back to article Osama Bin Pwned: Al Qaeda mocked in Twitter counter-jihad

Al Qaeda has come under attack from a massive troll army after asking Twitter users for ideas on how jihadis could run a PR campaign. Using the hashtag #اقتراحك_لتطوير_اﻹعلام_الجهادي, which means “suggestions for development of jihadist media”, supporters of the Islamists' war on everyone offered various po-faced suggestions, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. jake Silver badge

    Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

    I'm SO scared. Not.

    Seriously, more people die from alcohol poisoning DAILY than die from so-called "terrorists" in a decade or so ...

    Priorities, people ... Really. Think about it. If you're still capable of thinking.

    1. Ralph B

      Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

      It's true. Toddlers killed more Americans that terrorists did this year. But where's the War on Toddlers, eh?

      1. Richard Jones 1
        FAIL

        Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

        That's rather a condemnation of the stupidity of the USA belief in guns for 'personal protection'. More people are killed by these weapons than illegal weapons.

        1. jake Silver badge

          @Richard Jones 1 (was: Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

          "More people are killed by these weapons than illegal weapons."

          Post proof or retract.

          And how many die from tobacco, salt, sugar & fat in a similar timeframe?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

            @Jake My we are touchy today, does the truth hurt your obsession?

            See post above re toddlers for a starting point, not to mention the regular massacre using 'home protection' guns held by 'death enthusiasts' but used by their dodgy relations.

            It is true that people are killed by many 'legal' substances, e.g. tobacco, salt, sugar & fat. People; can die or kill themselves in many ways using many things; e.g. more die in the home than on the roads in the UK, however homes and roads are useful, - though bad practises rarely are. Guns are unless you want you or your toddler to go on a killing spree.

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

              "Guns are unless you want you or your toddler to go on a killing spree."

              I'll assume you meant to typoe "useless".

              And I'll agree with you. My daughter was killing gophers in the veggie garden. As many as possible, on a daily basis, with her Ruger 10/22. She was probably 6 years old when I let her do her thing[1]. She has never harmed a human being with her knowledge of firearms.

              I harvest protein with my 30/06 and 12-gauge. Making food involves killing things. It doesn't appear magically, pre-wrapped in plastic, in the back of Tesco or Safeway.

              [1] 25 cents/head, she had to purchase her own ammo.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                My daughter was killing gophers in the veggie garden. As many as possible, on a daily basis, with her Ruger 10/22. She was probably 6 years old when I let her do her thing

                6 year old let loose with a firearm

                Welcome to America

                1. Evil Auditor Silver badge

                  Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                  @AC 08:15 GMT

                  6 year old let loose with a firearm

                  You can't keep your kids away from every hazard. That's why you educate them. When you have guns at home, even safely locked away, you teach your kids on how to safely use them. Kids are curious and sooner or later they will get close to one of the guns, e.g. when you go or come back from hunting. At which age would you let them shoot? That really depends - there are some 25yo that I wouldn't trust with a knife.

                  1. jake Silver badge

                    Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                    "there are some 25yo that I wouldn't trust with a knife."

                    There are a LOT of 25 yo's that I wouldn't trust in the kitchen.

                  2. Tom 38
                    WTF?

                    Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                    When you have guns at home, even safely locked away, you teach your kids on how to safely use them

                    Yes, and kids that spend their childhood killing small animals live such fulfilled lives. Giving a 6 yr old license to shoot small animals as they see fit would probably have your child taken in to protective care in any civilized country.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                      @Tom 38

                      "Yes, and kids that spend their childhood killing small animals live such fulfilled lives. Giving a 6 yr old license to shoot small animals as they see fit would probably have your child taken in to protective care in any civilized country."

                      Absolutely! Those kids should be far away from guns. Instead they should be on the playstation with the latest shoot em up or playing cowboys and indians with plastic imitation guns. And watching TV with fire, explosions and guns.

                      At what age do we teach kids to use knives? Or is that the next thing to be wrapped in cotton wool?

                      1. Tom 38

                        Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                        Instead they should be on the playstation with the latest shoot em up or playing cowboys and indians with plastic imitation guns. And watching TV with fire, explosions and guns.

                        As long as they don't see any boobs tho, right? This is still America after all.

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                          @Tom 38

                          "As long as they don't see any boobs tho, right? This is still America after all."

                          How did we move from gun to bazookas? You advocated protective care for children taught to handle a gun properly and with due care. I pointed out the hypocrisy of these children being taught all the wrong ways to handle a gun through media (games, TV, toys, etc). Should they be taken away for their protection?

                          I also asked on the next obvious problem of knives. At what age do we teach kids about these things? Or do we take the children for their own protection again? At what point do we teach them the right way to use any tools? Or do we just let them learn from TV?

                          1. Tom 38

                            Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                            I also asked on the next obvious problem of knives. At what age do we teach kids about these things? Or do we take the children for their own protection again? At what point do we teach them the right way to use any tools?

                            The right way to use a gun is to ask a policeman or soldier to do it for you. Welcome to civilization.

                            1. Rampant Spaniel

                              Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                              Thats great, you continue to torture your kids with trips to ikea, foreign cheese shops and ethnic handbags for men or whatever it is you do in cities between being knifed or shot ;-)

                              As a parent you teach your kids skills they need in life, initially skills they need for the current circumstances and then move onto skills for later life. I grew up in a rural farming community. Guns were a tool, one you learned and respected. I don't own a gun now, no need. When I hunt I use a bow or a knife because it's more appropriate for the task. Not everyone who has a gun is a mentalist. My kids live by the ocean so from birth they have been learning how to respect the ocean. Even at 6 they can cope with anything I can and dive far better, they can read the ocean, deal with large waves \ rips \ undertow etc. If your kids haven't I'm a bad parent for letting mine out.

                              We teach them what they need. I don't see them needing to use a gun but sometimes it's a tool for a job. Rabbits dig holes which harm other animals, birds eat crops. Therefore there is a decent market for pest control and as abhorrent as it may be to you the quickest and most humane way to do it is sitting on top of a landrover as dawn with 4-6 side by sides. When you have had to shoot an injured horse, up close, you respect the potential for damage. Fine you don't like guns but when you make out anyone who has ever fired a gun is a nutter you discredit yourself.

                              If it was a choice between using a gun as a tool and learning to respect it vs learning about guns on call of duty, I what I would prefer the neighbours kid or mine to do.

                            2. codejunky Silver badge

                              Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                              @Tom 38

                              "The right way to use a gun is to ask a policeman or soldier to do it for you. Welcome to civilization."

                              And the only person who should run should be an athlete? I am interested to see farmers and land owners calling police/army to send some marksmen to do the simple things like pest control. I guess you dont do DIY because most of that requires dangerous tools? If you do then at what age it is right to teach them the proper use of various tools? Or should kids be taken away for that too?

                              I guess your civilisation has no skills and no intelligence? I wont be part of that, I believe in education.

                              1. ipanel
                                Stop

                                Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                                I kind of see both sides to this, I believe people should be educated, including in the finality of killing. But I think the point is that pulling a trigger is a completely final act, with regret counting for nothing. We can't all be trained professionals (?!) in this. There are few genuinely appropriate analogies, certainly not an athlete (whose only regret is not having tried harder - I'm an "athlete"). I hate the idea of young, even trained, squaddies carrying guns in public, where some testosterone or unbalanced emotion could lead to inappropriate death. I'm actually posting from the states, and think the right to bear arms is past its sell by date. So who should have the right to carry an easy killing device? I guess every driver <sigh>, which is (horrifically) probably a better analogy. I have no answer. People live, people die, very often for economically justifiable reasons. "Democracy's bad, but there's nothing better".

                                1. Rampant Spaniel

                                  Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                                  @ipanel

                                  Sadly the right to bear arms in some areas of the states is even more relevant albeit for self protection rather than protection from the government. I haave no need for a gun and no compulsion to own one because gun crime is so low here, it may be something to do with no concealed carry (it may not I guess?). Some people do need a gun for work, farming being a prime example. Theres also little harm in guns for hunting assuming people are properly trained.

                                  Before we try and reduce responsible gun ownership (I am totally for reducing irresponsible gun ownership) we should look at why people carry. If a lot (and I don't mean a few folks who did too much lsd whilst watching predator) of people feel legitimately so unsafe they need a gun and gun crime is such an issue, should we not be paying just as much attention to making people feel safer? Give the police and the courts the resources they need and require the results. Then when \ if crime is reduced and people feel safer you will be in a better position re reducing gun ownership. I am no gun nut, I'm not in the NRA, hell if anything I'm closer to being a democrat, but if the government (local and federal) wants less guns they cannot abdicate their responsibility to ensure peopls safety. There is a hell of a lot we can do to ensure sensible gun ownership (checking they are properly stored, mandating training, closing loopholes for purchase without a background etc) but along side that we also have to properly fund the police and the justice system, then hold them accountable.

                                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                                    Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                                    @ Rampant Spaniel

                                    "If a lot (and I don't mean a few folks who did too much lsd whilst watching predator) of people feel legitimately so unsafe they need a gun and gun crime is such an issue, should we not be paying just as much attention to making people feel safer? Give the police and the courts the resources they need and require the results. Then when \ if crime is reduced and people feel safer you will be in a better position re reducing gun ownership"

                                    This is an interesting idea which requires a lot of unbiased study. Carrying a gun is not necessarily for reducing gun crime but violent crime in general (which gun crime may be part of the problem). There is some evidence to suggest the possible presence of guns reduces violent crimes which if true would be a potential tool for the police/courts to reduce crime. However then removing guns could then return the previous state of violent crimes.

                                    I would like more study to be done on the availability of guns and violent crime. I also doubt it would apply globally or even for each state but if the possible presence of guns as personal protection reduces violent crime then it would be worth implementing. Unfortunately there seems much study cherry picking the view of the pro or anti lobby. Both seem to have lost sight of the goal to save lives and protect freedom

                                    1. Rampant Spaniel

                                      Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                                      @codejunky

                                      Very well said. The absolute worst that could happen is we have a lower crime rate. If we still find we need guns, even as a deterrant, we still at least are safer anyway.

                                      You are totally right re perspective. You have one group of people saying arm everyone and another group saying no one should have guns. I do not predict a useful compromise occuring.

                                      Legally held guns seem (as mentioned figures are hard to come by) to be more of an issue where they fall into someone elses hands (a relative for example) or where the owner is frankly a little unstable. Being a responsible gun owner means actually securing all your guns. If you need a handgun by your bed it lives in a biometric safe, it's part of being responsible. We carry insurance and keep our cars well maintained as it's part of being a responsible car owner. If you have a kid or relative who has what the news shows will term 'behavioral issues' don't let them near your weapons (or your car for that matter). We need to find a sensible middleground that allows sensible, responsible people to own weapons for sport, protection or work but keeps mentalists and criminals away from weapons. The criminals part will be the hardest, that requires more police action and needs to be part of a wider anti crime initiative. Offer better rehab to try and reduce reoffending, but when people are convicted (of a serious offense, not speeding) for the 4th or 5th time and help isn't working, we need an answer for that as well. Sadly all we will get is lame duck laws.

                            3. Anonymous Coward
                              FAIL

                              Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                              > The right way to use a gun is to ask a policeman or soldier to do it for you. Welcome to civilization.

                              WTF has "civilisation" got to do with anything?

                              Is this the civilsation where everything is dumbed down to the point that nobody knows how anything works, the civilised people that can't change a tap washer?

                              In my book, civilisation is not being cunts to each other. That is not predicated on us all becoming dumb uneducated prols bred solely for entertainment consumption which is what most people seem to believe these days.

                    2. jake Silver badge

                      Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                      Close to 25 years on, my kid is the Senior Member of the Technical Staff in a Fortune 150 corporation. She owns 6 horses, and is quite competitive in hunter/jumper, eventing & dressage.

                      Hunting/varminting != abuse of animals.

                      1. Rampant Spaniel

                        Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                        Even as a brit I'm going to side with Jake, sorry. I'm not sure I would let my kids out at 6 alone with a rifle but I used shotguns (supervised) from that age in the UK. I grew up in the countryside, we had pests to control. By 13-14 you were driving around clearing fields at dawn. We used the meat and it saved a lot of injuries to horses and cows from rabbit holes. The police didn't care, if you were to injure anyone (and I don't ever recall that happening) it would be yourself and the rozzers son did it as well anyway. You were taught to respect weapons, it wasn't done for fun or sport, it was a chore that paid. The driving was much more fun than the shooting, especially in snow.

                        I think of it as similar to drinking (I could be wrong). I shot from a young age so there was no mystique or glamour to shooting, just as how I would drink with my family from a relatively young age so there was no urge to binge drink or sneak away and drink.

                        I'm not trying to criticise anyone, just please understand not everyone grows up in the same dynamic and different parents can parent differently and still be good parents.

                    3. JayB
                      Go

                      Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                      "Yes, and kids that spend their childhood killing small animals live such fulfilled lives. Giving a 6 yr old license to shoot small animals as they see fit would probably have your child taken in to protective care in any civilized country."

                      Wtf? Sorry Tom38 but I really am wondering if you shouldn't up your meds!?!?! Teaching kids the correct and proper respect for firearms is not "child abuse" as you seem to be implying. As other posters have pointed out, rob these items of their mystery and glamour and when these kids get older "they ain't cool no more dawg". Also, teaching a child where their food comes from is no bad thing either. Personally I was slotting pidgeons and bunnies as a kid to help the local farmers. These days I am a productive (ie pay my taxes, a lot of taxes) member of Society with no more quirks than those normally associated with Engineers in general.

                      Back to the article though, hats off to Mr Berger for some quality entertainment and appropriate response to Terrorism - rip the piss.

                      Oh, and Marvin O Gravel - you owe me a new keyboard mate!

                    4. Euripides Pants

                      Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                      "Giving a 6 yr old license to shoot small animals as they see fit would probably have your child taken in to protective care in any civilized country."

                      Tom, believe me, if you had gophers you'd shoot 'em too.

                2. jake Silver badge

                  @AC 08:15 (was: Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.))

                  I was shooting gophers before I was in kindergarten. I have never harmed a human with a weapon. It is probably second to last on my list of priorities (after accidentally killing a suicidal teenager on a skateboard or bicycle darting out of an alley ...).

          2. Evil Auditor Silver badge

            Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

            @Jack

            And how many die from tobacco, salt, sugar & fat in a similar timeframe?

            That is true, of course. But I do see two differences here. First, when I eat lots of unhealthy (deadly) stuff I mainly harm myself. You might argue that e.g. smoking can affect others, as does exessive alcohol consumption leading to some sort of violence. The other point though is, that the consumption of those substances is not intended to harm anyone whereas the usual purpose of a weapon is to inflict damage directly on someone else.

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

              And I should listen to someone who can't spot the difference between "jake" and "Jack" ... why exactly?

              My firearms exist to protect my livestock & put food on the table. If you have issues with that, well, all I can say is that you have issues.

              1. Evil Auditor Silver badge

                Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

                who can't spot the difference between "jake" and "Jack"

                Sorry, jake.

        2. rh587

          Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

          Source Mr Jones?

          No, serious question.

          The CDC figures show that 50-60% of firearm-related deaths in the US are suicides. So tagging them as gun deaths is a bit disingenuous because as the UK knows, people are more than capable of jumping off bridges or tying a noose without needing access to firearms.

          About 10% are unintentional shootings which leaves ~30-40% as homicides. However, they rarely split out how many are from legally held firearms and how many are from unlicensed, illegal firearms.

          So I'd be fascinated if you have a source for homicides using legal vs. illegal firearms which you've used as the basis for your statement there, because I've never managed to find one.

          If you're wondering why legal vs. illegal is significant then it's because legislation can help reduce deaths from legally held firearms - mental health checks and suchlike prior to purchase.

          However, legislation can't rein in illegal guns (they're already illegal. Making them more illegal is pointless, good for nothing but political grandstanding. You've already passed a law, and it's being ignored). Case in point, after the 1997 UK ban on handguns, firearm crime continued on it's upward trend, more than doubling by 2004. The ban had no impact whatsoever on criminal gangs and fraternities who held their guns illegally anyway, even when it was possible to get such things legally with the right license.

          In the UK's case, firearm crime didn't tail off till about 2003/05 when Operation Trafalgar/Trident started hitting home and disrupting some of the criminal groups who were smuggling and trading these firearms illicitly. The only way to address illegal firearms is with enforcement. More laws don't generally help.

          As a result, you can't adequately address firearm homicides without knowing whether you're dealing with primarily legal or illegal firearms, and whether the bulk of your effort should be focused on legislation or enforcement.

          I suspect these numbers are deliberately not collected because if in fact (as in the UK), less than 1% of homicides are committed with legal firearms, then you don't want that fact getting in the way of your popular (cheap) new anti-gun law, which promises to clamp down on gun crime. You don't want any annoying journalists pointing out that actually you should be pouring money into the Police to get the black market guns off the streets - which isn't cheap, and doesn't get next-day headlines, because such projects take time to adequately infiltrate the criminal fraternities and disassemble them, which isn't conducive to on-demand political good news.

      2. PineyCreek

        Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

        War on Toddlers? There's a war I could get behind. Muzzle them all.

      3. cortland

        Re: (Whatever. Show me) ... Where's the War on Toddlers, eh?

        Oddly enough, that just might be in ... Congress.

    2. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face

      Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

      "More people die from alcohol poisoning daily..."

      In the UK, maybe. I don't think I'd be making that assertion if I lived in Iraq, Syria, Cairo, Nigeria or a number of other places right now.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Tweets

    OK already, stop sending me bodies, we're full already,

    Lucifer

  3. K

    Its Ironic..

    They hate the west, yet they are reliant upon western technology and creations to further their cause!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Go

      Re: Its Ironic..

      Yes, I can just see them sitting around in a small room having a meeting, chaired by a terrorist called "Reg" oddly enough, and asking…

      "And what did the West ever do for us?!"

    2. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      Re: Its Ironic..

      I see where you're comming from. But ironic it is not, it's pragmatic. When you are at war and you capture enemy's weapons you will happily use them against your enemy.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Its Ironic..

      People go to anti-oil drilling protests in cars. It's called "cognitive dissonance".

  4. sml156

    Just sayin

    If they complain can't they get all those people banned for trollin

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just sayin

    Can't they get all those people banned for trollin

  6. codejunky Silver badge

    Wait

    So a civilian group terrorised their twitter account? What a proud day for the warriors of god.

  7. Velv
    Black Helicopters

    Hasn't anybody told them tweeters can be traced. Quite easily if recent court cases are to be believed.

    What's that loud noise coming from above...

  8. Rampant Spaniel

    This is why I am happy to be on this side of the fence. We live in a society where people are allowed this freedom of expression and can actually articulate it i.e. aren't beaten and threatened into submission.

    We may get a lot wrong but I think fundamentally we are closer to fair. We are generally intollerant of certain actions, but more tolerant of differences and beliefs. There is no legal or social compulsion to follow a belief, although naming your kid Messiah apparently is a little risky (perhaps they should have changed it to 'very naughty boy'?

  9. an it guy

    deaths?

    <pedant>

    I know so far the discussion has been about cigarettes/guns/sugar/salt/[something] killing people. I'm going to be a pedant here. Everyone dies, apart from about 3 people in the bible (Enoch, Elisha, Jesus), assuming you believe what the bible says

    So, technically, none of this stuff is killing people, but rather causing an *early* death. We're all going to die sometime.

    </pedant>

    1. Irony Deficient

      pedantry?

      an it guy, according to the biblical accounts, Jesus died too, death being a prerequisite for resurrection.

      1. an it guy

        Re: pedantry?

        ta. I should have said "dead and stayed dead".

        On the three in the bible, I actually got it wrong. It was Elijah, and not Elisha. Kind of annoying when two prophets that come one after another share a very similar sounding name.

  10. NomNomNom

    Huh no rape threats

  11. smartypants

    Constructive suggestions for the PR campaign

    Nobody seems to be helping the Jihadis.

    My idea: a smiling mullah on a poster.

    (No words. It all gets a bit difficult if you have to come up with words).

    1. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face

      Re: Constructive suggestions for the PR campaign

      You could make sure he was a really thin mullah.

      Mullah light, if you will.

  12. Risky

    Idea

    Howabout they give us a quick rundown of the people they actually don't want to kill for one reason or another. Should make it within the tweet size limit.

    1. Benjol

      Re: Idea

      Yeah, a simple 'No worries, we're not out to get YOU' would suffice. If there is anyone in that category...

  13. d3rrial

    Sesame Street

    I smell trouble for the guy who "suggested" sesame street. We all know the US authorities can't handle sarcasm... Remember the story about this one guy who got arrested for making a sarcastic comment about League of Legends who's been sentenced to 4 years in prison?

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "shooting gophers before I was in kindergarten"

    What happened when the gopher was injured but not dead?

    (same question, genuine BTW, @jake, with the 6yr old daughter doing "her thing")

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: "shooting gophers before I was in kindergarten"

      It got shot again, and properly killed. And we apologize to it prior to the second shot. The local Pomo Indians helped teach me, her, and my great grandfather to hunt in this area ...

  15. Vociferous

    There's guns and guns.

    It's a massive difference between having a bolt-action rifle or a shotgun on a ranch, and carrying around a Glock 17 or a sweet-jesus-this-thing-is-legal??? AR-15 in Detroit.

    I don't have any problem with the former, not even with teaching kids how to use them, but massive problem with the latter.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: There's guns and guns.

      Tools are tools.

      When used (in)correctly, an ax, a claw-hammer, or a largish screwdriver can be lethal at distances in excess of 30 feet (horizontal), which is much further than most (civilian) gun deaths. (I throw an ax at logging competitions, and can easily hit a human-sized target at 75 feet; I watched a guy get killed by a claw hammer thrown from 35 feet up in Humboldt County (was an accident, don't ask); and a friend once won a bar bet by sticking 7 of 10 Craftsman brand #41588 screwdrivers into a straw archery butt at 15 yards in under 15 seconds ... with pretty good grouping (#41588s are about two feet long, and nearly a pound in weight)). Shall we ban axes, hammers, and screwdrivers?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There's guns and guns.

        All of those things need skilled application. The problem is that some coked-up low life can kill someone with a Glock after five minutes instruction.

        I would suggest that there is more than one type of gun: there are guns needed by farmers, there are guns solely intended to be easily concealable and suitable for killing people at short range, and there are guns intended to spray large areas with bullets to kill people as fast as possible. The first category is far harder to use to carry out a crime or a massacre than the others.

        At the time of the writing of the US Constitution, militia weapons took minutes to fire a single shot. The Amendment didn't give citizens the right to own artillery. Yet it is interpreted at present to allow weapons which exceed the capability of a large eighteenth century artillery piece. It's called "scope creep", and is the besetting sin of a lot of US legislation.

        1. jake Silver badge

          @ribosome (was: Re: There's guns and guns.)

          "I would suggest that there is more than one type of gun"

          No. Guns are tools. They project stuff.

          The tools who use them inappropriately? Whole 'nother kettle of worms.

          I can fire my Great Grandfather's Kentucky over twice a minute ...

          1. Rampant Spaniel

            Re: @ribosome (was: There's guns and guns.)

            @ribosome

            I do get what you are saying but I respectfully suggest a better way of considering the matter would be to look at the other end of the weapon. True theres very little civilian need (barring those folks on the border with a ranch full of smugglers, they can have tanks and apaches) for the more extreme weapons, but weapons is weapons. The root of the issue is mentalists. Not sports shooters, farmers, hunters or people just scared to get gas at night, but mentally unstable violent loons. They should not be allowed guns and responsible gun owners should ensure their guns are properly secured. I was shooting for around 5 years, starting with a pellet gun, before I was ever allowed near a gun vaguely unsupervised and frankly I am sure an eye was kept on me for a while longer. Anybody who displayed more than a passing interest in better firearms was directed towards the cow sheds with a shovel. Parents and the community were extremely involved in active gun control. The local police had a huge amoung of say in who had guns, anybody who perhaps wasn't entire stable, was prone to being drunk, maybe whupped on their wife but you couldn't prove it etc etc didn't get approved. The police actively and randomly checked on the security of storage. Basically it came down to ensuring guns stayed in the right hands, it was the people not the weapon. True if you lusted after 50cal rifles meant for taking out vehicles and small buildings you were considered a risk, but in south africa probably not, you'd need that to stop an elephant.

            I guess the biggest problem is writing a law that covers both the countryside and the city, two completely different environments and sets of needs and people understanding there are different worlds out there to consider. When people talk about taking away guns expect a strong reaction, for some folks thats taking away their livelihood or their culture. Both 'sides' need to come up with some reasonable and effective solutions that accomodate everyons needs, both for safety but also protecting peoples ability to work and feed their kids.

          2. PsychicMonkey
            WTF?

            Re: @ribosome (was: There's guns and guns.)

            @Jake

            We get it, you are great at everything you do, so is your offspring and all your friends....

            but, what about the others, that have hand guns lying around and get killed because their kids pick up the guns and shoot them, or the kid shoots themselves, or they shoot a friend.

            Most sensible people are not talking about taking away RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, but making it harder for those less responsible to have guns, and gee I don't know, maybe stop toddlers killing each other?

            I honestly fail to see how that would be a bad thing.

          3. Pedigree-Pete
            Happy

            Re: @ribosome (was: There's guns and guns.)

            Impresive but you won't be one of Sharpes Chosen Men until you can do at least 3 per minute LOL

        2. rh587

          Re: There's guns and guns.

          Really? The first time I shot a pistol I was handed a 9mm (Beretta, not a Glock as it happens) and barely hit a thing.

          I was given a .22lr, got a handle on that, then worked my way up through a .38 revolver and eventually back up to the 9mm semi. Took a lot more than 5 minutes.

          Probably also worth mentioning that whilst some of these guns exceed the capability of 18th century artillery, they don't exceed the capability of the 21st century artillery the US Army possesses.

          If you take the rather paranoid 2nd Amendment view that you own guns to protect you from the government*, then in fact the relative capability of military vs. militia's weaponry is now much more in favour of the government than it was when the Amendment was penned, when (broadly speaking) in a fight of government vs. civilians both side were armed with muskets, with the difference decided by weight of numbers rather than the ludicrous technological advantage that would exist in such a scrap today.

          *And not to hunt, control varmints, or for self defence either from Mexican smugglers or simply from burglars on account of you being a rancher an hour's drive from the nearest Police Station - not a scenario we have to live with in the relatively compact UK which colours our opinion of the US gun laws, despite some American's living in very different circumstances and with very real dangers. As an island we haven't been invaded in a long time, so we don't really think of it as a real possibility. It's no surprise that places like Finland who have regularly been invaded over the past century hold their guns dear to their hearts, as do ranchers caught in the cross-fire between Mexican drug traffickers and the DEA.

      2. Vociferous

        Re: There's guns and guns.

        Efficiency and capacity are the issues here. You know how mass shootings nearly exclusively happen in the USA? It's not true. The same type of events DO happen in Europe too, several times per year there's nutters going on rampages in malls and schools. The difference is that since it's hard to get hold of high-capacity weapons, the perpetrator is typically armed with either a knife or an axe, or at most a hunting rifle, and the typical result is that two-three people get wounded before he's taken down.

        Knives, axes, and even hunting rifles, are low-capacity weapons. Great against a single target, pretty useless against crowds. And that's a good thing.

        The Glock 17 is a semi-automatic pistol, it is available with up to 30 round magazine and fires as fast as you can twitch your finger. Effective firing rate is estimated to be 800 rounds per minute, and if that's not enough it costs about $20 to enable selective fire with a firing rate of 2000 rounds per minute. The AR-15 is the semi-automatic version of the M-16 assault rifle - it's a straight up military weapon. You can mow down crowds with these guns, and that's exactly what they've been used for.

        Under what legal circumstances is a bolt-action rifle or shotgun not sufficient, so one would need a semi-automatic gun? I frankly can't think of any.

        1. Rampant Spaniel

          Re: There's guns and guns.

          Yes, but they aren't actually the problem. They make the problem worse and I am not saying ignore that, but focussing on drawing a magical line in the sand on what is an excessive weapon and what isn't won't fix the problem. Keeping guns out of the hands of nutters will go a huge way and that is the absolute biggest factor that needs to be dealt with. Sure we can restrict weapons based on rate of fire and capacity, but a gun is still a gun. This isn't about an outright ban on guns, it's stopping the mentalists having access to a gun (any gun) when the wind blows the wrong way and upsets the voices.

          So you ban glocks, whats to stop someone having 4 revolvers in their belt and two in thigh holsters, thats 36 shots fired from two guns at a time with virtually no reload time to drop an empty gun and pull another 2 out. It's still too much unless you are planning on going back to blow darts. Plus the single most important factor with restricting weapons, as we have seen in the past is that people (especially criminals) don't obey the law. Yes it makes it a little more difficult but not much.

          Again, I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying if you want to reduce gun crime the focus needs to be on policing and restricting mentalists having access to any gun, no matter the capacity or firepower of the weapon. Curtailing 'extreme' firearms is just a small part of the solution and pretty inneffective by itself.

        2. cortland

          Re: There's guns and guns.

          The M16's appearance, which seems to provoke an almost atavistic fear, is largely due to a change that would improve accuracy in any rifle; instead of requiring the shooter to place his cheek low on an angled stock to sight along the weapon, the AR-15 and successors raised the sight path to allow for a straight stock and recoil path, which does not pull a weapon upwards during recoil. ANY rifle may be improved in this manner, and if one uses an optical sight, an angled stock is no longer needed.

          It's my opinion that the crazies who get hold of an AR 15 or the like and go on a killing spree are (thank God) not usually SNIPERS, and are (usually) crazy enough to not kill coolly and deliberately: were Adam Lanza less disturbed,he might have killed as many with a much less controversial rifle, even without 20 or 30-round magazines.

          There have been snipers; we even had one near where I live -- *he* didn't use a rifle. (http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2013/08/trial_date_set_for_suspected_i.html ), However, the Beltway snipers did; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

          These are far more frightening than the occasional spray and pray shooter.

          The Beltway snipers used a military style weapon, but they would not have needed one for their killings and attacks. They are, however, in my opinion symptomatic of the breakdown of a culture and of the mental health of its people, one I believe related to the adversarial "I got mine; get lost" attitude so many even in government seem to endorse. However, that is another thread. What is pertinent here is that those unable or unwilling to exercise their rights responsibly may lose them -- and if today it is guns, how long can it be until speech and conscience are regulated?

          A British acquaintance on the Net years ago derided governments' approach to terror; he said he was going to produce a bumper sticker reading,

          "I'll worry about terrorists, when I can stop worrying about motorists."

          Look for it.

  16. Demosthenese

    Lame

    But none of these tweets are in any way clever or amusing.

    1. jake Silver badge

      @ Demosthenese (was: Re: Lame)

      Tweets?

      This isn't twitter, you twit.

      1. PsychicMonkey
        FAIL

        Re: @ Demosthenese (was: Lame)

        erm....

        The story was about twitter, showing tweets that people had tweeted....

        He is probabably aware that this isn't twitter.....

        1. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad

          Re: @ Demosthenese (was: Lame)

          Ahem, shurely it's the article that is a bit off-topic here.

  17. Dropper

    Guns?

    My own experience raising kids (in Alaska, where hunting and fishing are a way of life) is that the really, really important thing is making sure you don't let them fall behind on Algebra. Because it's an absolute fucking nightmare trying to figure out how to fix your kid being mathematically challenged if you have any hope of them not being consigned to a career flipping burgers and washing dishes. Shooting rats in a field might appear to be an important lesson to some, but failing to leave school with whatever qualifications your country bestows is possibly a worse outcome than missing consistently and blowing the fuck out of the carrots.

    1. Rampant Spaniel

      Shush now

      You gave us Palin, we haven't forgotten that yet ;-)

      Of course scholastic achievement is important and it requires parental input, but who said teaching your kid to shoot meant you couldn't also teach them to count? One wabbit, two wabbits, three wabbitses ;-) The two are not mutually exclusive. You'll find just as many issues in life if you only teach your child calculus. A parents job involves bestowing a wide range of experiences and skills on a child to make them a well rounded adult.

      Although Alaska appears to have found another career besides burger flipping and shopping cart collecting for the intellectually underendowed. Vice presidential candidate ;-)

  18. 24 pin connect 12 pin port
    Meh

    muh terrorists, muh dronestrikes, guns

    This is now an America foreign policy and gun rights thread. Come on now.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like