Nevada man couldn't get a gun so used a hammer in violent crime. Someone mentions he killed no one and many users don't like that it is insinuated because he couldn't get a gun. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
133 ups - 0 downs = 133 votes
158 comments submitted at 16:20:09 on Nov 4, 2014 by 75000_Tokkul
>People have tried to go on killing sprees with guns and have killed 0 people.
Man how do you fuck that up?
If you name is Clay Allen Duke, that's how. Well, zero people other than himself. Also spraying the "V for Vendetta" logo on the wall probably didn't help things.
> Duke was then shot several times by security guard Mike Jones
You just can't make that shit up.
Who?
MIKE JONES
MIKE JONES!
I don't get it.
If you wanted to make a V for Vendetta point why not just wear a Guy Fawkes mask?
You should at least do so, so nobody knows how stupid you are...
Well he'd be unmasked anyway, so that's kinda pointless.
Here's a video (not graphic). Dude manages to miss six shots.
Everyone in this video thinks that they're in a movie. The "V for Vendetta" weirdo, the incredibly stupid lady with the purse, the guy at the desk giving the noble "you don't have to do this" speech.
From the Wikipedia page
> Much of the episode and its immediate aftermath were recorded by local television news stations WMBB and WJHG-TV. The video was subsequently uploaded to video sharing sites, including YouTube.
So they kinda were? It's still very silly though. ^^how ^^the ^^hell ^^do ^^you ^^miss ^^6 ^^shots ^^point ^^blank?
Wtf
> According to his wife, Duke was an excellent marksman and likely missed his targets intentionally.
I wonder why he just wanted to kill the male council members and let all the women go? Does he just have a deep hatred for male council members?
In the recording of the incident, he says it was a "cap gun" or a false weapon, If true, he had no intentions of harming anyone.
Wikipedia says 9mm Smith & Wesson 469.
And he later shoots himself in the head so probably not a cap gun.
It doesn't matter if everyone else perceives it as a real gun. You can get an assault with a deadly weapon charge using a squirt gun if the victim believed they were in mortal danger. This was one of the main points during the more recent OJ Simpson trial.
My point being, if it were fake, then it wouldn't really be a "failed" attempt at a killing/mass killing with a gun.
Seems like I upset a lot of redditors by "having a thought" anyways.
I guess the point really is moot though because his intent does matter, his perceived intent from his victims matters more. If someone coercers someone else that is still wrong even if the person was doing it for good reasons. I think that is the point everyone else sees.
Well according to my high school Spanish teacher, you get tackled by a Spanish teacher in her mid 60's and punched out by said dumpy old lady. Turns out it actually happened and she has a award some where for taking out a guy who wanted to shoot up a parent teacher conference. As soon as I confirmed that it was true, I stopped goofing off in Spanish class.
Article or I won't believe.
Supposedly it was like 30 years ago, and she has a newspaper clipping. Lemme google it anyways.
Yeah I'm not going to go into the goggle fu to prove that one, imaginary internet points aren't worth this.
Okay. My life will not be affected. Have a nice day.
That didn't turn out as I expected.
>Video games rarely feature hammers as an offensive weapon. We get our hostility from video games and D&D(a popular dice game).
I get the feeling that this was sarcasm.
Guy found a +11 Hammer of Extra Lootification and we expect him not to take advantage of the buffs?
Who's the real monster here? Him? Or us?
It's pretty obvious. Check out the username
wtf? no. Hammers are an essential weapon. They laugh at your armor. Have a bullet proof vest? Well fuck you I got a hammer and I'm not afraid to use it!
Ah yes the black market.
I'll ask the same question I always do: Why do criminals overwhelmingly choose legal weapons to commit crimes when their access to the black market would grant them weapons that offer a clear tactical advantage over their victims who can only access legal weapons?
Is it possible that the abilities of "the black market" are cartoonishly over-stated?
Is it possible that legal deterrents actually influence criminal behavior?
Is it possible that criminals are more likely to exploit legal supply chains than take on the additional risk and liability of dealing in illegal weapons?
To add onto your rhetorical questions:
Is it possible that that most criminals don't have access to those black markets?
Is it possible that most criminals didn't set out to become criminals?
Is it possible that many criminal actions aren't carefully set plans but rather more acts spurred by the latest problem?
>Is it possible that most criminals didn't set out to become criminals?
Nonsense. I learned everything I know about crime from watching Captain Planet.
Also the day I decided to become a criminal I got a flyer and some phone numbers for all my black market needs.
First you litter in the park, then you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women.
All criminals are Robert Deniro's gang in Heat or Ronin.
To add onto your rhetorical questions:
What would you do if your son was at home crying all alone on the bedroom floor cause he's hungry and the only way to feed him is to sleep with a man for a little bit of money cause his daddies gone?
somewhere smokin rock now in and out of lockdown, i aint got a job now?
see for you this is just a good time but for me this is what I call life
hold up
What? I dunno what this means. I just want to know how to feed my kid.
Well now that's stuck in my head, so thanks.
Just to spell things out more clearly the main tactical advantage would be a harder to trace gun.
and even then, not by much. where i used to live, you can just buy one from some guy, no checks or anything, straight up cash in the mcdonald's parking lot-style deals. not even required to fill out a bill of sale or tell anyone, it's about as legally rigorous and traceable as a ham sandwich.
Shit, you can do that on Facebook right now. There's plenty of people selling huge amounts of guns and ammo online. You don't need a background check or any registration. It's stupidly easy to get your hands on a totally legal gun.
But we can't close those loopholes because muh freedumbs.
isn't that sort of a state-by-state thing, though? i've been led to believe that not everywhere is cool with you doing literally exactly the "jesse buys a gun at a taco stand" scene from breaking bad
We closed that loophole in CT and people are fuckin' pissed. The people who are pissed have registered guns, I don't understand the whining.
It's a year-long process to get a Federal Firearms License, the main requirement to accessing the NCIS for background checks. The ATF is dragging their feet to upgrade their online application system.
Make it easier for people to become qualified law-abiding dealers, and I'll gladly support closing those kinds of loopholes.
hey maybe let's focus on the fact that any freakshow with a couple hundred bucks can legally get his hands on a firearm regardless of background before we start worrying about the plight of the poor, poor internet arms dealers that are trying so hard to do the right thing but just can't wait a year and pass a background check.
Give people a legal system that works and is easy to use, and you negate the desire for extralegal operation.
With the current ceiling of FFLs in place, gun shops would have a field day charging for FFL transfers. My local shop charges $50 for what amounts to two-minutes of paperwork and a five minute phone call. I've been busting my ass since July trying to get my FFL so I can offer a legitimate alternative at a cheaper rate, but the BATFE won't budge because my market is deemed "saturated".
If you close the "loophole" without a plan for mitigating the rise in demand, you're going to have a bad time.
Well I wonder what weapons would give them a tactical advantage. For instance an AR would give you more fire power but good luck concealing which means you have to be quick about what crime your committing. Also difficult to wield in a vehicle. You can get smaller automatic weapons but those are also more difficult to conceal compared to handguns because of the size of the magazine.
Handguns are also relatively cheaper as well since there is more of them in circulation. Most criminals aren't getting rich off of what they are doing.
Also just because the firearm is legal doesn't mean it was obtained legally. From 2005-2010 232,400 firearms were stolen yearly. source. That's a lot of firearms that's in circulation.
Also the black market isn't just about trading illegal goods. It's more about the goods are obtained and traded. Some things that are traded include cigarettes and oil. For example if I go rob a house and steal handgun from the house then you come buy it off of me by what ever means you choose whether it's by money, drugs, etc. that is technically a black market deal. You are receiving stolen goods.
> I wonder what weapons would give them a tactical advantage.
I will take one drone, please. And then we'll see what happens next time the people across the street decide to leave a pallet of pavers in their driveway for three years. THREE YEARS. Say hello to the HOA's new drone policy, Jennifer.
I suppose my questions are directed more at people who oppose any and all regulation of firearms for reasons such as the laws only possibly affecting non-criminals, leaving law abiding citizens defenseless against gun-toting criminals.
It's hard to debate the tactical merits of different weapons without knowing details about the specific situation in which they are used, but among gun enthusiasts on reddit I've noticed a sort of "arms race" mentality when discussing personal defense against crime.
If that were the case I would personally expect fully automatic weapons do be very popular among violent criminals, yet that hasn't happened.
Well in a way they are right. Although stronger gun controls won't really be punishing just making things more difficult. In my opinion there are enough guns out there that it wouldn't matter what kind of laws are passed the criminals are still going to have them. However I'm all for some forms of gun control and believe people should have at least some sort of training before the get a fire arm.
As for automatic weapons Id assume part of it has to do with how concealable the firearm is. A gang member can easily walk down the street with a 9mm hand gun and no one would know. Something like a Mac-10 might raise some suspicion as he could still keep it concealed but unless he has a sling or special holster he's probably going to keep his hand on it. Now if he tries walking down the street with an AR he better be ready to be stopped by the police soon.
Another possibility is the price of ammunition. The 5.56 rounds for the AR are going a lot more expensive than the one for the hand gun. However I'm not really sure how they get there ammo but I doubt they walk in to Bass Pro Shop to buy it.
5.56x45 is $7 for a box of 20
9x19 is $20 for a box of 50
Gang bangers buy ammo from pawn shops usually
I think it was Chris Rock who suggested bullet control, and making really expensive bullets.
Except it's fairly easy to make your own bullets.
Because legal guns are cheaper and nearly as effective for most crimes.
Ehh, for the most part I think criminals will use the black market, more than would use legal means. Obviously I'm biased, but from my interaction with criminals they tend to go the illegal route more. Now YMMV, but that's my experience
They buy from straw purchasers who then illegally sell the guns. If you put restrictions on straw purchases and actually go after the people who do it then you could put a huge dent in the illegal gun trade.
Guns aren't like drugs. They aren't being smuggled across the border from some far away country, and attempting to do so would be much harder than with drugs since guns are metal and much harder to conceal. The black market for guns comes directly from American citizens buying guns in bulk and selling them illegally to people who then sell them to the street level criminals.
If we stamp out those criminals we aren't going to be flooded with guns from the Philippines or some other country with lots of guns. We have the ability to restrict guns in this country. It's just a matter of whether the people want to do that.
There are huge restrictions on straw purchases. It's an FFL's nightmare. But BATFE, the people supposed to go after them, would rather arrest people for having too short a barrel and regulate shoestrings and machine guns.
Guns do come across the border. But, they go both ways. BATFE lets them go across the border to the cartels, cartels import them in, and my city of Phoenix suffers for it.
It depends how you define "criminal".
If you are talking about someone whose income is illegal activities, then you are right.
If you are talking about any random person who commits a crime, you are very wrong.
I'm talking about the first one, as that's who I've primarily interacted with
Yeah, gun control is not for them.
The reason to have gun control is to stop the second group. And the second group is much larger.
I disagree. I believe the first group is larger, and that gun control really won't affect the second group.
The second group will still have some access to firearms, even if they are illegal. The difference is that the first group will have access to nicer and newer firearms while the second group will be relegated to guns that come in socks. Or even non-firearms. Knives, bats, cars, hammers, etc. They all kill people too, at a fairly alarming rate.
But, even if gun control did affect them, it'd affect law-abiding citizens even more. Don't forget all those little old ladys packing heat, or that 24 year old vet in the wheelchair with the Glock, or the 18 year old in an apartment in the hood with a rifle for protection.
I really don't care about the law abiding citizens because it is a bad decision to own a gun. If you have a gun you are more likely to be killed.
If you get mugged and pull a gun you are far more likely to be killed. But if you don't have a gun then you lose your wallet, not a big deal.
Also the amount of professional criminals is very small. Most crimes are just drunk/drugged up idiots who make a spur of the moment decision. Very few robberies are actually planned, but just a quick act of desperation.
Also that can be said about many things. More law abiding bankers are affected by regulations on banks, but many still think that we need those regulations.
There are lots of things that will increase your chances of dying, but they aren't always bad decisions.
EDIT: To elaborate I'm not against someone owning a rifle in there house for hunting or target shooting. I'm also not against someone owning a car for transportation, even though last year there were 33,561 people killed by cars.
I'm not against someone owning a gun because of their own personal safety. I am against it for other reasons.
But I don't care about taking away that decision as it is almost assuredly a bad decision, and it has other benefits.
To say its a bad decision for every person that buys a gun is an incredibly ignorant statement. There are plenty of legitimate people who buy firearms and use them completely safely and to their benefit.
If you don't care about law-abiding citizens, you need some help. And that's bullshit.
You only draw your weapon if you believe you will lose your life. Not just because you're losing your wallet.
Bullshit. How many gang bangers are in the US? Cuz there's at least 100 within two blocks of my house.
Most gang members don't rob regular joes, mainly it's not worth the heat and the payout is too low. Now drug addicts...
Or i think you're confusing gang members with just everyone that commits robberies
It really depends on the set
I care about law abiding citizens. I do not care about how this law affects their "freedom" because it will be better for them.
Now I wouldn't be for gun control if it was just bad for them, but since it affects other people I am for gun control.
And do you care about the law abiding bankers who have to deal with regulation? Or do you think we should have financial sector regulation?
Also people pull their guns out when there is only a small threat. Since they don't know what the mugger is going to do they assume their life is in danger.
If you were mugged would you pull out your gun?
I don't have the numbers on professional criminals vs. spur of the moment criminals. If you have them I'd love to see them. Otherwise it's a moot point on both sides of the argument.
Nice backtracking there. So you know what's better for me? When Marty Methhead busts down my door at 2 am, my AR is what's best for me.
Bullshit, it only hurts law-abiding citizens
I think if regulation can actually do what it's supposed to, it should be allowed. Gun control can't do what you think it will.
Those people get arrested.
No. Not unless I was 100% sure I, or somebody else, was about to lose their life. That's the common sentiment amongst CHL holders.
1.5 million gang members, at least., but there's bound to be more that are under the radar.
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? ^Message ^me ^here.
>Like Cringepics, except for guns. At least that was the idea. At the moment it seems as if we only post anti-gunners saying stupid stuff, but feel free to post anything that you find cringe worthy. Comments, audio, or videos claiming things like, "A 9mm will penetrate an elephant skull" or "357 magnum is more powerful than any semi-auto round" could also be posted.
http://i.imgur.com/O0qIlTW.jpg
From what I've been told, people prefer legal guns. A lot of cheap guns where I'm from are 'hot' (used in a crime) or have had the serial numbers filed off, making them extremely suspicious to have around. And most people I know subscribe to the "one crime at a time" philosophy, meaning if you're going to deal, don't have a 'hot' gun.
Then again anecdotes don't equal data
From my experience, small time guys go with the ”one crime at a time”, but as you move up the chain, they start packing. Some do it legally, yeah, but after a drug charge, you gotta go with the black market.
"Whats your point?"
"I think it's that we should give our soldiers hammers, since they're cheaper than guns and just as effective?"
Bahahaha!
> I don't think these murderers did a bad job.
>31 dead. 10.3 average per attacker
Haha, I understand it isn't what that guy is saying but that really comes off as "nice job murderers, great kill stats."
It also makes them seem like the kind of person who is pleased to hear about massacres not involving guns.
How controversial is it to concede that guns make it easier to kill people than knives and hammers? When's the last war we fought with knives and hammers?
The same reason some congressmen state that rape pregnancies don't happen. They feel like conceding a single point is losing the argument.
Or they really are that stupid.
Then how can you know they're less effective? /s
Plus 99% of the rhetoric in support of gun ownership is based around them being more effective ways to kill people:
1) Guns are better suited for self-defense because it makes it easier to kill someone, even if they are significantly stronger and bigger than you.
2) Guns are needed to resist the government if necessary.
I mean, if people can't concede that guns are more effective weapons than why care about gun rights at all? If all guns were banned then apparently we would all be good with our hammers.
any time you start a sentence with the phrase 'so you're saying...' you have a huge chance of not being correct in any way about what the other person is saying.
So you're saying that anytime you start a sentence with the phrase 'so you're saying...' you have a huge chance of not being correct in any way about what the other person is saying?
Same with "by your logic"
Straw men, straw men everywhere.
> Where's the push for penis control?
Finally someone acknowledges what this is really about!
Can you believe they just hand these things out without a license? I barely know how to use mine.
Actually, it's about ethics in game journalism.
This is good for bitcoin.
> I don't see how that makes my point about penises any less relevant.
In a thread about gun control, I found this unexpectedly hilarious.
Freud pls
Where I come from "penis control" means hitting what you aim at.
Right here! *thrusts pelvis*
WHOA watch where you point that thing! You don't know if it's loaded!
I've heard plenty of people on Reddit pushing for it. Penis control is kind of like eugenics right?
I think it's like "Pussy Control" by Prince, but opposite
I love the slippery slope argument. "If we allow gun control then the government will immediately become an authoritarian state!"
Because that has happened in all the countries that have outlawed guns.
Yeah, but I don't want to be England.
Let's play "Police State or Not Police State"
DIE DAVID CAMERON DIE I LOVE ISIS AND I ALSO LOVE RUSSELL BRAND REVOLUTION REVOLUTION SHARIA LAW KILL THE GAYS BURN THE MOSQUES BLOW UP PARLIAMENT RAPE NICK CLEGGS DOG JEWS JEWS JEWS FUCK THE JEWS KILL ALL CHRISTIANS THE BANKERS WILL DIE IM GONNA BOMB THE SHARD AND SLAUGHTER EVERY BASTARD WINDSOR AND THEIR DAMN CORGIS SNOWDEN IS A HERO FREE SNOWDEN
let you know if they arrest me or not
I didn't say England is a police state, I'm saying I don't want to have a society like England.
Um, why? England is pretty nice for the most part.
doesn't it rain a lot there? Plus i don't want to drive around all those fucking castles.
I'd trade a couple days of sun for less school shootings, free health care, and cheaper education.
It's well documented that precipitation has an inverse correlation with gun ownership.
Fucking castles...
England also gave us this travesty of road planning.
(I have no beef with England, I just found out about this and wanted an excuse to link it)
Pretty sure that's just some nice guy in the Department for Transport trying to stop people ending up in Swindon.
I'm not sure anyone's trying to get to Swindon anyway.
it might be slow, but apparently it's safe
Why do I have to want to live in England? I'm not partial to the customs, culture, or laws.
Um, you don't.
Though reducing the number of guns wouldn't turn us into England anymore than it would turn us into Japan.
This is a dumb argument, but what the hell...
> wouldn't turn us into England anymore than it would turn us into Japan
Except for the centuries of shared history, almost identical legal system, shared language etc. etc. etc.
Edit for emphasis for everyone who thinks I think the US and UK are virtually indistinguishable save for our respective stance on gun ownership.
So your argument is that England is exactly like America, but with far fewer guns? :/
Of all the bad things that could be said of England, lack of firearm deaths is surely one of the weakest.
If their obesity rate were a bit higher, I might consider it a civilized society.
Shared history? Most of their history after colonization was war. Almost identical legal system?? Like hell! Not to mention the entirely different political sphere and organization.
You dont actually know much about the UK do you? Ill give you a hint: even if we shipped 50 million guns there it wouldn't be even close to identical to the US. the converse is also true. Losing guns here wouldn't force us to start taking tea breaks or watch soccer.
Except for the Chavs
The Chav subculture is basically gone now.
not really, we just only heard about it because it was filled with people our age
we've grown up but there are still plenty of kids who are chavs
Maybe. I don't think it's anyway near as pervasive as it was, though.
Anyway, googling about it led me to this really great article on youth subcultures by music journalist Alexis Petridis. Nothing to do with Chavs, but worth a read.
just going off a brainstorm here but remember fashion sense when chavs were 'big?' baggy clothes, that checkered crap (on everything), sports runners as every day shoes and so on
that's what chavs wore so even though fashion has moved on, we still associate that fashion with chavs
these days people where more smart-casual clothing, skinner (better-fit) jeans and t-shirt and we dont ware baseball caps anymore so evev though people may still act and think like chavs they dont look like them so we don't notice them anymore
Oh
Well fuck you then
lil bastard
tit
And here I thought your initial comment was sarcastic.
England is doing very well.
Do I have to like it or want to live there solely because it's doing well? Sweden is doing great but I have no desire to live there because of the culture.
but what about the perfect feeeeemale specimens for breeding?
All I want is you bby
I only have eyes for toothpaste pone.
JUST SHUT UP AND LIKE MY COUNTRY
JESUS
I don't have to! I'm not making you or the 7 million other assholes on this website like the US.
actually it's more like this "i'm gonna blow up robin hood airport"
anyway the conservatives "love" russell brand now, because they want to seem with it, so, no dice there... the rest is good though
Eh?
Bloody 'ell.
What's all this then?
Bloody cheeky Redditors.
I mean, you have the PRC, you had the USSR, then there's the DPRK too
Did they start with gun control? No.
That argument makes no sense. Those are simply authoritarian states.
They also didn't allow their citizens to kill people. Does the fact that we don't allow murder mean we are on our way to the USSR?
They started with crushing citizen militias and gun control came soon after
> And its easier to use explosives to kill masses of people than guns. What is your point?
Well making bombs is illegal and we typically don't see many people building and using bombs so I think the dudes point was clear. Sometimes I feel like these people just start typing and hope they form a coherent sentence.
If gun black markets would so obviously happen, why don't they happen in countries that have more restrictive gun laws?
Because American exceptionalism.
We even do violent crime better than everyone else!
What gives you the idea that it doesn't happen?
Mostly the lack of shootings in those countries.
Your statements are vague, but here's a (noncomprehensive) list of rampage massacres in Europe. Maybe they'd fall under your unspecified list of countries with "more restrictive gun laws".
Here's an (incomplete) list with more categories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listoframpage_killers
Just because you're ignorant of something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
K.
A couple of things here.
I wasn't talking exclusively about mass shootings. Those are relatively rare. Your link showed 12 in the last decade iin Europe, compared to 20 for the US.
Overall homicide rates are lower in western europe than in America, by a large amount.
Uh... did I miss something? Why did you suddenly start jacking off about the US just now? You were talking about the non-existence and complete unavailability of illegal weapons in countries with more restrictive gun laws (not the US).
You said something about "no black markets". You realize a "black market" isn't really a store you can find in an abandoned building with banner that says "Illegal Gun Mart". It's a term referring to the exchange of illegal goods. Doesn't need a fixed storefront.
Then you talk about the "lack of shootings in those countries". I pointed out that there are very clearly shootings in countries like that and there very clearly is a black market.
Finally, I specified twice that the link (I posted 2 actually...) is a non-comprehensive list...
I never said there were literally no shootings.
For fuck's sake, I obviously meant that they were much more rare.
I don't want to play semantics and gun drama is lame, so that's about it for me.
But they do happen... Handguns are about as illegal as possible in Toronto yet there's still handgun problems. I was once casually offered one in high school while trying to buy a half-quarter of weed. A guy was shot dead over the weekend with an illegal handgun in Toronto, etc.
do they have gun border control with the rest of canada?
SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 ^[?]
^^Anyone ^^know ^^an ^^alternative ^^to ^^Readability? ^^Send ^^me ^^a ^^PM!
If I had a hammer...
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? ^Message ^me ^here.
Oh look, the logical suggestion is now backed up by a case study. How terrible.
>I think it's that we should give our soldiers hammers, since they're cheaper than guns and just as effective?
E-tools work just fine thank you very much.