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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 492 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report