If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Examiner)   Westboro Baptist Church trolls victims of Aurora-Colorado shootings with Photoshopped pics and taunts on twitter, never actually shows up to protest   (examiner.com) divider line 153
    More: Followup, Baptist church, Colorado, morning, trolls, Aurora shootings, shootings  
•       •       •

11594 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 9:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-26 09:49:11 AM

Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

Washington DC had a total ban on all guns for something like 30 years, and they had one of the highest crime rates in the city, and that includes the most murders by firearms for several years running. Care to explain how that particular gun law worked? I mean, if guns were not allowed how were people able to use them to commit murder and to robbery?

And what about Chicago? For decades Chicago had a near total ban on handguns (only police officers and some select people in security jobs were allowed to own a handgun), yet during that time nearly all murders (around 85% if I remember correctly) were committed with a handgun. Again, care to explain how that gun law worked?

As for not stopping this, there was absolutely nothing in this guy's background that would have raised a red flag on a background check. Nothing. No matter how strict the requirements for getting a firearm he still would have met and passed all requirements and been able to purchase a firearm.

First off, I appreciate your tone. You're not being argumentative and that helps, so thank you. As for the DC gun ban, I've read conflicting information that states otherwise. For example, this article has this snipp ...


The specific gun control "idea" I see tossed around is that of licensing. For example in Texas, if you're mentally disabled or mentally ill you can't drive. For all others you learn how to drive and then pass a test to get your driver's license. And this is licensing for a simple car, but we assume it's necessary because a car in the hands of someone not trained in its use is actually dangerous. The same connection is easily drawn with guns. So the argument is really, had there been a gun licensing procedure where mental health was evaluated, would this guy still have been able to get his hands on all those weapons.

As for the crime statistics, it's pretty mind-blowing to search around on the internet for that as the facts are distorted to such a degree it's hard to tell what's legit and what isn't. Still looking though, to be fair.
 
2012-07-26 12:27:07 PM

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: The specific gun control "idea" I see tossed around is that of licensing. For example in Texas, if you're mentally disabled or mentally ill you can't drive. For all others you learn how to drive and then pass a test to get your driver's license. And this is licensing for a simple car, but we assume it's necessary because a car in the hands of someone not trained in its use is actually dangerous. The same connection is easily drawn with guns. So the argument is really, had there been a gun licensing procedure where mental health was evaluated, would this guy still have been able to get his hands on all those weapons.

As for the crime statistics, it's pretty mind-blowing to search around on the internet for that as the facts are distorted to such a degree it's hard to tell what's legit and what isn't. Still looking though, to be fair.


I have no problem with a test to own a firearm, but I think that a mental health screening is not a good idea, simply because there are so many differing opinions on mental health. It is not an exact science. Also, what happens if one of the psychologists doing the screening is anti-gun and decides to be very strict and starts denying a license out of spite? And what about the reverse? What if the screening waives through people who might have been better off being denied. The problem with mental health screening is that is is so subjective. At least with a driving test there are a specific set of criteria that need to be followed. It is still subjective to a certain extent, but not much.

As for this guy, given his high degree of intelligence and that this was premeditated he probably would have passed a mental health screening. People like this are very good at hiding emotions.

And in regards to crime statistics, those at the site I linked to seem to match up with numbers I have found at the CDC's website.
 
2012-07-26 12:55:50 PM

Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: The specific gun control "idea" I see tossed around is that of licensing. For example in Texas, if you're mentally disabled or mentally ill you can't drive. For all others you learn how to drive and then pass a test to get your driver's license. And this is licensing for a simple car, but we assume it's necessary because a car in the hands of someone not trained in its use is actually dangerous. The same connection is easily drawn with guns. So the argument is really, had there been a gun licensing procedure where mental health was evaluated, would this guy still have been able to get his hands on all those weapons.

As for the crime statistics, it's pretty mind-blowing to search around on the internet for that as the facts are distorted to such a degree it's hard to tell what's legit and what isn't. Still looking though, to be fair.

I have no problem with a test to own a firearm, but I think that a mental health screening is not a good idea, simply because there are so many differing opinions on mental health. It is not an exact science. Also, what happens if one of the psychologists doing the screening is anti-gun and decides to be very strict and starts denying a license out of spite? And what about the reverse? What if the screening waives through people who might have been better off being denied. The problem with mental health screening is that is is so subjective. At least with a driving test there are a specific set of criteria that need to be followed. It is still subjective to a certain extent, but not much.

As for this guy, given his high degree of intelligence and that this was premeditated he probably would have passed a mental health screening. People like this are very good at hiding emotions.

And in regards to crime statistics, those at the site I linked to seem to match up with numbers I have found at the CDC's website.


It's sort of an endless loop to discuss whether or not it could have been prevented, but to me the purchase of tear gas (no civilian use) and a high volume of ammunition should have tipped someone off, somewhere. Had he been psychologically profiled before hand, it may have helped, but you are correct that he may have been intelligent enough to pass an exam unharmed.

In the broader issue of gun control, I have no doubt that determined individuals looking to get their hands on deadly weapons will do so, legally or otherwise, but I still think tightening the controls on exactly who can purchase these weapons would help significantly.

It's still much easier, at least where I live, to get firearms legally than it is to get them illegally.
 
Displayed 3 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report