every single incident now vs. in the past.  Flip through some old newspapers.  Sadly, this is NOT a new problem.
 
4 days ago  

Omnidirectional Punching: Sure is a shame that once again there's absolutely nothing we could ever do to put a stop to gun violence.


There's a lot we could do.  We could ban X-Box and Playstation.  We could not let kids see R rated movies.  We could put Advisory Statements on prime-time TV shows.  We could make women cover their boobies.  We could limit sugar.  My god, the list is almost endless...
 
4 days ago  
Ferreira said he heard gunfire for over 20 minutes

20 minutes and only "at least" three dead? That's not only poor reporting that they can't accurately count corpses, that's poor mass shooting to get only three people in 20 minutes.
 
4 days ago  

SoCalChris: NBC LA is reporting 5 dead, including two students.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/cal​ifornia/Fatal-Tehama-County-Shooting-4​57497863.html


I am not reading any indication of students being killed at that article , though I may have overlooked it. It did state that some students were airlifted, indicating student injuries, but that is consistent with other articles.

Also,

Flint said his truck was stolen and his roommate was shot and killed by the alleged shooter whom he described as "Kevin," a known felon in his 50s.

img.fark.net


Uh-oh.
 
4 days ago  

Subtonic: Dead elementary students? Surely this will be what it takes to bring about reform in gun control at long last.


i.imgur.com
 
4 days ago  
I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: Some reports say he was a felon.  Might want to look into passing a law making it illegal to have guns if you're a felon.


Everyone's been over this circle jerk for years. It's illegal to get coke too but we still have coke heads.
 
4 days ago  
Pepperidge Farm remembers
 
4 days ago  

Mugato: pedrop357: Some reports say he was a felon.  Might want to look into passing a law making it illegal to have guns if you're a felon.

Everyone's been over this circle jerk for years. It's illegal to get coke too but we still have coke heads.


And remember, according to gun nuts we can't close the gun show loophole because that would lead directly to confiscation.
 
4 days ago  
It's only been a week (give or take a day) since that Texas shooting?  Feels like months ago. The timeline of gun violence is starting to blend together.
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: It would also keep each firearm traceable to its last legal owner, which would drastically dry up the illegal gun market.


Gun nuts say we can't do that because it would lead directly to confiscation.
 
4 days ago  

bikerbob59: First you must define 'mass shooting'.  I don't consider three 'mass'.


I would think it has to be greater than 20 kindergarten children for the GOP to give a fark, since nothing policy wise happened from them after that 'non mass shooting' event.
 
4 days ago  

Mikey1969: And THIS is why you don't jump on the news immediately after these stories:

School shooting in Tehama County leaves at least three dead
3 dead, shooter killed at Tehama County school - KCRA.com

In reality, there are 5 dead people, including the shooter, and NOBODY at the school is dead. This seems to be some kind of spree at multiple locations, but the news headlines specifically say that there are dead kids AT the school. Even the headline of TFA was wrong up until a few minutes ago.


Yeah, come on guys, he only wounded children.  No big, amirite?
 
4 days ago  
Oh boy.  We didn't set some kind of record with today's shooting, so let's skip right by thoughts and prayers.
 
4 days ago  

Mugato: Ferreira said he heard gunfire for over 20 minutes

20 minutes and only "at least" three dead? That's not only poor reporting that they can't accurately count corpses, that's poor mass shooting to get only three people in 20 minutes.


i.imgur.com
 
4 days ago  
registerguard.com
 
4 days ago  

Thank You Black Jesus!: skyotter: The guns are reported to be in stable condition.

thank jesus.


And they say thoughts and prayers don't work!
 
4 days ago  
img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: Dimensio: It would also keep each firearm traceable to its last legal owner, which would drastically dry up the illegal gun market.

Gun nuts say we can't do that because it would lead directly to confiscation.


And that is why I have suggested admittedly complicated safeguards to assuage such concerns.
 
4 days ago  
Guns don't kill people.  However, they are a force multiplier for the insane among us who use them to kill people.
/keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane.  Why is that an impossible goal?
 
4 days ago  
Mild mannered dude steals neighbors truck, goes in rampage to school, which he shoots up from outside for 20 minutes, while apparently engaging multiple responding police.

Was he driving a Ferrari? Did he look like this?

img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: Omnidirectional Punching: Sure is a shame that once again there's absolutely nothing we could ever do to put a stop to gun violence.

If California had tough laws banning pistol grips and adjustable stocks on rifles then this shooting would not have happened.


I know, right? They could even start limiting the capacity of magazines, and maybe enforce a waiting period for any purchases.
 
4 days ago  
img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

Oysterman: [registerguard.com image 850x725]


Says the person in a thread where people are talking about gun control.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: rummonkey: the fact that any kids are being airlifted to the hospital because of ANOTHER shooting is enough.

It's not enough. Gun nuts need MORE freedom!  More death for their death cult is needed.  This is what they want.


This is california. Not even close to a gun nut state. Also this was a gun free zone I am willing to bet.
 
4 days ago  

Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.


Columbine had a compelling (if mostly false) narrative, which the media proceeded to beat into the ground.

Vegas was confounding because no one has a good idea of why it happened, and the police don't want to force it because it only brings their embarrassing response into the forefront.

Why do we still talk about JenBenet Ramsay, and not the hundreds of other missing kids?
 
4 days ago  

Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.


It would make people feel all warm and cuddly inside.
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: AdmirableSnackbar: Dimensio: It would also keep each firearm traceable to its last legal owner, which would drastically dry up the illegal gun market.

Gun nuts say we can't do that because it would lead directly to confiscation.

And that is why I have suggested admittedly complicated safeguards to assuage such concerns.


Doesn't matter to them.  Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And this is the price we pay for it.  Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually due to gun nut intransigence on the issue.  I realize you're actually one of the "good ones" - hence my snark earlier - but damn are you more rare than a unicorn.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: Oysterman: [registerguard.com image 850x725]

Says the person in a thread where people are talking about gun control.


Oh, you.  Let's see the legislators talk about it.
 
4 days ago  
The shooter's name has not been released and it was not disclosed if the attacker was a man or a woman.

 Well, that would be a change of pace.
 
4 days ago  
Gun violence. No such thing. They just sit there.
Let's address people violence.

If we can narc on people that assault people sexually, we should be able to drop a dime on people that have violent tendencies or are too aggressive (and happen to own guns)
 
4 days ago  

Mugato: Ferreira said he heard gunfire for over 20 minutes

20 minutes and only "at least" three dead? That's not only poor reporting that they can't accurately count corpses, that's poor mass shooting to get only three people in 20 minutes.


With proper gun control, there would have been more hits per shot.

\This is why you don't go full-auto.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: Dimensio: It would also keep each firearm traceable to its last legal owner, which would drastically dry up the illegal gun market.

Gun nuts say we can't do that because it would lead directly to confiscation.


Because it usually does.
 
4 days ago  

Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.


It wasn't just your lifetime.  That was the first time it ever happened.

Prior to that no one had ever considered shooting up a school.
 
4 days ago  

carkiller: Mikey1969: And THIS is why you don't jump on the news immediately after these stories:

School shooting in Tehama County leaves at least three dead
3 dead, shooter killed at Tehama County school - KCRA.com

In reality, there are 5 dead people, including the shooter, and NOBODY at the school is dead. This seems to be some kind of spree at multiple locations, but the news headlines specifically say that there are dead kids AT the school. Even the headline of TFA was wrong up until a few minutes ago.

Yeah, come on guys, he only wounded children.  No big, amirite?


No, the farking point, for illiterate morons, is that jumping on the bandwagon and screaming the second the story comes i=out isn't accurate at all. If you notice, NO students at the school died, but these assholes are so happy to try and get a scoop, that they have the wrong farking information.

Kind of like you, I guess.
 
4 days ago  

Pinner: Gun violence. No such thing. They just sit there.
Let's address people violence.

If we can narc on people that assault people sexually, we should be able to drop a dime on people that have violent tendencies or are too aggressive (and happen to own guns)


Difficulty: evidence suggests that even when that does happen no one in authority does anything. See the Texas church shooter (known problems that should have disqualified him from firearm ownership that were never properly reported), the Naval Yard shooter (at least two previous arrests for negligent firearm discharges that resulted in no charges being filed) or the Virginia Tech shooter (improperly filed court records which would have prevented him from legally purchasing a firearm had they been properly filed).
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: Chicago-style deep dish pizza is the only true pizza.

No, it isn't. But you just keep on thinking it is. New York style pizza is the only real pizza.


You claim that, but I know that a number of people are still on the fence about the matter.


That's not true.

Chicago-style is too heavy to be supported by a fence.
 
4 days ago  
I know some of y'all are just dying to find out the identity of the perp so that you can roll up your sleeves and make political hay... but that's what drives these types of criminals, so my thoughts and prayers are for all media outlets to not reveal a name or image.


/anyway the shooter is probably Jewish
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: Doesn't matter to them. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And this is the price we pay for it. Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually due to gun nut intransigence on the issue. I realize you're actually one of the "good ones" - hence my snark earlier - but damn are you more rare than a unicorn.


"Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word, and the fact that you think it is is why nobody is willing to negotiate anymore.  People know that the "compromise" of "reasonable restrictions" will never be enough and people will always be coming back for more.  For fark's sake, this happened in California, being committed by an (apparent) felon, and you STILL want to restrict guns more.  What farking else could they do besides a farking outright ban?

/but nobody is coming for your guns, dontcha know
//inb4 "California's laws don't count because they're not nationwide"
 
4 days ago  
I'm more interested in why this guy thought this was the most productive use of his day. I'm guessing financial difficulties. Overburdened with debt, maybe.
 
4 days ago  

Mikey1969: carkiller: Mikey1969: And THIS is why you don't jump on the news immediately after these stories:

School shooting in Tehama County leaves at least three dead
3 dead, shooter killed at Tehama County school - KCRA.com

In reality, there are 5 dead people, including the shooter, and NOBODY at the school is dead. This seems to be some kind of spree at multiple locations, but the news headlines specifically say that there are dead kids AT the school. Even the headline of TFA was wrong up until a few minutes ago.

Yeah, come on guys, he only wounded children.  No big, amirite?

No, the farking point, for illiterate morons, is that jumping on the bandwagon and screaming the second the story comes i=out isn't accurate at all. If you notice, NO students at the school died, but these assholes are so happy to try and get a scoop, that they have the wrong farking information.

Kind of like you, I guess.


Ambulance chasing journalism
 
4 days ago  

durbnpoisn: Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.

It wasn't just your lifetime.  That was the first time it ever happened.

Prior to that no one had ever considered shooting up a school.


images.gr-assets.com

No one... Ever.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: rummonkey: the fact that any kids are being airlifted to the hospital because of ANOTHER shooting is enough.

It's not enough. Gun nuts need MORE freedom!  More death for their death cult is needed.  This is what they want.



Troll much?

And it needs to be repeated:

California already has strict gun laws.  You know what is just as useful as "thoughts and prayers"?  Bullshiat gun laws passed by the hacks in Sacramento.
 
4 days ago  

This text is now purple: Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.

Columbine had a compelling (if mostly false) narrative, which the media proceeded to beat into the ground.

Vegas was confounding because no one has a good idea of why it happened, and the police don't want to force it because it only brings their embarrassing response into the forefront.

Why do we still talk about JenBenet Ramsay, and not the hundreds of other missing kids?


Benet Ramsey was accidently killed by the family and they covered it up. We know that's what happened.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: Dimensio: AdmirableSnackbar: Dimensio: It would also keep each firearm traceable to its last legal owner, which would drastically dry up the illegal gun market.

Gun nuts say we can't do that because it would lead directly to confiscation.

And that is why I have suggested admittedly complicated safeguards to assuage such concerns.

Doesn't matter to them.  Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And this is the price we pay for it.  Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually due to gun nut intransigence on the issue.  I realize you're actually one of the "good ones" - hence my snark earlier - but damn are you more rare than a unicorn.


Give it your best shot.
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: Dimensio: It would also keep each firearm traceable to its last legal owner, which would drastically dry up the illegal gun market.

Gun nuts say we can't do that because it would lead directly to confiscation.

Because it usually does.


And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings.  The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these.  They're all terrible people.  Every last one of them.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings. The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these. They're all terrible people. Every last one of them.


He says in regards to California, which did use one of its gun registries to go door to door confiscating guns.  But that shouldn't count for mistrust, because reasons.
 
4 days ago  

interstitialofficial: I know some of y'all are just dying to find out the identity of the perp so that you can roll up your sleeves and make political hay... but that's what drives these types of criminals, so my thoughts and prayers are for all media outlets to not reveal a name or image.


/anyway the shooter is probably Jewish


Outside of Chico and Red Bluff? We're probably talking about white supremacist, or meth head. Or both. (Christian, of course)
 
4 days ago  

NEDM: AdmirableSnackbar: Doesn't matter to them. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And this is the price we pay for it. Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually due to gun nut intransigence on the issue. I realize you're actually one of the "good ones" - hence my snark earlier - but damn are you more rare than a unicorn.

"Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word, and the fact that you think it is is why nobody is willing to negotiate anymore.  People know that the "compromise" of "reasonable restrictions" will never be enough and people will always be coming back for more.  For fark's sake, this happened in California, being committed by an (apparent) felon, and you STILL want to restrict guns more.  What farking else could they do besides a farking outright ban?

/but nobody is coming for your guns, dontcha know
//inb4 "California's laws don't count because they're not nationwide"


So let's just continue to do nothing because shiat's going real farking great as is.
 
4 days ago  

Mikey1969: carkiller: Mikey1969: And THIS is why you don't jump on the news immediately after these stories:

School shooting in Tehama County leaves at least three dead
3 dead, shooter killed at Tehama County school - KCRA.com

In reality, there are 5 dead people, including the shooter, and NOBODY at the school is dead. This seems to be some kind of spree at multiple locations, but the news headlines specifically say that there are dead kids AT the school. Even the headline of TFA was wrong up until a few minutes ago.

Yeah, come on guys, he only wounded children.  No big, amirite?

No, the farking point, for illiterate morons, is that jumping on the bandwagon and screaming the second the story comes i=out isn't accurate at all. If you notice, NO students at the school died, but these assholes are so happy to try and get a scoop, that they have the wrong farking information.

Kind of like you, I guess.


So what, I'm a reporter on the greater Sacramento beat now?  Sit on that and spin.  The wounded children being airlifted to the hospital was from one of your links, btw.  And excuuuuuuuuse me if not every T was dotted and every I crossed on this developing news story that falls a completely familiar as fark for anyone living in the US trajectory.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: Dimensio: It would also keep each firearm traceable to its last legal owner, which would drastically dry up the illegal gun market.

Gun nuts say we can't do that because it would lead directly to confiscation.

Because it usually does.

And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings.  The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these.  They're all terrible people.  Every last one of them.


Incredibly remote you say?  I guess we should ignore all those actual confiscation attempts than.

Also, do you have any proof whatsoever that a registration system would do anything to prevent needless deaths like these?  We don't even know the necessary details to determine whether registration could have done anything.

Also, California has registration, so there's that.
 
4 days ago  

bikerbob59: First you must define 'mass shooting'.  I don't consider three 'mass'.


I've heard that the death toll is now up to five, if that makes you feel better.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings. The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these. They're all terrible people. Every last one of them.



Nope.
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: Pinner: Gun violence. No such thing. They just sit there.
Let's address people violence.

If we can narc on people that assault people sexually, we should be able to drop a dime on people that have violent tendencies or are too aggressive (and happen to own guns)

Difficulty: evidence suggests that even when that does happen no one in authority does anything. See the Texas church shooter (known problems that should have disqualified him from firearm ownership that were never properly reported), the Naval Yard shooter (at least two previous arrests for negligent firearm discharges that resulted in no charges being filed) or the Virginia Tech shooter (improperly filed court records which would have prevented him from legally purchasing a firearm had they been properly filed).


But government should be the one I who can only have semi automatic firearms. You kniw, that same goverment that shiats on the 4th, and the same government whose police agents fark people over all the time.

Yes. Gun control is clearly what is needed.
 
4 days ago  
img.fark.net

Great police work there Lou.

img.fark.net

DAMMIT KEVIN!
img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

NEDM: "Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word


Actually it's the definition of compromise. One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights to own toys of death.  The other side doesn't give a fark.  So there are three options.  One is to do nothing and more people die - great for the gun nuts, they see no downside whatsoever.  Two is to take away all the guns so that this doesn't happen.  A third option is somewhere in between, where there might be a little inconvenience for gun nuts in getting their death toys but it also works to keep those death toys out of the hands of incredibly dangerous people.  Gun nuts see options 2 and 3 as being the same and you're going along with it.

You're incredibly wrong.  Which is why I will have no sympathy for you when the path you want to go down meets its inevitable end.
 
4 days ago  

xalres: NEDM: AdmirableSnackbar: Doesn't matter to them. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And this is the price we pay for it. Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually due to gun nut intransigence on the issue. I realize you're actually one of the "good ones" - hence my snark earlier - but damn are you more rare than a unicorn.

"Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word, and the fact that you think it is is why nobody is willing to negotiate anymore.  People know that the "compromise" of "reasonable restrictions" will never be enough and people will always be coming back for more.  For fark's sake, this happened in California, being committed by an (apparent) felon, and you STILL want to restrict guns more.  What farking else could they do besides a farking outright ban?

/but nobody is coming for your guns, dontcha know
//inb4 "California's laws don't count because they're not nationwide"

So let's just continue to do nothing because shiat's going real farking great as is.


It is actually.  Crime is near record lows, and the long term trend is downward.
 
4 days ago  
img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  
Faithless on the skids hung out to dry oh seen better days
With the sunlight fading like a tabloid and I I have found
All those double-barreled freedom fighters are in for themselves
And a call to arms has never been about anything else

Fire one more round
But hate is not a lone assailant
Hear the drummers pound
Listen to the homespun violent sound

Hatred on the prowl underneath an oh new guise garb and gown
And he's so persuasive when you look in his eyes all dumbfound
And the double-talkin' politicians expose their intimate lives
While the sheep are lowing for the shepherd to show he never arrives

Fire one more round
But hate is not a lone assailant
Hear the drummers pound
Listen to the homespun violent sound

Ooh I'll tell you how it
Pains to say this
Ugliness is ours
'Cause I would better lay in bed and
Maybe even sleep all day
Maybe sleep some more

Suspicion is a powerful religion when it leads to the force on these shores
In the jungles of the midwest dwarf militia train for war right on course
Unlike the famous fable revolution won't yield a firework show
Unlike the famous fable revolution won't end on July the Fourth

Fire one more round
But hate is not a lone assailant
Hear the drummers pound
Listen to the homespun violent sound


"Homespun" - lyrics by Grant Lee Phillips
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings. The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these. They're all terrible people. Every last one of them.


Nope.


Actions speak louder than words.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: Oysterman: [registerguard.com image 850x725]

Says the person in a thread where people are talking about gun control.


Fark is not a legislative body. It has no law making power. So relax, your guns are safe.
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: Dimensio: Pinner: Gun violence. No such thing. They just sit there.
Let's address people violence.

If we can narc on people that assault people sexually, we should be able to drop a dime on people that have violent tendencies or are too aggressive (and happen to own guns)

Difficulty: evidence suggests that even when that does happen no one in authority does anything. See the Texas church shooter (known problems that should have disqualified him from firearm ownership that were never properly reported), the Naval Yard shooter (at least two previous arrests for negligent firearm discharges that resulted in no charges being filed) or the Virginia Tech shooter (improperly filed court records which would have prevented him from legally purchasing a firearm had they been properly filed).

But government should be the one I who can only have semi automatic firearms. You kniw, that same goverment that shiats on the 4th, and the same government whose police agents fark people over all the time.

Yes. Gun control is clearly what is needed.


I do not advocate prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms. In fact, I have stated opposition to any gun control proposal that involves outright prohibition of any currently available firearm model. I would want a path to legal ownership for any currently available firearm type, with the government having a burden to justify rejecting ownership (as is the case with shall-issue based permitting systems).

I also recognize, however, that some level of firearm restrictions can reduce rates of violent crime.
 
4 days ago  
At this moment, the one thing we cannot do is blame the guns. They are not at fault.

/Are they safe?
//I hope so....
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: xalres: NEDM: AdmirableSnackbar: Doesn't matter to them. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And this is the price we pay for it. Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually due to gun nut intransigence on the issue. I realize you're actually one of the "good ones" - hence my snark earlier - but damn are you more rare than a unicorn.

"Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word, and the fact that you think it is is why nobody is willing to negotiate anymore.  People know that the "compromise" of "reasonable restrictions" will never be enough and people will always be coming back for more.  For fark's sake, this happened in California, being committed by an (apparent) felon, and you STILL want to restrict guns more.  What farking else could they do besides a farking outright ban?

/but nobody is coming for your guns, dontcha know
//inb4 "California's laws don't count because they're not nationwide"

So let's just continue to do nothing because shiat's going real farking great as is.

It is actually.  Crime is near record lows, and the long term trend is downward.


I bet the parents of those kids, or the other 500+ shot in these events in the last six weeks, are comforted by that fact.
 
4 days ago  

Pinner: interstitialofficial: I know some of y'all are just dying to find out the identity of the perp so that you can roll up your sleeves and make political hay... but that's what drives these types of criminals, so my thoughts and prayers are for all media outlets to not reveal a name or image.


/anyway the shooter is probably Jewish

Outside of Chico and Red Bluff? We're probably talking about white supremacist, or meth head. Or both. (Christian, of course)


This story has angry tweaker stink all over it.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually...


We as a country aren't on the cusp of abolishing the 2nd amendment and probably will not until a day and time where there's a more efficient force equalizing tool.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: NEDM: "Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word

Actually it's the definition of compromise. One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights to own toys of death.  The other side doesn't give a fark.  So there are three options.  One is to do nothing and more people die - great for the gun nuts, they see no downside whatsoever.  Two is to take away all the guns so that this doesn't happen.  A third option is somewhere in between, where there might be a little inconvenience for gun nuts in getting their death toys but it also works to keep those death toys out of the hands of incredibly dangerous people.  Gun nuts see options 2 and 3 as being the same and you're going along with it.

You're incredibly wrong.  Which is why I will have no sympathy for you when the path you want to go down meets its inevitable end.


If your definition compromise is "give us even more or we'll take it all", the answer will be "Bring it".

You seem to be unaware of California laws when putting your option 3 forward.
 
4 days ago  

keylock71: It's time for America's favorite game.... Thoughts and Prayers!

California, come on down! Have we got some amazing thoughts and prayers for you today!!

*queue theme music*


img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

Sean M: If only it were illegal to kill someone... because laws um...stop people from doing things, right?

In seriousness, this crap HAS gone on.  It's with social media & the internet that we hear about every single incident now vs. in the past.  Flip through some old newspapers.  Sadly, this is NOT a new problem.


We do not pass laws because we magically expect that once passed they will be obeyed 100% of the time.  We pass laws as a statement of our shared societal values, to deter certain behaviors among the lawfully inclined and punish those behaviors among the criminally inclined
 
4 days ago  

xalres: pedrop357: xalres: NEDM: AdmirableSnackbar: Doesn't matter to them. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And this is the price we pay for it. Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually due to gun nut intransigence on the issue. I realize you're actually one of the "good ones" - hence my snark earlier - but damn are you more rare than a unicorn.

"Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word, and the fact that you think it is is why nobody is willing to negotiate anymore.  People know that the "compromise" of "reasonable restrictions" will never be enough and people will always be coming back for more.  For fark's sake, this happened in California, being committed by an (apparent) felon, and you STILL want to restrict guns more.  What farking else could they do besides a farking outright ban?

/but nobody is coming for your guns, dontcha know
//inb4 "California's laws don't count because they're not nationwide"

So let's just continue to do nothing because shiat's going real farking great as is.

It is actually.  Crime is near record lows, and the long term trend is downward.

I bet the parents of those kids, or the other 500+ shot in these events in the last six weeks, are comforted by that fact.


I don't care if they are or not.  Facts are facts, whether they make someone comfortable or not.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: Some reports say he was a felon.  Might want to look into passing a law making it illegal to have guns if you're a felon.


yet another mass shooting thread which you claim are very rare
 
4 days ago  

Magorn: Sean M: If only it were illegal to kill someone... because laws um...stop people from doing things, right?

In seriousness, this crap HAS gone on.  It's with social media & the internet that we hear about every single incident now vs. in the past.  Flip through some old newspapers.  Sadly, this is NOT a new problem.

We do not pass laws because we magically expect that once passed they will be obeyed 100% of the time.  We pass laws as a statement of our shared societal values, to deter certain behaviors among the lawfully inclined and punish those behaviors among the criminally inclined


How's that working in California?
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: Dimensio: It would also keep each firearm traceable to its last legal owner, which would drastically dry up the illegal gun market.

Gun nuts say we can't do that because it would lead directly to confiscation.

Because it usually does.

And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings.  The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these.  They're all terrible people.  Every last one of them.


This happened in a super restrictive state of California, by a felon who wasn't supposed to have them. It's already been cited above three example of mass shooter that should not have been able to have guns with the gun laws already in place. The government farked up on all accounts.

It's already the clear restrictive laws don't work nor the government in charge of enforcing the laws cannot keep us safe. Yet here you go and keep pressing a method that doesn't farking work!
 
4 days ago  

Walker: [img.fark.net image 305x159]

Great police work there Lou.

[img.fark.net image 244x327]

DAMMIT KEVIN!
[img.fark.net image 320x180]


img.fark.net

So no one won the betting pool?
 
4 days ago  

mrshowrules: pedrop357: Some reports say he was a felon.  Might want to look into passing a law making it illegal to have guns if you're a felon.

yet another mass shooting thread which you claim are very rare


Yep.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: NEDM: "Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word

Actually it's the definition of compromise. One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights to own toys of death.  The other side doesn't give a fark.  So there are three options.  One is to do nothing and more people die - great for the gun nuts, they see no downside whatsoever.  Two is to take away all the guns so that this doesn't happen.  A third option is somewhere in between, where there might be a little inconvenience for gun nuts in getting their death toys but it also works to keep those death toys out of the hands of incredibly dangerous people.  Gun nuts see options 2 and 3 as being the same and you're going along with it.

You're incredibly wrong.  Which is why I will have no sympathy for you when the path you want to go down meets its inevitable end.


So you completely ignored the rest of my post, saying how A: California already has strict laws, and B: how people know now the "compromise" will never be enough?

If you want people to negotiate with you, you actually have to give them a reason to think you're negotiating in good faith.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: You seem to be unaware of California laws when putting your option 3 forward.


Good thing we have customs posts at state borders. Otherwise arguments about particular states' gun laws would be kind of pointless.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings. The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these. They're all terrible people. Every last one of them.


Nope.

Actions speak louder than words.



And your side doesn't love these shooting becua

AdmirableSnackbar: NEDM: "Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word

Actually it's the definition of compromise. One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights to own toys of death. The other side doesn't give a fark.  So there are three options.  One is to do nothing and more people die - great for the gun nuts, they see no downside whatsoever.  Two is to take away all the guns so that this doesn't happen.  A third option is somewhere in between, where there might be a little inconvenience for gun nuts in getting their death toys but it also works to keep those death toys out of the hands of incredibly dangerous people.  Gun nuts see options 2 and 3 as being the same and you're going along with it.

You're incredibly wrong.  Which is why I will have no sympathy for you when the path you want to go down meets its inevitable end.



Really?  Because this is what I constantly hear from your side:

1) We need to ban "assault weapons"!
2) We need to ban "high capacity" magazines!
3) We need to make it very costly to be a gun owner!
4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.
 
4 days ago  

penetrating_virga: AdmirableSnackbar: Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually...

We as a country aren't on the cusp of abolishing the 2nd amendment and probably will not until a day and time where there's a more efficient force equalizing tool.


According to gun nuts we're exactly on the cusp of abolishing the 2nd amendment.  Doing anything to address gun violence will lead directly to confiscation, right?  If not, then clearly they'd be OK with registration and closing loopholes that make it easier for bad people to get guns.

So make up your mind, are you OK with some inconvenience on your end so that shiat like this doesn't happen?  Or do you love shiat like this and will do everything within your power to allow it to continue?
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: xalres: pedrop357: xalres: NEDM: AdmirableSnackbar: Doesn't matter to them. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And this is the price we pay for it. Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually due to gun nut intransigence on the issue. I realize you're actually one of the "good ones" - hence my snark earlier - but damn are you more rare than a unicorn.

"Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word, and the fact that you think it is is why nobody is willing to negotiate anymore.  People know that the "compromise" of "reasonable restrictions" will never be enough and people will always be coming back for more.  For fark's sake, this happened in California, being committed by an (apparent) felon, and you STILL want to restrict guns more.  What farking else could they do besides a farking outright ban?

/but nobody is coming for your guns, dontcha know
//inb4 "California's laws don't count because they're not nationwide"

So let's just continue to do nothing because shiat's going real farking great as is.

It is actually.  Crime is near record lows, and the long term trend is downward.

I bet the parents of those kids, or the other 500+ shot in these events in the last six weeks, are comforted by that fact.

I don't care if they are or not.  Facts are facts, whether they make someone comfortable or not.


We know.
 
4 days ago  
the fact that there are people who will b*tch that 5 people dead and 2 injured CHILDREN still isn't a "mass shooting" means we have literally failed as a society.
 
4 days ago  

NEDM: AdmirableSnackbar: NEDM: "Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word

Actually it's the definition of compromise. One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights to own toys of death.  The other side doesn't give a fark.  So there are three options.  One is to do nothing and more people die - great for the gun nuts, they see no downside whatsoever.  Two is to take away all the guns so that this doesn't happen.  A third option is somewhere in between, where there might be a little inconvenience for gun nuts in getting their death toys but it also works to keep those death toys out of the hands of incredibly dangerous people.  Gun nuts see options 2 and 3 as being the same and you're going along with it.

You're incredibly wrong.  Which is why I will have no sympathy for you when the path you want to go down meets its inevitable end.

So you completely ignored the rest of my post, saying how A: California already has strict laws, and B: how people know now the "compromise" will never be enough?

If you want people to negotiate with you, you actually have to give them a reason to think you're negotiating in good faith.


Oh, and gun nuts are doing anything in good faith?
 
4 days ago  

eiger: pedrop357: You seem to be unaware of California laws when putting your option 3 forward.

Good thing we have customs posts at state borders. Otherwise arguments about particular states' gun laws would be kind of pointless.


Then that would mean that California lawmakers who claim their strict gun laws make things safer are wrong.
If people can just go across state lines, than what did the state law do?

Also, is there any evidence that this was a factor here?
 
4 days ago  

NEDM: So you completely ignored the rest of my post, saying how A: California already has strict laws, and B: how people know now the "compromise" will never be enough?

If you want people to negotiate with you, you actually have to give them a reason to think you're negotiating in good faith.



Bingo.
 
4 days ago  
Just ban all guns and give gun owners VR Headsets

/Might actually work
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings. The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these. They're all terrible people. Every last one of them.


Nope.

Actions speak louder than words.


And your side doesn't love these shooting becuaAdmirableSnackbar: NEDM: "Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word

Actually it's the definition of compromise. One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights to own toys of death. The other side doesn't give a fark.  So there are three options.  One is to do nothing and more people die - great for the gun nuts, they see no downside whatsoever.  Two is to take away all the guns so that this doesn't happen.  A third option is somewhere in between, where there might be a little inconvenience for gun nuts in getting their death toys but it also works to keep those death toys out of the hands of incredibly dangerous people.  Gun nuts see options 2 and 3 as being the same and you're going along with it.

You're incredibly wrong.  Which is why I will have no sympathy for you when the path you want to go down meets its inevitable end.


Really?  Because this is what I constantly hear from your side:

1) We need to ban "assault weapons"!
2) We need to ban "high capacity" magazines!
3) We need to make it very costly to be a gun owner!
4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.


If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own.  Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.
 
4 days ago  

BlackPete: I really hate to ask this:

Are shootings in the US really news flash worthy anymore?

As long as the issue isn't being addressed in a meaningful way, it's the new normal.


So you think the millions and millions spent by he NRA, the gun lobby, and gun nuts aren't addressing mass shootings? They very much are. Buying elected and appointed officials is EXPENSIVE.
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: HumanSVD: Dimensio: Pinner: Gun violence. No such thing. They just sit there.
Let's address people violence.

If we can narc on people that assault people sexually, we should be able to drop a dime on people that have violent tendencies or are too aggressive (and happen to own guns)

Difficulty: evidence suggests that even when that does happen no one in authority does anything. See the Texas church shooter (known problems that should have disqualified him from firearm ownership that were never properly reported), the Naval Yard shooter (at least two previous arrests for negligent firearm discharges that resulted in no charges being filed) or the Virginia Tech shooter (improperly filed court records which would have prevented him from legally purchasing a firearm had they been properly filed).

But government should be the one I who can only have semi automatic firearms. You kniw, that same goverment that shiats on the 4th, and the same government whose police agents fark people over all the time.

Yes. Gun control is clearly what is needed.

I do not advocate prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms. In fact, I have stated opposition to any gun control proposal that involves outright prohibition of any currently available firearm model. I would want a path to legal ownership for any currently available firearm type, with the government having a burden to justify rejecting ownership (as is the case with shall-issue based permitting systems).

I also recognize, however, that some level of firearm restrictions can reduce rates of violent crime.


Yes, like Mexico, where guns are illegal. Unicorn's and rainbows all around.
 
4 days ago  

xalres: pedrop357: xalres: pedrop357: xalres: NEDM: AdmirableSnackbar: Doesn't matter to them. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And this is the price we pay for it. Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually due to gun nut intransigence on the issue. I realize you're actually one of the "good ones" - hence my snark earlier - but damn are you more rare than a unicorn.

"Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word, and the fact that you think it is is why nobody is willing to negotiate anymore.  People know that the "compromise" of "reasonable restrictions" will never be enough and people will always be coming back for more.  For fark's sake, this happened in California, being committed by an (apparent) felon, and you STILL want to restrict guns more.  What farking else could they do besides a farking outright ban?

/but nobody is coming for your guns, dontcha know
//inb4 "California's laws don't count because they're not nationwide"

So let's just continue to do nothing because shiat's going real farking great as is.

It is actually.  Crime is near record lows, and the long term trend is downward.

I bet the parents of those kids, or the other 500+ shot in these events in the last six weeks, are comforted by that fact.

I don't care if they are or not.  Facts are facts, whether they make someone comfortable or not.

We know.


Because emotions are more important than facts and reality. That's worked out so well for the country before when a tragedy has happened.
 
4 days ago  

loutotheis: Just ban all guns and give gun owners VR Headsets

/Might actually work



Yes, because a VR headset is a great tool to have when I drive up into the mountains.

*Eye roll*
 
4 days ago  
One day, a giant meteor hit the U.S., killing one third of the U.S. population.  That same day, NASA discovered a second giant meteor headed towards Earth. They went public with the news that as many as another third of the U.S. population would die if no action was taken.  The government did nothing.

When pressed for a response, House, Senate and White House officials issued the following joint statement:
"In this difficult and tragic moment when so many of our fellow citizens are grieving, it would be inappropriate to politicize the issue of giant meteors by engaging in a debate on how to deal with them. Now is simply not the time."
 
4 days ago  
The simple sad fact is the gun debate is well over. Gun nuts won. They've established, through their lobbying arm and the politicians it owns, that piles of innocent corpses is just the price we all have to pay so that they can have easy access to their toys.
 
4 days ago  
AdmirableSnackbar: .. their toys..

..and THAT perspective is what makes you look like a complete dumb-ass. I'm guessing you believe that acts of violence and homicide disappears with the existence of firearms.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: penetrating_virga: AdmirableSnackbar: Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually...

We as a country aren't on the cusp of abolishing the 2nd amendment and probably will not until a day and time where there's a more efficient force equalizing tool.

According to gun nuts we're exactly on the cusp of abolishing the 2nd amendment.  Doing anything to address gun violence will lead directly to confiscation, right?  If not, then clearly they'd be OK with registration and closing loopholes that make it easier for bad people to get guns.


Registration does nothing.  The "loopholes" you want to close can't be shown to be anything more than a tiny source of guns by prohibited people.  We're tired of people getting out of prison on softball sentences and committing new crimes wherein the response is more checks and burdens on the rest of us.  Keep violent people behind bars you won't to worry about people's backgrounds nearly as much.

How do you explain the low homicide rates of numerous states with no registration or universal background checks?

So make up your mind, are you OK with some inconvenience on your end so that shiat like this doesn't happen?  Or do you love shiat like this and will do everything within your power to allow it to continue?

Nothing you propose has ever been shown to work, therefore we all pass on it in favor of things that have a better chance - keeping violent felons in prison, working to reduce poverty in inner cities, I want the drug war ended, etc.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: And remember, according to gun nuts we can't close the gun show loophole because that would lead directly to confiscation.


My dad and I got our guns from gun shows when I was 16. I git a Walther ppk (James Bond) and a 9mm Beteretta (Lethal Weapon). My dad got a rifle. Neither of us had records but we weren't asked if we did either. All that shiat isn't going to change.

/the Walther PPk is much cooler than the Walther P99 that they switched to in The World is Not Enough.
 
4 days ago  

Magorn: Sean M: If only it were illegal to kill someone... because laws um...stop people from doing things, right?

In seriousness, this crap HAS gone on.  It's with social media & the internet that we hear about every single incident now vs. in the past.  Flip through some old newspapers.  Sadly, this is NOT a new problem.

We do not pass laws because we magically expect that once passed they will be obeyed 100% of the time.  We pass laws as a statement of our shared societal values, to deter certain behaviors among the lawfully inclined and punish those behaviors among the criminally inclined


In other words, feelings not effectiveness.

Do you feel the same way about drug laws too? Especially with Marijuana? I mean shared values and all...
 
4 days ago  

xalres: pedrop357: xalres: pedrop357: xalres: NEDM: AdmirableSnackbar: Doesn't matter to them. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And this is the price we pay for it. Either get more gun nuts on your side, convince them that they need to compromise a little or get ready to lose your toys, because that's going to happen eventually due to gun nut intransigence on the issue. I realize you're actually one of the "good ones" - hence my snark earlier - but damn are you more rare than a unicorn.

"Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word, and the fact that you think it is is why nobody is willing to negotiate anymore.  People know that the "compromise" of "reasonable restrictions" will never be enough and people will always be coming back for more.  For fark's sake, this happened in California, being committed by an (apparent) felon, and you STILL want to restrict guns more.  What farking else could they do besides a farking outright ban?

/but nobody is coming for your guns, dontcha know
//inb4 "California's laws don't count because they're not nationwide"

So let's just continue to do nothing because shiat's going real farking great as is.

It is actually.  Crime is near record lows, and the long term trend is downward.

I bet the parents of those kids, or the other 500+ shot in these events in the last six weeks, are comforted by that fact.

I don't care if they are or not.  Facts are facts, whether they make someone comfortable or not.

We know.


Good.  Facts don't care about your feelings.  It's not my job to cover the truth to make anyone more comfortable.
 
4 days ago  
Look, my congressman has to plow a girl in the mall parking lot this afternoon and doesn't have time for this so we'll talk about it tomorrow after the next one.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings. The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these. They're all terrible people. Every last one of them.


Nope.

Actions speak louder than words.


And your side doesn't love these shooting becuaAdmirableSnackbar: NEDM: "Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word

Actually it's the definition of compromise. One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights to own toys of death. The other side doesn't give a fark.  So there are three options.  One is to do nothing and more people die - great for the gun nuts, they see no downside whatsoever.  Two is to take away all the guns so that this doesn't happen.  A third option is somewhere in between, where there might be a little inconvenience for gun nuts in getting their death toys but it also works to keep those death toys out of the hands of incredibly dangerous people.  Gun nuts see options 2 and 3 as being the same and you're going along with it.

You're incredibly wrong.  Which is why I will have no sympathy for you when the path you want to go down meets its inevitable end.


Really?  Because this is what I constantly hear from your side:

1) We need to ban "assault weapons"!
2) We need to ban "high capacity" magazines!
3) We need to make it very costly to be a gun owner!
4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.

If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own.  Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.


Spongey's not much of an "idea" guy, so much as a "NO!" guy.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: NEDM: AdmirableSnackbar: NEDM: "Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word

Actually it's the definition of compromise. One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights to own toys of death.  The other side doesn't give a fark.  So there are three options.  One is to do nothing and more people die - great for the gun nuts, they see no downside whatsoever.  Two is to take away all the guns so that this doesn't happen.  A third option is somewhere in between, where there might be a little inconvenience for gun nuts in getting their death toys but it also works to keep those death toys out of the hands of incredibly dangerous people.  Gun nuts see options 2 and 3 as being the same and you're going along with it.

You're incredibly wrong.  Which is why I will have no sympathy for you when the path you want to go down meets its inevitable end.

So you completely ignored the rest of my post, saying how A: California already has strict laws, and B: how people know now the "compromise" will never be enough?

If you want people to negotiate with you, you actually have to give them a reason to think you're negotiating in good faith.

Oh, and gun nuts are doing anything in good faith?


How's that moral high ground?
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: NEDM: "Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word

Actually it's the definition of compromise. One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights to own toys of death.  The other side doesn't give a fark.  So there are three options.  One is to do nothing and more people die - great for the gun nuts, they see no downside whatsoever.  Two is to take away all the guns so that this doesn't happen.  A third option is somewhere in between, where there might be a little inconvenience for gun nuts in getting their death toys but it also works to keep those death toys out of the hands of incredibly dangerous people.  Gun nuts see options 2 and 3 as being the same and you're going along with it.

You're incredibly wrong.  Which is why I will have no sympathy for you when the path you want to go down meets its inevitable end.


We've gone just about as far as we can in terms of gun regulations that would have any meaningful or appreciable impact on gun violence.  Yes, there are a few tweaks (like improved reporting and opening up access to NICS for those who want to check on private transfers) that would be helpful and somewhat painless and we should do those.  But the reality is, you aren't going to see the type of reduction you are looking for without banning firearms and coming up with some way of confiscating them all and keeping them all out of the country.  Even then, crazy people are going to come up with some other ways to effectuate their impulses...and some of those will be even deadlier than firearms.
 
4 days ago  
Talk is cheap. Article 5
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: Dimensio: HumanSVD: Dimensio: Pinner: Gun violence. No such thing. They just sit there.
Let's address people violence.

If we can narc on people that assault people sexually, we should be able to drop a dime on people that have violent tendencies or are too aggressive (and happen to own guns)

Difficulty: evidence suggests that even when that does happen no one in authority does anything. See the Texas church shooter (known problems that should have disqualified him from firearm ownership that were never properly reported), the Naval Yard shooter (at least two previous arrests for negligent firearm discharges that resulted in no charges being filed) or the Virginia Tech shooter (improperly filed court records which would have prevented him from legally purchasing a firearm had they been properly filed).

But government should be the one I who can only have semi automatic firearms. You kniw, that same goverment that shiats on the 4th, and the same government whose police agents fark people over all the time.

Yes. Gun control is clearly what is needed.

I do not advocate prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms. In fact, I have stated opposition to any gun control proposal that involves outright prohibition of any currently available firearm model. I would want a path to legal ownership for any currently available firearm type, with the government having a burden to justify rejecting ownership (as is the case with shall-issue based permitting systems).

I also recognize, however, that some level of firearm restrictions can reduce rates of violent crime.

Yes, like Mexico, where guns are illegal. Unicorn's and rainbows all around.


img.fark.net

As if any single one of these weapons confiscated from Mexican cartels was not first bought using the gun show loophole and then smuggled over the border.
 
4 days ago  
Blood for the freedom god!
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.


Says the person who doesn't think reducing crime will do anything about gun violence.
 
4 days ago  

eiger: pedrop357: You seem to be unaware of California laws when putting your option 3 forward.

Good thing we have customs posts at state borders. Otherwise arguments about particular states' gun laws would be kind of pointless.


Good thing that trafficking guns across state lines is a federal felony then.  Maybe we'd be able to do something about gun crime if the feds (and prosecutors in general) stopped giving firearms criminals slaps on the wrists.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.


Those proposals coming from your side are infringements on our rights.....and earlier, you claimed that your side didn't want that:

AdmirableSnackbar: One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights


At least be honest and say that you guys want to take our rights away.

You want a proposal?  How about cleaning up the background check system?  Because it FAILED before the shooting in Texas.
 
4 days ago  
static.metacritic.com
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: loutotheis: Just ban all guns and give gun owners VR Headsets

/Might actually work


Yes, because a VR headset is a great tool to have when I drive up into the mountains.

*Eye roll*


Is it not? You could stop to relax with some zombie killing in Arizona Sunshine when you needed a break from the drive. That game is extremely simplistic, and yes it may be a bit too short, but it is also a lot of fun.
 
4 days ago  
 
4 days ago  

anustart: One day, a giant meteor hit the U.S., killing one third of the U.S. population.  That same day, NASA discovered a second giant meteor headed towards Earth. They went public with the news that as many as another third of the U.S. population would die if no action was taken.  The government did nothing.

When pressed for a response, House, Senate and White House officials issued the following joint statement:
"In this difficult and tragic moment when so many of our fellow citizens are grieving, it would be inappropriate to politicize the issue of giant meteors by engaging in a debate on how to deal with them. Now is simply not the time."


No it hit Canada.
 
4 days ago  

Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.

It wasn't just your lifetime.  That was the first time it ever happened.

Prior to that no one had ever considered shooting up a school.

[images.gr-assets.com image 308x475]

No one... Ever.


//Does 2 seconds of research...

Ok.  I stand corrected.
I don't think that exactly qualifies as a mass shooting by Columbine standards.
 
4 days ago  

xalres: Spongey's not much of an "idea" guy, so much as a "NO!" guy.



Oh really?  Because in the past I've said that we need to clean up the background check system, make it easier to black list people with severe mental problems.  (My younger brother is mentally ill, so I'm objective in saying that.)   And I've also said that we need to increase the penalties for people who use firearms during the commission of a crime.

And yes, I say "NO" a lot because the gun control side keeps coming up with lame ideas.
 
4 days ago  

bikerbob59: First you must define 'mass shooting'.  I don't consider three 'mass'.


How to have fewer mass shootings? Easy. Redefine the term mass shooting.

I'd say mass is more than 100. That should take care of the problem.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: Oh, and gun nuts are doing anything in good faith?


"Negotiate with me, or we'll take all your guns away later!"

"Why should I think you're not just going to immediately go back on any agreement we make and press for more?"

"Why aren't you negotiating in good faith?!"

Also, yes.  When the "gun nuts" actually compromise on something, they follow the laws they agreed to.  Just because YOU think those laws didn't go far enough and want more doesn't magically mean they aren't following them.
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: The_Sponge: loutotheis: Just ban all guns and give gun owners VR Headsets

/Might actually work


Yes, because a VR headset is a great tool to have when I drive up into the mountains.

*Eye roll*

Is it not? You could stop to relax with some zombie killing in Arizona Sunshine when you needed a break from the drive. That game is extremely simplistic, and yes it may be a bit too short, but it is also a lot of fun.



Heh.

/I'd rather enjoy the scenery.
 
4 days ago  
Can we round up all of the Sandyhook deniers and take them to this school to let them experience this shiat up close and personal?

/RIP kids
//you deserved so much better than this
 
4 days ago  

Mikey1969: And THIS is why you don't jump on the news immediately after these stories:

School shooting in Tehama County leaves at least three dead
3 dead, shooter killed at Tehama County school - KCRA.com

In reality, there are 5 dead people, including the shooter, and NOBODY at the school is dead. This seems to be some kind of spree at multiple locations, but the news headlines specifically say that there are dead kids AT the school. Even the headline of TFA was wrong up until a few minutes ago.


Accuracy is important, but it doesn't make it any less heinous if the dead child was somewhere other than at the school.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: xalres: Spongey's not much of an "idea" guy, so much as a "NO!" guy.


Oh really?  Because in the past I've said that we need to clean up the background check system, make it easier to black list people with severe mental problems.  (My younger brother is mentally ill, so I'm objective in saying that.)   And I've also said that we need to increase the penalties for people who use firearms during the commission of a crime.

And yes, I say "NO" a lot because the gun control side keeps coming up with lame ideas.


You say "NO" a lot because it's easier to just sit back and be contrarian than to actually use your brain to think up ideas of your own.
 
4 days ago  

Subtonic: Dead elementary students? Surely this will be what it takes to bring about reform in gun control at long last.


The fact that this comment has so many funny votes is really depressing.

/I know, not funny haha
 
4 days ago  
Dimensio:As if any single one of these weapons confiscated from Mexican cartels was not first bought using the gun show loophole and then smuggled over the border.

I haven't been to a gun show in years. When did they start selling grenades, 40 mm grenades, and LAW rockets?
 
4 days ago  

xalres: The_Sponge: xalres: Spongey's not much of an "idea" guy, so much as a "NO!" guy.


Oh really?  Because in the past I've said that we need to clean up the background check system, make it easier to black list people with severe mental problems.  (My younger brother is mentally ill, so I'm objective in saying that.)   And I've also said that we need to increase the penalties for people who use firearms during the commission of a crime.

And yes, I say "NO" a lot because the gun control side keeps coming up with lame ideas.

You say "NO" a lot because it's easier to just sit back and be contrarian than to actually use your brain to think up ideas of your own.



I will say it again since your reading comprehension needs some work:

I say "NO" a lot because the gun control side keeps coming up with lame ideas.
 
4 days ago  
I sneezed and 200 posts happened...
 
4 days ago  

Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.


Well, lets start with the idea that the only thing they would have in common would be being illegal to posses, etc. So, if that's the only thing in common, we can make the exact same comparison to anything else illegal, like child porn. So, I take it you don't think it's worth the effort to try to minimize child porn by making it illegal?


/I'm so tired of the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument. It's really really stupid.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.

Those proposals coming from your side are infringements on our rights.....and earlier, you claimed that your side didn't want that:

AdmirableSnackbar: One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights

At least be honest and say that you guys want to take our rights away.

You want a proposal?  How about cleaning up the background check system?  Because it FAILED before the shooting in Texas.


I don't want to take your rights away. But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns I'm not going to advocate against that action either. I'd like to find a compromise that works but gun nuts refuse those every single time. You're choosing this path and hate where it leads. I'd think you'd want to try a different path but here you are. I'm not gonna cry for you, you cry enough for yourself and your guns while good people who aren't you die. So no sympathy.

Enjoy crowing about all these deaths and lives forever altered. I hope it's worth it for you.
 
4 days ago  

xalres: The_Sponge: xalres: Spongey's not much of an "idea" guy, so much as a "NO!" guy.


Oh really?  Because in the past I've said that we need to clean up the background check system, make it easier to black list people with severe mental problems.  (My younger brother is mentally ill, so I'm objective in saying that.)   And I've also said that we need to increase the penalties for people who use firearms during the commission of a crime.

And yes, I say "NO" a lot because the gun control side keeps coming up with lame ideas.

You say "NO" a lot because it's easier to just sit back and be contrarian than to actually use your brain to think up ideas of your own.


I say no a lot as well because the ideas are idiotic, come across as some weird power fantasy with no hope of doing anything positive, or are unconstitutional.

I've posted at length about crime distribution in many cities and how poverty is a major factor in most of the violent crime in this country, meaning that dealing with that poverty is key to reducing crime (and thus violence with and without guns) along with ending or scaling back the drug war.

You want more talk about gun control, not about reducing violence, curbing murder, etc.  This is why people eventually just say "NO" to you and move on.
 
4 days ago  

Yellow Beard: Dimensio:As if any single one of these weapons confiscated from Mexican cartels was not first bought using the gun show loophole and then smuggled over the border.

I haven't been to a gun show in years. When did they start selling grenades, 40 mm grenades, and LAW rockets?



Earlier this year...but you need to know the secret handshake.
 
4 days ago  
pedrop357:

Also, btw, I want to apologize for my conduct in the Maria threads.  Lame ass excuse, but I was under a lot of unrelated personal stress at the time.
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: HumanSVD: Dimensio: HumanSVD: Dimensio: Pinner: Gun violence. No such thing. They just sit there.
Let's address people violence.

If we can narc on people that assault people sexually, we should be able to drop a dime on people that have violent tendencies or are too aggressive (and happen to own guns)

Difficulty: evidence suggests that even when that does happen no one in authority does anything. See the Texas church shooter (known problems that should have disqualified him from firearm ownership that were never properly reported), the Naval Yard shooter (at least two previous arrests for negligent firearm discharges that resulted in no charges being filed) or the Virginia Tech shooter (improperly filed court records which would have prevented him from legally purchasing a firearm had they been properly filed).

But government should be the one I who can only have semi automatic firearms. You kniw, that same goverment that shiats on the 4th, and the same government whose police agents fark people over all the time.

Yes. Gun control is clearly what is needed.

I do not advocate prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms. In fact, I have stated opposition to any gun control proposal that involves outright prohibition of any currently available firearm model. I would want a path to legal ownership for any currently available firearm type, with the government having a burden to justify rejecting ownership (as is the case with shall-issue based permitting systems).

I also recognize, however, that some level of firearm restrictions can reduce rates of violent crime.

Yes, like Mexico, where guns are illegal. Unicorn's and rainbows all around.

[img.fark.net image 850x624]

As if any single one of these weapons confiscated from Mexican cartels was not first bought using the gun show loophole and then smuggled over the border.


Ha! You are aware illegal fully automatic weapons are everywhere south of border right? The entire part of South America, including Mexico is flooded with weapons from china, russia, and Romania to include former east Germany.

And I can definitely see a select fire ak there. I can tell from the third axis pin that houses the full auto trigger sear. Are you going t ell me that's from the gun show loophole too?

And that just proves my point even more. Criminals will still get them elsewhere. Banning doesn't fix shiat.
 
4 days ago  
NSCSS: My grade-school-age daughter gets off the bus; hears the news, shrugs and cheerily responds "oh, well, at least it wasn't one of the bad ones."
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.

Those proposals coming from your side are infringements on our rights.....and earlier, you claimed that your side didn't want that:

AdmirableSnackbar: One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights

At least be honest and say that you guys want to take our rights away.

You want a proposal?  How about cleaning up the background check system?  Because it FAILED before the shooting in Texas.

I don't want to take your rights away. But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns I'm not going to advocate against that action either. I'd like to find a compromise that works but gun nuts refuse those every single time. You're choosing this path and hate where it leads. I'd think you'd want to try a different path but here you are. I'm not gonna cry for you, you cry enough for yourself and your guns while good people who aren't you die. So no sympathy.

Enjoy crowing about all these deaths and lives forever altered. I hope it's worth it for you.



You should see a therapist.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: 4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.


As an Australian, that is why I don't get why my sister and her husband choose to live in the US. She lives in a relatively safe state (Connecticut), but she's still putting my niece and nephew in what I see as an inordinate amount of danger.

You zany 'Mericans going around shooting each other isn't cute. Why the fark do you love guns so much?
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: I don't want to take your rights away.


Yes you do.

But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns I'm not going to advocate against that action either.

What a surprise.

I'd like to find a compromise that works but gun nuts refuse those every single time.
Because your compromise as stated before is "Give me even more or I take it all"

You're choosing this path and hate where it leads. I'd think you'd want to try a different path but here you are.

By all means, lead us down that path.  I think you'd want to try a different path, but here we area.
 
4 days ago  
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
thumbs.gfycat.com
 
4 days ago  
Anyone ever see that website that has a picture of the globe and every time someone starves to death a black dot appears, and every second there's a black dot somewhere on the globe?

There's 7 billion people in the world. Every second something soul shrivelingly awful, ugly and tragic is happening.

There are things you can do about it, but..... naahh, you wouldn't be interested.
 
4 days ago  

Perlin Noise: Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.

Well, lets start with the idea that the only thing they would have in common would be being illegal to posses, etc. So, if that's the only thing in common, we can make the exact same comparison to anything else illegal, like child porn. So, I take it you don't think it's worth the effort to try to minimize child porn by making it illegal?


/I'm so tired of the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument. It's really really stupid.


it might be (stupid), but then look how murders and crime skyrocketed astronomically in Brazil after they made it nearly impossible for normal poor folks to own guns to defend themselves.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallel​s​/2016/03/28/472157969/brazil-has-nearl​y-60-000-murders-and-it-may-relax-gun-​laws
 
4 days ago  

NEDM: pedrop357:

Also, btw, I want to apologize for my conduct in the Maria threads.  Lame ass excuse, but I was under a lot of unrelated personal stress at the time.


It's cool.  I've had my moments too.
 
4 days ago  

Omnidirectional Punching: Sure is a shame that once again there's absolutely nothing we could ever do to put a stop to gun violence.


So...thoughts and prayers, then?
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.

Those proposals coming from your side are infringements on our rights.....and earlier, you claimed that your side didn't want that:

AdmirableSnackbar: One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights

At least be honest and say that you guys want to take our rights away.

You want a proposal?  How about cleaning up the background check system?  Because it FAILED before the shooting in Texas.

I don't want to take your rights away. But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns I'm not going to advocate against that action either. I'd like to find a compromise that works but gun nuts refuse those every single time. You're choosing this path and hate where it leads. I'd think you'd want to try a different path but here you are. I'm not gonna cry for you, you cry enough for yourself and your guns while good people who aren't you die. So no sympathy.

Enjoy crowing about all these deaths and lives forever altered. I hope it's worth it for you.


You should see a therapist.


Yes there's clearly something wrong with me because I care more about human beings than guns.
 
4 days ago  

Trapper439: The_Sponge: 4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.

As an Australian, that is why I don't get why my sister and her husband choose to live in the US. She lives in a relatively safe state (Connecticut), but she's still putting my niece and nephew in what I see as an inordinate amount of danger.

You zany 'Mericans going around shooting each other isn't cute. Why the fark do you love guns so much?


They're part of what got us away from the King of England on our own terms back in the 1700s.

Beyond that, most areas of most states are perfectly safe.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: xalres: The_Sponge: xalres: Spongey's not much of an "idea" guy, so much as a "NO!" guy.


Oh really?  Because in the past I've said that we need to clean up the background check system, make it easier to black list people with severe mental problems.  (My younger brother is mentally ill, so I'm objective in saying that.)   And I've also said that we need to increase the penalties for people who use firearms during the commission of a crime.

And yes, I say "NO" a lot because the gun control side keeps coming up with lame ideas.

You say "NO" a lot because it's easier to just sit back and be contrarian than to actually use your brain to think up ideas of your own.

I say no a lot as well because the ideas are idiotic, come across as some weird power fantasy with no hope of doing anything positive, or are unconstitutional.

I've posted at length about crime distribution in many cities and how poverty is a major factor in most of the violent crime in this country, meaning that dealing with that poverty is key to reducing crime (and thus violence with and without guns) along with ending or scaling back the drug war.

You want more talk about gun control, not about reducing violence, curbing murder, etc.  This is why people eventually just say "NO" to you and move on.


Because we can tell it's a disingenuous attempt to move the conversation from the fact that, yet again, a bunch of people are injured and/or dead at the hands of one asshole with a gun or twelve. It's as transparent as when you lot suddenly care SO. FARKING. MUCH. about mental healthcare in the wake of one of these events. Then once it's out of the news cycle your interest in the issue suddenly fades into the ether and it's never brought up again until the next mass shooting. Nobody's farking buying it. I sincerely do not believe that you give two shiats about poverty or inner city crime beyond their ability to deflect.
 
4 days ago  

fragMasterFlash: Can we round up all of the Sandyhook deniers and take them to this school to let them experience this shiat up close and personal?

/RIP kids
//you deserved so much better than this


Yes, they deserved the police to actually enforce the law and do something when people reported Lanza twice.
 
4 days ago  

carkiller: Mikey1969: carkiller: Mikey1969: And THIS is why you don't jump on the news immediately after these stories:

School shooting in Tehama County leaves at least three dead
3 dead, shooter killed at Tehama County school - KCRA.com

In reality, there are 5 dead people, including the shooter, and NOBODY at the school is dead. This seems to be some kind of spree at multiple locations, but the news headlines specifically say that there are dead kids AT the school. Even the headline of TFA was wrong up until a few minutes ago.

Yeah, come on guys, he only wounded children.  No big, amirite?

No, the farking point, for illiterate morons, is that jumping on the bandwagon and screaming the second the story comes i=out isn't accurate at all. If you notice, NO students at the school died, but these assholes are so happy to try and get a scoop, that they have the wrong farking information.

Kind of like you, I guess.

So what, I'm a reporter on the greater Sacramento beat now?  Sit on that and spin.  The wounded children being airlifted to the hospital was from one of your links, btw.  And excuuuuuuuuse me if not every T was dotted and every I crossed on this developing news story that falls a completely familiar as fark for anyone living in the US trajectory.


Look, I posted links warning people why you don't go all in immediately after a story breaks.

You came back with some stupid bullshiat trying to pretend like I don't care about people getting shot. Not because I said anything, but because Fark is the home page for the "You're either with us or against us" crowd, so my pointing out inaccurate reporting immediately after a story breaks must mean that I support mass shootings.

Don't come crying to me when your farking bullshiat comes back to bite you on the ass.

Of course, I should have known better. I did the same thing when the Vegas shooting happened and everyone reported that the guy was going from casino to casino and people were stealing police cars to escape. Nobody cares about what really happens, just how they can use it to further whatever version of the story they like best.
 
4 days ago  

Trapper439: The_Sponge: 4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.

As an Australian, that is why I don't get why my sister and her husband choose to live in the US. She lives in a relatively safe state (Connecticut), but she's still putting my niece and nephew in what I see as an inordinate amount of danger.

You zany 'Mericans going around shooting each other isn't cute. Why the fark do you love guns so much?



Of FFS.  We're not Afghanistan.  It seems like a lot of foreign media outlets are just creating hype.

Look...I live in a state where law-abiding people can have concealed carry permits.....I also have one...and yet, Washington is a safe place to live.  The vast majority of us are not "going around shooting each other".

I'm 39 now, and have owned firearms since the age of 18....and yet, not only have I never shot anyone, I have never aimed a firearm at single person...and I hope I don't have to.
 
4 days ago  

Markoff_Cheney: I sneezed and 200 posts happened...


Gun threads always blow up
 
4 days ago  

Perlin Noise: Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.

Well, lets start with the idea that the only thing they would have in common would be being illegal to posses, etc. So, if that's the only thing in common, we can make the exact same comparison to anything else illegal, like child porn. So, I take it you don't think it's worth the effort to try to minimize child porn by making it illegal?


/I'm so tired of the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument. It's really really stupid.


You hate it because it is true. Mexico is a prime example of it.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: Trapper439: The_Sponge: 4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.

As an Australian, that is why I don't get why my sister and her husband choose to live in the US. She lives in a relatively safe state (Connecticut), but she's still putting my niece and nephew in what I see as an inordinate amount of danger.

You zany 'Mericans going around shooting each other isn't cute. Why the fark do you love guns so much?


Of FFS.  We're not Afghanistan.  It seems like a lot of foreign media outlets are just creating hype.

Look...I live in a state where law-abiding people can have concealed carry permits.....I also have one...and yet, Washington is a safe place to live.  The vast majority of us are not "going around shooting each other".

I'm 39 now, and have owned firearms since the age of 18....and yet, not only have I never shot anyone, I have never aimed a firearm at single person...and I hope I don't have to.


Since you haven't shot anyone, we can extrapolate that no one has ever shot anyone.
 
4 days ago  

Mikey1969: Don't come crying to me when your farking bullshiat comes back to bite you on the ass.


You're far, far down the list of people I plan to go crying about anything to, tough guy, so rest your troubled head.
 
4 days ago  

trappedspirit: Omnidirectional Punching: Sure is a shame that once again there's absolutely nothing we could ever do to put a stop to gun violence.

So...thoughts and prayers, then?


Malignant narcissist want their story to get out; of how they were wronged (that to normal people they don't look like the party that was "wronged" never crosses their mind). When the media plasters their name and image on our screens and tells the story of how they were scorned by an ex wife or something like that, it fuels the next shooter.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.

Those proposals coming from your side are infringements on our rights.....and earlier, you claimed that your side didn't want that:

AdmirableSnackbar: One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights

At least be honest and say that you guys want to take our rights away.

You want a proposal?  How about cleaning up the background check system?  Because it FAILED before the shooting in Texas.

I don't want to take your rights away. But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns I'm not going to advocate against that action either. I'd like to find a compromise that works but gun nuts refuse those every single time. You're choosing this path and hate where it leads. I'd think you'd want to try a different path but here you are. I'm not gonna cry for you, you cry enough for yourself and your guns while good people who aren't you die. So no sympathy.

Enjoy crowing about all these deaths and lives forever altered. I hope it's worth it for you.


You should see a therapist.

Yes there's clearly something wrong with me because I care more about human beings than guns.


You care more about gun control than you do saving lives.  Very few gun control proposals have any chance of stopping either day-to-day violence or spree/mass killers.  The ones that would actually work would require massive confiscation and a near police state to maintain compliance.
This is unworkable and a violation of rights.

That you can't see beyond gun control as a solution to reducing violence shows misguided you are.

Drug war violence, poverty, violent people being released over and over again.  Addressing these would begin doing wonders for the violent crime you're concerned about.
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: There is "dishonest misrepresentation" and then there is "outright lying", which is what people too stupid to know how to misrepresent do.

That you chose the latter is telling.


And they wonder why we can never talk about guns.

AdmirableSnackbar: Yes there's clearly something wrong with me because I care more about human beings than guns.


No, the fact that you can't talk about guns without misrepresenting the argument of the person you're debating  means there may be something wrong with you.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: Of FFS. We're not Afghanistan. It seems like a lot of foreign media outlets are just creating hype.


It's almost like making every single instance of gun crime in the country international news paints an inaccurate picture.
 
4 days ago  

eiger: pedrop357: You seem to be unaware of California laws when putting your option 3 forward.

Good thing we have customs posts at state borders. Otherwise arguments about particular states' gun laws would be kind of pointless.


img.fark.net
California does have inspection checkpoints at their state crossings.
 
4 days ago  

xalres: Because we can tell it's a disingenuous attempt to move the conversation from the fact that, yet again, a bunch of people are injured and/or dead at the hands of one asshole with a gun or twelve. It's as transparent as when you lot suddenly care SO. FARKING. MUCH. about mental healthcare in the wake of one of these events. Then once it's out of the news cycle your interest in the issue suddenly fades into the ether and it's never brought up again until the next mass shooting.


Do we know each other outside of fark?

Nobody's farking buying it. I sincerely do not believe that you give two shiats about poverty or inner city crime beyond their ability to deflect.

As long as you believe it, who am I to argue about what I believe or care about?
 
4 days ago  

durbnpoisn: Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.

It wasn't just your lifetime.  That was the first time it ever happened.

Prior to that no one had ever considered shooting up a school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindhur​s​t_High_School_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clevela​n​d_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton​)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrone_​M​itchell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland​_​Elementary_School_shooting

They used explosives, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Sc​h​ool_disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Ele​m​entary_School_bombing
 
4 days ago  

This text is now purple: Mild mannered dude steals neighbors truck, goes in rampage to school, which he shoots up from outside for 20 minutes, while apparently engaging multiple responding police.

Was he driving a Ferrari? Did he look like this?

[img.fark.net image 675x360]


Not any longer!

img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  
If you care more about an inanimate object than the lives of your fellow humans, you're a worthless garbage person who deserves neither respect nor consideration.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.

Those proposals coming from your side are infringements on our rights.....and earlier, you claimed that your side didn't want that:

AdmirableSnackbar: One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights

At least be honest and say that you guys want to take our rights away.

You want a proposal?  How about cleaning up the background check system?  Because it FAILED before the shooting in Texas.

I don't want to take your rights away. But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns I'm not going to advocate against that action either. I'd like to find a compromise that works but gun nuts refuse those every single time. You're choosing this path and hate where it leads. I'd think you'd want to try a different path but here you are. I'm not gonna cry for you, you cry enough for yourself and your guns while good people who aren't you die. So no sympathy.

Enjoy crowing about all these deaths and lives forever altered. I hope it's worth it for you.


You should see a therapist.

Yes there's clearly something wrong with me because I care more about human beings than guns.

You care more about gun control than you do saving lives.  Very few gun control proposals have any chance of stopping either day-to-day violence or spree/mass killers.  The ones that would actually work would require massive confiscation and a near police state to maintain compliance.
This is unworkable and a violation of rights.

That you can't see beyond gun control as a solution to reducing violence shows misguided you are.

Drug war violence, poverty, violent people being released over and over again.  Addressing these would begin doing wonders for the violent crime you're concerned ...


Yet, you'll keep voting for the people that won't do anything about those problems either, because any gun regulation is "stepping on your rights."
 
4 days ago  

Shakin_Haitian: Since you haven't shot anyone, we can extrapolate that no one has ever shot anyone.



Nope, but maybe it makes a case for why I don't want my rights taken away due to the actions of others.
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: HumanSVD: Dimensio: HumanSVD: Dimensio: Pinner: Gun violence. No such thing. They just sit there.
Let's address people violence.

If we can narc on people that assault people sexually, we should be able to drop a dime on people that have violent tendencies or are too aggressive (and happen to own guns)

Difficulty: evidence suggests that even when that does happen no one in authority does anything. See the Texas church shooter (known problems that should have disqualified him from firearm ownership that were never properly reported), the Naval Yard shooter (at least two previous arrests for negligent firearm discharges that resulted in no charges being filed) or the Virginia Tech shooter (improperly filed court records which would have prevented him from legally purchasing a firearm had they been properly filed).

But government should be the one I who can only have semi automatic firearms. You kniw, that same goverment that shiats on the 4th, and the same government whose police agents fark people over all the time.

Yes. Gun control is clearly what is needed.

I do not advocate prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms. In fact, I have stated opposition to any gun control proposal that involves outright prohibition of any currently available firearm model. I would want a path to legal ownership for any currently available firearm type, with the government having a burden to justify rejecting ownership (as is the case with shall-issue based permitting systems).

I also recognize, however, that some level of firearm restrictions can reduce rates of violent crime.

Yes, like Mexico, where guns are illegal. Unicorn's and rainbows all around.

[img.fark.net image 850x624]

As if any single one of these weapons confiscated from Mexican cartels was not first bought using the gun show loophole and then smuggled over the border.

Do you have any idea how much legal arms we (The USA) sell to Mexico EVERY year, and how much of that goes walkabout when the recruits disappear to join the cartels?!  Why try smuggling them over the border when we hand delivery them by the crate!

http://www.jgspl.org/u-s-arms-exports​-​mexican-war-drugs-violation-arms-trade​-treaty/
 
4 days ago  

xalres: If you care more about an inanimate object than the lives of your fellow humans, you're a worthless garbage person who deserves neither respect nor consideration.


But enough about the prohibition of alcohol.
 
4 days ago  

xalres: If you care more about an inanimate object than the lives of your fellow humans, you're a worthless garbage person who deserves neither respect nor consideration.



If I dumped all of my firearms into Puget Sound this weekend, how many lives would that save?
 
4 days ago  

NEDM: The_Sponge: Of FFS. We're not Afghanistan. It seems like a lot of foreign media outlets are just creating hype.

It's almost like making every single instance of gun crime in the country international news paints an inaccurate picture.


Actually, making every single instance of gun crime in country international news would paint, kind of by its definition, a totally accurate picture.  And it would also be, in my opinion, an utterly appalling picture.
 
4 days ago  

NEDM: The_Sponge: Of FFS. We're not Afghanistan. It seems like a lot of foreign media outlets are just creating hype.

It's almost like making every single instance of gun crime in the country international news paints an inaccurate picture.


Wut?  Almost all gun crime is a paragraph in the back of a newspaper.  The only gun crime that makes more than local news is mass shootings.
 
4 days ago  

Trapper439: The_Sponge: 4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.

As an Australian, that is why I don't get why my sister and her husband choose to live in the US. She lives in a relatively safe state (Connecticut), but she's still putting my niece and nephew in what I see as an inordinate amount of danger.

You zany 'Mericans going around shooting each other isn't cute. Why the fark do you love guns so much?


Says the guy who lives in a place where every critter that walks, crawls, or slithers is deadly to humans.
 
4 days ago  

Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.


The difficulty with Vegas is it's really hard to continue pushing a story when you have little to no news relating to it. The last article I saw was on the 11th I think and didn't really tell us anything we didn't know or guess. Guy had been losing money since 2015 and was probably depressed. That's it.

With Columbine, there was a number of issues to be had and discussed ad nauseam ranging from bullies to influence of video games to mental illness.

Vegas? Old man with no history of mental illness, very predictable, no manifestos or weird search history, described as 'vanilla' meaning no reason to like or dislike him, and ultimately there's still nothing remarkable about him up to the point of him shooting people. How do you draw that out for 3 months?
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.

Those proposals coming from your side are infringements on our rights.....and earlier, you claimed that your side didn't want that:

AdmirableSnackbar: One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights

At least be honest and say that you guys want to take our rights away.

You want a proposal?  How about cleaning up the background check system?  Because it FAILED before the shooting in Texas.

I don't want to take your rights away. But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns I'm not going to advocate against that action either. I'd like to find a compromise that works but gun nuts refuse those every single time. You're choosing this path and hate where it leads. I'd think you'd want to try a different path but here you are. I'm not gonna cry for you, you cry enough for yourself and your guns while good people who aren't you die. So no sympathy.

Enjoy crowing about all these deaths and lives forever altered. I hope it's worth it for you.


You should see a therapist.

Yes there's clearly something wrong with me because I care more about human beings than guns.

You care more about gun control than you do saving lives.  Very few gun control proposals have any chance of stopping either day-to-day violence or spree/mass killers.  The ones that would actually work would require massive confiscation and a near police state to maintain compliance.
This is unworkable and a violation of rights.

That you can't see beyond gun control as a solution to reducing violence shows misguided you are.

Drug war violence, poverty, violent people being released over and over again.  Addressing these would begin doing wonders for the violent crime you're concerned about.


Considering how many gun nuts vote Republican therefore against better education, socioeconomic mobility, and ending the war on drugs that would help reduce gun violence I find their (and by extension your) arguments about reducing gun violence disingenuous. They're giving those of us who care about human beings very few options.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: Shakin_Haitian: Since you haven't shot anyone, we can extrapolate that no one has ever shot anyone.


Nope, but maybe it makes a case for why I don't want my rights taken away due to the actions of others.


Which is why I support the legalization of 1,000 rpm miniguns.
 
4 days ago  

Trapper439: As an Australian, that is why I don't get why my sister and her husband choose to live in the US.


You have trees whose leaves are literally neurotoxic, and you're wondering why your sister chooses to live someplace else?
 
4 days ago  

This text is now purple: eiger: pedrop357: You seem to be unaware of California laws when putting your option 3 forward.

Good thing we have customs posts at state borders. Otherwise arguments about particular states' gun laws would be kind of pointless.

[img.fark.net image 850x637]
California does have inspection checkpoints at their state crossings.


California is its own country at this point.
 
4 days ago  

Shakin_Haitian: pedrop357: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.

Those proposals coming from your side are infringements on our rights.....and earlier, you claimed that your side didn't want that:

AdmirableSnackbar: One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights

At least be honest and say that you guys want to take our rights away.

You want a proposal?  How about cleaning up the background check system?  Because it FAILED before the shooting in Texas.

I don't want to take your rights away. But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns I'm not going to advocate against that action either. I'd like to find a compromise that works but gun nuts refuse those every single time. You're choosing this path and hate where it leads. I'd think you'd want to try a different path but here you are. I'm not gonna cry for you, you cry enough for yourself and your guns while good people who aren't you die. So no sympathy.

Enjoy crowing about all these deaths and lives forever altered. I hope it's worth it for you.


You should see a therapist.

Yes there's clearly something wrong with me because I care more about human beings than guns.

You care more about gun control than you do saving lives.  Very few gun control proposals have any chance of stopping either day-to-day violence or spree/mass killers.  The ones that would actually work would require massive confiscation and a near police state to maintain compliance.
This is unworkable and a violation of rights.

That you can't see beyond gun control as a solution to reducing violence shows misguided you are.

Drug war violence, poverty, violent people being released over and over again.  Addressing these would begin doing wonders for the violent crime you're concerned ...

Yet, you'll keep voting for the people that won't do anything about those problems either, because any gun regulation is "stepping on your rights."


I'd rather have my rights than have laws that aren't enforced by the people in charge.
 
4 days ago  

Shakin_Haitian: The_Sponge: Shakin_Haitian: Since you haven't shot anyone, we can extrapolate that no one has ever shot anyone.


Nope, but maybe it makes a case for why I don't want my rights taken away due to the actions of others.

Which is why I support the legalization of 1,000 rpm miniguns.



I've never pushed for that, but having one mounted on the top of my Jeep would be sweet!
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: Omnidirectional Punching: Sure is a shame that once again there's absolutely nothing we could ever do to put a stop to gun violence.

If California had tough laws banning pistol grips and adjustable stocks on rifles then this shooting would not have happened.


Shut the actual fark up.  You can count the number of bodies that it took to make dry sarcasm on a mass shooting in a high gun control state infuriating.
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: Dimensio: HumanSVD: Dimensio: HumanSVD: Dimensio: Pinner: Gun violence. No such thing. They just sit there.
Let's address people violence.

If we can narc on people that assault people sexually, we should be able to drop a dime on people that have violent tendencies or are too aggressive (and happen to own guns)

Difficulty: evidence suggests that even when that does happen no one in authority does anything. See the Texas church shooter (known problems that should have disqualified him from firearm ownership that were never properly reported), the Naval Yard shooter (at least two previous arrests for negligent firearm discharges that resulted in no charges being filed) or the Virginia Tech shooter (improperly filed court records which would have prevented him from legally purchasing a firearm had they been properly filed).

But government should be the one I who can only have semi automatic firearms. You kniw, that same goverment that shiats on the 4th, and the same government whose police agents fark people over all the time.

Yes. Gun control is clearly what is needed.

I do not advocate prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms. In fact, I have stated opposition to any gun control proposal that involves outright prohibition of any currently available firearm model. I would want a path to legal ownership for any currently available firearm type, with the government having a burden to justify rejecting ownership (as is the case with shall-issue based permitting systems).

I also recognize, however, that some level of firearm restrictions can reduce rates of violent crime.

Yes, like Mexico, where guns are illegal. Unicorn's and rainbows all around.

[img.fark.net image 850x624]

As if any single one of these weapons confiscated from Mexican cartels was not first bought using the gun show loophole and then smuggled over the border.

Ha! You are aware illegal fully automatic weapons are everywhere south of border right? The entire part of South Ame ...


Hey buddy, remind me, does the US have the same issue as Mexico where drug cartels run amok in the street virtually unchallenged by the impotent government?
 
4 days ago  

Shakin_Haitian: Yet, you'll keep voting for the people that won't do anything about those problems either, because any gun regulation is "stepping on your rights."


How are you getting my voting records?

Also, how do I vote to address the disproportionate levels of violence and homicide in cities like St. Louis,
Kansas City, Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, Chicago, DC, Oakland, etc.?
Shouldn't the people leading those city's governments be the ones to work on that, followed by appropriate assistance from state lawmakers?

I will do what I can in my area (Las Vegas), but I live in unincorporated Clark County, so I don't have a voting influence on City of Las Vegas politics to deal with addressing the crime problems inherent to some areas of Las Vegas proper.

I vote at the state level who might do things to address some of the problems that are more general across the state, but most of the solutions will still need to come from city governments who control things like zoning, policing strategy, business tax policy, community outreach, etc.
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: rummonkey: the fact that any kids are being airlifted to the hospital because of ANOTHER shooting is enough.

It's not enough. Gun nuts need MORE freedom!  More death for their death cult is needed.  This is what they want.

This is california. Not even close to a gun nut state. Also this was a gun free zone I am willing to bet.


the shooting took place in several locations not just at the school
 
4 days ago  

vrax: This text is now purple: Mild mannered dude steals neighbors truck, goes in rampage to school, which he shoots up from outside for 20 minutes, while apparently engaging multiple responding police.

Was he driving a Ferrari? Did he look like this?

[img.fark.net image 675x360]

Not any longer!

[img.fark.net image 450x251]


img.fark.net
Damnit!
 
4 days ago  

loki021376: Dimensio: HumanSVD: Dimensio: HumanSVD: Dimensio: Pinner: Gun violence. No such thing. They just sit there.
Let's address people violence.

If we can narc on people that assault people sexually, we should be able to drop a dime on people that have violent tendencies or are too aggressive (and happen to own guns)

Difficulty: evidence suggests that even when that does happen no one in authority does anything. See the Texas church shooter (known problems that should have disqualified him from firearm ownership that were never properly reported), the Naval Yard shooter (at least two previous arrests for negligent firearm discharges that resulted in no charges being filed) or the Virginia Tech shooter (improperly filed court records which would have prevented him from legally purchasing a firearm had they been properly filed).

But government should be the one I who can only have semi automatic firearms. You kniw, that same goverment that shiats on the 4th, and the same government whose police agents fark people over all the time.

Yes. Gun control is clearly what is needed.

I do not advocate prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms. In fact, I have stated opposition to any gun control proposal that involves outright prohibition of any currently available firearm model. I would want a path to legal ownership for any currently available firearm type, with the government having a burden to justify rejecting ownership (as is the case with shall-issue based permitting systems).

I also recognize, however, that some level of firearm restrictions can reduce rates of violent crime.

Yes, like Mexico, where guns are illegal. Unicorn's and rainbows all around.

[img.fark.net image 850x624]

As if any single one of these weapons confiscated from Mexican cartels was not first bought using the gun show loophole and then smuggled over the border.
Do you have any idea how much legal arms we (The USA) sell to Mexico EVERY year, and how much of that goes walkabout whe ...


HOLY CRAP, it's not by the crate, but by the TRAINLOAD!!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w​o​rldviews/wp/2015/06/15/whats-behind-me​xicos-military-buying-binge/?utm_term=​.c22c106d2cac
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: Shakin_Haitian: Yet, you'll keep voting for the people that won't do anything about those problems either, because any gun regulation is "stepping on your rights."

How are you getting my voting records?

Also, how do I vote to address the disproportionate levels of violence and homicide in cities like St. Louis,
Kansas City, Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, Chicago, DC, Oakland, etc.?
Shouldn't the people leading those city's governments be the ones to work on that, followed by appropriate assistance from state lawmakers?

I will do what I can in my area (Las Vegas), but I live in unincorporated Clark County, so I don't have a voting influence on City of Las Vegas politics to deal with addressing the crime problems inherent to some areas of Las Vegas proper.

I vote at the state level who might do things to address some of the problems that are more general across the state, but most of the solutions will still need to come from city governments who control things like zoning, policing strategy, business tax policy, community outreach, etc.


So you don't care enough to actually get off your arse and do anything. Got it.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: Considering how many gun nuts vote Republican therefore against better education, socioeconomic mobility, and ending the war on drugs that would help reduce gun violence I find their (and by extension your) arguments about reducing gun violence disingenuous. They're giving those of us who care about human beings very few options.


Yes, city, county, and even state governments have no control over education policy, community outreach, policing strategy, business and tax policy, zoning, etc. that would do a lot to address these problems.
 
4 days ago  
fark Denmark
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns



Disgusting how?

I have never bought or sold a firearm illegally.

I legally carry, and make sure not to enter places where it's banned when I do.

My firearms are usually locked up at home, and when friends bring their kids over, I go over a list and double-check that everything is locked away.

I don't practice open carry.

I've owned firearms since the age of 18, never handled them while I was drinking, and I've never used them to threaten a single person.

On the days I do carry...which is not most days, I'm actually a nicer person...I don't honk at other drivers when they are being idiots...or flip them off....because I want to avoid any and all trouble on those days.

I didn't receive my carry permit until my late 20s...because I finally felt I was ready.

How am I disgusting?
 
4 days ago  
It's not the guns we should ban; it's the stupidity we should ban. Starting with YOU (of course I'm not talking about you).
 
4 days ago  
If everyone involved had guns this never would have happened because we would live in a peaceful society.
 
4 days ago  

carkiller: Mikey1969: Don't come crying to me when your farking bullshiat comes back to bite you on the ass.

You're far, far down the list of people I plan to go crying about anything to, tough guy, so rest your troubled head.


Guns make the man. Enough guns make the leader. More than enough guns make targets of all of us.
 
4 days ago  

durbnpoisn: Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.

It wasn't just your lifetime.  That was the first time it ever happened.

Prior to that no one had ever considered shooting up a school.

[images.gr-assets.com image 308x475]

No one... Ever.

//Does 2 seconds of research...

Ok.  I stand corrected.
I don't think that exactly qualifies as a mass shooting by Columbine standards.


1966 University of Texas tower shooting (15 killed 32 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers​i​ty_of_Texas_tower_shooting

1922 Bath School disaster (44 killed 58 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Sc​h​ool_disaster
 
4 days ago  

This text is now purple: vrax: This text is now purple: Mild mannered dude steals neighbors truck, goes in rampage to school, which he shoots up from outside for 20 minutes, while apparently engaging multiple responding police.

Was he driving a Ferrari? Did he look like this?

[img.fark.net image 675x360]

Not any longer!

[img.fark.net image 450x251]

[img.fark.net image 400x222]
Damnit!


One of my fave movies from the 80s and, BTW, it's finally on Blu Ray as of last month and looks the best it ever has.
 
4 days ago  

Dadoody: fark Denmark



Icelandic-like typing detected.
 
4 days ago  

WayneKerr: It's not the guns we should ban; it's the stupidity we should ban. Starting with YOU (of course I'm not talking about you).


Which one sounds easier to you?
 
4 days ago  

xalres: So you don't care enough to actually get off your arse and do anything. Got it.


I vote for who I can vote for, donate to the charities that I think will help people with food and housing problems, etc. but I'm not traveling across the country to help New Orleans, St Louis or Baltimore fix their problems.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: Very few gun control proposals have any chance of stopping either day-to-day violence or spree/mass killers.  The ones that would actually work would require massive confiscation and a near police state to maintain compliance.
This is unworkable and a violation of rights.


Okay, here's one that puts the lie to that silly contention:  Remove the "boyfriend loophole" that allows people in more that 30 states (who only get charged with assault instead of domestic assault because they don't live with the victim) to avoid being blacklisted from firearms ownership. If you are convicted of assaulting a relative or romantic partner, your guns should go away. Period. The living arrangements shouldn't matter.

The majority of mass shooting perpetrators in the United States have a history of family violence and were not legally prevented from owning a firearm. A majority of mass shooting victims from 2009 to 2015 were an intimate partner, ex-partner, or other family member of the shooter.

Let's just look at women for example:
Between 1980 and 2008, 41.5 percent of murdered women were killed by a current or former husband or boyfriend, 30 percent were killed by an acquaintance, and 16.7 percent were killed by a family member. In other words, 88.2% of murdered women are killed by someone they know. In cases where a firearm was used at least some, if not most, of those events could have been prevented with this simple legal fix.

"Massive confiscation and a police state" my ass.  All you need is to actually understand the friggin' numbers and take a few glaringly obvious steps.
 
4 days ago  
The gun nuts have a great strategy here:
1. Establish the belief that it is somehow disrespectful to the victims to talk about gun violence for several days after a mass shooting.
2. Ensure that we never have more than a few days between mass shootings.
img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: Magorn: Sean M: If only it were illegal to kill someone... because laws um...stop people from doing things, right?

In seriousness, this crap HAS gone on.  It's with social media & the internet that we hear about every single incident now vs. in the past.  Flip through some old newspapers.  Sadly, this is NOT a new problem.

We do not pass laws because we magically expect that once passed they will be obeyed 100% of the time.  We pass laws as a statement of our shared societal values, to deter certain behaviors among the lawfully inclined and punish those behaviors among the criminally inclined

In other words, feelings not effectiveness.

Do you feel the same way about drug laws too? Especially with Marijuana? I mean shared values and all...


Absolutely, which is why it s long past time to repeal them.  They cannot be said to reflect our shared values anymore if they ever did (Dupont involvement in the "reefer madness" campaign raises many questions.

In fact, I'd say the current gun laws and drug laws have that in common: they reflect the views of a very small percentage of the population who has entrenched themselves in power because of the cowardice of politicians
 
4 days ago  

anustart: The majority of mass shooting perpetrators in the United States have a history of family violence and were not legally prevented from owning a firearm. A majority of mass shooting victims from 2009 to 2015 were an intimate partner, ex-partner, or other family member of the shooter.


How many partners, ex-partners, and other family members did Adam Lanza have at that school?

Between 1980 and 2008, 41.5 percent of murdered women were killed by a current or former husband or boyfriend, 30 percent were killed by an acquaintance, and 16.7 percent were killed by a family member. In other words, 88.2% of murdered women are killed by someone they know. In cases where a firearm was used at least some, if not most, of those events could have been prevented with this simple legal fix.

I don't mind that addendum to the domestic violence prohibition, though I think it should have a 10 or 15 year sunset clause so we can get rid of it if it doesn't work.

The idea that most domestic abusers would not injure or kill their partner if they didn't have a gun doesn't seem likely given the particulars of domestic violence and the current number of deaths at the hands (literally) of intimate partners, BUT I'm in favor of trying out the 'boyfriend loophole' prohibition.
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.

Those proposals coming from your side are infringements on our rights.....and earlier, you claimed that your side didn't want that:

AdmirableSnackbar: One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights

At least be honest and say that you guys want to take our rights away.

You want a proposal?  How about cleaning up the background check system?  Because it FAILED before the shooting in Texas.

I don't want to take your rights away. But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns I'm not going to advocate against that action either. I'd like to find a compromise that works but gun nuts refuse those every single time. You're choosing this path and hate where it leads. I'd think you'd want to try a different path but here you are. I'm not gonna cry for you, you cry enough for yourself and your guns while good people who aren't you die. So no sympathy.

Enjoy crowing about all these deaths and lives forever altered. I hope it's worth it for you.

I do not want to take away your gun rights, but since you are a poopie head, I won't advocate against it.

In other words, you'd be cool with it.


Desiring something and being ok with something are two different things. Personally I enjoy shooting guns, but I have no desire to own one, nor do I find them particularly necessary. So, I'd be ok if every gun disappeared from the face of the planet, but I'm not going to advocate for it.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: Dadoody: fark Denmark


Icelandic-like typing detected.


img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

Mikey1969: No, the farking point, for illiterate morons, is that jumping on the bandwagon and screaming the second the story comes i=out isn't accurate at all. If you notice, NO students at the school died, but these assholes are so happy to try and get a scoop, that they have the wrong farking information.

Kind of like you, I guess.


Are you saying that it only counts as a newsworthy item now if children are killed?

Just how farked up is that? Oh wait, you're American and an 'enthusiast'. Carry on then.
 
4 days ago  

vrax: The_Sponge: Dadoody: fark Denmark


Icelandic-like typing detected.

[img.fark.net image 483x500]



What's that from?
 
4 days ago  
I was a kid when that ex-soldier shot all of those students from the bell tower of a college. It was an act so unheard of then that even the cops were not equipped for the situation. (Damn! I can't recall the college or the guys name.) However that was way before anyone even heard of PTSD and soldiers who faced bloody battles came out of them just as normal as ever and if one had a breakdown, he was considered a coward. (Patton saw to that.)

It was years before the next one -- and by then the Internet was here, the first car phones and cellular phones popped up and the Lunatic Fringe was already blasting out false news and 'documents' showing others how easy it would be to kill a bunch of people and become famous. Hollywood had begun to turn the mass killer into movies making him look either pathetic and worthy of sympathy or determined to get even for imagined wrongs.

Then many more guns appeared in movies and all over the internet. Along with idiots who, using Freedom of Speech, informed anyone out there on how to tun civilian versions of semi-automatic weapons into full auto and started selling kits to do so. Then gun shows popped up, where you could buy huge bags of ammo, nearly any type of weapon and, if you looked around a but, conversion kits.

The gun became a manly penis extension for guys, which filled them with an urge to shoot something. (Back then, nearly every street sign out in the sticks.)

I think most men would climax if they could get their hands on that new, multi barreled machine gun shown on the original Mythbusters with it's hellacious rate of fire that surpassed even the Gatling guns of the Vietnam War.

So, naturally, due to the ease of buying guns, assorted nuts started shooting people for any reason under the sun and you could not watch an inner city movie without some of the characters brandishing guns. Guns became a sign of manhood and toughness.

I recall when people solved their differences with their fists. Now they whip out a hand cannon at the slightest excuse. Even in grocery stores while shopping.

It's scary and ridiculous and the gun companies are blocking every attempt to reign in their production. Even though they provide millions of weapons to any overseas coup or battle. They don't care who the 'good guys' are.
 
4 days ago  
Can we talk about some solutions to gun violence in the wake of the Las Vegas tragedy yet? I mean, we're two (2) shootings down the road already.
 
4 days ago  
But her emails...
 
4 days ago  

img.fark.net


Posting gun violence outrage on Fark is the new "Thoughts and Prayers"

 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: anustart: The majority of mass shooting perpetrators in the United States have a history of family violence and were not legally prevented from owning a firearm. A majority of mass shooting victims from 2009 to 2015 were an intimate partner, ex-partner, or other family member of the shooter.

How many partners, ex-partners, and other family members did Adam Lanza have at that school?


I appreciate your willingness to look at the idea, but it's unfortunate you still feel the need to obfuscate the data by conflating "The majority" with "ALL of them, you say?? Well, not THIS one! HaHa!!!"

Even if everyone's best ideas all put together still didn't manage to do a single thing to prevent half of the gun deaths every year, you'd still save over 15,000 lives EVERY YEAR.

The counter-argument from the gun lobby and politicians to various ideas seems to invariably be that if a proposed solution isn't a 100% fix it's not worth trying.  That sort of analysis is just designed to give the illusion of thoughtful consideration while avoiding taking the action.
 
4 days ago  

Mugato: Ferreira said he heard gunfire for over 20 minutes

20 minutes and only "at least" three dead? That's not only poor reporting that they can't accurately count corpses, that's poor mass shooting to get only three people in 20 minutes.


We're sorry that we don't have a good mass shooting for you today. Would you like a rain check?
 
4 days ago  
Russian agent whose mission was to post shiat on twitter to divide us as a nation and/or shoot up schools so the government takes our guns away.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: vrax: The_Sponge: Dadoody: fark Denmark


Icelandic-like typing detected.

[img.fark.net image 483x500]


What's that from?


Lars von Trier's "The Kingdom"

So as not to spoil anything for those who haven't seen it, I'll just say that the guy, a Swede, is not fond of Denmark.
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: Markoff_Cheney: I sneezed and 200 posts happened...

Gun threads always blow up


Sorry.  It was the grenade launcher / fragmentation bombs that I bought at the local Harbor Freight.
 
4 days ago  

69gnarkill69: [img.fark.net image 500x300]
Posting gun violence outrage on Fark is the new "Thoughts and Prayers"


Yeah.  Sure.  Right.  Too early to talk about it?
 
4 days ago  

Magorn: Sean M: If only it were illegal to kill someone... because laws um...stop people from doing things, right?

In seriousness, this crap HAS gone on.  It's with social media & the internet that we hear about every single incident now vs. in the past.  Flip through some old newspapers.  Sadly, this is NOT a new problem.

We do not pass laws because we magically expect that once passed they will be obeyed 100% of the time.  We pass laws as a statement of our shared societal values, to deter certain behaviors among the lawfully inclined and punish those behaviors among the criminally inclined


The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.
I blame people who are soft on crime. Make the penalty for committing a gun crime so horrible that nobody will want to do it. Like flaying in the public square with the victims' families getting to rub rock salt into your wounds. As a gun owner, I'm pretty tired of being accused of being a threat just because some jerks somewhere else can't keep from doing crimes and their local prosecutors don't care to keep them away from polite society.

Mugato: My dad and I got our guns from gun shows when I was 16. I git a Walther ppk (James Bond) and a 9mm Beteretta (Lethal Weapon). My dad got a rifle. Neither of us had records but we weren't asked if we did either. All that shiat isn't going to change.

/the Walther PPk is much cooler than the Walther P99 that they switched to in The World is Not Enough.

No Way! People with big hands get cut open by the ppk and it's weak. The p99 is FAR better, as is the PP* series that came after it.
 
4 days ago  

Cthulhu Theory: HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.

Those proposals coming from your side are infringements on our rights.....and earlier, you claimed that your side didn't want that:

AdmirableSnackbar: One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights

At least be honest and say that you guys want to take our rights away.

You want a proposal?  How about cleaning up the background check system?  Because it FAILED before the shooting in Texas.

I don't want to take your rights away. But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns I'm not going to advocate against that action either. I'd like to find a compromise that works but gun nuts refuse those every single time. You're choosing this path and hate where it leads. I'd think you'd want to try a different path but here you are. I'm not gonna cry for you, you cry enough for yourself and your guns while good people who aren't you die. So no sympathy.

Enjoy crowing about all these deaths and lives forever altered. I hope it's worth it for you.

I do not want to take away your gun rights, but since you are a poopie head, I won't advocate against it.

In other words, you'd be cool with it.

Desiring something and being ok with something are two different things. Personally I enjoy shooting guns, but I have no desire to own one, nor do I find them particularly necessary. So, I'd be ok if every gun disappeared from the face of the planet, but I'm not going to advocate for it.


That level of nuance cannot be understood by some people. Critical thinking eludes then and when they see it it scares them so much that they think that person must need a therapist.
 
4 days ago  

vrax: Lars von Trier's "The Kingdom"

So as not to spoil anything for those who haven't seen it, I'll just say that the guy, a Swede, is not fond of Denmark.



Ah...thank you.

/Just mentioned Iceland because they were known for not being fond of Denmark.
 
4 days ago  

Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.

It wasn't just your lifetime.  That was the first time it ever happened.

Prior to that no one had ever considered shooting up a school.

[images.gr-assets.com image 308x475]

No one... Ever.

//Does 2 seconds of research...

Ok.  I stand corrected.
I don't think that exactly qualifies as a mass shooting by Columbine standards.

1966 University of Texas tower shooting (15 killed 32 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universi​ty_of_Texas_tower_shooting

1922 Bath School disaster (44 killed 58 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Sch​ool_disaster


While a gun was used to detonate a bomb in a truck filled with shrapnel, there were no shooting deaths listed in the attack. The farmer did set off the bomb in his truck by shooting it and the bomb did send shrapnel flying through him, so maybe you get one shooting. But that's not a mass shooting.

School bombing, mass murder, murder-suicide, suicide truck bombing, arson
 
4 days ago  

Popular Opinion: Perlin Noise: Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.

Well, lets start with the idea that the only thing they would have in common would be being illegal to posses, etc. So, if that's the only thing in common, we can make the exact same comparison to anything else illegal, like child porn. So, I take it you don't think it's worth the effort to try to minimize child porn by making it illegal?


/I'm so tired of the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument. It's really really stupid.

it might be (stupid), but then look how murders and crime skyrocketed astronomically in Brazil after they made it nearly impossible for normal poor folks to own guns to defend themselves.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels​/2016/03/28/472157969/brazil-has-nearl​y-60-000-murders-and-it-may-relax-gun-​laws


That's, at least, a better conversation.
 
4 days ago  

anustart: Okay, here's one that puts the lie to that silly contention:  Remove the "boyfriend loophole" that allows people in more that 30 states (who only get charged with assault instead of domestic assault because they don't live with the victim) to avoid being blacklisted from firearms ownership. If you are convicted of assaulting a relative or romantic partner, your guns should go away. Period. The living arrangements shouldn't matter.

The majority of mass shooting perpetrators in the United States have a history of family violence and were not legally prevented from owning a firearm. A majority of mass shooting victims from 2009 to 2015 were an intimate partner, ex-partner, or other family member of the shooter.


Maybe you need to worry about domestic violence reform. Or prosecutorial reform. Those would take care of gun reform without having to further infringe on a right that most people exercise responsibly.
The laws are there, we just need to use them.
 
4 days ago  

luckyeddie: Mikey1969: No, the farking point, for illiterate morons, is that jumping on the bandwagon and screaming the second the story comes i=out isn't accurate at all. If you notice, NO students at the school died, but these assholes are so happy to try and get a scoop, that they have the wrong farking information.

Kind of like you, I guess.

Are you saying that it only counts as a newsworthy item now if children are killed?

Just how farked up is that? Oh wait, you're American and an 'enthusiast'. Carry on then.


Nice try. Once again we get visited by the Fark illiteracy brigade.

I will type slowly this time so that maybe you can follow along....

News stories are often very inaccurate early on and a very fluid. This is a prime example of that, as evidenced by the links I posted. You, on the other hand, have some kind of outrage agenda to push, regardless of the stand taken by whomever you are talking to, which is an example of Fark's with us or against us trend. Two birds with one stone...
 
4 days ago  

ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.


However, there are things we can do.  The Las Vegas shooter purchased a large number of rifles, but because only purchases of handguns get reported, he went under the radar.  These "little" things are what need to be shored up and reported as do stringent universal background checks for all transfers of ownership.  And fark the NRA and other assholes, we need a national database so these things can be done with efficiency instead of being stuck back in the dark ages.
 
4 days ago  
Never been to Tehama, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express in Corning in September.
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: Perlin Noise: Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.

Well, lets start with the idea that the only thing they would have in common would be being illegal to posses, etc. So, if that's the only thing in common, we can make the exact same comparison to anything else illegal, like child porn. So, I take it you don't think it's worth the effort to try to minimize child porn by making it illegal?


/I'm so tired of the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument. It's really really stupid.

You hate it because it is true. Mexico is a prime example of it.


Um, agree with what? I don't recall agreeing with anything. Oh, you mean that outlaws will have guns? Um, no shiat.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: Considering how many gun nuts vote Republican therefore against better education, socioeconomic mobility, and ending the war on drugs that would help reduce gun violence I find their (and by extension your) arguments about reducing gun violence disingenuous. They're giving those of us who care about human beings very few options.


Democrats have a few fine ideas, yet so long as they have "gun control" as a key plank in the national party platform, I'll hold my nose and vote Republican.
 
4 days ago  

vrax: ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.

However, there are things we can do.  The Las Vegas shooter purchased a large number of rifles, but because only purchases of handguns get reported, he went under the radar.  These "little" things are what need to be shored up and reported as do stringent universal background checks for all transfers of ownership.  And fark the NRA and other assholes, we need a national database so these things can be done with efficiency instead of being stuck back in the dark ages.


I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: xalres: Spongey's not much of an "idea" guy, so much as a "NO!" guy.


Oh really?  Because in the past I've said that we need to clean up the background check system, make it easier to black list people with severe mental problems.  (My younger brother is mentally ill, so I'm objective in saying that.)   And I've also said that we need to increase the penalties for people who use firearms during the commission of a crime.

And yes, I say "NO" a lot because the gun control side keeps coming up with lame ideas.


What you are suggesting is something I feel we could use.  Just a beefing up of existing structure and fine tuning background checks would work.  Let's see What kind of effect that would work.


I would also suggest a teird liscening, where you can take your guns out in public areas.  Similar to auto and drivers liscennse work. Some vehicles can go on road, others can't. Some are allowed to shoot a handgun others can fire a bazooka

It's also important to remember that California Gun Law is one of the lowest death by firearm per capita, while Alabama is number 1

So it does work, but it's not going to go completely away.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: Dimensio: It would also keep each firearm traceable to its last legal owner, which would drastically dry up the illegal gun market.

Gun nuts say we can't do that because it would lead directly to confiscation.

Because it usually does.

And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings.  The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these.  They're all terrible people.  Every last one of them.


We don't love mass shootings at all. That's your own personal fanfiction with splash of dishonesty added to it.

Me and every other farker that has argued with you here has already pointed out numerous times that the government in charge of enforcing the laws already on the books have failed numerous times to disqualify and prevent the sale of firearms to those who shouldn't.

Another farker above above ready cited three examples with the last one being the texas shooter. All of those classes should have resulted in the buyer being disqualified but didn't because the government failed to carry out the paper work or failed to choose disqualification on pertinent information. Adam Lanza was reported on twice and police failed to do anything about it.

Yet you sit here, again and again complain why no one will compromise with you when it's been shown the government cannot keep use safe with the laws on hand, even in a gun restrictive state like California. You then go on and call people who have reservation in a effectiveness of these laws who have reasonable fears it will lead further and further encroachment on their rights terrible people.

And yet you still wonder why people do not want to compromise with you.
 
4 days ago  

Donald Trump's Latest Tweet: Mugato: Ferreira said he heard gunfire for over 20 minutes

20 minutes and only "at least" three dead? That's not only poor reporting that they can't accurately count corpses, that's poor mass shooting to get only three people in 20 minutes.

We're sorry that we don't have a good mass shooting for you today. Would you like a rain check?


I'll have you that I am "Yelp Elite" (see badge on my profile), and the internet is going to hear about this.

img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: Cthulhu Theory: HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: The_Sponge: AdmirableSnackbar: If you don't like the proposals coming from the other side then propose some ideas of your own. Otherwise you're simply being intransigent and the "want these to continue" absolutely applies.

Those proposals coming from your side are infringements on our rights.....and earlier, you claimed that your side didn't want that:

AdmirableSnackbar: One side wants to reduce violence and has means that don't infringe on your rights

At least be honest and say that you guys want to take our rights away.

You want a proposal?  How about cleaning up the background check system?  Because it FAILED before the shooting in Texas.

I don't want to take your rights away. But considering how disgusting I find your attitude towards guns I'm not going to advocate against that action either. I'd like to find a compromise that works but gun nuts refuse those every single time. You're choosing this path and hate where it leads. I'd think you'd want to try a different path but here you are. I'm not gonna cry for you, you cry enough for yourself and your guns while good people who aren't you die. So no sympathy.

Enjoy crowing about all these deaths and lives forever altered. I hope it's worth it for you.

I do not want to take away your gun rights, but since you are a poopie head, I won't advocate against it.

In other words, you'd be cool with it.

Desiring something and being ok with something are two different things. Personally I enjoy shooting guns, but I have no desire to own one, nor do I find them particularly necessary. So, I'd be ok if every gun disappeared from the face of the planet, but I'm not going to advocate for it.

That level of nuance cannot be understood by some people. Critical thinking eludes then and when they see it it scares them so much that they think that person must need a therapist.


I don't understand why people don't like nuance, i think it allows for middle ground finding- oh...
 
4 days ago  

Perlin Noise: HumanSVD: Perlin Noise: Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.

Well, lets start with the idea that the only thing they would have in common would be being illegal to posses, etc. So, if that's the only thing in common, we can make the exact same comparison to anything else illegal, like child porn. So, I take it you don't think it's worth the effort to try to minimize child porn by making it illegal?


/I'm so tired of the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument. It's really really stupid.

You hate it because it is true. Mexico is a prime example of it.

Um, agree with what? I don't recall agreeing with anything. Oh, you mean that outlaws will have guns? Um, no shiat.


If you outlaw bank robbing only outlaws will rob banks.  Makes TOTAL sense!
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: Dimensio: It would also keep each firearm traceable to its last legal owner, which would drastically dry up the illegal gun market.

Gun nuts say we can't do that because it would lead directly to confiscation.

Because it usually does.

And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings.  The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these.  They're all terrible people.  Every last one of them.

We don't love mass shootings at all. That's your own personal fanfiction with splash of dishonesty added to it.

Me and every other farker that has argued with you here has already pointed out numerous times that the government in charge of enforcing the laws already on the books have failed numerous times to disqualify and prevent the sale of firearms to those who shouldn't.

Another farker above above ready cited three examples with the last one being the texas shooter. All of those classes should have resulted in the buyer being disqualified but didn't because the government failed to carry out the paper work or failed to choose disqualification on pertinent information. Adam Lanza was reported on twice and police failed to do anything about it.

Yet you sit here, again and again complain why no one will compromise with you when it's been shown the government cannot keep use safe with the laws on hand, even in a gun restrictive state like California. You then go on and call people who have reservation in a effectiveness of these laws who have reasonable fears it will lead further and further encroachment on their rights terrible people.

And yet you still wonder why people do not want to compromise with you.


You blame me for what you support. Interesting.
 
4 days ago  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.


Name a current organization that can easily take over that void if that ever happened.
 
4 days ago  

ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.


This gets said a lot, and if it seems like I'm singling you out for saying it, well, I suppose I am, but really I'm more sort of grabbing the first utterance of it that came by, for what that's worth.

The trouble I have with the quoted above is it makes it sound like anyone who commits a crime with a gun is some mustache-twirling villain, or cool-and-calm-until-you-interfere-with​-his-business crime lord, or I dunno, the farkin Joker, making mayhem for its own sake.  And as long as you have people like that in the world, there's nothing to be done but to arm "responsible, law-abiding citizens" so they can defend themselves.  And maybe there really are mustachioed villains and hair-trigger syndicate bosses, and maybe even the farkin Joker out in the dark, scary unknown.  But honestly, who's actually committing gun violence?  An awful lot of the farkin time it's ordinary guys living more or less law-abiding lives, until suddenly they aren't anymore, until the whole thing goes off the rails.  And then those guys are immediately outliers, unless, let's be honest, they're young and black or brown, and then, the narrative goes, it's typical and just goes to show you how some people are.

But jesus farking christ, we don't live in a comic book.  There's not some canon of heroes, villains, and innocent bystanders that we all live by.  This shiat is not predestined.

And I don't have the goddamned answer.  I mean, I'd take a wrecking ball to the factories and melt anything down to and maybe including single-shot rifles and breakaway shotguns down for the steel if it were up to me, but it's not, and I get that.  Mine isn't even the majority opinion.  I get that, too.  But for fark's sake, violent men expressing everything under the farking sun from frustration to resentment to possessiveness to vengeance to, I dunno, vague dysthymia with a hail of bullets...I'm sick and tired of violent men and their dangerous tools, and that seems like it's the commenest farking denominator here.  Maybe I didn't see it when I was on the other side.  Maybe I didn't want to.  But for fark's sake, can we just figure out some goddam way to communicate strong feelings to each other other than hot flying lead?  It's barbaric and tragic and I'm farking sick of it.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.

Name a current organization that can easily take over that void if that ever happened.


IIRC the Boy Scouts offers a firearms safety badge...
 
4 days ago  

Rik01: I think most men would climax if they could get their hands on that new, multi barreled machine gun shown on the original Mythbusters with it's hellacious rate of fire that surpassed even the Gatling guns of the Vietnam War.


Do you write for The Onion?
 
4 days ago  

Hobodeluxe: HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: rummonkey: the fact that any kids are being airlifted to the hospital because of ANOTHER shooting is enough.

It's not enough. Gun nuts need MORE freedom!  More death for their death cult is needed.  This is what they want.

This is california. Not even close to a gun nut state. Also this was a gun free zone I am willing to bet.

the shooting took place in several locations not just at the school


Irrelevant. School was still gun free yet a shooting happened there anyway, guy was a felon who shouldn't have had it and the gun laws were ineffective in preventing it.
 
4 days ago  

xalres: pedrop357: Shakin_Haitian: Yet, you'll keep voting for the people that won't do anything about those problems either, because any gun regulation is "stepping on your rights."

How are you getting my voting records?

Also, how do I vote to address the disproportionate levels of violence and homicide in cities like St. Louis,
Kansas City, Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, Chicago, DC, Oakland, etc.?
Shouldn't the people leading those city's governments be the ones to work on that, followed by appropriate assistance from state lawmakers?

I will do what I can in my area (Las Vegas), but I live in unincorporated Clark County, so I don't have a voting influence on City of Las Vegas politics to deal with addressing the crime problems inherent to some areas of Las Vegas proper.

I vote at the state level who might do things to address some of the problems that are more general across the state, but most of the solutions will still need to come from city governments who control things like zoning, policing strategy, business tax policy, community outreach, etc.

So you don't care enough to actually get off your arse and do anything. Got it.


What's your definition of doing something?
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.

Name a current organization that can easily take over that void if that ever happened.


Considering how generally poor or nonexistent firearms training is for beat cops throughout the United States, it seems that almost anyone could take over and it would be an improvement.  Anyone who can train cops to overcome their "It's coming straight for us!!" mentality would be acceptable.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: As long as you believe it, who am I to argue about what I believe or care about?


Want to know what a gun owner believes?  Ask a gun-grabber.
 
4 days ago  

ThatGuyOverThere: No Way! People with big hands get cut open by the ppk and it's weak. The p99 is FAR better, as is the PP* series that came after it.


The P99 looks too much like a generic Glock. The PPK has more style.
 
4 days ago  

Dr Jack Badofsky: HumanSVD: Markoff_Cheney: I sneezed and 200 posts happened...

Gun threads always blow up

Sorry.  It was the grenade launcher / fragmentation bombs that I bought at the local Harbor Freight.


Were they on sale or did you use the 20 percent off coupon?
 
4 days ago  

Subtonic: Dead elementary students? Surely this will be what it takes to bring about reform in gun control at long last.


Once people who matter get killed.  Rich people.
 
4 days ago  

Dr Jack Badofsky: HumanSVD: Markoff_Cheney: I sneezed and 200 posts happened...

Gun threads always blow up

Sorry.  It was the grenade launcher / fragmentation bombs that I bought at the local Harbor Freight.


If you buy anything at Harbor Freight intending to use it more than once, well buddy, that's on you.
 
4 days ago  

vrax: ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.

However, there are things we can do.  The Las Vegas shooter purchased a large number of rifles, but because only purchases of handguns get reported, he went under the radar.  These "little" things are what need to be shored up and reported as do stringent universal background checks for all transfers of ownership.  And fark the NRA and other assholes, we need a national database so these things can be done with efficiency instead of being stuck back in the dark ages.


No.
 
4 days ago  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: vrax: ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.

However, there are things we can do.  The Las Vegas shooter purchased a large number of rifles, but because only purchases of handguns get reported, he went under the radar.  These "little" things are what need to be shored up and reported as do stringent universal background checks for all transfers of ownership.  And fark the NRA and other assholes, we need a national database so these things can be done with efficiency instead of being stuck back in the dark ages.

I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.


To be fair, many here on fark think the same thing of the police.
 
4 days ago  

GoldSpider: pedrop357: As long as you believe it, who am I to argue about what I believe or care about?

Want to know what a gun owner believes?  Ask a gun-grabber.



*Applause*
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: HumanSVD: AdmirableSnackbar: Dimensio: It would also keep each firearm traceable to its last legal owner, which would drastically dry up the illegal gun market.

Gun nuts say we can't do that because it would lead directly to confiscation.

Because it usually does.

And that defense is why I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings.  The incredibly remote chance that one day their toys may be illegal is too much of a risk to work to prevent needless deaths like these.  They're all terrible people.  Every last one of them.

We don't love mass shootings at all. That's your own personal fanfiction with splash of dishonesty added to it.

Me and every other farker that has argued with you here has already pointed out numerous times that the government in charge of enforcing the laws already on the books have failed numerous times to disqualify and prevent the sale of firearms to those who shouldn't.

Another farker above above ready cited three examples with the last one being the texas shooter. All of those classes should have resulted in the buyer being disqualified but didn't because the government failed to carry out the paper work or failed to choose disqualification on pertinent information. Adam Lanza was reported on twice and police failed to do anything about it.

Yet you sit here, again and again complain why no one will compromise with you when it's been shown the government cannot keep use safe with the laws on hand, even in a gun restrictive state like California. You then go on and call people who have reservation in a effectiveness of these laws who have reasonable fears it will lead further and further encroachment on their rights terrible people.

And yet you still wonder why people do not want to compromise with you.


Tell us more how all these deaths and injuries are worth being stubborn and refusing to cooperate in finding a solution because some guy managed to buy a gun due to a failure in procedure, or some people ignore the laws. I mean it's not like Vegas was perpetrated by a guy who followed the laws... oh wait.

It's time to admit the laws are farked and need to be revisited. Stop being little biatches and finding every excuse to work your way out of culpability due to complacency, and start coming up with ways to fix the damn problem that don't rely on the system that already isn't farking working.
 
4 days ago  

ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.
I blame people who are soft on crime. Make the penalty for committing a gun crime so horrible that nobody will want to do it.


The deep and serious flaw with this logic is that a huge proportion of gun violence is committed on the spur of the moment, in a fit of uncontrolled anger. They aren't premeditated acts by career criminals, (even though the NRA actively wants you to think your biggest gun danger comes from scary colored-types wandering about in roving gangs terrorizing decent white folk), they are just people who snap. They are probably very much otherwise "lawfully inclined". All the tough-on-crime sentencing in the world isn't going to help that.

The good news is that we have known PREDICTORS for those people...domestic violence histories, stalking episodes, serious mental illnesses, etc.  Those predictors can help us spot those risks and mitigate them.
 
4 days ago  

anustart: pedrop357: anustart: The majority of mass shooting perpetrators in the United States have a history of family violence and were not legally prevented from owning a firearm. A majority of mass shooting victims from 2009 to 2015 were an intimate partner, ex-partner, or other family member of the shooter.

How many partners, ex-partners, and other family members did Adam Lanza have at that school?

I appreciate your willingness to look at the idea, but it's unfortunate you still feel the need to obfuscate the data by conflating "The majority" with "ALL of them, you say?? Well, not THIS one! HaHa!!!"


I suppose I should have asked what a mass shooting was - does it include a person massacring their family in their home?

Even if everyone's best ideas all put together still didn't manage to do a single thing to prevent half of the gun deaths every year, you'd still save over 15,000 lives EVERY YEAR.

Keep in mind that as many as 2/3 are suicides and substantial number of homicides are drug war related.  There aren't a lot solutions at the federal level that could hope to cut it in half, but a reduction that doesn't involve unconstitutional approaches is wonderful.

The counter-argument from the gun lobby and politicians to various ideas seems to invariably be that if a proposed solution isn't a 100% fix it's not worth trying.  That sort of analysis is just designed to give the illusion of thoughtful consideration while avoiding taking the action.

This is NOT the counter-argument from the 'gun lobby' or politicians.  Very few of the solutions typically proposed have a hope of making even a dent in the numbers, and that's with highly optimistic compliance estimates.  This obsession with semi-automatic rifle bans is an example - at most, if we assume all rifle deaths are semi-auto scary ar-15 ghost guns, it would maybe 300 lives if fully complied with AND killers did not substitute weapons.  This alone makes it a no-go; it would not work. Then we get into constitutional issues of banning a very common rifle, having to confiscate them all, etc.

-Registration does nothing.  Has been abused where it's in place, ripe for abuse if expanded.
-Universal background checks might have a 2-3% impact on prohibited possessors getting guns.  The vast majority are (currently illegal) straw purchases, thefts, etc.
-Extra concealed carry regulations appear to be nothing more than punishments and stigginit, given the minimal number of issues with concealed carry

What would work is keeping violent people in prison longer - the shooter in Texas did a whole year for fracturing an infant's skull, strangling his girlfriend, and escaping custody, in addition to various assaults against other personnel possibly during this escape.  Perhaps a sentence of 7 years, or even a mere 3 might have had more effect.  Same with the guy in Maryland, same with multiple straw purchase offenders who get probation, etc..  The NSSF and NRA post stories about stuff this like all the time.

Beyond that, anything that city governments might do to make things easier for their poorest residents, including community outreach, business policy that makes it easier to open businesses in the empty commercial areas, etc. could reduce the poverty that has a strong link to crime.

Bans on types of guns don't stop mass shooters since they plan around it, and the types of guns they have used aren't the most popular for the majority of killings, and handguns aren't going anywhere either.

Prison for violent offenders
Even token enforcement of felon in possession laws
Anything that reduces the scope of the drug war
Local level intervention to address poverty, upward mobility as someone else pointed out, education issues, etc.

Those are my suggestions.
 
4 days ago  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.

It wasn't just your lifetime.  That was the first time it ever happened.

Prior to that no one had ever considered shooting up a school.


[images.gr-assets.com image 308x475]

No one... Ever.

//Does 2 seconds of research...

Ok.  I stand corrected.
I don't think that exactly qualifies as a mass shooting by Columbine standards.

1966 University of Texas tower shooting (15 killed 32 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universi​ty_of_Texas_tower_shooting


1922 Bath School disaster (44 killed 58 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Sch​ool_disaster

While a gun was used to detonate a bomb in a truck filled with shrapnel, there were no shooting deaths listed in the attack. The farmer did set off the bomb in his truck by shooting it and the bomb did send shrapnel flying through him, so maybe you get one shooting. But that's not a mass shooting.


Fair enough, but the premise was that NO ONE had ever considered shooting up a school prior to Columbine. Then that was modified to include: "by Columbine standards".

Prior to Columbine, with more casualties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89c​o​le_Polytechnique_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnend​e​n_school_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblan​e​_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27al​o​t_massacre

The point is, whack-jobs shooting-up schools and/or killing students is not a recent development, nor is it limited to just the U.S. There are probably 40 more instances on wikipedia that go back to the 1920s
 
4 days ago  

GoldSpider: Dr Jack Badofsky: HumanSVD: Markoff_Cheney: I sneezed and 200 posts happened...

Gun threads always blow up

Sorry.  It was the grenade launcher / fragmentation bombs that I bought at the local Harbor Freight.

If you buy anything at Harbor Freight intending to use it more than once, well buddy, that's on you.


:)

I've seen generators from there and I can't help but wonder what it will look like after it explodes or catches on fire.  I also weep for the poor electronics on the other end of the plug.
 
4 days ago  

vrax: The_Sponge: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.

Name a current organization that can easily take over that void if that ever happened.

Considering how generally poor or nonexistent firearms training is for beat cops throughout the United States, it seems that almost anyone could take over and it would be an improvement.  Anyone who can train cops to overcome their "It's coming straight for us!!" mentality would be acceptable.


Dude, the "they're coming straight for us" mentality is exactly how they're trained. Every stop is a potentially lethal situation.
 
4 days ago  
...*prior* to Columbine.
 
4 days ago  
oh
 
4 days ago  

bobadooey: Dimensio: Omnidirectional Punching: Sure is a shame that once again there's absolutely nothing we could ever do to put a stop to gun violence.

If California had tough laws banning pistol grips and adjustable stocks on rifles then this shooting would not have happened.

Shut the actual fark up.  You can count the number of bodies that it took to make dry sarcasm on a mass shooting in a high gun control state infuriating.


I apologize. I should never note that outright prohibition based upon cosmetic appearance has never demonstrably reduced rates of violent crime, as noting the complete worthlessness of "assault weapons bans", as opposed to the regulation that I already suggested in this discussion, is disrespectful.
 
4 days ago  

GoldSpider: Dr Jack Badofsky: HumanSVD: Markoff_Cheney: I sneezed and 200 posts happened...

Gun threads always blow up

Sorry.  It was the grenade launcher / fragmentation bombs that I bought at the local Harbor Freight.

If you buy anything at Harbor Freight intending to use it more than once, well buddy, that's on you.


Been lucky with harbor freight stuff for the most part. Bought a corded impact wrench that was useless after a couple of uses though. Their in house hand tools seem to be pretty decent.
 
4 days ago  
The_Sponge:Really?  Because this is what I constantly hear from your side:

1) We need to ban "assault weapons"!
2) We need to ban "high capacity" magazines!
3) We need to make it very costly to be a gun owner!
4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.


Your "side" has absolutely no standing to demand anything. None whatsoever. You have no right to act like there's any good reason for America to keep guns anymore.

Shut the fark up and let the adults talk.
 
4 days ago  

Cthulhu Theory: vrax: The_Sponge: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.

Name a current organization that can easily take over that void if that ever happened.

Considering how generally poor or nonexistent firearms training is for beat cops throughout the United States, it seems that almost anyone could take over and it would be an improvement.  Anyone who can train cops to overcome their "It's coming straight for us!!" mentality would be acceptable.

Dude, the "they're coming straight for us" mentality is exactly how they're trained. Every stop is a potentially lethal situation.


Thanks, Captain Obvious!  Why the fark do you think I made the comment?!
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: However, there are things we can do.  The Las Vegas shooter purchased a large number of rifles, but because only purchases of handguns get reported, he went under the radar.  These "little" things are what need to be shored up and reported as do stringent universal background checks for all transfers of ownership.  And fark the NRA and other assholes, we need a national database so these things can be done with efficiency instead of being stuck back in the dark ages.


No.


Yes.
Sorry, but being pants-wettingly afraid of your own democratically elected government is not a sufficient reason for objecting to proper record-keeping.
Nowhere in your right to bear arms does it say the words "secretly", "anonymously" or "unaccountably".

Gee whiz, all these "proud 2nd Amendment supporters" sure seem to be reluctant to have to admit they exercise the right itself.
 
4 days ago  
According to "Guns & Ammo", best states for gun owners:
8th: Texas (25 dead in recent shooting)
25th: Nevada (58 dead in recent shooting)
46th: California (5 dead in recent shooting)

Statistics don't lie. Guncontrol works. 'Bout time jackbooted thugs knock down some doors and grab guns & ammo (not the magazine).
If we only had a prednisone who cared about the 'murcan people.
 
4 days ago  
Repeal the 2nd. Confiscate and ban. We're children who can't be trusted with our stupid little toys, so we need to take them all away.

I hope I see a gun-free United States in my lifetime. But I'm not stupid enough to hold my breath about that.

Fark guns.
 
4 days ago  

bluejeansonfire: The_Sponge:Really?  Because this is what I constantly hear from your side:

1) We need to ban "assault weapons"!
2) We need to ban "high capacity" magazines!
3) We need to make it very costly to be a gun owner!
4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.

Your "side" has absolutely no standing to demand anything. None whatsoever. You have no right to act like there's any good reason for America to keep guns anymore.

Shut the fark up and let the adults talk.


Well, you have certainly demonstrated your ability to win over sufficient support to amend the United States Constitution so that all firearm ownership may be prohibited.
 
4 days ago  

anustart: ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.
I blame people who are soft on crime. Make the penalty for committing a gun crime so horrible that nobody will want to do it.

The deep and serious flaw with this logic is that a huge proportion of gun violence is committed on the spur of the moment, in a fit of uncontrolled anger.


This must explain the huge swings in homicide from area to area in Chicago and the gulf between San Francisco and Oakland.  Far more impulsive, uncontrolled, anger driven people in Oakland, CA then in San Francisco or the Englewood area of Chicago vs pretty much every other area.

They aren't premeditated acts by career criminals, (even though the NRA actively wants you to think your biggest gun danger comes from scary colored-types wandering about in roving gangs terrorizing decent white folk), they are just people who snap. They are probably very much otherwise "lawfully inclined". All the tough-on-crime sentencing in the world isn't going to help that.


Is this some kind of joke?

The good news is that we have known PREDICTORS for those people...domestic violence histories, stalking episodes, serious mental illnesses, etc.  Those predictors can help us spot those risks and mitigate them.

Yes, some mass shooters have had actual convictions that went unreported or their subsequent violations of laws were ignored.  A more basic focus on reporting violations and locking up repeat offenders could have saved quite a few lives in recent weeks.
 
4 days ago  

bluejeansonfire: The_Sponge:Really?  Because this is what I constantly hear from your side:

1) We need to ban "assault weapons"!
2) We need to ban "high capacity" magazines!
3) We need to make it very costly to be a gun owner!
4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.

Your "side" has absolutely no standing to demand anything. None whatsoever. You have no right to act like there's any good reason for America to keep guns anymore.

Shut the fark up and let the adults talk.


Is this how the conversation starts?
 
4 days ago  

SurelyShirley: According to "Guns & Ammo", best states for gun owners:
8th: Texas (25 dead in recent shooting)
25th: Nevada (58 dead in recent shooting)
46th: California (5 dead in recent shooting)

Statistics don't lie. Guncontrol works. 'Bout time jackbooted thugs knock down some doors and grab guns & ammo (not the magazine).
If we only had a prednisone who cared about the 'murcan people.


This is not how statistics work.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: bluejeansonfire: The_Sponge:Really?  Because this is what I constantly hear from your side:

1) We need to ban "assault weapons"!
2) We need to ban "high capacity" magazines!
3) We need to make it very costly to be a gun owner!
4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.

Your "side" has absolutely no standing to demand anything. None whatsoever. You have no right to act like there's any good reason for America to keep guns anymore.

Shut the fark up and let the adults talk.

Is this how the conversation starts?


Yes. If you shut up (by not voting at all), then we can have some reasonable gun control in this country, and by reasonable he means "ban and confiscate all of them".

Surely his cunning plan cannot fail.
 
4 days ago  

bluejeansonfire: Your "side" has absolutely no standing to demand anything. None whatsoever. You have no right to act like there's any good reason for America to keep guns anymore.

Shut the fark up and let the adults talk.


img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

bluejeansonfire: Repeal the 2nd. Confiscate and ban. We're children who can't be trusted with our stupid little toys, so we need to take them all away.

I hope I see a gun-free United States in my lifetime. But I'm not stupid enough to hold my breath about that.

Fark guns.


I hope to see the Democratic party make this part of their platform.
 
4 days ago  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: vrax: ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.

However, there are things we can do.  The Las Vegas shooter purchased a large number of rifles, but because only purchases of handguns get reported, he went under the radar.  These "little" things are what need to be shored up and reported as do stringent universal background checks for all transfers of ownership.  And fark the NRA and other assholes, we need a national database so these things can be done with efficiency instead of being stuck back in the dark ages.

I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.


This is an thread about some nutjob shooter.. not the NRA or legal firearm ownership. The NRA doesn't think law enforcement are jack-booted thugs.. that's just your fantasy.
 
4 days ago  

bluejeansonfire: You have no right to act like there's any good reason for America to keep guns anymore.


Since 'good reason' is a completely subjective measure, your point is worthless.  For myself, I consider my ability to hunt and put meat in the freezer is a very good reason to keep guns in America.  YMMV.
 
4 days ago  
http://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-a​m​erica-burrough/

Focus on the mentality, rather than the tool.  Conflict resolution and critical thinking - skillsets that are increasingly difficult to find in younger generations.
 
4 days ago  

bluejeansonfire: Repeal the 2nd. Confiscate and ban. We're children who can't be trusted with our stupid little toys, so we need to take them all away.

I hope I see a gun-free United States in my lifetime. But I'm not stupid enough to hold my breath about that.

Fark guns.



You're new to this whole trolling thing, aren't you?  One of your kids must have told you about it, and this must be your first time.

Bless your heart.
 
4 days ago  
Remember folks there are only about 40 more potential mass shootings till Xmas.

/Happy Holidays!
 
4 days ago  

penetrating_virga: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: vrax: ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.

However, there are things we can do.  The Las Vegas shooter purchased a large number of rifles, but because only purchases of handguns get reported, he went under the radar.  These "little" things are what need to be shored up and reported as do stringent universal background checks for all transfers of ownership.  And fark the NRA and other assholes, we need a national database so these things can be done with efficiency instead of being stuck back in the dark ages.

I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.

This is an thread about some nutjob shooter.. not the NRA or legal firearm ownership. The NRA doesn't think law enforcement are jack-booted thugs.. that's just your fantasy.


Apparently the NRA's in/around 1993 about the ATF and their 25 year (at the time) pattern of abuse means they think that way today.   If we ignore all the things that led to Congressional findings in 1982 excoriating the ATF for brazenly abusive tactics as well as their actions that led to Ruby Ridge and Waco, then the NRA is just calling names for no reason.

Also, Jiro is very concerned about how law enforcement officers might be regarded, very concerned.
 
4 days ago  

DeathByGeekSquad: Focus on the mentality, rather than the tool.  Conflict resolution and critical thinking - skillsets that are increasingly difficult to find in younger generations.


Stephen Paddock was 64 years old so maybe pump the brakes on your bullsh*t psychoanalysis, Freud.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: Apparently the NRA's

comments in/around 1993 about the ATF

FTFM
 
4 days ago  

SurelyShirley: According to "Guns & Ammo", best states for gun owners:
8th: Texas (25 dead in recent shooting)
25th: Nevada (58 dead in recent shooting)
46th: California (5 dead in recent shooting)

Statistics don't lie. Guncontrol works. 'Bout time jackbooted thugs knock down some doors and grab guns & ammo (not the magazine).
If we only had a prednisone who cared about the 'murcan people.


Just stay outta Texas Smashburgers and you'll be okay. I think their like the Friars Club and jackets. If you don't have an AR15, they'll loan you one so you can be seated.

img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

Dusk-You-n-Me: DeathByGeekSquad: Focus on the mentality, rather than the tool.  Conflict resolution and critical thinking - skillsets that are increasingly difficult to find in younger generations.

Stephen Paddock was 64 years old so maybe pump the brakes on your bullsh*t psychoanalysis, Freud.


Yes, he is clearly representative of the vast majority of murderers in this country.  Ignore the stats showing that it's young men, and disproportionately young black men committing much of the violent crime in this country.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: Yes, he is clearly representative of the vast majority of murderers in this country.  Ignore the stats showing that it's young men, and disproportionately young black men committing much of the violent crime in this country.


Yeah a couple centuries of white supremacy will do that.
 
4 days ago  

GoldSpider: Dr Jack Badofsky: HumanSVD: Markoff_Cheney: I sneezed and 200 posts happened...

Gun threads always blow up

Sorry.  It was the grenade launcher / fragmentation bombs that I bought at the local Harbor Freight.

If you buy anything at Harbor Freight intending to use it more than once, well buddy, that's on you.


Uhh, how many times are YOU able to use a bomb?
 
4 days ago  

HumanSVD: vrax: ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.

However, there are things we can do.  The Las Vegas shooter purchased a large number of rifles, but because only purchases of handguns get reported, he went under the radar.  These "little" things are what need to be shored up and reported as do stringent universal background checks for all transfers of ownership.  And fark the NRA and other assholes, we need a national database so these things can be done with efficiency instead of being stuck back in the dark ages.

No.


img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

vrax: However, there are things we can do.  The Las Vegas shooter purchased a large number of rifles, but because only purchases of handguns get reported, he went under the radar.  These "little" things are what need to be shored up and reported as do stringent universal background checks for all transfers of ownership.  And fark the NRA and other assholes, we need a national database so these things can be done with efficiency instead of being stuck back in the dark ages.


1) It's neat that you think the vegas shooter had a "large" collection of anything. He didn't. He had a good start.
2) He purchased his rifles via background checks. He purchased them over time, not all at once, so he wouldn't have set off any alarms anyway. 12 rifles in 20 years is ... well it's not a lot if you do a lot of shooting
3) despite popular opinion, registries DO lead to confiscations and a few years back congress had to pass a law about confiscations during states of emergency, which was overwhelmingly approved, in bipartisan fashion. No registries. no thanks.
4) if you meant a database of prohibited people... you can actually thank the NRA for the NICS system that the ATF uses. They forced adoption of NICS to get rid of discretionary waiting periods. They've been promoting enhancing NICS to include mental health for years. A lot of states/cities are too lazy to actually submit their stuff though, and that's on them, not on every other innocent person in the country.

Mugato: ThatGuyOverThere: No Way! People with big hands get cut open by the ppk and it's weak. The p99 is FAR better, as is the PP* series that came after it.

The P99 looks too much like a generic Glock. The PPK has more style.


blasphemy!
The p99 had a grip designed by a guy who made custom grips for olympic shooters. Glocks were entirely designed by a guy who made curtain rods, and it shows. the slide design on the p99 was much more streamlined than anything glock has EVER put out. it was so far ahead of its time that it took a good 20 years before other companies started going what it had already done. Some day I'll get around to putting a couple of old ppk series guns in my safe because they're nice... but I will probably always prefer the ppqm1 over just about anything else out there.

carkiller: ... And then those guys are immediately outliers, unless, let's be honest, they're young and black or brown, and then, the narrative goes, it's typical and just goes to show you how some people are.
...  But for fark's sake, can we just figure out some goddam way to communicate strong feelings to each other other than hot flying lead?  It's barbaric and tragic and I'm farking sick of it.

First off, I resemble that remark...
Second off... yes, people who suddenly go violent actually ARE outliers, regardless of their color.
Third... I agree with the last bit. I have no idea what happened to society that people suddenly think it's okay that they should go killing innocent folks to vent their frustrations. It's not. It never will be. Blaming guns and taking them away is the easy reflex, but it doesn't address the root cause and it won't be effective. If we lived in a utopia where nobody would ever be violent, i'd absolutely give up my guns, or at least be good with restrictions to target/hunting/etc use. However, this is not that utopia and I can not advocate disarming good people in a misguided attempt to stop crazy people from doing crazy things.
Fix crazy, don't screw over everybody.
 
4 days ago  
The people who protest in front of doctors offices and health clinics because somehow a woman getting healthcare = murder, why aren't they protesting in front of gun manufacturers and shops?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Because they're full of shiat.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: SurelyShirley: According to "Guns & Ammo", best states for gun owners:
8th: Texas (25 dead in recent shooting)
25th: Nevada (58 dead in recent shooting)
46th: California (5 dead in recent shooting)

Statistics don't lie. Guncontrol works. 'Bout time jackbooted thugs knock down some doors and grab guns & ammo (not the magazine).
If we only had a prednisone who cared about the 'murcan people.

This is not how statistics work.


That is definitely how statistics work. Only three data points from a firearms publication is all we need to repeal the second and fourth amendments.
 
4 days ago  

Donald Trump's Latest Tweet: Mugato: Ferreira said he heard gunfire for over 20 minutes

20 minutes and only "at least" three dead? That's not only poor reporting that they can't accurately count corpses, that's poor mass shooting to get only three people in 20 minutes.

We're sorry that we don't have a good mass shooting for you today. Would you like a rain check?


I'm just tired of everyone shiatting themselves every time there's a shooting when there's nothing we can do about it. They're not going to change legislation, the cops are useless (one might have shot the last guy, kudos), so why keep up the same tired argument?
 
4 days ago  

ThatGuyOverThere: Mugato: ThatGuyOverThere: No Way! People with big hands get cut open by the ppk and it's weak. The p99 is FAR better, as is the PP* series that came after it.

The P99 looks too much like a generic Glock. The PPK has more style.


blasphemy!
The p99 had a grip designed by a guy who made custom grips for olympic shooters. Glocks were entirely designed by a guy who made curtain rods, and it shows. the slide design on the p99 was much more streamlined than anything glock has EVER put out. it was so far ahead of its time that it took a good 20 years before other companies started going what it had already done. Some day I'll get around to putting a couple of old ppk series guns in my safe because they're nice... but I will probably always prefer the ppqm1 over just about anything else out there.


Ok, I defer to your superior knowledge on the subject. I just like to play James Bond.
 
4 days ago  

mcmnky: The people who protest in front of doctors offices and health clinics because somehow a woman getting healthcare = murder, why aren't they protesting in front of gun manufacturers and shops?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Because they're full of shiat.



Yeah!  And why don't people protest in front of bars, breweries, and distilleries?  Because we have too many drunk driving deaths in our country.

You know why that doesn't happen?

Because it is a dumb idea...just like your idea.
 
4 days ago  

Perlin Noise: Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.

Well, lets start with the idea that the only thing they would have in common would be being illegal to posses, etc. So, if that's the only thing in common, we can make the exact same comparison to anything else illegal, like child porn. So, I take it you don't think it's worth the effort to try to minimize child porn by making it illegal?


/I'm so tired of the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument. It's really really stupid.


The thing about child pornography is the simple act of possessing it requires the harming of a child - and you're an accessory to that harm by consuming the product.

Simple possession of marijuana or a gun does not inherently victimize someone.  There's no victim in me possessing a gun, while there has to be a victim for you to possess child pornography.

That's why the law argument is stupid. "Well let's just get rid of murder laws then! Hurr, deer!"

No, because murder has a victim.

While me possessing a gun has no victim, and passing these laws just creates criminals of the otherwise law abiding.
 
4 days ago  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: SurelyShirley: According to "Guns & Ammo", best states for gun owners:
8th: Texas (25 dead in recent shooting)
25th: Nevada (58 dead in recent shooting)
46th: California (5 dead in recent shooting)

Statistics don't lie. Guncontrol works. 'Bout time jackbooted thugs knock down some doors and grab guns & ammo (not the magazine).
If we only had a prednisone who cared about the 'murcan people.

Just stay outta Texas Smashburgers and you'll be okay. I think their like the Friars Club and jackets. If you don't have an AR15, they'll loan you one so you can be seated.

[img.fark.net image 500x375]


This is not normal.
 
4 days ago  

Thingster: Perlin Noise: Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.

Well, lets start with the idea that the only thing they would have in common would be being illegal to posses, etc. So, if that's the only thing in common, we can make the exact same comparison to anything else illegal, like child porn. So, I take it you don't think it's worth the effort to try to minimize child porn by making it illegal?


/I'm so tired of the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument. It's really really stupid.

The thing about child pornography is the simple act of possessing it requires the harming of a child - and you're an accessory to that harm by consuming the product.

Simple possession of marijuana or a gun does not inherently victimize someone.  There's no victim in me possessing a gun, while there has to be a victim for you to possess child pornography.

That's why the law argument is stupid. "Well let's just get rid of murder laws then! Hurr, deer!"

No, because murder has a victim.

While me possessing a gun has no victim, and passing these laws just creates criminals of the otherwise law abiding.



And a smart vote for you.

We have laws against rape/murder/assault/etc.  because those actions involve one person harming another.

How am I harming someone just because I own certain firearms and magazines that seem to rustle the jimmies of every gun grabber out there?
 
4 days ago  

anustart: ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.
I blame people who are soft on crime. Make the penalty for committing a gun crime so horrible that nobody will want to do it.

The deep and serious flaw with this logic is that a huge proportion of gun violence is committed on the spur of the moment, in a fit of uncontrolled anger. They aren't premeditated acts by career criminals, (even though the NRA actively wants you to think your biggest gun danger comes from scary colored-types wandering about in roving gangs terrorizing decent white folk), they are just people who snap. They are probably very much otherwise "lawfully inclined". All the tough-on-crime sentencing in the world isn't going to help that.

The good news is that we have known PREDICTORS for those people...domestic violence histories, stalking episodes, serious mental illnesses, etc.  Those predictors can help us spot those risks and mitigate them.


Good news; domestic violence histories, stalking episodes, and serious mental illness are actually CURRENTLY reasons why people can't own guns. Not just "can't buy new" but can't receive, possess, purchase, transfer firearms, ammunition, or any component of ammunition, right down to a piece of used brass. and also must get rid of once charged or convicted, depending on the details.
We don't need more laws, we need to "encourage" cities/states/prosecutors to make better use of the laws we already have. That's where my call for stiffer penalties comes into play. Rob a store with a gun? That's a felony gun crime. Do not bargain it down to misdemeanor anything in exchange for tossing out the gun charge. Considering how many people are repeat offenders, it really won't take long for the problem people to be taken out of circulation. Crime goes with them. If you can't function in polite society, you shouldn't be in polite society. period.
 
4 days ago  

ThatGuyOverThere: 1) It's neat that you think the vegas shooter had a "large" collection of anything. He didn't. He had a good start.
2) He purchased his rifles via background checks. He purchased them over time, not all at once, so he wouldn't have set off any alarms anyway. 12 rifles in 20 years is ... well it's not a lot if you do a lot of shooting
3) despite popular opinion, registries DO lead to confiscations and a few years back congress had to pass a law about confiscations during states of emergency, which was overwhelmingly approved, in bipartisan fashion. No registries. no thanks.
4) if you meant a database of prohibited people... you can actually thank the NRA for the NICS system that the ATF uses. They forced adoption of NICS to get rid of discretionary waiting periods. They've been promoting enhancing NICS to include mental health for years. A lot of states/cities are too lazy to actually submit their stuff though, and that's on them, not on every other innocent person in the country.


Considering you are so full of shiat,  I'm just going to flag you as full of shiat.

"Some of Paddock's gun purchases date back more than 20 years, but authorities have determined that more than 30 of the firearms were acquired in the past 12 months, the official said."

Most of those were rifles.  Thanks for playing.
 
4 days ago  
Trump and Fox News anxiously awaiting the race and religion of the gunman before weighing in, which is why Pence got shoved to the front to comment first.
 
4 days ago  

Dusk-You-n-Me: pedrop357: Yes, he is clearly representative of the vast majority of murderers in this country.  Ignore the stats showing that it's young men, and disproportionately young black men committing much of the violent crime in this country.

Yeah a couple centuries of white supremacy will do that.


Well that's been gone quite a while unless you want to tell us that a white supremacist country elected a half-black person for two terms as president.

Note, I saw "half-black" because he was, and from what I've read of white supremacists in the past, that was worse than being black in their eyes.   Words like "mongrelization" , "Race mixing", etc. were tossed at people who merely associated with people of other races, and mixed race babies were worse in their eyes.

White supremacists seemed to 'tolerate' black people as long as they stayed on "their side" or in "their place", but had no such tolerance for babies from mixed couples.  On a side note, black people weren't too fond of half-white babies either.

The election of Obama should have done away with this idea that the US is a "White Supremacist" country for good.  White Supremacist countries do not have non-white leaders in every level of government, and holding positions of significant power.
 
4 days ago  

kling_klang_bed: Trump and Fox News anxiously awaiting the race and religion of the gunman before weighing in, which is why Pence got shoved to the front to comment first.


Unlike all the gun control supporters which never concern themselves with the race or religion of a shooter.
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: Well that's been gone quite a while unless you want to tell us that a white supremacist country elected a half-black person for two terms as president.

Note, I saw "half-black" because he was, and from what I've read of white supremacists in the past, that was worse than being black in their eyes.   Words like "mongrelization" , "Race mixing", etc. were tossed at people who merely associated with people of other races, and mixed race babies were worse in their eyes.

White supremacists seemed to 'tolerate' black people as long as they stayed on "their side" or in "their place", but had no such tolerance for babies from mixed couples.  On a side note, black people weren't too fond of half-white babies either.

The election of Obama should have done away with this idea that the US is a "White Supremacist" country for good.  White Supremacist countries do not have non-white leaders in every level of government, and holding positions of significant power.


I'm not going to explain America's white supremacy to you. Read a book.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.

Name a current organization that can easily take over that void if that ever happened.


How about the American Psychiatric Association? I'm sure some members like to shoot, and it would have the added bonus of allowing us to weed out the applicants with mental health issues and also conduct large-scale studies that may be useful in the future for proposing ideas on how to reduce societal violence and nervousness among police personnel.
 
4 days ago  

ThatGuyOverThere: Fix crazy, don't screw over everybody.



I suppose, but that still kind of implies that "crazy" is this static, binary state, that either one is "crazy" or one isn't, and if one is, you fix it and then one isn't anymore.  To turn your own quote back on you, if we lived in a utopia where "crazy" could be fixed like that, I would absolutely feel a lot better about people owning guns if that's what they wanted to do.  However, this is not that utopia, and I can not advocate innocent people getting killed and wounded in a misguided attempt to let people who love machines designed to project lethal force unfettered access to machines designed to project lethal force.

You know what I mean?
 
4 days ago  

Mugato: ThatGuyOverThere: Mugato: ThatGuyOverThere: No Way! People with big hands get cut open by the ppk and it's weak. The p99 is FAR better, as is the PP* series that came after it.

The P99 looks too much like a generic Glock. The PPK has more style.


blasphemy!
The p99 had a grip designed by a guy who made custom grips for olympic shooters. Glocks were entirely designed by a guy who made curtain rods, and it shows. the slide design on the p99 was much more streamlined than anything glock has EVER put out. it was so far ahead of its time that it took a good 20 years before other companies started going what it had already done. Some day I'll get around to putting a couple of old ppk series guns in my safe because they're nice... but I will probably always prefer the ppqm1 over just about anything else out there.

Ok, I defer to your superior knowledge on the subject. I just like to play James Bond.


To be fair, I wanted the p99 long before they switched to it in james bond. james bond using it actually delayed my purchasing one because I didn't want people to think i bought it just because of james bond. If anything, NOIR heavily influenced my decision to get a P99 and a Beretta (92fs instead instead of a 34 though). That cartoon was awesome for realistic portrayal of guns. Now if only hollywood could catch up.
Also, I've had a few glocks and the grips fit my hand about as well as a brick fits your butthole. both hands with support still had me shooting worse than other guns, standing, off-hand only. sold them because I felt unsafe with them. Gen4/5 work better for me though, and I'll get one eventually.
If we had this talks a few weeks ago, I would have brought some walthers with me to florida, we could have shot on my day in StPete at the dali museum. But at a range... not at the museum.
 
4 days ago  

carkiller: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: SurelyShirley: According to "Guns & Ammo", best states for gun owners:
8th: Texas (25 dead in recent shooting)
25th: Nevada (58 dead in recent shooting)
46th: California (5 dead in recent shooting)

Statistics don't lie. Guncontrol works. 'Bout time jackbooted thugs knock down some doors and grab guns & ammo (not the magazine).
If we only had a prednisone who cared about the 'murcan people.

Just stay outta Texas Smashburgers and you'll be okay. I think their like the Friars Club and jackets. If you don't have an AR15, they'll loan you one so you can be seated.

[img.fark.net image 500x375]

This is not normal.


I think the question is whether it's fine. And I think I both know the answer and need a cocktail.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: Thingster: Perlin Noise: Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.

Well, lets start with the idea that the only thing they would have in common would be being illegal to posses, etc. So, if that's the only thing in common, we can make the exact same comparison to anything else illegal, like child porn. So, I take it you don't think it's worth the effort to try to minimize child porn by making it illegal?


/I'm so tired of the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument. It's really really stupid.

The thing about child pornography is the simple act of possessing it requires the harming of a child - and you're an accessory to that harm by consuming the product.

Simple possession of marijuana or a gun does not inherently victimize someone.  There's no victim in me possessing a gun, while there has to be a victim for you to possess child pornography.

That's why the law argument is stupid. "Well let's just get rid of murder laws then! Hurr, deer!"

No, because murder has a victim.

While me possessing a gun has no victim, and passing these laws just creates criminals of the otherwise law abiding.


And a smart vote for you.

We have laws against rape/murder/assault/etc.  because those actions involve one person harming another.

How am I harming someone just because I own certain firearms and magazines that seem to rustle the jimmies of every gun grabber out there?


Is not the constant terror that I expereince by knowing that you are able to have that arsenal a harm?
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: The_Sponge: Thingster: Perlin Noise: Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.

Well, lets start with the idea that the only thing they would have in common would be being illegal to posses, etc. So, if that's the only thing in common, we can make the exact same comparison to anything else illegal, like child porn. So, I take it you don't think it's worth the effort to try to minimize child porn by making it illegal?


/I'm so tired of the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument. It's really really stupid.

The thing about child pornography is the simple act of possessing it requires the harming of a child - and you're an accessory to that harm by consuming the product.

Simple possession of marijuana or a gun does not inherently victimize someone.  There's no victim in me possessing a gun, while there has to be a victim for you to possess child pornography.

That's why the law argument is stupid. "Well let's just get rid of murder laws then! Hurr, deer!"

No, because murder has a victim.

While me possessing a gun has no victim, and passing these laws just creates criminals of the otherwise law abiding.


And a smart vote for you.

We have laws against rape/murder/assault/etc.  because those actions involve one person harming another.

How am I harming someone just because I own certain firearms and magazines that seem to rustle the jimmies of every gun grabber out there?

Is not the constant terror that I expereince by knowing that you are able to have that arsenal a harm?


Ha!

Nah...I'm pretty chill outside of gun threads.
 
4 days ago  

bluejeansonfire: Repeal the 2nd. Confiscate and ban. We're children who can't be trusted with our stupid little toys, so we need to take them all away.

I hope I see a gun-free United States in my lifetime. But I'm not stupid enough to hold my breath about that.

Fark guns.


Nope. Not going to happen.
 
4 days ago  

vrax: Considering you are so full of shiat,  I'm just going to flag you as full of shiat.

"Some of Paddock's gun purchases date back more than 20 years, but authorities have determined that more than 30 of the firearms were acquired in the past 12 months, the official said."

Most of those were rifles.  Thanks for playing.


My mistake. I hadn't read that before. Last I heard he had been "collecting" for 20 years. Even so 30 in a year is... not really abnormal. an average of 3 a month is ambitious for most folks (financially), but not at all unheard of.
The very first time I went to get a pistol purchase permit in michigan, the nice lady asked me how many permits I wanted. I said "well... just one. isn't that enough?" And she laughed, said I'd be back for more soon. I got a carry license instead so I didn't have to bother getting permits ahead of time (state rules).
When I have the cash and find good deals, I may buy 3-4+ at a time. Some retailers will even bundle 3-5 rifle lowers as a perk for buying a decent pistol. Since it's from a retailer, background checks are still needed though.
 
4 days ago  

vrax: HumanSVD: vrax: ThatGuyOverThere: The lawfully inclined are not currently inclined to be felons, obtain guns illegally, kill their neighbors, go on shooting sprees, murder innocents, and engage in firefights with police.
We do, in fact, already have laws against all those things. Our society has spoken pretty clearly on the matter.

However, there are things we can do.  The Las Vegas shooter purchased a large number of rifles, but because only purchases of handguns get reported, he went under the radar.  These "little" things are what need to be shored up and reported as do stringent universal background checks for all transfers of ownership.  And fark the NRA and other assholes, we need a national database so these things can be done with efficiency instead of being stuck back in the dark ages.

No.

[img.fark.net image 600x400]


Not at all.
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: The_Sponge: Thingster: Perlin Noise: Pet_Peve: I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.

Well, lets start with the idea that the only thing they would have in common would be being illegal to posses, etc. So, if that's the only thing in common, we can make the exact same comparison to anything else illegal, like child porn. So, I take it you don't think it's worth the effort to try to minimize child porn by making it illegal?


/I'm so tired of the "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument. It's really really stupid.

The thing about child pornography is the simple act of possessing it requires the harming of a child - and you're an accessory to that harm by consuming the product.

Simple possession of marijuana or a gun does not inherently victimize someone.  There's no victim in me possessing a gun, while there has to be a victim for you to possess child pornography.

That's why the law argument is stupid. "Well let's just get rid of murder laws then! Hurr, deer!"

No, because murder has a victim.

While me possessing a gun has no victim, and passing these laws just creates criminals of the otherwise law abiding.


And a smart vote for you.

We have laws against rape/murder/assault/etc.  because those actions involve one person harming another.

How am I harming someone just because I own certain firearms and magazines that seem to rustle the jimmies of every gun grabber out there?

Is not the constant terror that I expereince by knowing that you are able to have that arsenal a harm?


dude, you REALLY need to start marking your sarcasm. I have you in pleasant blue. don't make me orange you.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: I honestly have no sympathy for gun nuts and now assume that they love these mass shootings.


That's an incredibly stupid and insensitive thing to say. But you knew that when hit 'Enter', didn't you?
 
4 days ago  
See you guys at the next Fark Gun Thread™
img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

hundreddollarman: See you guys at the next Fark Gun Thread™
[img.fark.net image 504x420]


Stay low and keep in touch.
 
4 days ago  

hundreddollarman: See you guys at the next Fark Gun Thread™
[img.fark.net image 504x420]


What's the over/under, timewise? Three weeks? Maybe two?

/nothing we can do, literally nothing
//prots and thayers
///tots and pears
 
4 days ago  

xalres: hundreddollarman: See you guys at the next Fark Gun Thread™
[img.fark.net image 504x420]

What's the over/under, timewise? Three weeks? Maybe two?

/nothing we can do, literally nothing
//prots and thayers
///tots and pears


What steps should have been taken that would have stopped this shooting that California doesn't already have?
 
4 days ago  
i.dailymail.co.uk

Hello, teacher. Tell me what's my lesson.
 
4 days ago  

vrax: Cthulhu Theory: vrax: The_Sponge: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.

Name a current organization that can easily take over that void if that ever happened.

Considering how generally poor or nonexistent firearms training is for beat cops throughout the United States, it seems that almost anyone could take over and it would be an improvement.  Anyone who can train cops to overcome their "It's coming straight for us!!" mentality would be acceptable.

Dude, the "they're coming straight for us" mentality is exactly how they're trained. Every stop is a potentially lethal situation.

Thanks, Captain Obvious!  Why the fark do you think I made the comment?!


You're complaining about the training but it's by design, you can't overc that with better training because the training is working as intended. If you're arguing to fix that mentality , then you need to change their rules of engagement. Bottom line.
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: NEDM: "Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word

Actually it's the definition of compromise.


You REALLY need a dictionary.
 
4 days ago  

vrax: Cthulhu Theory: vrax: The_Sponge: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.

Name a current organization that can easily take over that void if that ever happened.

Considering how generally poor or nonexistent firearms training is for beat cops throughout the United States, it seems that almost anyone could take over and it would be an improvement.  Anyone who can train cops to overcome their "It's coming straight for us!!" mentality would be acceptable.

Dude, the "they're coming straight for us" mentality is exactly how they're trained. Every stop is a potentially lethal situation.

Thanks, Captain Obvious!  Why the fark do you think I made the comment?!


Oh and my handle is Cthulhu Theory, not captain obvious, thank you very much.
 
4 days ago  
img.fark.net
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: xalres: hundreddollarman: See you guys at the next Fark Gun Thread™
[img.fark.net image 504x420]

What's the over/under, timewise? Three weeks? Maybe two?

/nothing we can do, literally nothing
//prots and thayers
///tots and pears

What steps should have been taken that would have stopped this shooting that California doesn't already have?


Literally nothing. There's no one thing that will solve everything 100% a the time so there's just no point in trying. Our only solace in this bleak, meaningless hellscape is that hobbyists and tyranny-overthrowing afficionados such as yourself can go to the range and plink some targets. And believe me when I say we all take great comforin that.
 
4 days ago  

fragMasterFlash: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x723]

Hello, teacher. Tell me what's my lesson.


Today we're learning how the evil libbie libs want to take daddy's guns and make you less safe.
 
4 days ago  

penetrating_virga: AdmirableSnackbar: .. their toys..

..and THAT perspective is what makes you look like a complete dumb-ass. I'm guessing you believe that acts of violence and homicide disappears with the existence of firearms.

 
4 days ago  

xalres: Literally nothing. There's no one thing that will solve everything 100% a the time so there's just no point in trying. Our only solace in this bleak, meaningless hellscape is that hobbyists and tyranny-overthrowing afficionados such as yourself can go to the range and plink some targets. And believe me when I say we all take great comforin that.


As a starting point, can you propose something that would have made a difference in this instance?
 
4 days ago  

xalres: fragMasterFlash: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x723]

Hello, teacher. Tell me what's my lesson.

Today we're learning how the evil libbie libs want to take daddy's guns and make you less safe.


Well maybe those libby libs shouldn't say stupid things...like how they want Australian-style gun bans in this country.
 
4 days ago  
My 'Funny' button is getting a workout. You know who you are.

//only 'cos there's no 'Stupid' button.
 
4 days ago  

Dusk-You-n-Me: DeathByGeekSquad: Focus on the mentality, rather than the tool.  Conflict resolution and critical thinking - skillsets that are increasingly difficult to find in younger generations.

Stephen Paddock was 64 years old so maybe pump the brakes on your bullsh*t psychoanalysis, Freud.


Or you recognize that some will slip through, and focus on the fresh recruits to the mentality.  Difficult concept.
 
4 days ago  

This text is now purple: Why do we still talk about JenBenet Ramsay, and not the hundreds of other missing kids?


Because she looks like this:
img.fark.net

and not like this:
img.fark.net
or like this:
img.fark.net

But I thought everyone knew that already...
 
4 days ago  

AdmirableSnackbar: NEDM: "Give us a little now or we take it all" is not a "compromise" by any definition of the word

Actually it's the definition of compromise.


No dummy, that's called an "ultimatum".
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: xalres: Literally nothing. There's no one thing that will solve everything 100% a the time so there's just no point in trying. Our only solace in this bleak, meaningless hellscape is that hobbyists and tyranny-overthrowing afficionados such as yourself can go to the range and plink some targets. And believe me when I say we all take great comforin that.

As a starting point, can you propose something that would have made a difference in this instance?


Because that's a conversation I haven't had on this site over and over. I used to engage thinking gun suckers actually were interested in discussing solutions to a very clear problem, but all you people really end up doing is screaming "NO!" over and over.

So I'll bid you adieu and we'll have the same conversation, I'm sure, in the next mass shooting thread. Maybe we can actually make it into the double digits on the "days since the last mass shooting" sign.
 
4 days ago  

ThatGuyOverThere: vrax: Considering you are so full of shiat,  I'm just going to flag you as full of shiat.

"Some of Paddock's gun purchases date back more than 20 years, but authorities have determined that more than 30 of the firearms were acquired in the past 12 months, the official said."

Most of those were rifles.  Thanks for playing.

My mistake. I hadn't read that before. Last I heard he had been "collecting" for 20 years. Even so 30 in a year is... not really abnormal. an average of 3 a month is ambitious for most folks (financially), but not at all unheard of.
The very first time I went to get a pistol purchase permit in michigan, the nice lady asked me how many permits I wanted. I said "well... just one. isn't that enough?" And she laughed, said I'd be back for more soon. I got a carry license instead so I didn't have to bother getting permits ahead of time (state rules).
When I have the cash and find good deals, I may buy 3-4+ at a time. Some retailers will even bundle 3-5 rifle lowers as a perk for buying a decent pistol. Since it's from a retailer, background checks are still needed though.


Sorry I said that you were so full of shiat.  I checked my patience dipstick and it's empty.
 
4 days ago  

DeathByGeekSquad: Or you recognize that some will slip through, and focus on the fresh recruits to the mentality.  Difficult concept.


"fresh recruits to the mentality" is the dumbest thing I've read today. Stay in your lane, Freud.
 
4 days ago  

anustart: The deep and serious flaw with this logic is that a huge proportion of gun violence is committed on the spur of the moment, in a fit of uncontrolled anger. They aren't premeditated acts by career criminals


[Citation needed]

Perpetrators of any violent crime, ("gun" violence or otherwise) rarely "just snap", the majority have an adult criminal record.  For example, in one Milwaukee  report, 90% of homicide suspects had an adult criminal record.
 
4 days ago  

tnpir: Hey, shut this thread down dammit. Now is not the time to talk about guns. Tomorrow won't be either. I might have some time in late 2038 if you'd like to make an appointment....

...no wait, sorry, that time isn't appropriate either...


K'NAAN - Hurt Me Tomorrow (Clean)
Youtube 0E3c-X86Y6o
 
4 days ago  

Mugato: Donald Trump's Latest Tweet: Mugato: Ferreira said he heard gunfire for over 20 minutes

20 minutes and only "at least" three dead? That's not only poor reporting that they can't accurately count corpses, that's poor mass shooting to get only three people in 20 minutes.

We're sorry that we don't have a good mass shooting for you today. Would you like a rain check?

I'm just tired of everyone shiatting themselves every time there's a shooting when there's nothing we can do about it. They're not going to change legislation, the cops are useless (one might have shot the last guy, kudos), so why keep up the same tired argument?


Because 16,000 people shouldn't have to die every year because you're "tired?"
 
4 days ago  

Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.

It wasn't just your lifetime.  That was the first time it ever happened.

Prior to that no one had ever considered shooting up a school.

[images.gr-assets.com image 308x475]

No one... Ever.

//Does 2 seconds of research...

Ok.  I stand corrected.
I don't think that exactly qualifies as a mass shooting by Columbine standards.

1966 University of Texas tower shooting (15 killed 32 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universi​ty_of_Texas_tower_shooting

1922 Bath School disaster (44 killed 58 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Sch​ool_disaster



Harry Chapin wrote a song about that top one.

Anyway...  Thanks, everyone, for proving how completely wrong I was that Columbine was the most screwed up thing that had happened up to that time.  You've done tons to restore my faith in humanity.

So let's just say, it's the first time ever that a couple of students, together, got a hold of a bunch of semi-automatic weapons, shot up a school, mostly students died, and then they killed themselves.

I'm pretty that's the first time THAT happened.
 
4 days ago  

Subtonic: Dead elementary students? Surely this will be what it takes to bring about reform in gun control at long last.


In California? This is just proof that gun control doesn't work.
 
4 days ago  

durbnpoisn: Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.

It wasn't just your lifetime.  That was the first time it ever happened.

Prior to that no one had ever considered shooting up a school.

[images.gr-assets.com image 308x475]

No one... Ever.

//Does 2 seconds of research...

Ok.  I stand corrected.
I don't think that exactly qualifies as a mass shooting by Columbine standards.

1966 University of Texas tower shooting (15 killed 32 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universi​ty_of_Texas_tower_shooting

1922 Bath School disaster (44 killed 58 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Sch​ool_disaster


Harry Chapin wrote a song about that top one.

Anyway...  Thanks, everyone, for proving how completely wrong I was that Columbine was the most screwed up thing that had happened up to that time.  You've done tons to restore my faith in humanity.

So let's just say, it's the first time ever that a couple of students, together, got a hold of a bunch of semi-automatic weapons, shot up a school, mostly students died, and then they killed themselves.

I'm pretty that's the first time THAT happened.


Side note:  Columbine took place during Bill Clinton's ban on "assault weapons".
 
4 days ago  

ChicagoKev: anustart: The deep and serious flaw with this logic is that a huge proportion of gun violence is committed on the spur of the moment, in a fit of uncontrolled anger. They aren't premeditated acts by career criminals

[Citation needed]

Perpetrators of any violent crime, ("gun" violence or otherwise) rarely "just snap", the majority have an adult criminal record.  For example, in one Milwaukee  report, 90% of homicide suspects had an adult criminal record.


Thanks for that.

2. The homicide rate was 14.5 per 100,000 residents and the nonfatal shooting rate was 79.5 per 100,000 residents.
3. The homicide rate per Black residents is 27.9 per 100,000 compared to 9.7 per 100,000 Latino
residents and 1.7 per 100,000 White residents.
8. The vast majority of homicides and nonfatal shootings took place in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods.
17. Four squad areas (340, 520, 530, 540) made up 45% (or 213 out of 473) of all nonfatal shootings. Of these squad areas, 530 and 540 had significant increases over 2010 (93% and 58% respectively).


No, this is purely a gun problem.

That 5.7x and 16.4x difference is the result of non white people being framed to lay the blame on poor people instead of where it belongs, white NRA members.
 
4 days ago  

edmo: Mugato: Donald Trump's Latest Tweet: Mugato: Ferreira said he heard gunfire for over 20 minutes

20 minutes and only "at least" three dead? That's not only poor reporting that they can't accurately count corpses, that's poor mass shooting to get only three people in 20 minutes.

We're sorry that we don't have a good mass shooting for you today. Would you like a rain check?

I'm just tired of everyone shiatting themselves every time there's a shooting when there's nothing we can do about it. They're not going to change legislation, the cops are useless (one might have shot the last guy, kudos), so why keep up the same tired argument?

Because 16,000 people shouldn't have to die every year because you're "tired?"


Where do you get 16,000 people a year?
 
4 days ago  

pedrop357: Yes, he is clearly representative of the vast majority of murderers in this country.  Ignore the stats showing that it's young men, and disproportionately young black men committing much of the violent crime in this country.


Those statistics are clearly racist, especially when you take into account that young black men are also disproportionally victims of violent crime in this country.

I'd point to the rates for Chicago, but  Hey... (the only website for these running totals for 2017 Chicago shooting statistics) is apparently forbidden by Fark, so here's some nationwide info based on CDC numbers.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I think the best thing we can do is to deny ANY public funding to the NRA and its subsidiaries from any level of government.

Since the NRA thinks law enforcement officers are jack-booted thugs, they have no business being paid to train law enforcement officers or citizens.

They can do so on the private dime.

Name a current organization that can easily take over that void if that ever happened.


Well they're getting more militarised all the time, so take it a step further and have the military train them.
I'm not talking about combat techniques, just proper firearm training.
 
4 days ago  

potterydove: In California? This is just proof that gun control doesn't work.


No. The only thing this proves is that we need fewer guns here.
Not more laws, not more rules, not more regulations, just fewer guns.
And don't even try the "well da crinimalz gots de guns!" because every gun manufactured here was at one time in its existence legally owned - from the manufacturer to gun shops to someone's house. The fact that criminals were able to get them through theft or other means from these legal owners shows that there are simply too may of them and that they are too easy to get.

The second amendment says people CAN have guns.
It does not insist that that people MUST have guns.
It is that fetishistic desire which causes the sickness here, a societal sickness that will erupt into incidents like this one.

Again, and again, and again. Don't even need a calendar.
 
4 days ago  

Dimensio: bobadooey: Dimensio: Omnidirectional Punching: Sure is a shame that once again there's absolutely nothing we could ever do to put a stop to gun violence.

If California had tough laws banning pistol grips and adjustable stocks on rifles then this shooting would not have happened.

Shut the actual fark up.  You can count the number of bodies that it took to make dry sarcasm on a mass shooting in a high gun control state infuriating.

I apologize. I should never note that outright prohibition based upon cosmetic appearance has never demonstrably reduced rates of violent crime, as noting the complete worthlessness of "assault weapons bans", as opposed to the regulation that I already suggested in this discussion, is disrespectful.


Sarcastic Socrates blue it is for you, then. It's not so much that in every gun thread you ask question, so much as you lampoon the bullshiat coming from every emotional or half-considered thought that gets posted.

To that point - what would it take, in your opinion, to make any significant change to the mass murder by firearm trend?
 
4 days ago  

rewind2846: potterydove: In California? This is just proof that gun control doesn't work.

No. The only thing this proves is that we need fewer guns here.
Not more laws, not more rules, not more regulations, just fewer guns.
And don't even try the "well da crinimalz gots de guns!" because every gun manufactured here was at one time in its existence legally owned - from the manufacturer to gun shops to someone's house. The fact that criminals were able to get them through theft or other means from these legal owners shows that there are simply too may of them and that they are too easy to get.

The second amendment says people CAN have guns.
It does not insist that that people MUST have guns.
It is that fetishistic desire which causes the sickness here, a societal sickness that will erupt into incidents like this one.

Again, and again, and again. Don't even need a calendar.


So how do you propose we get fewer guns without using laws and/or regulations?
 
4 days ago  

rewind2846: The second amendment says people CAN have guns.
It does not insist that that people MUST have guns.


The first amendment says you can engage in free speech, but it does not insist you must engage in it.
 
4 days ago  

rewind2846: s house. The fact that criminals were able to get them through theft or other means from these legal owners shows that there are simply too may of them and that they are too easy to get.

The second amendment says people CAN have guns.
It does not insist that that people MUST have guns.
It is that fetishistic desire which causes the sickness here, a societal sickness that will erupt into incidents like this one.


Yet Switzerland has similar per capita private gun ownership, but much lower crime rates. The problem is cultural. Stop blaming inanimate objects.
 
4 days ago  

Kairam: Dimensio: bobadooey: Dimensio: Omnidirectional Punching: Sure is a shame that once again there's absolutely nothing we could ever do to put a stop to gun violence.

If California had tough laws banning pistol grips and adjustable stocks on rifles then this shooting would not have happened.

Shut the actual fark up.  You can count the number of bodies that it took to make dry sarcasm on a mass shooting in a high gun control state infuriating.

I apologize. I should never note that outright prohibition based upon cosmetic appearance has never demonstrably reduced rates of violent crime, as noting the complete worthlessness of "assault weapons bans", as opposed to the regulation that I already suggested in this discussion, is disrespectful.

Sarcastic Socrates blue it is for you, then. It's not so much that in every gun thread you ask question, so much as you lampoon the bullshiat coming from every emotional or half-considered thought that gets posted.

To that point - what would it take, in your opinion, to make any significant change to the mass murder by firearm trend?


Try to persuade them switch to explosives, vehicles, and arson like other countries.
 
4 days ago  

NEDM: California, which did use one of its gun registries to go door to door confiscating guns.


[citation needed]
 
4 days ago  

rewind2846: No. The only thing this proves is that we need fewer guns here.


So you really think that if there are fewer guns that a dedicated psycho who wants to shoot up a place will just throw up his hands and take up needle point?
 
4 days ago  

Spermbot: NEDM: California, which did use one of its gun registries to go door to door confiscating guns.

[citation needed]


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0​2​/19/california-gun-confiscation_n_2717​809.html


They also have the option to do it for more people:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/​2​015/dec/29/california-gun-violence-res​training-order-law-goin/
 
4 days ago  

potterydove: Yet Switzerland has similar per capita private gun ownership, but much lower crime rates. The problem is cultural. Stop blaming inanimate objects.


I didn't blame guns. I distinctly blamed culture.
" It is that fetishistic desire which causes the sickness here, a societal sickness that will erupt into incidents like this one."
Work on your reading comprehension.
 
4 days ago  

The_Sponge: durbnpoisn: Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Keyser_Soze_Death: durbnpoisn: Markoff_Cheney: Columbine was the first big one in my lifetime, and it seemed like we didn't have another for a long stretch after that.  People aren't even talking about Vegas any more, I remember Columbine being front page news for 3+ months straight around here.

It wasn't just your lifetime.  That was the first time it ever happened.

Prior to that no one had ever considered shooting up a school.

[images.gr-assets.com image 308x475]

No one... Ever.

//Does 2 seconds of research...

Ok.  I stand corrected.
I don't think that exactly qualifies as a mass shooting by Columbine standards.

1966 University of Texas tower shooting (15 killed 32 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universi​ty_of_Texas_tower_shooting

1922 Bath School disaster (44 killed 58 injured)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Sch​ool_disaster


Harry Chapin wrote a song about that top one.

Anyway...  Thanks, everyone, for proving how completely wrong I was that Columbine was the most screwed up thing that had happened up to that time.  You've done tons to restore my faith in humanity.

So let's just say, it's the first time ever that a couple of students, together, got a hold of a bunch of semi-automatic weapons, shot up a school, mostly students died, and then they killed themselves.

I'm pretty that's the first time THAT happened.

Side note:  Columbine took place during Bill Clinton's ban on "assault weapons".


Man dies of flu the day after penecillin invented.
 
4 days ago  

Mugato: So you really think that if there are fewer guns that a dedicated psycho who wants to shoot up a place will just throw up his hands and take up needle point?


If there are fewer guns total, they will be harder to get, more difficult to steal, and therefore less likely to be used to kill other people.
I cannot shoot you with a gun that does not exist.
But of course the gun manufacturers and their NRA lobbyists will not let that happen. Incidents like this one are what their shareholders live for.
 
4 days ago  
How high do we have to stack the bodies, before we do something?
 
4 days ago  

bluejeansonfire: The_Sponge:Really?  Because this is what I constantly hear from your side:

1) We need to ban "assault weapons"!
2) We need to ban "high capacity" magazines!
3) We need to make it very costly to be a gun owner!
4) We need a ban like Australia!

...and that is why we don't trust your side at all.

Your "side" has absolutely no standing to demand anything. None whatsoever. You have no right to act like there's any good reason for America to keep guns anymore.

Shut the fark up and let the adults talk.


{Massive eyeroll}
 
4 days ago