|
Armyman25 posted:All these messages about how this wouldn't have happened if God was let into the schools makes God look either very weak or like a tremendous rear end in a top hat. See, God is such a gentleman that he knows he is wanted at a school, and how rude it would be to interrupt something like a room full of children being murdered.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Several states have legal restrictions on fertilizer purchases, though, and the department of homeland security has recommended federal regulations in the past. Take Anders Breivik's case, for instance. Because of the restrictions he had to go through the extra hoops of purchasing a farm and making it look like he was doing fertilizer business. Even this didn't stop him from building a bomb that killed 8 people, but it took a lot more dedication and time. His neighbours also saw that he was bullshitting them - he had no faintest idea of how to run a farm - but unfortunately couldn't figure out his true intent. There was a slim chance that police would have taken interest in him before anything happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Found this gem on my Facebook wall recently. I've been getting a lot of "cars kill a lot of people. Ban cars, amirite?" or a news link to a man getting smashed by a hammer "welp we better ban hammers!" on my facebook wall. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:All these messages about how this wouldn't have happened if God was let into the schools makes God look either very weak or like a tremendous rear end in a top hat. Through a continuous shifting of Biblical focus, the Lord is made to seem too strong and at the same time... Ah, this isn't really as much fun any more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Dr. Phil has a PhD in psychology and can therefore legitimately call himself Dr. Phil. What he's chosen to do with it may not be the greatest thing, but he has legitimate credentials. I'd read up on him some time ago and thought there was something dodgy about his credentials. Thought it was the degree, but you're right, it's not that bad--he just hasn't been licensed for years, since pretend psychology on TV pays more. Mea culpa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
Well, at least he has a doctorate. Gillian McKeith, famous poo poo-examiner, doesn't even have a postgraduate degree, leading Ben Goldacre to repeatedly refer to as "Gillian McKeith, or to use her full title, Gillian McKeith".
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:I've been getting a lot of "cars kill a lot of people. Ban cars, amirite?" or a news link to a man getting smashed by a hammer "welp we better ban hammers!" on my facebook wall. Ugh. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Here's a fun, handy response. But the two bottoms rifles could have the same caliber and both be semi-autos. Which is the problem of the AWB.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
If there's one thing all this gun-chat has taught me, it's that the difference between a practical hunting tool and an evil killing-machine is wood-paneling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 09:48
|
|
|
Up in my native neck of the woods all the hunters I have known express contempt for hunters who use semi-auto guns. I've heard several hunters say that if you need a semi-auto you're a poo poo hunter, and never had anyone admit to using one.* For hunting deer at least. Varmint guns need to shoot fast but then they also don't need to be powerful. I wouldn't be against a ban on semi-automatic guns above a certain caliber and/or kinetic energy, if you want to ban 5.56 milwank But then again I don't understand why handguns are legal so maybe I'm just crazy according to the modern political "center." *I knew a guy who killed a bear with a bow and arrow, so these are not unmanly men. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I wouldn't be against a ban on semi-automatic guns above a certain caliber and/or kinetic energy, if you want to ban 5.56 milwank
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:5.56 NATO and .223 Remington are almost the same in terms of kinetic energy imparted to the target (~1800J). In fact, 5.56 at the same bullet weight delivers marginally less kinetic energy to the target.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 13:50
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Here's a fun, handy response. But, but you don't understand! Until you've held up an AR-15, looked at yourself in the mirror, made a tough guy face and totally looked like you could have been a Navy Seal, you'll never understand the true thrill of owning one. Seriously, I know quite a few gun fetishists and that's pretty much what it all comes down to. To each his own though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
I got the Timothy McVeigh meme on Facebook and am now in a so-far civil discussion with some friend of a friend's cousin. Anyway, one of his claims is that the number of mass shootings hasn't increased in the last thirty years. Any thoughts as to where I can find info to refute this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:I got the Timothy McVeigh meme on Facebook and am now in a so-far civil discussion with some friend of a friend's cousin. Anyway, one of his claims is that the number of mass shootings hasn't increased in the last thirty years. Any thoughts as to where I can find info to refute this? It may be correct; is there a reason you think it isn't? (Not that I object to double checking people's claims.) I was trying to dig up school shooting statistics the other day and data somewhere on Wikipedia indicated deaths peaked in the early 1990's at around 50/year and have been falling (on average) since (I'd dig up link but I'm on my phone). I don't know how this relates to mass shootings as a whole but I see no reason they'd necessarily be higher now than in the last few decades (this year feels like it might be an outlier, but that may be due to media hype for all I know). Whatever the number though it is clearly too many. Edit: Even if true, you might point out to your Facebook acquaintance that compared to the huge decline in the general crime rate in the US (including homicide), if the mass shooting rate is holding steady that's a definite bad sign. Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:It may be correct; is there a reason you think it isn't? (Not that I object to double checking people's claims.) I was trying to dig up school shooting statistics the other day and data somewhere on Wikipedia indicated deaths peaked in the early 1990's at around 50/year and have been falling (on average) since (I'd dig up link but I'm on my phone). I don't know how this relates to mass shootings as a whole but I see no reason they'd necessarily be higher now than in the last few decades (this year feels like it might be an outlier, but that may be due to media hype for all I know). Whatever the number though it is clearly too many. Just want to double-check. My initial thought was that the number of shootings might be the same, but maybe not the number of victims. I really need some hard data to be able to adequately discuss this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Well, he is the one making the claim, right? He should back it up. It should be easy to say 'Really? That sounds very interesting, and I have had trouble finding information on historical spree shootings myself. Can you let me know where you got that, I would love to look at more data on it'
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
It's really hard to quantify that sort of thing. I unsuccessfully tried once. You get into "What qualifies as a mass shooting?" how many people, whether they're terrorists, acting alone, etc. It ended up being more depressing than the argument was worth to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Well, he is the one making the claim, right? He should back it up. It should be easy to say 'Really? That sounds very interesting, and I have had trouble finding information on historical spree shootings myself. Can you let me know where you got that, I would love to look at more data on it' You haven't been in many internet arguments, have you? I swear more than half the population doesn't understand burden of proof or how to cite a claim, and that's before you get to their ego! A FB friend of mine posted a photoshopped pic of a snake in the "Amazon" he said and I remembered seeing it from a few years back. The news story was from Asia actually, and is pretty much agreed to be a fake. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/4701906/Photograph-shows-giant-snake-lurking-in-Borneo-river.html I posted: Amazon? I thought I saw this news story a few years ago and it was in Asia. They also thought it might be fake... His response: Oh, Nick, you always contradicting the world. besides my reason for sharing this photo has nothing to do with the fact if its real or not, or where it was.. its something completely personal.. All he shared was the photo with "This is amazing" so I don't know...That was about the nicest I can show someone that they're posting bullshit without sounding like an rear end so I let it drop after that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:I got the Timothy McVeigh meme on Facebook and am now in a so-far civil discussion with some friend of a friend's cousin. Anyway, one of his claims is that the number of mass shootings hasn't increased in the last thirty years. Any thoughts as to where I can find info to refute this? I don't know about in general, but school shootings specifically have increased dramatically since the early 1980's. They appear to have peaked around 91-93, but I have a feeling many of those were coinciding with the peak in the crack epidemic, so many were probably gang related shootings at schools vs spree killings. Wikipedia basically lists every single one since the early 20th century, including those that arguably may not even count(someone coming in and shooting dead their ex in front of kids for example) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States Also, McVeigh's attack meant the ingredients needed to make such a bomb were placed under much tighter regulation and scrutiny to try to make sure it doesn't happen again. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
 Why you're right, Facebook meme! I'm in just as much danger as a president that a third of the country thinks is a communazi Kenyan Muslim infiltrator and is protected by highly trained security professionals! Clearly I need a
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Alternate response: We have those too, they're just dressed a bit differently: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Some random black family gets Secret Service protection (against countless death threats). What about white families? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Some random black family gets Secret Service protection (against countless death threats). What about white families? And then when they bring up their bullshit hypocrisy point I have to point out that W.Bush and Romney had gun control stances practically indistinguishable from Obama. In fact, the only legislation Obama has signed regarding guns has been to expand them to federal parks and Amtrak!  BUT NO, OBAMA IS JUST SO MUCH WORSE ABOUT GUNS
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:I got the Timothy McVeigh meme on Facebook and am now in a so-far civil discussion with some friend of a friend's cousin. Anyway, one of his claims is that the number of mass shootings hasn't increased in the last thirty years. Any thoughts as to where I can find info to refute this? You can get some info from this Mother Jones article. The second page is a timeline of the 62 shootings that count as "mass shootings", from which there's no obvious trend. But the bigger question is, so what? What exactly is that meant to prove? The McVeigh thing is stupid precisely because the bombing resulted in legislation to track and control the sale of the items that were used to carry it out: exactly what gun control advocates want for guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Up in my native neck of the woods all the hunters I have known express contempt for hunters who use semi-auto guns. I've heard several hunters say that if you need a semi-auto you're a poo poo hunter, and never had anyone admit to using one.* For hunting deer at least. Varmint guns need to shoot fast but then they also don't need to be powerful. In my neck of the woods this is true too. My grandfather has been hunting since he could handle the recoil of the rifle, first for subsistence while living on his farm and now for hobby/food supplement. In the almost 80 years that works out to he and no other hunter he has ever known has ever varied from the "1 bullet, 1 deer" policy. If you can't kill a deer in one shot you don't have any business hunting them, so his country wisdom goes. That really goes for anything larger than vermin too except maybe bear? No bear to hunt down here so couldn't tell you. I'd take the credibility of anyone who says they need high powered semi/full auto large volume clip rifles to hunt with a huge grain of salt. It's about as believable as having bit torrent and Google fiber for the sole purpose of downloading Linux .isos all day. Sarion posted:You can get some info from this Mother Jones article. The second page is a timeline of the 62 shootings that count as "mass shootings", from which there's no obvious trend. But the bigger question is, so what? What exactly is that meant to prove? This weekend on NPR they had some guy, Irvine(?) on who tracks this stuff said that since the Reagan years there has been about 140 attempted mass killings of various attempted body counts and various levels of success. Recently there have been a greater share of these 140 involving "random" targets (malls, movie theaters, etc...) rather than specific symbolic targets (workplace and schools mostly). This generally gels with Mark Ames' data he used for Going Postal if I remember correctly. I don't have the time right now to skim through the book to find the data but the link should get you started if you care to look yourself. Dameius fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
Sarion posted:You can get some info from this Mother Jones article. The second page is a timeline of the 62 shootings that count as "mass shootings", from which there's no obvious trend. But the bigger question is, so what? What exactly is that meant to prove? The problem with the other side of the McVeigh thing is that it's approaching tiger-rock territory. Were there no new bombings because of the stuff enacted or because that was a bit of a unique snowflake event anyways. In a way it would be the same effect as claiming that all of the PATRIOT act stuff has prevented new 9/11s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:The problem with the other side of the McVeigh thing is that it's approaching tiger-rock territory. Were there no new bombings because of the stuff enacted or because that was a bit of a unique snowflake event anyways. True, but that's not really the point. The meme is trying to claim that there was no reaction to the Oklahoma city bombing - you can still buy/rent all the stuff McVeigh did. But in reality, you can't. At least not without drawing attention. I don't know how effective those laws are, because those bombings are fortunately rare to begin with. But as it stands, there are more controls and better tracking for fertilizer nationwide than there are for guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Dameius posted:I'd take the credibility of anyone who says they need high powered semi/full auto large volume clip rifles to hunt with a huge grain of salt. It's about as believable as having bit torrent and Google fiber for the sole purpose of downloading Linux .isos all day. Nobody says that. Make better arguments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:And then when they bring up their bullshit hypocrisy point I have to point out that W.Bush and Romney had gun control stances practically indistinguishable from Obama. In fact, the only legislation Obama has signed regarding guns has been to expand them to federal parks and Amtrak! Yeah the amazing thing is that the fact that Obama isn't remotely doing poo poo about guns doesn't even phase people. It doesn't even register.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yeah the amazing thing is that the fact that Obama isn't remotely doing poo poo about guns doesn't even phase people. It doesn't even register. He has said he would reinstate the assault weapons ban if it came to his desk, but he hasn't exactly pushed for it either. There are Senators pushing for it, but since it would have to survive the At most, pushing for the legislation will have the effect of bringing up the debate nationally, and possibly pushing the Overton Window in favor of gun control for future legislation. But as things stand right now, I would be absolutely floored if any gun control measure made it through Congress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
IIRC George W Bush made a similar comment about renewing the original AWB.Sarion posted:True, but that's not really the point. The meme is trying to claim that there was no reaction to the Oklahoma city bombing - you can still buy/rent all the stuff McVeigh did. But in reality, you can't. At least not without drawing attention. Agreed, it's an incredibly stupid meme (as most of them tend to be). It's one of those things where the only way you could determine how effective it was would be to have a "what if" machine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
Hell, I used to work in a paint store and we were mandated to keep a low stock on certain chemicals that were explosive and dangerous. Not to mention that you needed special paperwork to get them, and if you wanted more, there was a more complicated process. When I pointed out to a friend that due to McVeigh, fertilizer companies re-worked their ingredients to produce less explosive stuff, along with it having taggants in it to determine what it was. His response was "oh whatever, what good has that done, making that crap less explosive." Obviously there hasn't been a bombing using fertilizer since then, idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Wasn't there an attempted fertilizer bombing incident in time square a while back?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
prahanormal posted:Wasn't there an attempted fertilizer bombing incident in time square a while back? Breivik used the same kind of bomb, bur he had to play the long game and literally opened and ran a farm as cover.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Breivik used the same kind of bomb, bur he had to play the long game and literally opened and ran a farm as cover. prahanormal is referring to the failed car bomb in Times Square in 2010. The difference is that car bomb only had 250 lbs of fertilizer, compared to McVeigh's 5000.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Breivik used the same kind of bomb, bur he had to play the long game and literally opened and ran a farm as cover. And even with all that the bomb was pretty minor compared to what happened after. Which was done by, you know, guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
https://www.facebook.com/cheaperthandirt/posts/10151296338124324 Cheaper Than Dirt! has temporarily suspended online sales of firearms. As a long time supporter of the Second Amendment, Cheaper Than Dirt! will continue to promote the safe and responsible use of firearms by law abiding customers. During this temporary suspension, we will review our policies and promotions. ---- Check out the comments. There's no way I can copy/paste just one. And this comes up https://www.facebook.com/StandAgainstCheaperThanDirt?ref=stream
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
The man in question must literally have to shoe horn his massive dick into his jeans every day. I have a few rifles for hunting, but I still vastly prefer my bow and arrows. It makes me feel as if I earned my catch, because it takes more skill and strength. Most hunters I know of would never even think of going semi-automatic, let alone actually buying one. I think the only ones who honestly call for it are hyper right wing politicians, rich folk like Romney who don't hunt (they safari, in their words) and assholes who just want to be contrarian and have it legal "just because".
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:https://www.facebook.com/cheaperthandirt/posts/10151296338124324 quote:Lost another customs. Cave to pressure from a bunch of commies? Pathetic! quote:"As a long time supporter of the 2nd amendment" and "suspending the online sales of firearms"..should never be used together in a statement, unless of course you're Barak Obama. quote:Maybe you should sell feminine hygiene ?? Douchbags !!! quote:I can see all of the anti gun wack jobs lining up to support you a la Chick Fil A. Oh, wait. Maybe not. I think you've just bit the hand that feeds you. Good Bye!!! quote:Move your business to San Francisco or Chicago. We don't take kindly to cowards in Texas! quote:UNLIKE!!! Too bad CTD, you caved into to the Lib-Tards...the sad part is your just scared because of the actions of a thief who stole his moms gun! Me and all of my fellow LEO's will no longer be purchasing anything from you..our NEW Policy! Merry Christmas quote:What a coward business, at a moment when pro 2a supporters need the most support you turn tail. Is your business located in America or France? quote:you wil not be allowed to do business in this country, we will close your doors, you will go out of business And then there's some supportive comments  quote:i'm in texas, i love my guns, and i admire your responsibility. you haven't said you're no longer selling guns at all or you don't respect a person's right to own a firearm - you've just said you're reviewing your policies to ensure you're running your business in a responsible, conscientious way. i will keep you in mind for future weapons purchases. and thanks - all too often i see the results of irresponsible gun use/ownership. it's citizens like you that make me feel safer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 02:17
|
|
