Man Starts 'Gunbook' Social Media Site After His Gun-Loving Friends Were Kicked Off Facebook (buzzfeed.com) 532
CaptainDork shares a report from BuzzFeed: A British gun enthusiast whose friends were banned from Facebook for posting pictures of firearms has started his own version of the site for gun lovers. Called Gunbook, it was set up by David Scott, a 57-year-old shooting instructor who lives in Kilsyth, 20 miles from Dunblane. It went live three weeks ago and he says it already has more than 1,000 members, around 60 of whom are from the U.S. Scott admitted that part of the attraction of the site for members was that they could post about their love of deadly weapons without being judged by family and friends. "Quite a lot want to talk about guns and shooting and target shooting and their families can see and often people comment. Gunbook is the place where people can talk about guns without their families seeing because a lot of people have got anti-shooting and anti-hunting friends on these sites."
Many of the profile pictures on the site show people standing in striking poses with guns -- or are simply a picture of their arsenal. And just like any other social media platform, much of the content that has quickly populated the Facebook clone ends up being videos and memes. In contrast, his site is loosely controlled and encourages a community around gun ownership. It has two admins but reassures users in a Q&A on the site that "they will generally just leave you all to get on with things." It adds later that "they will never interfere [in a group] unless a post gets reported and even then only racist and really dodgy ones will get looked at if reported. Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though ;0."
Many of the profile pictures on the site show people standing in striking poses with guns -- or are simply a picture of their arsenal. And just like any other social media platform, much of the content that has quickly populated the Facebook clone ends up being videos and memes. In contrast, his site is loosely controlled and encourages a community around gun ownership. It has two admins but reassures users in a Q&A on the site that "they will generally just leave you all to get on with things." It adds later that "they will never interfere [in a group] unless a post gets reported and even then only racist and really dodgy ones will get looked at if reported. Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though ;0."
How to get robbed 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You think sites like these don't know how to strip EXIF data?
Even funnier: You don't think people who upload pictures can hack the geolocation data and insert the lat/long of some anti-gun whiners?
Re: (Score:3)
anti - gun whiner can insert your lat/lon
Sort of pointless. I have pro-gun stickers on my car. And I imagine I've probably been followed for the purpose of cleaning my house out. Right up to the armed security guard in the gatehouse to my neighborhood.
Meanwhile, the antis aren't ready for a break-in or home invasion. Why would they? They have nothing. But try convincing the gangstas of that who sit them down and question them as to where the guns in the nice pictures are at.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiocracy is not a how-to video.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: How to get SHOT 101 (Score:3)
Next question?
Re: How to get SHOT 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's hilarious that certain people think that the voters voted for Trump rather than against Hillary. If the DNC establishment hadn't rigged the primary in favor of her, or run an even borderline competent campaign, we probably wouldn't have a President Trump.
Instead, they chose to disenfranchise a huge number of Democrats, chose a shitty right wing Democrat as a running mate, made absolutely no effort whatsoever to win over the Sanders wing of the party, promised absolutely nothing to the voters and couldn't be bothered to campaign in certain states that shockingly enough weren't enthusiastic enough about her to show up to vote.
The real amazing thing here is that there are people who still can't figure out why she lost. I personally think the only mystery is how she managed to win the popular vote despite being the most corrupt and hated candidate of all time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I am not a big democrat, I think many of us wanted to see Bernie vs Trump.
It was clear that Bernie had the energy, the youth support, and that he was much closer to the heart and soul of the modern Democrat party. I can respect that, and his complete support for a certain type of system. While I might not agree with it, at least he is completely honest about where he stands and what he represents. Crazy Uncle Bernie should have been given a chance.
Bernie vs Trump would have been a grand battle roya
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How to get SHOT 101 (Score:2)
Two ruinous world wars followed by a number of rebellions.
Re:How to get SHOT 101 (Score:5, Funny)
Idiocracy is not a how-to video.
The Brits don't need a how-to video, they're so incompetent they still don't understand why they lost their empire.
As opposed to the incompetent Americans that don't understand why they can't have one.
Re:How to get SHOT 101 (Score:4)
Its not that we can't have one, it is we don't want one.
Re:How to get SHOT 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
Idiocracy is not a how-to video.
The Brits don't need a how-to video, they're so incompetent they still don't understand why they lost their empire.
As opposed to the incompetent Americans that don't understand why they can't have one.
The US currently has military bases in over 70 countries...right now, after we closed down a bunch of them to save money. What can't we have again? The better question is 'what is the right mix of projection of military power vs use of soft power'. Treating the world 'empire' like a binary state is silly, governments project power over geographic regions and some project farther than others.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
put a rock through their car window while they are in the grocery store
It's in my holster, with me inside the grocery store. And if I spot you doing that to another car, I'll see your rock and raise you a .357 Magnum round.
Re:How to get SHOT 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
put a rock through their car window while they are in the grocery store
It's in my holster, with me inside the grocery store. And if I spot you doing that to another car, I'll see your rock and raise you a .357 Magnum round.
Could you tell me where you live where it's legal to murder someone because you see them carrying out a minor crime?
So I can avoid it like the plague.
Re: How to get SHOT 101 (Score:2)
Texas. You can kill people in Texas to protect your property. I don't believe you can protect someone else's property though. And you will end up in court to prove the shooting was legit.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Someone's "minor crime" is another person's last penny. But that's okay, when criminals have more rights than their victims. And the typical passivist mentality of victimhood is empowering those criminals.
I cringe every time I see a mother crying over a dead son, whose only crime is pulling a gun on a cop. "they could have tazed him, they didn't have to kill him".
Re: (Score:3)
a minor crime
You are holding a weapon (a rock). Game over.
Re: How to get SHOT 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
I know just enough to know that one should use the right caliber for the right job and that the tactical advantage of having a gun is lost as soon as someone is aware that you do in fact have a gun.
Right, because the only way to utilize a gun is as a deterrent; it's not as if they shoot real bullets or anything.
Got any other meaningless ramblings you'd care to discharge?
Actually that's not too far from the truth (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the late night comedy hosts did a skit once (Colbert or Oliver, can't remember which) where they staged an active shooter scenario with regular people and pain bullets. The people in question knew what was going to happen and they still couldn't stop the shooter.
Re: (Score:3)
the tactical advantage of having a gun is lost as soon as someone is aware that you do in fact have a gun.
Riiiiiiight. You do realize that guns can fire real bullets, yes?
Re:How to get robbed 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Mega, epic bullshit. Texas is the #1 State with guns stolen from owners.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/stolen-guns-lost-firearms-by-state-data.html [governing.com]
http://www.dentonrc.com/news/state/2017/12/23/agents-seek-guns-stolen-harvey-100-weapons-taken-houston-stores-storm [dentonrc.com]
http://www.kxan.com/news/crime/more-than-2-dozen-guns-stolen-from-copperas-cove-pawn-shop/994805063 [kxan.com]
https://www.chron.com/news/item/Stolen-Guns-Database-11252.php [chron.com]
Re:How to get robbed 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
The huge deviation of DC from the national average (29.3% of DC gun owners have a gun stolen vs 0.18% for the nation) makes me think gun theft is primarily a problem in urban areas, not rural. Further supporting this hypothesis is that Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and North and South Dakota all have gun ownership rates over 50%, but their rate of guns stolen is below the national average.
Also, the low rate for gun theft nationwide (0.18% per owner per year, vs 0.47% burglaries and 1.75% larceny) makes me think outside of certain cities, gun theft is not really a serious issue, and is more incidental property theft rather than targeted, and for the most part gun owners do a pretty good job keeping their guns safe from theft.
Re:How to get robbed 101 (Score:4, Funny)
using research to come to a conclusion.. this is slashdot, that kind of tomfoolery won't be tolerated here
This is extremely good development. (Score:4, Funny)
Now! with this Gunbook all those people who must be put down ruthlessly to make sure our Liberalism, Globalism and the Third World Order go unchallenged will be self identified! Our task has been made so much simpler.
Thank you Gunbook. Wait!
It is from the UK, the bastion of obedience and cradle to grave welfare state where we vote ourselves benefits paid for by taxing the idle rich. Is it possible this Gunbook was actually created by my comrade in arms? Is it a Flase Flag operation? Have I blabbered too much and gave the game away? OMG! What have I done!
Re: (Score:2)
At that time when we want to come grab your guns
Which is why I only post details of my collection on guns and boating sites.
Re: (Score:3)
Gun advocates heads explode (Score:4, Funny)
As they find out that guns aren't in fact banned in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
As they find out that guns aren't in fact banned in the UK.
But still much more restricted than in the USA. Many of us are quite aware of it, the issue is that we don't want things to get as restricted as they have it.
That aside I have no shortage of co-workers and friends who are immigrants who are interested in going to the range as my guest when they find out that I target shoot for sport, I'm always happy to give them a lesson for the cost of the ammo and range fee.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Enforcing training requirements, "licensing", ever increasing levels of background checks, are all part of a slippery slope fallacy on a path towards removal of gun rights.
There, FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
For the record, slippery slope is a LOGICAL fallacy, not because it is always false, but rather because it can be false. Slippery Slope is a valid argument as a POTENTIAL of uncertain outcomes, not as logical proof of certainty.
In this case, it is a reasonable if even remote possibility. The fact that it does happen, is reason enough to offer it up as a slippery slope possibility.
https://www.louderwithcrowder.... [louderwithcrowder.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Know who had to license their guns? Know who had to turn them? Know who were the six million who were shot and gassed? I'll give you three guesses
Know who also regiested and took away guns and then killed millions of their own people? China, North Korea, Soviet Union, Cuba, Laos, Cambodia
Take our guns away over our dead bodies because if you take them away there will be dead bodies but not by us.
Know who banned guns and haven't had a mass shooting since? UK and Australia. Unless you are suggesting the US is more like those countries you listed. That's not to mention every other civilised country where guns are illegal and they not run by brutal, psychotic dictator types.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, but you know how many mass *killings* the UK has has since Dunblane? And how many before Dunblane in which firearms were used?
Lets see.
1972 - Bomb - 12 dead.
1974 - bomb - 5 dead.
1974 - bomb - 21 dead.
1980 - arson - 37 dead.
1987 - Shooting - 16 dead.
1988 - bomb - 270 dead.
1996 - shooting - 18 dead.
2005 - bomb - 52 dead.
2010 - shooting - 12 dead.
2017 - vehicle and knife - 6 dead.
2017 - bomb - 23 dead.
2017 - vehicle and knife - 8 dead.
So, what we see in the UK is that mass killings a) generally aren't via
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Enforcing training requirements, "licensing", ever increasing levels of background checks, are all a slippery slope on a path towards removal of gun rights.
For those of us with military, or police experience, asking us to "certify" when we've fired tens of thousands of rounds, and, or, ran ranges, is a step in futility.
Not going to do it.
That's all well and so good but what about Johnny Smackhead next door? Should he have to certify or be just as free as you to buy an arsenal with next to no oversight?
Can I just ask you though, do you think the cost of owning guns in innocent lives is A)too much B)too low or C)just right. And are you likely to answer the same when it's your kid/spouse/parent/partner/whatever with their brains blown out by some random for no reason?
Re: (Score:2)
It'll keep guns out of criminals' hands and screen out the mentally ill - isn't that what everyone wants?
Even though I support more restriction on gun laws, I want those who as well support to distant and forget the first part of this reasoning. It is stupid and illogical. Criminals will get guns in whatever ways whether or not they are legal. On the other hand, the restriction is and should be to ensure that those who want and own guns are reasonable and trained people. Keep it legal is what people want. It has NOTHING to do with keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Because the reason is flawed by itself, this allows those gun-hawks to use it against restriction. Seriously, don't every use this reason ever again!
But surely by common sense, the more guns there are in circulation, the easier it is for a criminal to get hold of one. Here in the UK you're unlikely to stumble across a bag of automatic pistols if you nick someone's car or burgle their house.
Re: (Score:3)
Y'know, here in the States you're unlikely to "stumble across a bag of automatic pistols if you nick someone's car or burgle their house" either. And this speaking as someone who owns a fair number of firearms. Of course, if someone were to burgle my house, they'd find more than a few single-shot rifles (y'know, like they used in the 19th century), and several bolt-action rifles (y
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Requiring burdensome licensing and handling requirements, being restricted to a small pool of low caliber/low capacity long guns, virtually no handguns, and having no right of self defense with a firearm. Yes, I'm sure gun advocates heads are exploding about just how great gun rights are in the UK. /s
Re: Gun advocates heads explode (Score:2)
There's always some dumbass on stories like this wittering on about the gun "ban" in the UK leading to a rise in violent crime. Whatever will they do now?
Re: (Score:2)
Suicide by gun is similarly rare.
But suicide rates are comparable to the US, even with gun deaths included. Why? Because people who want to kill themselves will kill themselves, and the tool is just that. The whole "suicide by gun" factoid is cute, but does NOTHING to solve suicides or address the actual reasons people kill themselves.
IMHO it should be removed, completely, from the gun debate as useless noise or worse, ignoring of the problem of suicide for a political statement.
Re:Gun advocates heads explode (Score:5, Insightful)
As they find out that guns aren't in fact banned in the UK.
Just imagine what will happen when they find out guns aren't necessary for self defence here in the UK because we haven't armed criminals to the teeth.
The biggest criminal risk at the moment are people on mopeds stealing phoned out of the hands of those not paying attention.
Guns are owned in the UK for mostly recreational purposes, which is fine with the overwhelming majority of Britons. You need a license, safe place to store it and a place to use it... and Volia... you can have a gun.
Re:Gun advocates heads explode (Score:5, Interesting)
Just imagine what will happen when they find out guns aren't necessary for self defence here in the UK because we haven't armed criminals to the teeth.
Pretty much how I feel in here Canada. I own guns, and accept we have strict controls on them. I don't live for my guns so I don't obsess over it.
If I lived somewhere that I felt I needed to carry a gun to be safe, I would move.
But to each their own.
Re: (Score:3)
Amusingly, the gun laws in Canada are generally much more permissive than UK laws. If anything, just going by the types of guns that civilians can own, for example, I'd say that Canada is much closer to US than it is to UK.
Yet, when you look at the crime rates etc, Canada is more like UK.
It's almost as if it's not the gun laws that make the difference between these two, and US.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Gun owners in North America have the same problems (Score:2, Insightful)
YouTube has been shuttering or demonetizing channels that feature firearm content. Seems like your channel can get suspended on one single complaint from a rabid anti-gunner, even if you haven't violated any rules. And then you have to fight to get it back up again.
And reddit just recently included firearms along with drugs, stolen goods, sexual services in a list of things that can't be bought, sold or traded. One of those things is perfectly legal.
Many firearms video channels have moved to Full30.com,
Re: (Score:2)
Citi just announced a bunch of gun related restrictions on credit card processing.
I think it's just a matter of time until the NRA and NSSF start a bank to step into that void.
The last civil was was over slavery and money, the next one will be over guns.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
the liberal anti-gun nuts, despite ever decreasing amounts of crime, always rant and rave about taking our guns away. They don't focus on recent failures where crazies got guns illegally, or, the system failed. Or a coward police officer sat in safety while innocent children died. No, they talk about encroaching on our freedoms when we are legal, mentally acute, law abiding citizens & veterans. And deadly accurate I might add.
Good luck taking our guns away!
Re: (Score:2)
More guns in the hands of people = bigger number of guns overall in the country = much more likely that criminals will be able to get their hands on guns by stealing them.
More guns = more gun violence.
Re:Gun owners in North America have the same probl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, one of our local TV network stations is selling half hour 'paid programming' slots to a US gun manufacturer. There are plenty of 2A friendly advertising dollars out there. Target shooting, hunting and collecting guns are wealthy peoples hobbies. Pandering to neurotic hippies' fears just doesn't pay as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
So using a YouTube adblocker is now the American thing to do?
Re:Gun owners in North America have the same probl (Score:5, Insightful)
The risk here that people who support gun-rights should fear most is exactly what is happening with their extreme stance on guns: public support will evaporate, and they WILL be taken away. Once taken away, it's gone forever, we all know that. I have no problems with gun or gun ownership for mentally stable adults with no criminal record, who have been trained on how to handle and care for guns, and who are willing to take responsibility for them and own the consequences. I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies. We absolutely should be armed. But not all of us.
The complete abdication of responsibility in favor of total devotion to the second amendment is going to result in them being removed, one way or another. It doesn't seem like it right now, the NRA is still strong and the currently installed government is favorable, but what may not be seen clearly is how tenuous that position is, that much of this government was installed with the bare minimum of popular support, and that on this particular issue, one of many, may not actually be that popular even amongst their own.
The NRA is failing everyone right now, and Facebook is one of a multitude of examples of that. The NRA should be acting as a steward, being the voice of reason that champions gun rights by making sure they're well and properly used. That the people most likely to misuse and abuse their rights are restricted from gun ownership. They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be. Taking a hard-line, extreme, no tolerance stance on gun control is ultimately going to be self-defeating. And we are watching it happen in slow motion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies.
I've yet to see anyone make a decent case of how guns would be a useful and/or effective means of remedying that. If poop hits the wall, it's not the guns that tear the state down, it's the millions of people storming the gates, guns or no guns. A far more plausible scenario for the states, *if* a large enough group of armed citizens took over the government would be an equally shitty junta
Re: (Score:3)
You left out the most important weapon -- the vote.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in rural mid-west, guns are very common. They are mostly used to for hunting and to keep predators away from farm animals. Locked gun cabinets and safes are also very common. With the exception of a few nut bags most of the people aren't gun toting anti-government conspiracy theorists. Gun suicides, fatal drug overdoses, and the flu each more than double the number of homicides including gun homicides in my state.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one stormed the white house or rose up in rebellion using their second amendment right provided guns
It just proves most gun owners are in severe need of viagara and they are using guns as a poor substitute. All that talk of being the last stop against tyranny is just self delusion.
But they do show up in elections, and vote, and enable unlimited and unfettered access to guns for every deranged mass murdering psychopath. That is the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Viagara? Is that for erecting a large waterfall?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The NRA should be acting as a steward, being the voice of reason that champions gun rights by making sure they're well and properly used."
They are. You should see what the NRA actually stands for instead of parroting the looney left talking points.
Re: (Score:3)
The NRA is failing everyone right now
Why, because they call for exactly what you're talking about? They are the first ones to scream for actual enforcement of actual laws. The vast majority of murders involving guns are at the hands of criminals already blocked from owning and possessing firearms, most of whom have already been busted doing so in the past. And yet they walk around free to keep doing the same.
They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be.
Which is exactly what they do. But they have ALSO had to mobilize to fight back against the Democrats' increasingly overt message that
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gun owners in North America have the same probl (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Guns are beautiful tools. Crafted with precision and with mechanisms that make clockworks look like toys. Have you seen a P90 fire? Whoever invented this thing is either a genius or a nutjob.
But you don't have to go for modern guns to find beautifully crafted designs, just look at wheellock guns (actually the first guns to be outlawed, at the court of Maximilian I of Austria, because they could be used for assassination since it was the first kind of gun that could be stored in garment, ready to shoot). Bea
Re: (Score:3)
That's nothing. Shoe lasting machines are beautiful tools that make guns look like toys. I don't think there's a big collector market for them, though.
Trivia of the day: Long thought to be impossible, the first shoe lasting machine was invented in the late 19th century. It was so intricate and complex that the
Gun nuts (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Interesting)
They think their peashooters are going to protect them from a "rogue Federal government".
Funny these guys didn't get that memo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
If there ever was another civil war in this country it would very likely not end up being the US military vs amateur hour red neck militias. The standing military is not some homogeneous organization, it is made up of millions of individuals who run practically the same gamut as the general public in so far as political leanings go. Whatever % of the population decides to take up arms against the status quo you could almost bet on getting a very similar % of active duty personnel absconding to, quite likely
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Interesting)
Gun nuts are funny people.
Anti-gun nuts are children, lost in a world of confusing realities and apparent contradictions.
They think their peashooters are going to protect them from a "rogue Federal government".
Yeah, what a dumb idea! That's never had the slightest effect on US policy, except in Afghanistan, Iraq, Viet Nam...
Tell me guys, when are you going to start doing that? I would love to hear the plan for your well regulated militia you are going to form (soon).
The authors of the second amendment stated in no uncertain terms that the purpose of the 2a was to avoid the need for a standing militia because they knew such an instrument was harmful to freedom both foreign and domestic. George Washington, who the natives knew as "Town Killer" for his massacres, decided we needed a standing military and the rest is the history of American imperialism. If you look in a dictionary of the day, you will not find "rules and regulations" as a meaning for regulated, which came later. What it meant was "working correctly" or "working on time" — a regulator is a device for making an machine run at a given speed, and this is the contemporary sense.
Gun violence is actually falling as more guns are sold, and percentage of gun ownership remains roughly constant. But you're being sold a lie about it in order to support taking guns away from as many people as possible. That few guns are grabbed is due only to effective resistance. The ACLU doesn't give one shit about self-defense, which is the only reason the NRA even exists. If I had a dollar for every gun owner who's said "the NRA is crap but I need range insurance if I want to shoot" or "I don't agree with everything they say but nobody else is looking out for my rights" I could start my own goddamned NRA, with blackjack and hookers. By refusing to support the second amendment, the ACLU effectively created the NRA. Yes, the NRA predates the ACLU, but it wasn't always this kind of political powerhouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
History (Score:5, Interesting)
They're just nerds (Score:3)
Re:They're just nerds (Score:4, Interesting)
That's true (Score:2)
The way our elections work getting 1-3% extra votes makes or breaks most elections. That gives single issue voters a disproportionate amount of power. That means a small grou
Re: (Score:3)
Gun nuts are funny people. They think their peashooters are going to protect them from a "rogue Federal government".
I just like guns, especially older military issue firearms and antiques, because I am actually a history nut and each of those old guns tells a story. For example, my family has a Lorenz rifled musket which was one of the most used long guns in the Civil War, so it is very likely that gun was carried during the war. Same for my Mosin-Nagant which is stamped 1942 and is matching serial numbers except for 1 minor part. So it was manufactured during World War 2 and quite possibly issued during the war as we
Re: (Score:2)
They think their peashooters are going to protect them from a "rogue Federal government".
It sure seems to work in Afghanistan and Iraq . . . their "peashooters" are protecting them very well from a "rogue American government."
This also defeated the US military in Vietnam . . . but the US generals forgot about that. They also bragged that M1 Abrams tanks, helicopter gunships and Predator drone strikes would easily defeat the insurgents in a few weeks.
Um, how many years now has the US military been in Afghanistan and Iraq . . . ? Oh, yeah, Obama promised that the US would be out of the wars t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Guerrilla. Please. One is a small war. One is a large ape. Notice the difference.
I can commiserate (Score:2)
No one wants their uncle to constantly pop up in the comment section telling that any handgun whose caliber doesn't start with "4" belongs in their wife's purse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of bag of holding does his wife have to stow a S&W Model 500 [wikipedia.org]???
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, my wife's purse wouldn't hold one of those. But my Mom's would....
No problems policing their policies (Score:4, Funny)
Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though
When a group who are armed to the teeth ask you politely, who would possibly argue with them.
As SJW censor one part of the net (Score:2, Informative)
Oh yeah? (Score:4, Funny)
I'll go build my own Facebook, with blackjack... and hookers!
Nice. Very nice. Like it. (No joke!) (Score:5, Insightful)
This is *EXACTLY* how the internet we all want should work.
Don't like the commercial forum? Quit whining and set up your own with likeminded people. .... Wow, check it out, I'm a continental Eurohippster actually siding with a working-class gun-enthusiast on this one. ... *mindflash*
This guys actually deserves some credit for not whining around but actually doing something.
This is what was so cool about the iNet back in 2001 and why we all love slashdot.
Comments miss the mark ... (Score:2)
... (see what I did there).
Analyzing the site, it opened with Adsense and other goop hanging off it.
The developer is taking advantage of an opportunity.
Pretty smart on his part.
Why gunbook? (Score:2)
What framework is he using? (Score:3)
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it is. Think of the implication: As Facebook (and other social media sites) are "banning" certain topics, these topics will migrate to other platforms or, like in this example, a new platform for this topic will emerge.
The established social media platforms will have to decide between losing customers to "special interest" platforms, and in turn lose influence and money, or they will have to stop caving in every time someone whines about a huwt widdle feeling because someone was allowed to talk about something.
Capitalism dictates how they'll have to decide. This could become quite interesting quite soon.
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
Who thought this was newsworthy?
Buzzfeed, apparently. I love how they have to stick this dig in: "part of the attraction of the site for members was that they could post about their love of deadly weapons ". Niice. They can't write a single article without interjecting their snark or bias into it.
Lots of things are "deadly". Far more people have been killed in car accidents, and yet there are millions of car enthusiasts. The argument is always, "because we need cars and their main purpose isn't to kill but to transport", but I'd counter, the main purpose of a gun, technically, isn't to kill, but to eject a projectile out at high velocity. How one chooses to use that tool is up to them. (Military guns are meant to wound, not kill, anyway). Technically, a Hilti gun is a gun (.22 caliber), I own one and have used that to nail the sole plates and studs to the concrete while framing out a room in my basement.
I'd prefer not to aim and fire any gun at a living being, (I'm not even sure I could personally shoot Bambi's mom for food, to be perfectly honest) but shooting targets as pure sport is pretty fun and a good challenge of coordination.
False equivalanccy fallacy. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the stupid NRA "pool and car also kill" yes they kill and in absolute number car even kill more, but that is ignoring how pervasive car are in cities, street and how much part of our life they take - and we increase security and lower the number of death per year. Gun by comparison are not so pervasive, take little part of our life and yet kill nearly as many people as car, and murder take a significant slice of it. And gun are perfected every year to be better more reliant killing machine. The comparison is so stupid to many level, you are either from the NRA, or a "useful idiot" to them. You may as well compare orange and jug of methanol (not even orange to apple). When I worked in research we had a name for such comparison : "it isn't right, but it ain't even wrong - it is just plain stupid".
Re: (Score:2)
Gun were invented for a sole reason : killing.
No, the millions and millions of people who own guns not for sporting purposes own them for self defense. They choose the one best suited to prevent a killing from happening . That's what self defense is all about - avoiding injury and death on your own part, or those people around you.
There may be a *limited* sport & hunting usage we have now
If by "limited" you mean "as practiced by millions and millions of people with millions and millions of guns purchased for that exact purpose," then yes.
Gun by comparison are not so pervasive, take little part of our life and yet kill nearly as many people as car, and murder take a significant slice of it.
Yeah, not so pervasive. Only a few hundred million in private legal
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of porn on the internet. Can't throw a dead link over your shoulder without hitting a porn site.
Guns on the other hand are hard to get through those damn DSL pipes.