|
The large number of guns argument is horse poo poo too because you already claim to own two guns yourself. The people I know who always defend X amount of guns but only Y deaths usually seem to own a lot of gun already, thus driving up the X number.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:56 |
|
|
Speaking of gun stuff, had some friends sharing this on Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4020052892030&set=vb.140211482669395&type=2&theater Don't know many details, but I'm pretty sure that continuing to fire on people who are actively fleeing you would have netted at least a manslaughter charge if either of them had died.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Speaking of gun stuff, had some friends sharing this on Facebook. It's even funnier when you hear that robber's gun wasn't loaded. quote:Hours after his release from the hospital, Henderson, who talked about the pain he feels in his buttock and hip, said the plan was to “barge in, get the money and leave.” He said “he never expected anyone to be armed.” So it was an old guy putting everybody in even more danger by wildly firing his pistol. But Florida is hosed up so... quote:Officials said it is unlikely that Williams will be charged with a crime for attacking the teens because the shooting seemed justifiable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:It's even funnier when you hear that robber's gun wasn't loaded. Yeah, that is hosed up. Why didn't that senior citizen use his psychic powers to divine the true intent of the criminals brandishing weapons and threatening to use deadly force in the commission of their crime? That's just irresponsible, taking action without a complete and total knowledge of a situation! He should be heavily penalized in consideration of this information that came to light after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Yeah, that is hosed up. Why didn't that senior citizen use his psychic powers to divine the true intent of the criminals brandishing weapons and threatening to use deadly force in the commission of their crime? That's just irresponsible, taking action without a complete and total knowledge of a situation! He should be heavily penalized in consideration of this information that came to light after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Yeah, that is hosed up. Why didn't that senior citizen use his psychic powers to divine the true intent of the criminals brandishing weapons and threatening to use deadly force in the commission of their crime? That's just irresponsible, taking action without a complete and total knowledge of a situation! He should be heavily penalized in consideration of this information that came to light after the fact. But you'd think that a responsible gun owner and carrier would take every effort to NOT use the gun before blatting away, wouldn't you? Although you do raise a good concern, OAP's have to have their eyes tested to keep driving, shouldn't gun owners have to do the same? After all if you can't see what you are aiming at how on earth are you going to hit it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
.Edward Penischin posted:We get all these people screaming that we need guns to protect ourselves from "bad guys with guns", but were more likely to be killed in an argument then in a robbery or burglary. To me this is the most hosed up thing. As a species we're still so underdeveloped that we're willing to make people, often people we love and even more often ourselves, go away forever because of our crazy emotions. It's like we evolved the intellectual capacity to develop guns way, way sooner than we developed the emotional capacity to be trusted with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Posted on my FB feed this morning (not by the same moron I mentioned a few pages back who was displaying a shotgun on top of a pile of his toddler daughter's toys) This doesn't even make any sense to me. It's starting to feel like people are just looking for an excuse to start violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:Posted on my FB feed this morning (not by the same moron I mentioned a few pages back who was displaying a shotgun on top of a pile of his toddler daughter's toys) Why else do you think Castle Doctrine exists? There are tons of people who are just itching for an opportunity to blow someone away for as simple a crime as trying to steal their tv.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Yeah, that is hosed up. Why didn't that senior citizen use his psychic powers to divine the true intent of the criminals brandishing weapons and threatening to use deadly force in the commission of their crime? That's just irresponsible, taking action without a complete and total knowledge of a situation! He should be heavily penalized in consideration of this information that came to light after the fact. He could have done what every law enforcement professional says to do in a situation like that and let the dude take the money instead of firing off?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Why else do you think Castle Doctrine exists? There are tons of people who are just itching for an opportunity to blow someone away for as simple a crime as trying to steal their tv. If I had a dollar for every time I heard a disturbingly detailed explanation of exactly what would happen if someone tried to break into a gun-owning acquaintance's house, I'd have a lot of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:If I had a dollar for every time I heard a disturbingly detailed explanation of exactly what would happen if someone tried to break into a gun-owning acquaintance's house, I'd have a lot of dollars. And that's before they even mention their katana.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:And that's before they even mention their katana.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
So here's what I'd like to know: do conservatives/right wingers consider this sort of thing (see article below) the liberal equivalent of what we're talking about in this thread? http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/168707/wrestling-with-details-of-noah-pozners-killing/ How can someone read something like that and still come away with the attitude that AR-15s are awesome? So effective against 6-year-olds! In fact, I think I'll go buy one right now! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:And that's before they even mention their katana. I wish I was even kidding. I've heard a detailed explanation of how the coup de grace would go down more than once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:
Yes. What American "Gun Culture" has warped into over the years is essentially revenge fantasies about killing a home invader or shooting a criminal and being a vigilante hero.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I wish I was even kidding. I've heard a detailed explanation of how the coup de grace would go down more than once. I have heard this a couple times at a couple different ranges...it was rather disturbing because the people saying such things were people I'd believe would do something that demented. Not just shoot to disable or wound but actually pull a coupe de grace....one of the guys I heard saying this was even showing how he'd finish the robber execution style.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
My aunt and cousins are all broken up over the Sandy bill, and saying it failed because Alaskan fisheries don't deserve relief money clearly named after a storm that hit another part of the country. I want them to be wrong because of confirmation bias (also theg are generally wrong anyway) , but I can't find a great deal of information about why Alaska needed money earmarked in this bill. I'm aware that only a small portion of the money in the bill was allotted to states not effected by the storm, but I'd like to know if they needed it, or at least needed it attached to a bill providing relief to people who did need it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:My aunt and cousins are all broken up over the Sandy bill, and saying it failed because Alaskan fisheries don't deserve relief money clearly named after a storm that hit another part of the country. I want them to be wrong because of confirmation bias (also theg are generally wrong anyway) , but I can't find a great deal of information about why Alaska needed money earmarked in this bill. I'm aware that only a small portion of the money in the bill was allotted to states not effected by the storm, but I'd like to know if they needed it, or at least needed it attached to a bill providing relief to people who did need it. From what I can find, it was to repair damage caused by other storms, so not entirely out of place in a disaster relief bill; just relief for a different, smaller disaster than the one the bill is named for. Though it seems there was other spending outside of the storm area, too. Some was to pay for projects to prevent storm damage. Some, not really related to storms or disaster assistance at all. Ironically though, most of it seems to have been added in order to convince Republican Senators to agree to spend money on the Sandy damage. So it's kind of a case where the Republicans own "SPENDING BAD" mantra is causing the government to spend more than it needs to, just to get poo poo done that shouldn't take a second thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:My aunt and cousins are all broken up over the Sandy bill, and saying it failed because Alaskan fisheries don't deserve relief money clearly named after a storm that hit another part of the country. I want them to be wrong because of confirmation bias (also theg are generally wrong anyway) , but I can't find a great deal of information about why Alaska needed money earmarked in this bill. I'm aware that only a small portion of the money in the bill was allotted to states not effected by the storm, but I'd like to know if they needed it, or at least needed it attached to a bill providing relief to people who did need it. Tell her its to help save important businesses like Red Lobster and Long John Silvers. Thats all my conservative aunts really care about when it comes to "seafood".
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Without getting into gun politics, can you use a gun for anything other than shooting live things? Yes. When our well clogged with silt, a friend cleared it by shooting down it with a large-caliber handgun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Yes. Similarly; I never need a hole punch because I just use my derringer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Oh Facebook,
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
namesake posted:Similarly; I never need a hole punch because I just use my derringer. I never need to mow my grass, I just fire a minigun really close to the ground in a wide arc. swiss_army_chainsaw posted:Posted on my FB feed this morning (not by the same moron I mentioned a few pages back who was displaying a shotgun on top of a pile of his toddler daughter's toys) From what I can tell, a significant section of Americans legitimately believe that the mandatory minimum sentence for literally any crime committed anywhere in their vicinity is death.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Another facebook gun discussion, I feel like the only reason I open that site anymore is to engage in the rhetorical equivalent of punching myself in the face. I'm in red, my antagonist in black.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Actually more people are killed with rifles, and a hell of a lot more people are killed with hand guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Oh Facebook, Hey, the temporary tax holiday that Obama fought tooth-and-nail for (both to enact and to extend for an extra year) is over. drat YOU OBAMA  !
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
I posted basically that response. It's my fiancee's cousin. I don't like her anyway! (The funniest (saddest) part is that it was shared by two people on Facebook, both of whom have kids, lovely (or no) jobs, and are almost assuredly on at least some kind of government assistance. But they hate Obama!)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Actually more people are killed with rifles, and a hell of a lot more people are killed with hand guns. No, this is wrong. The first part, anyway. Murder Circumstances, 2011: Murders committed with Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 496 Murders committed with Rifles: 323 The second part is right, at least. Murders committed with Handguns: 6,220 Don't go around posting "Actually..." statements if you don't have numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:No, this is wrong. The first part, anyway. It's only untrue if near all blunt objects happen to be hammers. Meanwhile, all rifles continue to be rifles. e: nvm, I see the original article said hammers and clubs and ect now. I thought we were talking hammers specifically Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Actually more people are killed with rifles, and a hell of a lot more people are killed with hand guns. Too bad the only regulation that anyone is interested in is on bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, pistol grips, detachable magazines, under-barrel mounts and collapsible stocks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
karthun posted:Too bad the only regulation that anyone is interested in is on bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, pistol grips, detachable magazines, under-barrel mounts and collapsible stocks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:What makes you think that's the only regulation people are interested in? Its not the only regulation, but its the only gun legislation. Pistols will be left untouched and we will chase down every single bayonet lug in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
karthun posted:Too bad the only regulation that anyone is interested in is on bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, pistol grips, detachable magazines, under-barrel mounts and collapsible stocks. The only worthwhile assault weapons ban would be a ban on all semi-automatic guns. Unfortunately, that has about as much chance of passing as the pro-baby-raping act of 2013, so they introduce bullshit stuff concerned primarily with cosmetic features and somethings that could be tangentially helpful like banning high-capacity magazines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Speaking of gun stuff, had some friends sharing this on Facebook. That's horrifying. Especially that this idiot is being presented as a hero. Foiling a robbery with a gun is one thing (that's generally a bad idea and endangers lives, etc.) but then chasing after the guys firing your pistol wildly trying to murder them...that's another level. It reminds me of all those stories about fleeing burglars being shot. I wish more people understood the fine point that brandishing your gun and scaring a burglar away may be okay but shooting him in the back because he's fleeing with your TV is not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
That wasn't going to be a massacre to begin with. Do gun nuts really think people wanting money and people going to a place just to kill as many people as possible and then DIE are the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:That wasn't going to be a massacre to begin with. Do gun nuts really think people wanting money and people going to a place just to kill as many people as possible and then DIE are the same thing? It seems to fall into conservative's basic belief that all people fall into one of only two categories: good people or
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Blastedhellscape posted:That's horrifying. Especially that this idiot is being presented as a hero. Foiling a robbery with a gun is one thing (that's generally a bad idea and endangers lives, etc.) but then chasing after the guys firing your pistol wildly trying to murder them...that's another level. Fortunately, the criminals didn't (couldn't) fire back. If the gun had worked there's a pretty good chance someone would have died or been seriously injured, and it seems likely that it wouldn't have been the criminal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:It seems to fall into conservative's basic belief that all people fall into one of only two categories: good people or No no no, bad people DO have capacity for rational thought, that's why you just have to make the risks to committing crime high enough so that they'll make a reasoned decision to not do crimes!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:56 |
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:How can someone read something like that and still come away with the attitude that AR-15s are awesome? So effective against 6-year-olds! In fact, I think I'll go buy one right now! Because just about any gun can do that? I fully advocate "gun control", but the idea that demonizing a "class" of weapons helps is counterproductive. We tried an "assault weapons ban" - banning guns by name and all sorts of scary things (flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc.) - and it was toothless and pointless. They'll just change the name and sell the same gun. AR-15s are no worse than a .45 semi-automatic pistol. The idea that "this type of gun is worse than this type" is what really HURTS the dialog. Yes, there are limited types of guns that are "worse than" others (fully automatic weapons), but they're already strictly controlled. The problem is that we now have to figure out how to (constitutionally) deal with the rest of them. All guns are capable of killing people in indiscriminate and awful ways (at least all the ones that use gunpowder to propel a bullet). The demonization of one kind over another is what gives the right ammunition (no pun intended) to point out how stupid gun control advocates sound.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 20:25
|
|
