What is Digg?214 Comments
- jordanmerle, on 09/07/2008, -0/+111What is with that thumbnail? Was the gunman a ***** gold miner?
- alapoet, on 09/07/2008, -2/+81Actually, one of the security guards returned his fire. Evidently the security guard needs some work on his marksmanship.
- SelfHomicide, on 09/07/2008, -0/+63Not the kind of shot I'd want when I go to a bar...
- demizer, on 09/07/2008, -2/+45Looks like he had too many shots.
- chillypacman, on 09/07/2008, -9/+47Only in America do you need to arm yourself and train yourself in marksmanship to ensure your safety... gun crimes are significantly higher than other countries, even ones with relaxed gun laws.
You like your freedom with a side order of lead dontcha? - zadadka, on 09/07/2008, -35/+72Dozens are killed (and many more injured) each year by shooters in the civilian environment, and the response "if someone else had a gun" is rolled out every time by gung-ho Neanderthals and/or the pro-gun lobby.
The simple fact is, there VERY rarely is a "someone else".
The vast majority of civilians carrying guns and willing to use them are criminals and the unhinged (from the yet to be diagnosed as clinically insane, to the merely stressed encountering an otherwise inconsequential "straw that broke the camel's back").
Others, whether carrying a weapon in childish self-importance or even for the altruistic potential of being that "someone" in the right place at the right time, suddenly find that they are unwilling to stand up and increase their chances of not going home tonight by raising their visibility as a primary target in standing up and returning fire...the "non-involvement" response is multiplied when alongside family members, lest they be killed as a result of an "hey! over here" response.
Real life doesn't play out like the movies, and our survival instinct recognises this. - realgame84, on 09/07/2008, -0/+34good thing nobody died!
- JekJob, on 09/07/2008, -30/+63Pff. Who needs gun control?
/sarcasm - inactive, on 09/07/2008, -6/+37Ya that's what I want. Plenty of armed people drunk at the bar.
- RuffRidr, on 09/07/2008, -6/+29California already has it in spades. Didn't seem to help much, did it? Ten to one says that individual already had quite an extensive criminal background and likely only served a fraction of the what he was sentenced to for previous crimes. What this country desperately needs is mandatory sentencing for violent offenses. No more of this early release *****.
- WileyK, on 09/07/2008, -0/+21We need dumbass control instead.
- crichton101, on 09/07/2008, -14/+35Please show your data that proves that a vast majority of civilians carrying guns are criminals and the unhinged.
Here is my proof of the opposite.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706
It is a fact that states that allow and issue the right to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates. and what business is it of yours if someone is willing to risk their life to try and protect others? You act as if there is something wrong with that. I guess you would rather run away than help another person. Let's say you and a friend are hiking, and a mountain lion attacks them. Are you going to just run away or are you going to risk your life and try to save them? And yes you are right, life doesn't play out like in the movies, which also means no one is going to come and save you everytime you need saving so sometimes you are going to have to do whatever you can to save yourself. Even a scared animal will attack instead of running away sometimes.
And by the way, I'm an Independent whose voting for Obama, and someone who lives in a city and doesn't enjoy hunting. So you can't call me a gung-ho neanderthal or a pro gun lobbist, or even a republican. - JCPahl, on 09/07/2008, -50/+70Too bad no one else had a gun; he wouldn't have been able to attack people with impunity.
- publiclurker, on 09/07/2008, -11/+29Right, just what they needed was an entire room full of manhood challenged people with too much alcohol shooting everything that moves.
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -22/+39You want more guns because once in a lifetime one mad gunman erupted into a bar?
What's next, when one unfortunate pedestrian got struck by a lightning, you want everyone else to walk around with a lighting rod on their head? - inactive, on 09/07/2008, -2/+19What concerns me is that there are more and more retards in this world. The number is growing way too fast.
- minorgods, on 09/07/2008, -0/+16"You know how to make a holy bartender?"
- modelchick8806, on 09/07/2008, -1/+17At least no one was seriously injured. But on an insensitive note, he must have had some crappy aim.
- doggo, on 09/07/2008, -5/+20RTFA. For all you jackasses on both sides of the gun issue: He used a shotgun. So quit going on about gun control, which is about handguns (and so-called assault rifles).
Concealed carry, if someone had a gun, blah, blah, blah. The guy was shot at, by armed security.
If you care enough about the issue to post a comment, then at least read the article before you go spewing your propaganda. - Sozin, on 09/07/2008, -0/+14No one died. Some were seriously injured, but none of them were killed.
- TheCasablancan, on 09/07/2008, -9/+21It is better to have and not need than to need and not have.
It'd be silly to FORCE people to do something they don't want to do, but there is nothing wrong with letting people protect themselves. - ZenMojo, on 09/07/2008, -1/+13Too bad more people didn't have guns. Then...the crossfire would have killed the entire bar? Wait, what?
- heartsblood, on 09/07/2008, -5/+16For the dumb ***** crying gun control you really should do your homework. Cali is one of the most strict states in the union so I highly doubt more regulation would have helped anything, besides regulating guns by the government is exactly what our founding fathers didn't want. It wasn't meant to protect us from 'foreign threats', it was meant to protect us from internal threats, ie those who are responsible for fabricating and enforcing the law.
PS. this would have never happened at a pot bar :(. - TheGuruStud, on 09/07/2008, -1/+12Don't tack that onto liberals, buddy. The right wants it gone, too, so they can walk all over your ass when they take total control. Don't fool yourself. This is not another party/group issue. It's a fundamental problem with the ***** munchers that we allow to run amok.
- Enasni1212, on 09/07/2008, -0/+10I'm assuming you didn't read the article, Lucy. First, at least one of the security guards had a gun, and he returned fire. Second, no one died.
- absurdist, on 09/07/2008, -6/+16The best gun control is a tight pattern at 10, 25, and 50 yards. ;)
- Specul8, on 09/07/2008, -2/+11Sorry- couldn't resist; had he been smoking pot rather than drinking alcohol, he would have split a Twinkie with the security guard and passed around the beer nuts to the patrons instead.
- nodong, on 09/07/2008, -11/+19This article is clearly fake. Guns are illegal to carry in an establishments that serves alcohol, so nobody would ever take one in there. Everyone in there was safe because they were protected by a law. Besides, someone would have dialed their cellphone and called the police, who would have arrived within seconds to take the bad man away.
- Ubergoober3, on 09/07/2008, -6/+14There are responsible people with weapons. Most people in the military carry a firearm and know how to use it.
- vtnerd, on 09/07/2008, -1/+9Did you even read the article JCPahl? A security guard was armed and did return fire. This likely saved lives and scared the gunman away.
- Someguy101, on 02/19/2009, -2/+10cause you know... nobody ever loses their temper and does stupid things at a bar right?
- woobyluv, on 09/07/2008, -1/+9Amen LMControl and TheCasablancan
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" In an age where personal responsibility has been tossed aside and the criminal justice system basically slaps offenders on the hand and says move along, it falls to the people to do what is necessary to defend themselves, their family, and their friends, and property from the bully on the block that wants your stuff.
Now if we can just protect ourselves from Big Brother, who seems to want to take our rights from us "for our own good" mind you... - aresef, on 09/07/2008, -0/+8Is it wrong if when I read the headline I thought of the lawyer-bar and not the bar-bar?
- 0260, on 09/07/2008, -0/+8He had no right to bar arms
- r00fus, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7Most military folks DO NOT carry weapons to bars (unless they're MPs on duty).
Guns and alcohol don't mix. - zadadka, on 09/07/2008, -1/+8Very true my friend, but my comment was specifically civilian based...sorry if that wasn't made clear.
- Blandyman, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7http://www.instantrimshot.com/
- ghall, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7Who needs self control?
- InTheBurbs, on 09/07/2008, -3/+10And you'd rather someone else defended your freedom? It's YOUR freedom, if you don''t protect it yourself don't be surprised if you loose it.
- mikeymondavi, on 09/07/2008, -1/+8Right, just like we banned drugs, alcohol during one period of time, sodomy, stealing cars, robbing banks, tax evasion, etc etc.
Yeah, those things sure dont happen anymore. - slugicide, on 09/07/2008, -1/+8Hmm, imagine if all the people in bars all across the country were carrying guns. That would probably work out fine, wouldn't it? They'd all be able to protect themselves.
- jcaino, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6Ah...hello? Drunk?
- mastazed, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6the thumb nail threw me off i was thinking this was an onion article after seeing it
- harpdog, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6JPHR said "Firearms should not be available to the general population. A substantial percentage of the population is less stable or will temporarily behave unstable under certain circumstances."
Here in the UK we have strict gun laws. Handguns are banned period. Rifles and Shotguns can only be used under strict license controls. So the only folks that have them legitimately are farmers, hunters and gun clubs.
That being said the 'homies' have no problem getting guns on the 'black' market. And since they have let any scumbag country into the EU lots of eastern block weapons are on the streets.
So even with the gun controls, if you want a gun you can get one quite easily.
Doh! and which group of foks in London do the most shooting. yep the homies. - inactive, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6Who needs bar control?
- heartsblood, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6Actually it has been proven, in a study that involved over 100,000 minors (18 and under) scientists were able to determine that the availability of cannabis can reduces crime. You can find the study here;
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research ...
The study compared violence in youths in 3 different regions; Philadelphia, Toronto and Amsterdam, and found that when substance abuse was a determining factor in violence, the regions which had relaxed laws on cannabis were significantly lower. - pintomp3, on 09/07/2008, -1/+7you mean life isn't one big game of GTA?
- vtnerd, on 09/07/2008, -4/+10You're wrong in so many different ways that I'm not sure where to start with you.
In this case, the fact that a security guard returned fire almost certainly saved lives and scared the gunman away. Basically, this article proves the very point that you disagree with. You might want to pick your battles more carefully in the future. - kogeki, on 09/07/2008, -2/+8Idiot. California has just about the toughest gun laws in the country. Buried for speaking without knowing what you're talking about.
- ELCad, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6Even in Texas were there is very little gun control you can not take your gun into a bar.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 215 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is