Upload
Login or register

durkadurka

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:2/17/2010
Location:Durkadurkastan
Stats
Comment Ranking:#5537
Highest Content Rank:#8151
Highest Comment Rank:#396
Content Thumbs: 466 total,  577 ,  111
Comment Thumbs: 28064 total,  33967 ,  5903
Content Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 47 Content: Sammich eater → Level 48 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 78.6% (786/1000)
Level 325 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 326 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:2
Content Views:13589
Times Content Favorited:23 times
Total Comments Made:11409
FJ Points:14817
Favorite Tags: terrorist (3) | game (2) | Ninja (2)
durka durka muhammad jihad!

latest user's comments

#90 - Yup, I imagine it'd be just as tricky as smuggling goods acros…  [+] (19 replies) 10/20/2015 on Firearms 0
User avatar
#91 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
If that were the only way to do it I imagine there would be quite a dip in supply huh?
User avatar
#93 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Yup, they'd probably only be as common as pot or prohibition-era alcohol.
User avatar
#94 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Where would you find more pot, Colorado or Texas?
User avatar
#95 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Good point, the cartels are usually focused on heavier stuff.
User avatar
#96 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Again, do you think nationally legal sale of weed would affect supply?
User avatar
#105 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Sure, but you're assuming that the supply is the issue. It's not. The people most affected by restricted supplies are the people who generally aren't going around murdering and raping. 300 million guns in this country and the vast majority are never used to commit any crimes.
User avatar
#106 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Part of how they get guns is how prevalent they are. 300 million sold is almost one per person. This makes it much easier to get, it's simple logic that if there were fewer they would be harder to get.
User avatar
#108 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Well yes, that's exactly my point. The people who have them because they're easy to get aren't the ones using them to commit crimes. Limiting the supply disproportionately affects the legal gun owners while guaranteeing criminals fire superiority.
User avatar
#111 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
You're telling me criminals don't benefit at all from the large supply of guns?
User avatar
#115 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
They're going to benefit to some degree, but by not nearly to the extent your average person benefits. Most of those legally owned guns are in the hands of the right people. Limit the supply and that changes.
User avatar
#116 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
And quite a few of the illegally obtained guns entered this country legally I imagine.
User avatar
#118 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Sure, but compared to the ones owned legally? Hardly a supply problem when most of the supply is causing no harm.
User avatar
#119 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Prohibition would affect both the legal and illegal supply.
User avatar
#172 - durkadurka (10/21/2015) [-]
Not at all. The killer is not made by a gun.

There's almost one gun per person in this country. Clearly the vast majority of people own guns without deciding to murder people.

Limiting supply attacks the problem from the wrong direction and at the expense of everyone else.
User avatar
#173 - theism (10/21/2015) [-]
Well if there were fewer guns it would be much harder for the wrong people to get them. But the second half is really the proper response to suggesting a proposed gun ban.
User avatar
#170 - durkadurka (10/21/2015) [-]
No I get it. My point is that prohibition won't solve the problem. The supply is not the issue.
User avatar
#171 - theism (10/21/2015) [-]
I mean it's a pretty bug part of it...
#136 - anon (10/20/2015) [-]
(Anon from comment >>#133)

You seem to have the idea that taking away guns as a whole will have a lasting impact on gun violence. Although I am pro-gun, I would agree with this as well if it were not for the fact that the U.S.A. is not similar to other modern 1st world (and influential, I may add) society's such as Australia, France and the U.K. We for one, have a border neighbor that is not nearly as docile as the EU, or Ireland in the case of UK and France and Australia is lacking any direct contact with a foreign body. Secondly, the U.S considers the right to defend yourself an actual right and not just a phrase (2nd amendment and all). Take into account that Mexico not only spans much of the U.S border, but is completely corrupt, all the way to those that hold "power"in a political sense. The individuals that hold sway within that country are kingpins and mob bosses that rule with a bank vault in one hand and a tombstone in the other, paying off those that can be swayed and offing those that cannot. What makes you think that this will not become a major inlet for illegal weapons? They already funnel billions of dollars of drugs over here, whats to stop them from adding firearms to their exports? It would certainly not hurt them, and the states sure as hell will not be able to stop it with its current idea of "putting up a wall".

Please explain to me how taking away guns within the U.S. will do anything other than slightly (and I say this with grain of salt) lower gun violence, increase other forms of violent crime from those petty thieves that do not wish to acquire a firearm, and most important of all, disarm the American populace.
User avatar
#138 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Well for one thing it would shut down the major supply avenue for guns. That would drastically cut the supply (after you allow a period to let the existing guns cycle out). You seem to have this idea that because gun violence won't immediately drop to zero there's no point in taking this sort of action. Yes they'll be able to smuggle guns in but at nowhere near the rate they currently enter this country and at exponentially higher costs, making it so that only the most serious criminals/gangs can get them. And petty criminals having to resort to knives and improvised weapons make them very much less dangerous. It's much harder to run from bullets after all.

So yes, it would take time for the guns currently on market to cycle out, guns would still be smuggled in and criminals would resort to other options, but none of this would be anywhere near as friendly a climate to gun crime as it is today.
#87 - Sure is. But you know what makes up most of it? Gang-related c…  [+] (21 replies) 10/20/2015 on Firearms 0
User avatar
#89 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
And it'd be trickier for him to get it with no legal vendors. Even if he doesn't buy it direct, somebody legally owned it at some point.
User avatar
#90 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Yup, I imagine it'd be just as tricky as smuggling goods across a border.
User avatar
#91 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
If that were the only way to do it I imagine there would be quite a dip in supply huh?
User avatar
#93 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Yup, they'd probably only be as common as pot or prohibition-era alcohol.
User avatar
#94 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Where would you find more pot, Colorado or Texas?
User avatar
#95 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Good point, the cartels are usually focused on heavier stuff.
User avatar
#96 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Again, do you think nationally legal sale of weed would affect supply?
User avatar
#105 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Sure, but you're assuming that the supply is the issue. It's not. The people most affected by restricted supplies are the people who generally aren't going around murdering and raping. 300 million guns in this country and the vast majority are never used to commit any crimes.
User avatar
#106 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Part of how they get guns is how prevalent they are. 300 million sold is almost one per person. This makes it much easier to get, it's simple logic that if there were fewer they would be harder to get.
User avatar
#108 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Well yes, that's exactly my point. The people who have them because they're easy to get aren't the ones using them to commit crimes. Limiting the supply disproportionately affects the legal gun owners while guaranteeing criminals fire superiority.
User avatar
#111 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
You're telling me criminals don't benefit at all from the large supply of guns?
User avatar
#115 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
They're going to benefit to some degree, but by not nearly to the extent your average person benefits. Most of those legally owned guns are in the hands of the right people. Limit the supply and that changes.
User avatar
#116 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
And quite a few of the illegally obtained guns entered this country legally I imagine.
User avatar
#118 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Sure, but compared to the ones owned legally? Hardly a supply problem when most of the supply is causing no harm.
User avatar
#119 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Prohibition would affect both the legal and illegal supply.
User avatar
#172 - durkadurka (10/21/2015) [-]
Not at all. The killer is not made by a gun.

There's almost one gun per person in this country. Clearly the vast majority of people own guns without deciding to murder people.

Limiting supply attacks the problem from the wrong direction and at the expense of everyone else.
User avatar
#173 - theism (10/21/2015) [-]
Well if there were fewer guns it would be much harder for the wrong people to get them. But the second half is really the proper response to suggesting a proposed gun ban.
User avatar
#170 - durkadurka (10/21/2015) [-]
No I get it. My point is that prohibition won't solve the problem. The supply is not the issue.
User avatar
#171 - theism (10/21/2015) [-]
I mean it's a pretty bug part of it...
#136 - anon (10/20/2015) [-]
(Anon from comment >>#133)

You seem to have the idea that taking away guns as a whole will have a lasting impact on gun violence. Although I am pro-gun, I would agree with this as well if it were not for the fact that the U.S.A. is not similar to other modern 1st world (and influential, I may add) society's such as Australia, France and the U.K. We for one, have a border neighbor that is not nearly as docile as the EU, or Ireland in the case of UK and France and Australia is lacking any direct contact with a foreign body. Secondly, the U.S considers the right to defend yourself an actual right and not just a phrase (2nd amendment and all). Take into account that Mexico not only spans much of the U.S border, but is completely corrupt, all the way to those that hold "power"in a political sense. The individuals that hold sway within that country are kingpins and mob bosses that rule with a bank vault in one hand and a tombstone in the other, paying off those that can be swayed and offing those that cannot. What makes you think that this will not become a major inlet for illegal weapons? They already funnel billions of dollars of drugs over here, whats to stop them from adding firearms to their exports? It would certainly not hurt them, and the states sure as hell will not be able to stop it with its current idea of "putting up a wall".

Please explain to me how taking away guns within the U.S. will do anything other than slightly (and I say this with grain of salt) lower gun violence, increase other forms of violent crime from those petty thieves that do not wish to acquire a firearm, and most important of all, disarm the American populace.
User avatar
#138 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Well for one thing it would shut down the major supply avenue for guns. That would drastically cut the supply (after you allow a period to let the existing guns cycle out). You seem to have this idea that because gun violence won't immediately drop to zero there's no point in taking this sort of action. Yes they'll be able to smuggle guns in but at nowhere near the rate they currently enter this country and at exponentially higher costs, making it so that only the most serious criminals/gangs can get them. And petty criminals having to resort to knives and improvised weapons make them very much less dangerous. It's much harder to run from bullets after all.

So yes, it would take time for the guns currently on market to cycle out, guns would still be smuggled in and criminals would resort to other options, but none of this would be anywhere near as friendly a climate to gun crime as it is today.
#82 - Yes. Adults are voluntarily ingesting a substance into their o…  [+] (23 replies) 10/20/2015 on Firearms 0
User avatar
#83 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Then it's a good thing mass shooting only makes up a tiny percentage of violent crime eh?
User avatar
#87 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Sure is. But you know what makes up most of it? Gang-related crime. Trayvon's gat has the serial number filed off.
User avatar
#89 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
And it'd be trickier for him to get it with no legal vendors. Even if he doesn't buy it direct, somebody legally owned it at some point.
User avatar
#90 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Yup, I imagine it'd be just as tricky as smuggling goods across a border.
User avatar
#91 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
If that were the only way to do it I imagine there would be quite a dip in supply huh?
User avatar
#93 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Yup, they'd probably only be as common as pot or prohibition-era alcohol.
User avatar
#94 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Where would you find more pot, Colorado or Texas?
User avatar
#95 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Good point, the cartels are usually focused on heavier stuff.
User avatar
#96 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Again, do you think nationally legal sale of weed would affect supply?
User avatar
#105 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Sure, but you're assuming that the supply is the issue. It's not. The people most affected by restricted supplies are the people who generally aren't going around murdering and raping. 300 million guns in this country and the vast majority are never used to commit any crimes.
User avatar
#106 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Part of how they get guns is how prevalent they are. 300 million sold is almost one per person. This makes it much easier to get, it's simple logic that if there were fewer they would be harder to get.
User avatar
#108 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Well yes, that's exactly my point. The people who have them because they're easy to get aren't the ones using them to commit crimes. Limiting the supply disproportionately affects the legal gun owners while guaranteeing criminals fire superiority.
User avatar
#111 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
You're telling me criminals don't benefit at all from the large supply of guns?
User avatar
#115 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
They're going to benefit to some degree, but by not nearly to the extent your average person benefits. Most of those legally owned guns are in the hands of the right people. Limit the supply and that changes.
User avatar
#116 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
And quite a few of the illegally obtained guns entered this country legally I imagine.
User avatar
#118 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
Sure, but compared to the ones owned legally? Hardly a supply problem when most of the supply is causing no harm.
User avatar
#119 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Prohibition would affect both the legal and illegal supply.
User avatar
#172 - durkadurka (10/21/2015) [-]
Not at all. The killer is not made by a gun.

There's almost one gun per person in this country. Clearly the vast majority of people own guns without deciding to murder people.

Limiting supply attacks the problem from the wrong direction and at the expense of everyone else.
User avatar
#173 - theism (10/21/2015) [-]
Well if there were fewer guns it would be much harder for the wrong people to get them. But the second half is really the proper response to suggesting a proposed gun ban.
User avatar
#170 - durkadurka (10/21/2015) [-]
No I get it. My point is that prohibition won't solve the problem. The supply is not the issue.
User avatar
#171 - theism (10/21/2015) [-]
I mean it's a pretty bug part of it...
#136 - anon (10/20/2015) [-]
(Anon from comment >>#133)

You seem to have the idea that taking away guns as a whole will have a lasting impact on gun violence. Although I am pro-gun, I would agree with this as well if it were not for the fact that the U.S.A. is not similar to other modern 1st world (and influential, I may add) society's such as Australia, France and the U.K. We for one, have a border neighbor that is not nearly as docile as the EU, or Ireland in the case of UK and France and Australia is lacking any direct contact with a foreign body. Secondly, the U.S considers the right to defend yourself an actual right and not just a phrase (2nd amendment and all). Take into account that Mexico not only spans much of the U.S border, but is completely corrupt, all the way to those that hold "power"in a political sense. The individuals that hold sway within that country are kingpins and mob bosses that rule with a bank vault in one hand and a tombstone in the other, paying off those that can be swayed and offing those that cannot. What makes you think that this will not become a major inlet for illegal weapons? They already funnel billions of dollars of drugs over here, whats to stop them from adding firearms to their exports? It would certainly not hurt them, and the states sure as hell will not be able to stop it with its current idea of "putting up a wall".

Please explain to me how taking away guns within the U.S. will do anything other than slightly (and I say this with grain of salt) lower gun violence, increase other forms of violent crime from those petty thieves that do not wish to acquire a firearm, and most important of all, disarm the American populace.
User avatar
#138 - theism (10/20/2015) [-]
Well for one thing it would shut down the major supply avenue for guns. That would drastically cut the supply (after you allow a period to let the existing guns cycle out). You seem to have this idea that because gun violence won't immediately drop to zero there's no point in taking this sort of action. Yes they'll be able to smuggle guns in but at nowhere near the rate they currently enter this country and at exponentially higher costs, making it so that only the most serious criminals/gangs can get them. And petty criminals having to resort to knives and improvised weapons make them very much less dangerous. It's much harder to run from bullets after all.

So yes, it would take time for the guns currently on market to cycle out, guns would still be smuggled in and criminals would resort to other options, but none of this would be anywhere near as friendly a climate to gun crime as it is today.
#79 - It's illegal to use deadly force to "mercy kill" the…  [+] (17 replies) 10/20/2015 on Firearms +8
User avatar
#80 - greyhoundfd (10/20/2015) [-]
>Dangerous and stupid
The guy is on the ground, has lost his weapon, and you have a gun. If you're really that paranoid just use some zip-ties.
User avatar
#92 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
It's not even close to paranoid. Keeping your distance is the logical and safe thing to do. You don't know what condition the attacker is in or if he has any other weapons that you cannot see.

I don't want the guy to bleed out, but in this kind of situation my priority is the safety of myself and my family.
User avatar
#97 - greyhoundfd (10/20/2015) [-]
He's been shot three times and is screaming in pain. It's safe to assume that he's been disabled, and now you need to keep him from dying. If you shot the guy once and he tripped and fell over, then yes keep an eye on him without getting close, but if he's screaming, rolling around on the ground, and bleeding onto your floor then his next move is not going to be to stab you, it's going to be to keep screaming and rolling on the ground.
#143 - anon (10/20/2015) [-]
Why the fuck do you think that you have any obligation to save the life of someone that was just a threat to you? Is this what some people really think would happen when shit goes down? What happened to common sense and preservation of ones life and loved ones, is that just tossed out the window in the hopes that you can save someone that just threatened you or your loved ones? What good does it do to save their life?
User avatar
#103 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
How is this being senselessly paranoid? The guy just tried to attack you. "Don't get too close to the guy who just tried to machete me" is a quite rational thing to think.

What he did wrong is attempt to kill people. Yes it was due to mental issues but that doesn't make what happened less severe. It certainly doesn't make the man's actions MORE predictable.
User avatar
#107 - greyhoundfd (10/20/2015) [-]
"Don't get too close to the guy who still has his weapon and is still capable of launching an attack" is a rational thing to think. Again, I have to emphasize that if you have been shot three times your body is in shock and you aren't going to be attacking anyone. This is a basic medical fact. Unless you directly inject him with adrenaline he is down, and if you take away his weapon he will be doing absolutely zip.
User avatar
#109 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
It's not uncommon for people to take more hits than that and keep going. It depends on the caliber and a variety of other factors.

If you want to approach the crazy man you just shot, be my guest.
User avatar
#114 - greyhoundfd (10/20/2015) [-]
Yes, "Don't know you're dead" syndrome is common, but it doesn't mean that if you're lying on the ground you might get up and start swinging again, it means that you might get shot and keep going for a few minutes. Clearly the latter did not happen.
User avatar
#117 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Benavidez
(good story to read about regardless of the debating).

You totally could. Depends on where you were shot and with what. Or you might not be able to get up, but you might be able to pull a knife and stab the guy crouching over you.
User avatar
#121 - greyhoundfd (10/20/2015) [-]
That's an incredible story. You never seem to hear about those guys.

Trust me, no it doesn't. Have you ever been in shock, even mild shock? You're usually incredibly focused on what just happened, not on risking further injury. This is greatly multiplied if you've been shot. Not to mention that "Don't know you're dead" syndrome is due to the adrenaline rush of combat. When it's sustained over time you can keep going at it, but if it peters out (such as when you collapse to the ground) you are exceptionally exhausted and usually lose focus. A guy in shock after being shot probably doesn't even have the coordination to attack someone.
#144 - anon (10/20/2015) [-]
I'm seeing a lot of assumption with this argument versus the gears of reality and self preservation turning "durkadura"...... If you want to attempt to save someone that was just a threat to you, go for it. If it turns out fine and dandy, good for you (and the assailant). If not, it makes a nice news segment.
User avatar
#99 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
I'm telling you man, you don't approach somebody you just shot, especially getting to within arms length.
User avatar
#100 - greyhoundfd (10/20/2015) [-]
And I'm telling you that you're being senselessly paranoid and it's going to result in the death of a man who did nothing wrong other than having a mental break
#127 - anon (10/20/2015) [-]
"Someone tried to kill me! I better try to save his life!"

Darwin Award for this dumbass right here.
User avatar
#131 - ilovehitler (10/20/2015) [-]
More like human reward, dumbass.
He would have killed you, yeah, but that doesn't mean you should do the same- the idea of an "eye for an eye" punishment system doesn't work.
#168 - anon (10/20/2015) [-]
Not if you go for a single eye at a time...

In all seriousness though, that guy seemed fairly messed up mentally. I would not want that threat to be present at any point in time beyond that engagement, especially with my loved ones near. That "Human Reward" wont be too nice the second time around, if that time comes.
User avatar
#169 - ilovehitler (10/20/2015) [-]
And that's where rehabilitation and medication comes into play- so the person will both be a safe person to have around others as well as being able to function in and maintain society.
#348 - >it's to prove there is a clear and distinct difference bet…  [+] (2 replies) 10/19/2015 on Fb 0
#349 - justtocomment (10/20/2015) [-]
Look, your stance is completely based on morality but what is the route of that morality? What makes a fetus worth calling a human life? It's not about terminology it's about value.
If human life = X , babies are human life so babies = X . Fetus, as we have determined and agreed, are not babies. So fetus =/= babies. Therefore, fetus =/= X = human life.
User avatar
#350 - durkadurka (10/20/2015) [-]
I don't think a comparison to the value of human life is what makes something acceptable to destroy/kill/etc. It will become a life very shortly and I'm just not okay with taking away that existence. Others are, but that's them. I'm not one to impose my values on others.
#336 - Well hey man, you present me with evidence and a convincing ar…  [+] (1 reply) 10/19/2015 on Fb 0
User avatar
#337 - nimba (10/19/2015) [-]
It's no problem, good luck with the homework. Hit me up if you ever come up with an argument to defend your opinion
#333 - Wow, you certainly know more about this than I do. I'm definit…  [+] (3 replies) 10/19/2015 on Fb 0
User avatar
#334 - nimba (10/19/2015) [-]
Nice to meet somebody willing to change their opinion once in a while
User avatar
#336 - durkadurka (10/19/2015) [-]
Well hey man, you present me with evidence and a convincing argument. I'm going to have to reevaluate my position and do my homework.
User avatar
#337 - nimba (10/19/2015) [-]
It's no problem, good luck with the homework. Hit me up if you ever come up with an argument to defend your opinion
#324 - I think the real problem is that you're now making a law respe…  [+] (5 replies) 10/19/2015 on Fb 0
User avatar
#332 - nimba (10/19/2015) [-]
It doesn't impinge on any religion's right to worship, it's just correcting the position of the state of having, contrary to the constitution, previously given special treatment to religions which they should have no business doing. Note that there are laws respecting the establishment of religion in the tax code. To correct this to take all religion out of tax code, thus law, all churches may apply as any other applicant non-profit and have to justify their tax exempt privilege the same as any other non-profit. There is literally no reason a church should be exempt from tax revue but the red cross or doctors without borders is not.That's true seperation of church and state.
The churches are not, as much as they may wish, immune to enforcement of the law and should not be immune to enforcing the spirit of the law eg no special treatment for religion by the state.
The real problem is when the churches first snuck into the tax code, you're just defending the status quo contrary to the constitution.
User avatar
#333 - durkadurka (10/19/2015) [-]
Wow, you certainly know more about this than I do. I'm definitely going to have to reevaluate my position. I don't like the idea of taxing churches but you've demonstrated for me that the argument I made isn't really valid.

10/10 would get to make me think again
User avatar
#334 - nimba (10/19/2015) [-]
Nice to meet somebody willing to change their opinion once in a while
User avatar
#336 - durkadurka (10/19/2015) [-]
Well hey man, you present me with evidence and a convincing argument. I'm going to have to reevaluate my position and do my homework.
User avatar
#337 - nimba (10/19/2015) [-]
It's no problem, good luck with the homework. Hit me up if you ever come up with an argument to defend your opinion