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»



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

4 days ago  
48 votes:
img.fark.net
4 days ago  
40 votes:
img.fark.net
4 days ago  
38 votes:

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  
31 votes:

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  
28 votes:
img.washingtonpost.com
4 days ago  
26 votes:
img.fark.net
4 days ago  
26 votes:
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  
24 votes:

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  
24 votes:
The guns are reported to be in stable condition.
4 days ago  
21 votes:
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  
21 votes:
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  
18 votes:

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  
18 votes:

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  
13 votes:
I would like to know how outlawing guns would be anymore effective than outlawing drugs has been.
4 days ago  
12 votes:

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  
12 votes:
registerguard.com
4 days ago  
12 votes:
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  
12 votes:

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


When seconds matter, policy will arrive in decades.
4 days ago  
10 votes:

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  
10 votes:

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  
10 votes:

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  
10 votes:

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  
10 votes:

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  
10 votes:

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  
10 votes:
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  
9 votes:

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  
9 votes:

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  
9 votes:

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  
9 votes:

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  
9 votes:

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  
9 votes:

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  
9 votes:

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  
8 votes:

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  
8 votes:

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  
8 votes:

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  
8 votes:

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  
8 votes:

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  
8 votes:

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  
8 votes:
Dead elementary students? Surely this will be what it takes to bring about reform in gun control at long last.
4 days ago  
7 votes:

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  
7 votes:

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  
7 votes:

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  
7 votes:

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  
7 votes:
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  
7 votes:

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  
7 votes:

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  
7 votes:

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  
7 votes:

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  
7 votes:

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  
7 votes:
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  
7 votes:
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  
7 votes:

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  
7 votes:
img.fark.net
4 days ago  
6 votes:

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  
6 votes:

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  
6 votes:

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  
6 votes:

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  
6 votes:

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  
6 votes:

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  
6 votes:
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  
6 votes:

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  
6 votes:

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  
6 votes:

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  
6 votes:

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  
6 votes:

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  
6 votes:
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  
6 votes:
kids, today's lesson is: Freedom

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

carkiller: pedrop357: carkiller: potterydove: 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.

Goddam right the problem is cultural. A culture of fetishizing and recreationalizing a machine designed to transfer a lethal amount of energy and mass long distances at high velocities, combined with aggressive masculinity, to be specific.

Yet the people most associated (stereotyped) with that culture (white people) have homicide rates that are on par with European nations.

This somewhat shows up in states that are predominantly white like NH, VT, ME, ID, UT, MT, WY, etc. and and have very low homicide rates.

Someone posted a report from Milwaukee where the homicide rate for white people in the city was around 1.7/100k vs 27.9 for black people.  This shows up in New Orleans where in some years up to 95% of homicides are believed to be committed by black people who are ~60% of the population.

You can see this in Chicago with offender and victim rates for different races/ethnicities.

I figured you were whistling, there, but I wanted you to put yourself. Nice work, cowboy.


You didn't initially reply to me.  Also, did I lie about anything?  You may not like the truth, but it's still the truth.

I've pointed out multiple times in gun threads that the bulk of violence in this country is a poverty problem, and black people are disproportionately poor, therefore it does make sense that they are also disproportionately involved in crime.  This sort of A-B, B-C, A~C type connection is well documented in studies involving poverty, racial distribution of crime, etc.

The same Milwaukee report I posted about earlier explicitly states that shootings happened disproportionately in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods.  When you look at the highest homicide rate community areas in Chicago, you see similar correlations to per capita income.

If that's a "whistle", so be it.
4 days ago  
5 votes:

rewind2846: . Somehow the people here cannot do without them. And that is what must change first.


Again, this is an obvious talking point rooted in ignorance.  Many people don't own guns.  Those of us that do own firearms do so for various reasons.  We choose to own guns, not because we cannot do without them, but because we have reasons to own them and they are legal.

If you can convince people to get rid of their guns, that is fine by us.  However, based upon your flawed logic and appeal to emotion, you have much work to do before that happens.
4 days ago  
5 votes:

JungleBoogie: With cars, there's been a continuous improvement in their safety. They're always adding driver assist features and when autonomous cars get here, it should really put a dent in traffic fatalities.

[img.fark.net image 425x318]

Airlines, ditto.

[img.fark.net image 425x303]

But guns? Seems like there's never anything done, no background check upgrades, the same types of clowns keep getting weapons and ammo, after each mass shooting, year after year.

[img.fark.net image 310x798]

I'm not okay with the "tough sh•t, cupcake" approach to gun injuries and fatalities.


I guess we should ignore that 50% drop in homicides and 75% drop in nonfatal shootings from the 90s?
4 days ago  
5 votes:
More innocent people die as the result of people driving drunk or under the influence than innocent people dying due to firearms and yet here we are trying to ban firearms. Last time I checked, alcohol hasn't saved anyone's life either. Here we have harmful substances with no redeemable health benefits that people become addicted to and that causes a cycle of crime, but we aren't banning them are we? Nope, quite the opposite.
4 days ago  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:
My 'Funny' button is getting a workout. You know who you are.

//only 'cos there's no 'Stupid' button.
4 days ago  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

img.fark.net


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

4 days ago  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:

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  
5 votes:
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  
5 votes:
First you must define 'mass shooting'.  I don't consider three 'mass'.
3 days ago  
4 votes:
Note: that he killed people is not awesome.
That Pedro pointed out that people can make guns, then carkiller took a serious attitude while showing incredible ignorance, and then it turns out that this was indeed the case - that's awesome.
4 days ago  
4 votes:

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.


cdn.nexternal.com
4 days ago  
4 votes:

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.


Very realistic. Over 320 million guns in the USA and no telling how many billions of rounds and you want them all confiscated. Suuuure. Are we going to use unicorns to help us find ALL of the guns or perhaps the iPhone 12 will have a sensor for it?  Not to mention that a zip gun can be made in minutes with supplies from your local hardware store.
4 days ago  
4 votes:

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.


Which gets to the very heart of the matter.  We will have gun control in the USA at the same time as abortion is outlawed.  Which is never.  America will not change regulations on either of them.  Arguing about guns or abortion on the internet is a waste of time.
4 days ago  
4 votes:

rewind2846: 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.


Gun grabber:

"Nobody wants to take your guns away."
4 days ago  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:
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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:
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  
4 votes:
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  
4 votes:

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  
4 votes:
Yawn.  Thoughts and prayers.
4 days ago  
4 votes:
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  
3 votes:

Spermbot: pedrop357: Spermbot: NEDM: California, which did use one of its gun registries to go door to door confiscating guns.

[citation needed]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02​/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/

Oh, FFS.  The first news piece is about ensuring that people who *lost the legal right to have guns* - by going to jail - don't have them.  The second piece deals with people who pose an imminent threat to themselves or others as judged by those who know them best - their family.

Neither is the beginning of widespread confiscation of firearms from people who have the legal right to own them.  There is *no* slippery slope here.  It beggars belief that anyone could think so.


You implied they weren't doing confiscation.  It's also worth pointing out that they've seized them from people not prohibited because they can't be bothered to maintain their lists properly:
http://www.guns.com/2017/04/04/califo​r​nia-man-who-had-541-guns-seized-by-doj​-gets-them-all-returned-to-his-family/​
4 days ago  
3 votes:

carkiller: pedrop357: carkiller: penetrating_virga: 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.

Very realistic. Over 320 million guns in the USA and no telling how many billions of rounds and you want them all confiscated. Suuuure. Are we going to use unicorns to help us find ALL of the guns or perhaps the iPhone 12 will have a sensor for it?  Not to mention that a zip gun can be made in minutes with supplies from your local hardware store.

How many rounds per minute you figure you can swing with a zip gun, Tex, and at what range?  And do tell about your bold plan to scale production.

With the right approach, a person only needs one to kill someone with a gun (cop, soldier) and take their gun.  This was an effective tactic in WW2.

Beyond, Sten Guns can be made pretty easily.

That popping sound you might have just heard is one of my optic nerves separating from my eyes rolling to hard, if you were wondering.

Also, listen to yourself. You're smoking the chore boy for one last rush; if they take all the guns away, I can just make a gun, from the hardware store, and I can take my gun, and use it to steal another gun. Guuuunnnnns."  Seek rehab, man.


Have you always been like this, or did you have to work on it?
4 days ago  
3 votes:

carkiller: penetrating_virga: 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.

Very realistic. Over 320 million guns in the USA and no telling how many billions of rounds and you want them all confiscated. Suuuure. Are we going to use unicorns to help us find ALL of the guns or perhaps the iPhone 12 will have a sensor for it?  Not to mention that a zip gun can be made in minutes with supplies from your local hardware store.

How many rounds per minute you figure you can swing with a zip gun, Tex, and at what range?  And do tell about your bold plan to scale production.


With the right approach, a person only needs one to kill someone with a gun (cop, soldier) and take their gun.  This was an effective tactic in WW2.

Beyond, Sten Guns can be made pretty easily.
4 days ago  
3 votes:

rewind2846: But not here.


Incorrect.  For example, many of the gun nuts I know will not shoot for several months during the winter.  You seem to be rooted in something along the lines of  "Area man passionate about what he imagines gun nuts to be."

It is actually obvious you know little about these people.
4 days ago  
3 votes:

The_Sponge: "Nobody wants to take your guns away."


I certainly don't want to "take" your guns.
The issue is your attitude toward them. No other first world nation on the planet has it.
Guns are machines, which is how other first world nations with them see them. Machines that can be left alone. Machines that simply aren't that important.

But not here. Somehow the people here cannot do without them. And that is what must change first. But it won't, so long as there are forces that want to make money by stoking fear and people who are too simple to resist.
4 days ago  
3 votes:

rewind2846: 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.


Just like drugs.  Make them illegal, there will be less around and fewer people will get them.
4 days ago  
3 votes:

Trucker: How high do we have to stack the bodies, before we do something?


Being dishonest by implying that nothing is done is a great way to get people to take you seriously.
4 days ago  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:
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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:
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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:
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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:
img.fark.net
4 days ago  
3 votes:
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  
3 votes:

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  
3 votes:
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".
3 days ago  
2 votes:

bigfire: Both sides need to look at the issue. Burying our heads in muh-rights or all-gunz-ebil corners will not fix this. Compromise means BOTH sides do not get what they want.


Part of the problem is that there are numerous examples of existing laws that were simply not enforced.  Before they (gun control supporters) can get gun rights supporters to agree to even more laws, they have to show at least modest enforcement of the existing laws, to name a few:
-proper reporting of convictions
-following up on credible threats to schools
-questioning why charges against felons in possession were dropped
-why ineligible people who attempt to purchase and deny are rarely prosecuted

Each side must give up something they want in order to get something they want more. Without compromise the other choice is reverting back to the stone age and killing your opponent.
 

Yes, if we don't support the gun control cause dujour, then we as may as well go back to stone age barbarism.

We (gun rights supporters) are tired of being told to give up even more rights when the problem will not be even slightly dented that way, while the people making these demands refuse to acknowledge some of the particulars of violence in this country, such as it being heavily concentrated in poor areas for starters.

My compromise - focus on fixing areas with homicide rates 5-30x the national average before telling the rest of the areas with near-zero levels that they have to keep giving up rights to fix this issue.
3 days ago  
2 votes:
I'm up for compromise.  I agree to that we can close the gun show loophole. In exchange give us 50 state plus D.C. and all outlying U.S. territory concealed carry.

Simple.
3 days ago  
2 votes:

carkiller: ThatGuyOverThere: Note: that he killed people is not awesome.
That Pedro pointed out that people can make guns, then carkiller took a serious attitude while showing incredible ignorance, and then it turns out that this was indeed the case - that's awesome.

I stand corrected on homemade firearms, apparently. That you guys consider that some sort of victory does nothing to diminish my disgust. Quite the contrary, in fact. But by all means, feel vindicated in your bloodlust at my expense. I'm a big girl; I can take it.


He was a prohibited person. He wasn't allowed receive, purchase, or possess any guns at all. He also wasn't allowed to make what he made in california.
Guns are simple machines. You can make an AR out of a cutting board or scrap metal, or an AK out of an old shovel. And many many illegal knockoff guns (which are fully functional) come from people hand fitting castings in 3rd world hellholes, like this, or this.
It's not bloodlust, it's reality. Face it. Trying to ban things is just a silly idea that won't work.
3 days ago  
2 votes:

carkiller: pedrop357: Beyond, Sten Guns can be made pretty easily.

That popping sound you might have just heard is one of my optic nerves separating from my eyes rolling to hard, if you were wondering.


pedrop357: "These firearms are manufactured illegally, we believe, by him at his home," Johnston said. "They were obtained in an illegal manner, not through a legal process. They're not registered."


If that turns out to be true...
AAAHAHAHAHA awesome.
3 days ago  
2 votes:

Steakzilla: In all fairness I went ahead and looked up what guns they used because I didn't remember.  Two shotguns and a TEC-DC9 which were still legal to purchase.  So the ban on "assault weapons" seems irrelevant.  They did have to get their friend to buy the guns for them because they weren't old enough though so the purchase was ultimately deemed illegal.


But both the shotguns were illegally cut down to short configs, which is 2 extra federal felonies. And they had their guns concealed, which is extra felonies. And they took guns into schools, which were gun free zones under the federal gun free school zone act, so more felonies were made. And all the bombs they made were each additional felonies. And their friend buying the guns for them was a pretty seriously illegal act. Oh, and all the murders they did, those were all illegal too.
A lot of things weren't covered by the AWB, but they were covered by a whole lot of other things that were in effect long before the AWB.
3 days ago  
2 votes:

pedrop357: You can see this in Chicago with offender and victim rates for different races/ethnicities.


That whistling shouting through a bullhorn must leave you dreadfully short of breath.
Give it a rest.
4 days ago  
2 votes:

Spermbot: pedrop357: Spermbot: pedrop357: Spermbot: NEDM: California, which did use one of its gun registries to go door to door confiscating guns.

[citation needed]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02​/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/

Oh, FFS.  The first news piece is about ensuring that people who *lost the legal right to have guns* - by going to jail - don't have them.  The second piece deals with people who pose an imminent threat to themselves or others as judged by those who know them best - their family.

Neither is the beginning of widespread confiscation of firearms from people who have the legal right to own them.  There is *no* slippery slope here.  It beggars belief that anyone could think so.

You implied they weren't doing confiscation.  It's also worth pointing out that they've seized them from people not prohibited because they can't be bothered to maintain their lists properly:
http://www.guns.com/2017/04/04/califor​nia-man-who-had-541-guns-seized-by-doj​-gets-them-all-returned-to-his-family/

I can see how my request for a citation implied that I disbelieved you.  In reality, I was just curious.  The last piece of evidence was a strong example supporting your argument.  I hope Sheakalee sues Harris for malicious prosecution and seeks her disbarment as a remedy, in addition to seeking monetary damages.  It would be expensive and might have too low an impact (not to mention a low probability of success) for even a conservative legal foundation to pursue, though.


What I was talking about was the SKS Sporter case in, you guessed it!, California.  They said rifles were legal, but required them to be registered.  Then, at a later date, they were outlawed, and California used the registry to make sure they were all confiscated or destroyed.

California is good for proving that the "slippery slope" isn't a fallacy when it comes to gun control laws.
4 days ago  
2 votes:

Frederf: The_Sponge: Frederf: 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.

The ban passed in 1994, Columbine took place in 1999.  Try again.

You think 5 years is a long enough time to have an effect? Oh dear.


So there was a ban in 1994.  Five years later and some kids can still get them easily?  Yea sounds like a fail.
4 days ago  
2 votes:

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.


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. during Operation Fast and Furious in which the Obama administration actively promoted illegal straw purchases and knowingly allowed weapons to be illegally transported to Mexico which were then used to kill countless people including border patrol agent Brian Terry.

FTFY.
4 days ago  
2 votes:

pedrop357: 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?


He's throwing suicides and ADs in.
4 days ago  
2 votes:

bluejeansonfire: I hope I see a gun-free United States in my lifetime. But I'm not stupid enough to hold my breath about that.


About that...

Fark guns.

You wish.
4 days ago  
2 votes:

Frederf: 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.


The ban passed in 1994, Columbine took place in 1999.  Try again.
4 days ago  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:
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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:
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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:
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  
2 votes:

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  
2 votes:
I am sad. Too soon to know the whole story. Not too soon to be sad.
4 days ago  
2 votes:

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


thank jesus.
4 days ago  
2 votes:
It's up to 5 now.
Let's talk about it sometime next spring.
4 days ago  
2 votes:
Fake news or something
3 days ago  
1 vote:

bigfire: John Buck 41: bigfire: I'm up for compromise.  I agree to that we can close the gun show loophole. In exchange give us 50 state plus D.C. and all outlying U.S. territory concealed carry.

Simple.

I've never been to a gun show with a loophole.

Private party sales.


Just like 'climate change' sounds better than 'global warming' maybe the antis should drop the ridiculous phrase 'gunshow loophole' and go with 'private party sales'. Which, again, DON'T happen at any gunshow I've ever been to.
3 days ago  
1 vote:

carkiller: sugar_fetus: carkiller: ThatGuyOverThere: Note: that he killed people is not awesome.
That Pedro pointed out that people can make guns, then carkiller took a serious attitude while showing incredible ignorance, and then it turns out that this was indeed the case - that's awesome.

I stand corrected on homemade firearms, apparently. That you guys consider that some sort of victory does nothing to diminish my disgust. Quite the contrary, in fact. But by all means, feel vindicated in your bloodlust at my expense. I'm a big girl; I can take it.

You conflate the desire to own firearms with the desire to harm or kill innocent people.

Maybe you need to rethink that.

The more I think about it, the sicker of gun culture I get, honestly. All of it. This guy in California, the Saturday afternoon plinker, the kid in the city avenging his friend's drive-by, the concealed carry guy, the hunter and his Fudd gun, the James Bond cosplayer, the collector, the 'neutralize the threat and ask questions later' cop, the sovcit, all of it.  Guns are machines designed to kill, or in the case of the big ones, destroy buildings and vehicles. You've got the right in this country to have them, and until you demonstrate otherwise I guess, I'll take your word that you're one of the good guys with them. But own the fact that whatever your reasoning, whatever level of responsibility you exercise with them, whatever your justification, what you value is a killing machine. And understand that I, and probably other people but definitely me, find that utterly repugnant. You don't have to like that I do, but understand that if you want any dim hope of changing it, you're going to have to make a hell of a convincing case. And until I've heard that case made, shiat like kids getting selected from school to the hospital with gunshot wounds is your farking mess, in my mind


Thank you for blaming me and other people for things we have not done.

Do you drink alcohol? A poisonous substance? Is the mess of 88,000 people dead in the US of alcohol-related causes partly yours?

Or maybe - just maybe - inanimate objects have no morality - no good or evil, except the uses that people make of them. By your logic, the firearm in the hands of a woman defending herself from a rapist has the same moral value as the firearm in the hands of a mass murderer.

I cannot agree with that in any way.
3 days ago  
1 vote:

carkiller: ThatGuyOverThere: carkiller: ThatGuyOverThere: Note: that he killed people is not awesome.
That Pedro pointed out that people can make guns, then carkiller took a serious attitude while showing incredible ignorance, and then it turns out that this was indeed the case - that's awesome.

I stand corrected on homemade firearms, apparently. That you guys consider that some sort of victory does nothing to diminish my disgust. Quite the contrary, in fact. But by all means, feel vindicated in your bloodlust at my expense. I'm a big girl; I can take it.

He was a prohibited person. He wasn't allowed receive, purchase, or possess any guns at all. He also wasn't allowed to make what he made in california.
Guns are simple machines. You can make an AR out of a cutting board or scrap metal, or an AK out of an old shovel. And many many illegal knockoff guns (which are fully functional) come from people hand fitting castings in 3rd world hellholes, like this, or this.
It's not bloodlust, it's reality. Face it. Trying to ban things is just a silly idea that won't work.

I'm not even talking policy here. My desire to dynamite the factories and melt existing guns to slag is fantasy, and I'm fully aware of it. So whatever. Enjoy your reality. Enjoy your shiatty love of weaponry. Enjoy coming into this mass shooting thread and all the others that are sure to follow to defend your killing machines. You don't see a need to clean up your mess, there's nothing I can really do about it. Enjoy your mess. Just don't ever expect me to ever be persuaded it's anything but disgusting, and to say so when I feel like it.


Thanks for your sane, reasonable contribution to the conversation here.
3 days ago  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Muzzynat: pedrop357: Muzzynat: pedrop357: 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.

Nice to see you found some time in your busy Roy Moore Defending schedule to slip in some dog whistle racism and blame some shooting victims.
 I hope you never sleep at night you trash heap.


Awww.  You came here just for me.

I'm glad you approve though.

Whenever something tragic happens, its certain that you'll be there blaming the victim and claiming you're totally independent.

Yes.


Deriving joy out of being awful, Fark Independents keeping it KKKlassy
3 days ago  
1 vote:

carkiller: ThatGuyOverThere: durbnpoisn: 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.

They only each had one semi-auto 9mm gun. They also each had a shotgun, one had a pump action and one had a double barreled breech loading shotgun. They improvised many bombs.
I had to look this up. Seems like they each had a billion guns on them in retrospect, but nope. I think that when we hear "columbine" we somehow associate it with this classic kid.

carkiller: That popping sound you might have just heard is one of my optic nerves separating from my eyes rolling to hard, if you were wondering.
You clearly don't know much about the cheaply made, but very effective, guns of WWII. Or zip guns, pen guns, or pipe guns. or AOWs in the form of keychain guns, cane guns, etc.

Nor care much, frankly. I'm really kinda into stuff that's not designed to kill people.


Enjoy living your life in bubble wrap.
3 days ago  
1 vote:

rewind2846: pedrop357: You can see this in Chicago with offender and victim rates for different races/ethnicities.

That whistling shouting through a bullhorn must leave you dreadfully short of breath.
Give it a rest.


No.
4 days ago  
1 vote:
xalres:  Let's do nothing because shiat doesn't get better
pedrop357: Actually shiat is getting better here are the facts
xalres: waaargarbl emotional appeal


I paraphrased a little...  But yea you're ridiculous.
4 days ago  
1 vote:
1'

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."


Congrats, you made an analogy that matches the reality of the situation exactly.  It's not hyperbole at all.
4 days ago  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Spermbot: 
Neither is the beginning of widespread confiscation of firearms from people who have the legal right to own them.  There is *no* slippery slope here.  It beggars belief that anyone could think so.

You implied they weren't doing confiscation.  It's also worth pointing out that they've seized them from people not prohibited because they can't be bothered to maintain their lists properly:
http://www.guns.com/2017/04/04/califor​nia-man-who-had-541-guns-seized-by-doj​-gets-them-all-returned-to-his-family/​


ZING!
4 days ago  
1 vote:

pedrop357: Spermbot: NEDM: California, which did use one of its gun registries to go door to door confiscating guns.

[citation needed]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02​/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/


Oh, FFS.  The first news piece is about ensuring that people who *lost the legal right to have guns* - by going to jail - don't have them.  The second piece deals with people who pose an imminent threat to themselves or others as judged by those who know them best - their family.

Neither is the beginning of widespread confiscation of firearms from people who have the legal right to own them.  There is *no* slippery slope here.  It beggars belief that anyone could think so.
4 days ago  
1 vote:

vrax: Sorry I said that you were so full of shiat.  I checked my patience dipstick and it's empty.


meh. everybody's touchy lately.
seriously though, If you wanted to ask me how many "assault weapons" i have... i'd have to think for a while, make a good guess, and we'd also have to define what exactly you mean, because some are partially built, and another 4 or 5 are fresh and not built at all, with one of them registered with the ATF NFA as another short barreled rifle.
I am not unique in this way. When I find stuff at good prices, I buy as much as I want and toss it in a safe. I may go a year or so without buying anything, or I may buy one thing, and then 5 more things the next weekend because somebody offers me a good deal. That's why people like me question arbitrary limits on gun purchases in a given amount of time (e.g. one a month). It will cost me extra money because I won't get my deals anymore. And it will do little, if any, good because anybody who wants to "stockpile" will either buy exactly what the limit says, or they will make their own (which is quite legal and requires no notification to the feds).
4 days ago  
1 vote:

rewind2846: The_Sponge: "Nobody wants to take your guns away."

I certainly don't want to "take" your guns.
The issue is your attitude toward them. No other first world nation on the planet has it.
Guns are machines, which is how other first world nations with them see them. Machines that can be left alone. Machines that simply aren't that important.

But not here. Somehow the people here cannot do without them. And that is what must change first. But it won't, so long as there are forces that want to make money by stoking fear and people who are too simple to resist.


Yeah, and unfortunately....there are people...and some of them who are elected officials...at the state and federal level...who want to take them away...or at the very least, certain males and models.
4 days ago  
1 vote:

carkiller: potterydove: 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.

Goddam right the problem is cultural. A culture of fetishizing and recreationalizing a machine designed to transfer a lethal amount of energy and mass long distances at high velocities, combined with aggressive masculinity, to be specific.


Yet the people most associated (stereotyped) with that culture (white people) have homicide rates that are on par with European nations.

This somewhat shows up in states that are predominantly white like NH, VT, ME, ID, UT, MT, WY, etc. and and have very low homicide rates.

Someone posted a report from Milwaukee where the homicide rate for white people in the city was around 1.7/100k vs 27.9 for black people.  This shows up in New Orleans where in some years up to 95% of homicides are believed to be committed by black people who are ~60% of the population.

You can see this in Chicago with offender and victim rates for different races/ethnicities.
4 days ago  
1 vote:

potterydove: 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.


Goddam right the problem is cultural. A culture of fetishizing and recreationalizing a machine designed to transfer a lethal amount of energy and mass long distances at high velocities, combined with aggressive masculinity, to be specific.
4 days ago  
1 vote:
Thoughts, etc.
4 days ago  
1 vote:

pedrop357: rewind2846: 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.

Just like drugs.  Make them illegal, there will be less around and fewer people will get them.


yup, and since we have ultra secure borders, we don't have to worry about a violent black market gun industry cropping up like in Australia.
4 days ago  
1 vote:

rewind2846: pottery


rewind2846: 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 [

for/to what ]which causes the sickness here, a societal sickness that will erupt into incidents like this one."
Work on your reading comprehension.


I'd love to, if you would actually be specific instead of using weasel words. If you mean to own guns, that's horse hockey and you know it.
4 days ago  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

NEDM: California, which did use one of its gun registries to go door to door confiscating guns.


[citation needed]
4 days ago  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:
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  
1 vote:
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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:
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  
1 vote:

Dadoody: fark Denmark



Icelandic-like typing detected.
4 days ago  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

Markoff_Cheney: I sneezed and 200 posts happened...


Gun threads always blow up
4 days ago  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:
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  
1 vote:
4 days ago  
1 vote:
Blood for the freedom god!
4 days ago  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:
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  
1 vote:
Just ban all guns and give gun owners VR Headsets

/Might actually work
4 days ago  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:
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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:
img.fark.net
4 days ago  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:
4 days ago  
1 vote:
 
Displayed 304 of 304 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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