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.

(CBS 42 Birmingham) NewsFlash Gunman enters Alabama hospital, opens fire. Injures three before being killed by police. Begun, the copycat shootings have   (cbs42.com) divider line 171
    More: NewsFlash, St. Vincent, Alabama, UAB, shootings, guns  
•       •       •

18592 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2012 at 2:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-15 02:02:17 PM
10 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: becoming numb to it


I'm not becoming numb, I'm becoming angry. Something must change. Also, F*CK the NRA.
2012-12-15 01:58:25 PM
8 votes:

ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!


Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.
2012-12-15 02:12:38 PM
7 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.


Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.
2012-12-15 03:17:59 PM
6 votes:

ultraholland: John Dewey: And this is precisely why I see gun ownership as a selfish act. You feel safer and yet endanger the lives of unknown innocents.

This makes zero sense.


What do you think Nancy Lanza owned guns?

1. Hobby
2. Safety
3. Collector
4. ?????

She owned them for one of the three reasons most often given. She had zero intention of using them to harm. She had zero intention of letting someone else use them to harm. And yet, they were used to kill 27 people including herself and one asshole.

She wanted one of those three things and chose those over the potential danger. And anyone who currently own guns and continue to purchase guns is doing the same.

Responsible gun ownership is an oxymoron.
2012-12-15 02:06:35 PM
6 votes:
It's america's version of the suicide bomber at this point. Happening all the time.
2012-12-15 01:42:35 PM
6 votes:
Wouldn't a copycat shooting have something do with the first shooting, dumbfark?
2012-12-15 01:44:32 PM
5 votes:
Thus making today too soon to discuss this.
2012-12-15 03:24:10 PM
4 votes:
images2.dailykos.com
2012-12-15 03:08:17 PM
4 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?


You might have missed the point. He still tried to harm or kill them. Doesn't matter what he did it with. There was something intrinsically WRONG with the farker. Wrong with HIM.

It doesn't mean all people who own knives are going to try stabbing a bunch of children.

You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.
2012-12-15 04:03:46 PM
3 votes:
Surely it's fine to give up some liberty in exchange for security.

i50.tinypic.com
2012-12-15 04:00:40 PM
3 votes:

John Dewey: NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.


i798.photobucket.com
2012-12-15 03:38:25 PM
3 votes:

John Dewey: ultraholland: John Dewey: What do you think Nancy Lanza owned guns?

because she was a farking idiot who took her clearly mentally disturbed son to the range.


And anyone who currently own guns and continue to purchase guns is doing the same.

Again, zero sense.

You can never have 100% control over how a gun you own is used. Period. So by owning it/possessing it you are putting others at risk. The more guns there are in society, the higher the risk of being shot for individual members of that society. So whatever your reasons are for owning a gun, they are selfish ones. You are putting your own safety/pleasure above the needs of other innocent members of your society.

Gun ownership=selfishness.


I'm a gunsmith, I can ensure the only time any firearm in my control will function is when I want it to. So can anybody with any mechanical aptitude and the ability to find their own ass without the aid of a flashlight.

It's about as simple as taking the keys out of the ignition, or disconnecting the battery in a car.

You're obviously not very bright.
2012-12-15 03:33:20 PM
3 votes:

John Dewey:

You can never have 100% control over how a car you own is used. Period. So by owning it/possessing it you are putting others at risk. The more cars there are in society, the higher the risk of being injured for individual members of that society. So whatever your reasons are for owning a car , they are selfish ones. You are putting your own safety/pleasure above the needs of other innocent members of your society.

Car ownership=selfishness.


Surrender your car citizen!
2012-12-15 03:23:10 PM
3 votes:
Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

i45.tinypic.com
2012-12-15 03:15:46 PM
3 votes:
John Dewey: And this is precisely why I see gun ownership as a selfish act. You feel safer and yet endanger the lives of unknown innocents.

This makes zero sense.
2012-12-15 02:34:21 PM
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.

And had the same happened with the cop, would he have been a dumbass cop? Since we're dealing in the land of what ifs and all.


Yes. See, I have this weird thing wherein I trust people with formal training more than nuts. But hey, that's just me.
2012-12-15 02:32:16 PM
3 votes:
Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.
2012-12-15 02:02:01 PM
3 votes:
This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.
2012-12-15 01:58:58 PM
3 votes:
Seriously, if at least the security could be armed legally, then folks who are armed illegally couldn't kill so much before being gunned down. Or is there some flaw in this logic that makes legal gun ownership such a bad idea?
2012-12-15 07:05:20 PM
2 votes:

The Face Of Oblivion: PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?

Ok. What's the mental illness type? Let's hear about it.


Psychopathy, psychosis, and depression. See above post.


The 800 POUND FARKING ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM is that effectively controlling access to guns by those who would use them to harm others requires a surveillance and policing apparatus so broad that it unquestionably violates even the current much-diminished Fourth Amendment rights of individuals. Anyone who opposes the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program (itself directed at CURRENTLY ILLEGAL firearms) should think very, very carefully about the gun controls that they propose.


Yup. These types of proposals are certainly intrusive. And they add to the reasons for people to avoid mental health treatment in the first place, which is counterproductive in a lot of ways.

Let's say a politician settles on background screenings before making legal access to firearms possible as the proposed means of preventing violence - is anyone naive enough to believe that (1) drug/gang-related violence involves registered or otherwise law-abiding gun owners and (2) that background checks will catch most mass murderers?

No, but they will make firearms more difficult to acquire. Not impossible. But more difficult. In economics terms, that means their price will go up. Which in turn will put them out of the hands of more and more consumers. Which means that fewer criminals will have them. Not that no criminals will have them. But fewer.
2012-12-15 06:54:11 PM
2 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?

Keeping the mentally ill from being able to obtain guns is obviously important, but wouldn't have done anything to prevent what happened in Connecticut.


There's another aspect to that too. The three types of mental illness associated with these kinds of shootings are psychopathy, psychosis, and depression. While I can understand outright banning anyone diagnosed with APD from possessing a gun, the fact is, banning the vast majority of harmless psychotics and depressives from possessing guns 1) adds to the stigma of those mental illnesses, and 2) adds to the overall deterrent which keeps people from seeking mental illness.

So if we go down that road, we're just adding to the long list of reasons to avoid mental health care if at all possible. Not only does that mean more people will suffer longer with mental illness, but it could actually be counterproductive. Eventually, some depressive who could have been stopped by a competent mental health professional will never visit one, and end up going on a shooting rampage instead.
2012-12-15 05:39:28 PM
2 votes:
Roger Ebert had it right:
" Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."
mjg
2012-12-15 04:12:33 PM
2 votes:
www.delvecchio.ca

Sometimes ...

/sad
2012-12-15 04:04:32 PM
2 votes:
I like how the discussions on yesterday's event started pretty reasonably and then went blue retard whereas it appears that the discussions for this event simply start retarded and go downhill from there..
2012-12-15 03:56:07 PM
2 votes:

Dimensio: ot yet confirm, that the shooter did attempt to purchase a rifle on his own but that he was denied.


Soooo the current gun-control laws worked? It was the parent that f'ed up? Why are we having this debate at all?
2012-12-15 03:55:09 PM
2 votes:

John Dewey: Dimensio: John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.

In free societies, rights of action and of ownership are allowed by default, and restriction requires justification. Perhaps you prefer residence in an authoritarian society.

Justification: Guns were built with one purpose: To kill. Current gun technology allows the killing to happen at sickening rates.

Fin.


Funny, the gun technology today, as in what civilians have been able to purchase, hasn't "changed" since pretty much 1919. The gun technology related to the guns used in the Sandy Hook shooting hasn't changed since, well, 1911. Sure it's been repackaged a little bit and is a little bit lighter now, but it's pretty much the same weapon technology.

Now, the stuff the Army is playing with now with those 25MM grenades is new, but that's not going to be available to American civilians any time soon, if ever.

The whole discussion would probably be a lot more effective and constructive if it was being held by people who actually knew what they were talking about instead of pulling stuff out of their ass.
2012-12-15 03:53:26 PM
2 votes:

zippolight2002: Haven't been reading up on the school shooting, so forgive me, but have they determined how he got his gun yet? Was it his to begin with? Did he buy it legally? Because if either of those answers are "no", this "What if" gun control debate is moot.


The firearms were reportedly the property of his mother, which would indicate that she did not secure them despite knowing a resident of her home to be mentally unstable.

I have read, but cannot yet confirm, that the shooter did attempt to purchase a rifle on his own but that he was denied.
2012-12-15 03:52:30 PM
2 votes:
How to solve the vulnerable nature of our schools while providing additional employment options to our veterans.

Armed Security Guards.

Helicopter parents may cry foul, but it kills two birds with one stone. The veterans who opt in and don't mind the risk get a steady job that fits their skillset. The schools gain someone on hand who has the ability to react while under fire, which is more than what can be said for a majority of CCW holders.
2012-12-15 03:49:33 PM
2 votes:

John Dewey: ultraholland: I do not allow mentally unstable people even know I have them, let alone handle them.

I know and fully believe you and the overwhelming majority of the gun owners in this country act what they feel is a responsible manner with their firearms. I know and fully believe that 99.99813857194% of gun owners would never knowingly let someone who is mentally unstable around their firearms.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Time and time again.

When will enough be enough? What cost is too high?

26 hours ago I believed there was such a thing as responsible gun ownership. No more.


Your irrational belief is not a valid basis for public policy.
2012-12-15 03:42:34 PM
2 votes:

John Dewey: iq_in_binary: I'm a gunsmith, I can ensure the only time any firearm in my control will function is when I want it to. So can anybody with any mechanical aptitude and the ability to find their own ass without the aid of a flashlight.

Excellent. I just stabbed you in your sleep with my knife and now have your gun to go kill 20 kids.

Congrats.


It's called a safety, on my carry gun there are 2, a grip safety and a thumb safety. Takes less than a tenth of a second to engage or disengage the thumb safety and the grip safety is engaged by gripping the gun. You're dead at the doorway and I'm filling out way too much paperwork. And 70+ million other people just like me aren't killing any school children every day.
2012-12-15 03:30:58 PM
2 votes:

Gosling: Yeah. Sure. Mexico has low gun availability. You just keep thinking that.


And the cartels buy theirs through our lax gun laws.
2012-12-15 03:30:43 PM
2 votes:

DoomPaul: Generation_D: DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

[i45.tinypic.com image 539x539]

Now put that up against stats showing how many people in a Western country outside the USA are killed by guns, at all. See how it does.

[i48.tinypic.com image 659x819]


Apples to Bananas. Typical gun nut crap.

You took "violent assaults" and are comparing them to "shootings."

Violence in countries is not the same. If anything, its an argument for fewer guns.

Less deaths from a fistfight than a shootout.
2012-12-15 03:30:37 PM
2 votes:

ultraholland: John Dewey: What do you think Nancy Lanza owned guns?

because she was a farking idiot who took her clearly mentally disturbed son to the range.


And anyone who currently own guns and continue to purchase guns is doing the same.

Again, zero sense.


You can never have 100% control over how a gun you own is used. Period. So by owning it/possessing it you are putting others at risk. The more guns there are in society, the higher the risk of being shot for individual members of that society. So whatever your reasons are for owning a gun, they are selfish ones. You are putting your own safety/pleasure above the needs of other innocent members of your society.

Gun ownership=selfishness.
2012-12-15 03:27:25 PM
2 votes:
I realize that I won't outshout the internet tough guy gun rights brigade. Thats not the point.

A whole lot of us out here think you guys are idiots, and I bet I live to see the day you all are outvoted.

Its happened before, it'll happen again. Gun Rights is just a sh*tty 220 year old thought on a piece of paper. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed by modern interpretation, the First Amendment is in tatters compared to its meaning back when it was written. The Second Amendment actually had a good reason for being, but it doesn't any more. Tyranny is not overthrown by your home collection of weapons. However, many innocent people quite often could be.

I'm fed up with it, I suspect many others are too.
2012-12-15 03:26:23 PM
2 votes:

Dingleberry Dickwad: [jasonjeffrey.files.wordpress.com image 300x391] 


dtdstudios.com
2012-12-15 03:18:50 PM
2 votes:
someone on Freepers this morning suggested that the media should NOT BE ALLOWED to report on these shootings, as it encourages copycats, and riles up the population. They are more than happy to squash the 1st amendment, to keep what they think are their 2nd amendment 'rights'.
2012-12-15 03:17:02 PM
2 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: Have you noticed a change in security at airports since 9/11?


The comparable reaction would be if we banned Islam after 9/11, and expelled all members of the religion. Never mind that there's a constitutional right, and never mind that a barest shred of a minority supported the attacks, let alone were involved, but hey, sometimes you have to take away actual freedoms to protect people, right?

Historically a major dividing line between the aristocracy and the serfs was the right to keep and bear arms. The aristocrats allowed for armed serfs when they started needing more troops for their wars, and the resulting empowerment cost them a lot of power. They have never forgotten this, and would happily retake that power.
2012-12-15 03:14:45 PM
2 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: phenn: You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.


SURE YOU CAN. Have you noticed a change in security at airports since 9/11? Compare our DUI laws now with 50 years ago. If the @sshole in Newtown yesterday had a knife instead of two guns, he would not have killed 26 people. And the ability for one nutjob with zero military training to walk into a building and murder 26 people, only stopping to kill himself when he was basically done doing what he wanted to do, is not what the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind, mainly because that wasn't technologically possible at the time.


If that is the kind of life you seek, you are living in the wrong country.

And, I'm relatively certain the authors of the second amendment realized that implements would improve at some stage.

The law is the law. Again, find another place where the laws suit you better.
2012-12-15 03:13:03 PM
2 votes:

Sultan Of Herf: Banning guns isnt going to stop muggers, rapists, home invaders, robbery, assault and the vast majority of all other crime...and they know it...but getting those scary guns taken away will make them feel safe, for a little while. Until a friend, family member, or even them personally is a victim of crime...then they will have something new to scream about.


And this is precisely why I see gun ownership as a selfish act. You feel safer and yet endanger the lives of unknown innocents.
2012-12-15 03:12:08 PM
2 votes:

phenn: You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.



SURE YOU CAN. Have you noticed a change in security at airports since 9/11? Compare our DUI laws now with 50 years ago. If the @sshole in Newtown yesterday had a knife instead of two guns, he would not have killed 26 people. And the ability for one nutjob with zero military training to walk into a building and murder 26 people, only stopping to kill himself when he was basically done doing what he wanted to do, is not what the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind, mainly because that wasn't technologically possible at the time.
2012-12-15 03:04:15 PM
2 votes:
Pretty soon basement dweller video game hermits will look like the smart ones for choosing to never leave the house.

/I'm one of them so I can say that
2012-12-15 03:02:24 PM
2 votes:
All this reminds of a series of school attacks that took place in China over a year and a half time frame, shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%93201 1)

You'll notice 21 dead, 90 injured after a series of school attacks across China. Even more interesting - no guns were used. Only knives, hammers and cleavers. So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?
2012-12-15 02:38:13 PM
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.

If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.


What if the civilian only took out the gunman, would they still be a dumbass civilian? Are all civilians dumbasses? Are you a civilian?
2012-12-15 02:18:16 PM
2 votes:

unyon: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Please, please tell me this isn't meant to be an argument that the carnage was limited because of other armed people that prevented it. If so, it'd be pretty clear that you didn't bother to RTFA before commenting.

FTFA: After the shooting, the suspect immediately put down the gun and surrendered to hospital security


Guh?

The gunman was killed by a Birmingham police officer. Officials have not released this person's identity.
2012-12-15 01:59:52 PM
2 votes:
Must be a day ending in Y

/it's tragic that this is happening so often we're becoming numb to it
2012-12-16 08:00:09 PM
1 votes:

Allen. The end.: saturn badger: flucto: MaudlinMutantMollusk: becoming numb to it

I'm not becoming numb, I'm becoming angry. Something must change. Also, F*CK the NRA.

When was the last time you saw a NRA member shoot someone?

Dick Cheney? I could be wrong - he might not have been a member of the NRA, but certainly accepted their support...and they REALLY should have revoked his card if he was.


I was going more on the thought none of the loonies who shoot up schools, malls and theaters were NRA members and not accidental near wipe outs of lawyers.

And he is a member.
2012-12-15 08:27:26 PM
1 votes:

Princess Ryans Knickers: Giltric: Princess Ryans Knickers: So you don't deny that a mentally deficient and troubled man should have had no access to the guns and that the law should be changed to prevent that and unify the gun laws across all states to prevent future tragedy?

He tried to buy a firearm earlier in the week and was denied......

The system works.

Not in any news article. At all. Good try.


"Officials also told NBC News that Lanza unsuccessfully tried to buy a rifle at a Dick's Sporting Goods store in Danbury three days before the slaughter, but later said they could not confirm the report, which was based on information from members of the public."

Link

yup it's right there, maybe needs a followup to confirm, but it's in articles out there.
2012-12-15 08:02:24 PM
1 votes:

Psycoholic_Slag: Princess Ryans Knickers: BlippityBleep: Generation_D: BlippityBleep: MrGMan: the laws didn't make a difference.

[i50.tinypic.com image 440x642]

/obligitory

Laws seem to work out better in Europe and Japan. And they smoke pot too. Straw man is straw.

okay, so what gun control measures would have prevented the Connecticut tragedy? The gun owner didn't have any mental illnesses, so what would you do?

Again, ALL news articles are indicating he HAD a mental illness. So what would you do? BTW, citation needed.


Dumb ass, the kids MOM was the gun owner, crazy boy took them from her home.


Yes, they were BOTH NRA members. Yes, she trained him how to use the guns. Yes, she took him target practicing. It's all over the news tonight. Guess you consider her a responsible gun owner for letting her obviously well known mentally deranged child use a gun and had complete access to the guns.
2012-12-15 07:58:11 PM
1 votes:
BTW, it's coming out now that the CT shooter's mother was a gun nut and owned all those guns. Not only that but the shooters was NRA. Oh and did we mention that one of the biggest gun lobby groups has a HQ in Newton and they have some of the laxest laws next to Texas where that mall shooter had his way despite open carry?
2012-12-15 07:31:21 PM
1 votes:

MrGMan: flucto: Waxing_Chewbacca: - Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female.
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Dawn Hocksprung, 06/28/65, female
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Lauren Russeau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female

Better we have a civil war with the gun lobby now than ever see another list like this. I want to throw up.

So you are encouraging a civil war between those with guns and those without them...sure you thought your cunning plan all the way through there, sport?

Unless we can magically make all weapons disappear, which I wouldn't mind barring the unfathomable alien attack, no law to control guns will prevent a mentally unbalanced man from stealing weapons and using them to harm others. This monster violated several existing gun laws, and yet 20 kids and 6 educators are dead...the laws didn't make a difference.


Unless we can make all swords disappear we should make no law against murder. Unless we can make all stones and sticks disappear we should just let people do what they want. Hey! What's the point in locking up thieves and kidnappers and child molesters as they will always find a way to do what they will anyway. May as well let them be!

Notice how stupid your argument sounds?
2012-12-15 07:18:18 PM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: Generation_D: And yet, the organization many of you belong to obstructs any improvement in gun ownership laws nationwide, and demonizes anyone who tries to put rational controls on assault rifle ownership, for example.

Because the "rational improvements" being proposed only affect the law-abiding and do nothing to actually affect violence in the US. They look to ban guns that are hardly used in crimes, they look to impose restrictions that criminals won't follow, and they look to penalize and make it harder on the law abiding to exercise a constitutionally protected privilege, while doing little if anything to curb crime.

There are no bans on the street, there are no waiting periods on the street, there are no controls or restrictions on the street. Just limitations based on what you can afford to pay.

Bring something to the table that involves ways of legalizing drugs, improving mental health care and screening, and enforce responsible ownership (I personally have long believed that some basic safety training should be required to obtain a firearm, including safe storage, the importance of same, and so forth), along with massive criminal penalties for those who do not follow the law, and we'll talk.


We don't actually know what will and won't improve the system, because the gun nut lobby keeps opposing any and everything.

As for your defiant stand your ground "bring something rational to the table," I think humbly that the gun sanity lobby has been doing this for 40 years, only to be shouted and spent and stomped down by the gun nut lobby.

The blood of children in multiple mass shootings was not my idea, gun nuts. My idea was 30, 40 years ago start regulating guns better and more tightly like they do in every other civilized nation but ours.

Instead you people fought tooth and nail, and the Republican party built one of its major planks on riding that wave to election victory.

Well, here you go asswits, here's your reward.

Rational argument is over with, you own the blood of children on your hands.

I don't give a fark how you fight and rationalize it, you're wrong to defend your positions on guns. They are wrong. Rational ownership of assault arsenals at home is wrong. Americas culture of gun ownership is wrong.

The world does it one way, we do it another. We're wrong.
2012-12-15 07:11:14 PM
1 votes:

mittromneysdog: Popcorn Johnny: PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?

Keeping the mentally ill from being able to obtain guns is obviously important, but wouldn't have done anything to prevent what happened in Connecticut.

There's another aspect to that too. The three types of mental illness associated with these kinds of shootings are psychopathy, psychosis, and depression. While I can understand outright banning anyone diagnosed with APD from possessing a gun, the fact is, banning the vast majority of harmless psychotics and depressives from possessing guns 1) adds to the stigma of those mental illnesses, and 2) adds to the overall deterrent which keeps people from seeking mental illness.

So if we go down that road, we're just adding to the long list of reasons to avoid mental health care if at all possible. Not only does that mean more people will suffer longer with mental illness, but it could actually be counterproductive. Eventually, some depressive who could have been stopped by a competent mental health professional will never visit one, and end up going on a shooting rampage instead.


Actually, the symptom list has very little to do with any of those. That's a media interpretation. The mental illness we're talking about is a form of severe delusion which, according to my psych teacher, is associated with schizophrenia, not depression. That's why you get such a narrow demographic range--schizophrenia has no warning signs, but it's culturally easier for a girl to get help than a guy.

And all you'd have to do is ask 'do you want to be remembered in history? How far are you willing to go?'. No diagnosis required--just make sure the scale of answers correlates roughly with the type of person who does the mass shootings.

/Psychosis, psychopaths, and depression have different reactions to guns. Depression shoots themselves, psychosis shoots the lamppost and screams about UFOs, and psychopaths hold the gun to their kid's head to get their wives to give them a blowjob.
//...Roughly speaking.
2012-12-15 07:05:26 PM
1 votes:
A 221 year old document claims that if you own a gun, you prevent tyranny.

The modern day reality is, if you own a gun, you contribute to tyranny.

This is how I and many non gun owners see it.

You gun owners are the outliers worldwide. You might have a majority in America today -- or you might not -- but the matter is by no means closed, and your side keeps serving up tragedy after tragedy, followed by bellicose and angry defense of outdated law.
2012-12-15 07:01:04 PM
1 votes:

Generation_D: drewogatory: Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The vast majority of my life you could buy any firearm directly over the counter,cash and carry, no question asked,no records kept. So,yeah, I will keep thinking that.

Good, then have fun becoming a felon when they come for your guns.

Look, I'm not arguing pro or con on confiscation. You are supporting it, I'm asking you how logistically you are going to accomplish your goal, how much is it going to cost, where's the funding coming from, what agencies are going to be tasked with it, what resources you'll need, your timetable, etc. If you haven't got a firm idea of how much it's going to cost or if it is even feasible in the real world, it's easy to just spout "Just take them all".

Nobody wants to confiscate your guns.

Over time, gun ownership for self defense is just going to become as gauche and out of date as owning farm hands is today.

Enjoy your freedom, 2nd Amendment lovers. What we're seeing is that the world is too small and too crowded a place for you to keep enjoying them forever -- and more and more of us don't see a need for you to enjoy them. Only in the USA are they so stridently defended, most countries who are at least as civilized as ours get by on far fewer gun rights.

Give it 20, 30 years, and how many more massacres of innocents by a crazy with a gun. Inalienable right, meet modern-day reality.


Umm, dude, people in CANADA can go buy a TAR-21, and I can't.

What are you smoking?
2012-12-15 06:58:18 PM
1 votes:

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: What we need is re-recognizing that with our right to bear arms comes the responsibility of bearing arms.


You're preaching to the choir here. The problem is that most gun homicides are not committed in high-profile events by crazies and a vanishingly small number are committed by the NRA-types pictured by the most ardent proponents of gun control legislation when they visualize their enemy.

The US has an excessive population of stupid, violent people and a dysfunctional mental healthcare system. The former produces a vast number of all-method homicides; the latter releases swarms of sick people, some of whom go on to commit high-profile crimes. The latter is addressed by improving mental healthcare; the former, perhaps by confining them all to Detroit.
2012-12-15 06:57:57 PM
1 votes:

Tellingthem: You can't. It is impossible for anything to be 100% safe. You can try to make them safer. Even if you ban guns entirely. There will still be gun crime in America. Homicides are the lowest they have been in 20 years Link From 23,760 in 1992 to 14,612 in 2011. The violent crime rate is down dramatically as well. So what we have been doing has been working fantastically. I know these mass shootings get the headlines but statistically we are much safer now than we were even 10 years ago.


All true but I'll qualify 'safer' by saying 'safer in certain situations'. I'm safer going downtown or jaunting through the inner city. I may not be safer if I'm in a classroom or movie theater or some other environment that I can easily be trapped in.
2012-12-15 06:54:40 PM
1 votes:

PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?


Ok. What's the mental illness type? Let's hear about it.

The 800 POUND FARKING ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM is that effectively controlling access to guns by those who would use them to harm others requires a surveillance and policing apparatus so broad that it unquestionably violates even the current much-diminished Fourth Amendment rights of individuals. Anyone who opposes the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program (itself directed at CURRENTLY ILLEGAL firearms) should think very, very carefully about the gun controls that they propose.

Let's say a politician settles on background screenings before making legal access to firearms possible as the proposed means of preventing violence - is anyone naive enough to believe that (1) drug/gang-related violence involves registered or otherwise law-abiding gun owners and (2) that background checks will catch most mass murderers?
2012-12-15 06:53:31 PM
1 votes:

PsiChick: Dancin_In_Anson: basemetal: If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Well, since that rarely if ever happens he doesn't have to answer that question.

The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?


I've told everyone I know when this subject comes up many times that most gun owners, myself included, have been PUSHING for having mental illness added to the NICS check for a loooong time. VT Massacre? We all brought it up. Aurora? We all brought it up. Loughner? We all brought it up. Even among gunbloggers online, check out The Law Dog Files, A View From The Porch, etc., we are absolutely fine with, and have been encouraging a system to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns. Half of the ideas posited even include a national ID/Database system to accomplish it.

It's something that we've been bringing up for a long time but now all of a sudden we're just scrambling for anything to deflect from the gun subject in the eyes of the people that look at these tragedies as a reason to retroactively criminalize 70 million US citizens.
2012-12-15 06:52:00 PM
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?

Keeping the mentally ill from being able to obtain guns is obviously important, but wouldn't have done anything to prevent what happened in Connecticut.


...There's evidence somewhere that the Connecticut shooter did not have this mental illness? Hallmarks of schizophrenia, talking about 'wanting to make history', just lost his job\a girlfriend?

If so, wow, that is one hell of a rare incident.
2012-12-15 06:51:31 PM
1 votes:

The Face Of Oblivion: If you have a way to do that, I'd like to hear it.


If I had a way to do it, I wouldn't be FARKing that's for sure.

'Gun control' is a four-letter word, and probably rightly so. What we need is re-recognizing that with our right to bear arms comes the responsibility of bearing arms. Other cultures have figured that part out, we need to start working our way there ourselves.
2012-12-15 06:50:11 PM
1 votes:

Waxing_Chewbacca: - Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female.
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Dawn Hocksprung, 06/28/65, female
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Lauren Russeau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female


Better we have a civil war with the gun lobby now than ever see another list like this. I want to throw up.
2012-12-15 06:48:06 PM
1 votes:

PsiChick: The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?


Keeping the mentally ill from being able to obtain guns is obviously important, but wouldn't have done anything to prevent what happened in Connecticut.
2012-12-15 06:46:55 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: Emotional appeals are not a valid response to irrational behaviour. An emotional appeal provides no meaningful data regarding the motive of the shooter, whether symptoms of his mental instability were detectable prior to his actions or the means by which he obtained access to firearms that should have been properly secured against individuals known to have been "troubled", as he was.


I'll hold off on the motive of the shooter 'til we get more information. As for symptoms and access to firearms, if he did raid his mom's gun stash then you've a major problem of balancing the mother's rights versus the son's rights versus the state and the populace's rights. Having someone that unstable close to that many guns is a bad idea, but at the same rate I'm queasy about potential forced psychological examinations and institutionalization.
2012-12-15 06:45:38 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: basemetal: If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Well, since that rarely if ever happens he doesn't have to answer that question.


The FBI profilers came up with the mental illness type that produces these incidents. How about just screening for that mental illness instead of trying to arm everyone and their brother?
2012-12-15 06:45:31 PM
1 votes:

Tellingthem: Yep. I'm actually a bit surprised by the recent embrace of guns by some of my more liberal friends. Always interesting to be talking about going to the range with a wal-mart hating, whole foods loving, organic buying, vegan hippie. Luckily i can shoot better than them so far...


i1.kym-cdn.com

It's really not even recent. Most American liberals' argument about gun laws wasn't about banning them outright, but to restrict certain types that are clearly of no use but for mowing down many objects in the shortest amount of time - something I doubt even our esteemed Founding Fathers would have approved of. They're certainly not meant to cull the deer population.

I honestly have no dog in this fight, as I'm terribly conflicted by it and can't get off the fence. But I do know know this - you're not getting my handgun. I do not belong to the NRA and may be second only to GAT in terms of libtardiness. But as I read it, 'regular' guns are completely protected... unequivocally...under the law of the land and as it was written at the time. We've taken a pliable stance regarding our rights before. It's not a static document. Last time I checked you weren't allowed to park an Apache helicopter in your front yard, so why the confusion over weapons that are designed only for malicious harm?

OTOH, I can't just pick and choose the parts of the BOR that I personally like. Doing that would make me a Republican. It's a touchy and extremely difficult issue marked both by respect of the document and the desire to see these weapons at least heavily restricted. Then there's the whole "if 'assault' weapons are banned, only criminals will have 'assault' weapons." There is merit to this as well.

You see how conflicting this is? It sucks. I wish I had an answer.
2012-12-15 06:33:47 PM
1 votes:
About 100 Americans die every day in car accidents. But since it isn't in the news none of you give a fark. You're all products of the media.

If there is anything we should be putting our resources into, its to develop and deploy self driving, networked cars.
2012-12-15 06:33:38 PM
1 votes:

Solaris: You miss the argument entirely. Banning a specific method of murder is fruitless when there are infinite ways these monsters can accomplish their goal.


Nope. I was directly on point for that argument. What you say works just as well to argue against restricting private ownership of nuclear weapons. After all, there are infinite other ways monsters can kill. So why bother banning this one specific method of murder?

The problem isn't that I missed the argument. The problem is that the argument is nonsense.

Why is the argument on what these people use to do this?


Because there's a reason shooters like this use guns, but rarely if ever have any used grenades. That's because guns are readily available even to unsophisticated seekers, because we have nothing in the way of sensible gun control in this country. But we do have effective grenade control. While I've no doubt someone could acquire a grenade if they were sufficiently dedicated, sophisticated, and had the right resources, the fact is, they're a lot harder to get ahold of, and so rarely used in crime. Certainly the Wen Ho Lees and Adam Lanzas of the world haven't been able to get their hands on them.

Why is it not on what we could have done to stop this person from doing this rather than HOW this person did this?

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Chinese slasher didn't actually manage to kill any kids. How much better off would we be today had our headline read "man slashes 20 kids, causing several to require bandages." How much happier would their parents be?
2012-12-15 06:31:14 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: Have you any other emotional appeals to offer, or have you any actual logical arguments to present?


You're a smart guy and a valuable poster, but you're attempting to argue logic in an illogical situation. Logic dictates you don't use your Second Amendment rights to wipe out two elementary school classrooms.

At some point we have to balance out our right to bear arms with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of not becoming a headline courtesy of a well-armed mentally unstable individual.
2012-12-15 06:23:11 PM
1 votes:
Has anyone pointed this out yet (FTFA):

At approximately 4:00 a.m., officers from the South Precinct responded to the incident location to investigate a report of a person with a gun. Upon arrival, officers located the suspect on the 5th floor hallway. As officers approached, the suspect began firing a handgun at the officers, striking one officer and two members of the hospital staff. An assisting Birmingham Police officer returned gunfire fatally wounding the suspect. Due to the circumstances at the scene, the victims were transported to a neighboring hospital for treatment. The three victims' injuries are not life threatening.

-----------------------------

This was not a mass shooting. This was a dude walking into the hospital with a gun on him, someone saw it, and the cops gunned him down in the hospital.

How is that a mass shooting?
2012-12-15 06:21:22 PM
1 votes:
We could stop this stuff in a heartbeat if we changed our stance from shouting for bed wetting fear laws to protect us and instead changed our response to how we handle these people afterward.

Take the Dark Knight shootings. How about every Monday night at 9PM Pacific we have a new reality show called Crying Young Man Gets Ass Raped by a Clown With a Two Foot Strapon. We do that every Monday for a year. At the end of the year we take him up in a helicopter over a large parking lot and film while we give him two options. Jump or next year will be known as the Gang Bang Season.

The kid from yesterday? Pump him full of lantern fuel, dress him up in a nice suit, make him look all calm and peaceful. As your are filming his funeral have somebody light him on fire and lower the casket. Lower him down and have a dump truck full of raw sewage put out the flames and fill the grave. Lower the concrete lid and cover with dirt. His tombstone reads, "Here lies some guy we buried in a sarcophagus of shiat."

A couple of more examples like these and I bet mass murder becomes a thingof the past.
2012-12-15 06:20:46 PM
1 votes:
From one of yesterday's threads. What_now was overly optimistic, it seems.

i46.tinypic.com
2012-12-15 06:14:55 PM
1 votes:
On Wednesday Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen. On Thursday he did this.

- Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female.
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Dawn Hocksprung, 06/28/65, female
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Lauren Russeau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female
2012-12-15 06:12:54 PM
1 votes:

Solaris: Because guns are the only tool these people use to kill others.


Hey, great argument. People also use tools other than nuclear bombs to kill others. Therefore, there's no good reason to restrict private ownership of nuclear bombs.
2012-12-15 06:07:22 PM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Bears repeating. But nobody wants to talk about the idea that maybe the NEWS MEDIA is helping these freaks by endlessly rehashing their exploits and that maybe one way to slow them down would be to not make them the #1 topic for three days after each incident.


Are you seriously suggesting a media blackout on these types of incidents? We're ALL hungry for information about what happened, because it is directly relevant to certain perpetual cultural debates. I mean, if you really think about it, that you are posting in this thread contributes to exactly the sort of infamy you argue motivates some of these killers.

If you want a media blackout on this kind of stuff, it can happen. But you have to stop consuming media when it reports it. And you have to stop discussing the issue too, because that gives rise to more demand for the media that reports it. I just don't think what you're suggesting here is realistic.
2012-12-15 06:01:14 PM
1 votes:

hlehmann: Roger Ebert had it right:
" Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."


Bears repeating. But nobody wants to talk about the idea that maybe the NEWS MEDIA is helping these freaks by endlessly rehashing their exploits and that maybe one way to slow them down would be to not make them the #1 topic for three days after each incident.

No no! Let's blame guns, movies, video games, and lazy gun owners! It's never the MEDIA'S fault!
2012-12-15 05:42:59 PM
1 votes:
If you see criminals as a group of morally flawed bogeyman that exist only to subvert laws and cause chaos, then I can see why you think you need a gun for protection. If you realize that a crime is the result of a complex web of opportunity, psychology, and stresses which can involve any person, it is a lot easier to see that the crimes that occur in a society with more prohibitive access to guns will have less shootings.
2012-12-15 05:42:13 PM
1 votes:

Private_Citizen: Just to wade in here, if we were to have a discussion about curbs on firearms, what would be some suggestions?

I think anything related to limiting the access to firearms is not going to be very effective. There are already too many guns on the street - that ship has sailed. Still, some restrictions might help. For example, linking all mental health records to a central database, then requiring that database to be searched before you can purchase a gun (kind of like a criminal background check, just for head cases). It won't stop the determined ones, but it's a start.

Frankly, probably the best approach would be a massive tax on ammo. A $1 tax per pistol round (including .22lr) and a $5 tax per rifle shell or shotgun shell. All reloading supplies would be equally taxed. Index the tax to inflation. It sounds horrible, but you won't infringe on anyone's ability to own a gun. Or shoot a gun. Or hunt. But it will sure put a crimp in the amount of shots fired - or the ability of losers to shoot at all.

I'm sure I have just enraged some 2nd amendment guys - but I assure you that's not my intention. I just want to discuss: what form does "reasonable" gun control take? Any thoughts?


Which I will not be affected by in the least. You do realize it's trivial to make and cast your own jacketed/swaged rounds right? And most reloaders already have enough powder for a lifetime. Further more, reloaders are not the ones committing these crimes. You're talking about policies that are purely punitive, that would have absolutely no effect on gun violence whatsoever. None, zip zilch nada. Nothing at all.
2012-12-15 05:40:40 PM
1 votes:

bulldg4life: drewogatory: Homicide is only the 15th leading cause of death in the US and gun violence is just a subset of that. It makes far more sense and you would save far more lives if you allocated resources based on the overall numbers and not squander them on a small fraction of preventable deaths because gun deaths are more sensationalistic.

Well, if you think about it...the people arguing for increased gun control are probably arguing for better access to healthcare (which would cover some of the 14 other causes of death) while the people railing against gun control are probably arguing against increased health care coverage, too. So, it's the same argument with the same people, just a different topic.


Progressive firearm owners, such as myself, have been arguing in support of improved access to mental health care (and improved access to healthcare overall) for several years.
2012-12-15 05:22:51 PM
1 votes:

Skywolf Philosopher: Seriously, if at least the security could be armed legally, then folks who are armed illegally couldn't kill so much before being gunned down. Or is there some flaw in this logic that makes legal gun ownership such a bad idea?


These cases show what happens when criminals with guns can do in places where they're the only ones armed. Nobody at the school was armed and that evil bastich killed 26 people. The other one at the hospital started shooting when cops shows up. He hurt 3 people and killed nobody before the cops were able to kill him.

So what's wrong with responsible adults at school having guns? IMHO nothing. Anyone who wants to bring a gun to school should be required to first take a safety course and show they're able to hit what they're aiming at. As far as hospitals are concerned, it sould be up to the owners, but seems to me it would be a good idea to allow people who know how to handle a gun safely the option to bring one with them to work if they want to.

It's a sad state of affairs, but in this day and age with violent nutballs running around, it's a good idea to have some armed people around. As many of these mass shootings have shown, the criminal can kill a lot of people before the cops get there.
2012-12-15 05:08:09 PM
1 votes:

John Dewey: Dimensio: Are you unaware that appeal to emotion is logically fallacious, or are you intentionally relying upon logical fallacy due to an inability to rationally justify your position?

1. Who says this we should separate emotion out from this?


Emotion is irrelevant to the validity of an argument.

2. Who says the above is removed from logic? To me it's illogical that anyone should have a weapon capable of doing that. To me it is illogical to believe the authors of the 2nd amendment would feel differently than me had they foreseen such weapons coming into existence.

You have confused your opinion with "logic".
2012-12-15 04:54:50 PM
1 votes:

StupidPopMediaReference: justtray: Friction8r: justtray: Friction8r: John Dewey: NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.

The right of the People to keep and bear ARMS, not "muskets," ya dolt. I enjoy mine, and I'm keeping them, and you can't do a thing about it...except flame on, which is delightful!

Keep reading. Don't stop after the first sentence this time.

I hope you fight back when we force you to register your weapons and pay property taxes on them. Then we can legally put you down and remove you from the equation.

Who is WE? Some pussified lib posting on the internet?? You really think the military will EVER go house to house to confiscate all guns?? That notion is precisely why our Founders wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place!! You lose! You have no game, and zero chance of taking our guns.

If you believed that you wouldn't be in this thread trying to convince me otherwise.

Your guns will be taken, or you'll go broke or to jail trying to keep them. Win/win/win

I love this assumption that it's going to happen. You know what the biggest obstacle to that will be? Look up District of Columbia v. Heller. The SCotUS ruled that the Second Amendment covers the legal purchase, ownership, and use of firearms. Basically you'd have to either have that decision overturned OR have the Second Amendment repealed. Not likely, to be honest. Especially since this resurgence of anti-gun enthusiasm is likely to die off after the turn of the year when decrying drunk driving due to New Years accidents, or something else, occupies the short attention span of our country.



Though I can't be certain, this time feels different and the massacre of many children may represent a turning point as it did in the UK.

Despite the youthfulness of some of these shooters, among the younger population that now holds huge voting power, gun rights are not nearly as popular as they are among the older more rural set.

38 states are required to change the constitution. I think it can be done. Might take some time, the present republicans in congress would go bonkers, but I believe that the time for rational gun reform is peeking over the horizon and - for the young people just starting their families - this is a pertinent political issue.
2012-12-15 04:54:16 PM
1 votes:
For those of you who may not know about St Vincent's in Birmingham, I spent a lot of time in that hospital. St Vincent's is not the hospital you think about this happening in. Ex wife had many health problems, and was admitted for many short stays there. Dr James Andrews, the guy who does all of the major league pitcher's shoulders and elbows, and football player's knees, has his practice at this hospital. It's a major, big league hospital in a city with many other major hospitals.

I'm a former EMT, and my mom is a retired RN. You might expect a gun to show up in the ER, not on the cardiac floor. And as someone who has worked closely with Birmingham PD on a number of things, yeah, they have their share of yahoos, but you do not want to tangle with them. Training is one thing they are not short on. My bet is the cops fired once, hitting the gunman, and I'm serious about that. The jerkoff walking around the hospital with the gun was shooting at whatever moved. And the cops only shot when they had no other choice. Believe that too.

The Birmingham PD and St Vincents hospital are two things I am very very familiar with. I know half the cops that work the south precinct.

All I can do is shake my head at this one. Why was this guy in there at 4am? Only thing I can see was he was trying to finish something that he started and missed the first time.
2012-12-15 04:51:15 PM
1 votes:

Friction8r: Who is WE? Some pussified lib posting on the internet?? You really think the military will EVER go house to house to confiscate all guns?? That notion is precisely why our Founders wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place!! You lose! You have no game, and zero chance of taking our guns.


You do realize that a sh*t-ton of liberals own guns, yes? We're just easy to overlook because we're not in the press and on the blogs screaming about how awesome we are for having one in lieu of a functioning penis.

No one wants your guns, Sparky. Relax. You'll encounter some here and there on the intertubes or at the corner bar, but gun control has been a dead issue to liberals for years. Unlike the last Republican presidential nominee.
2012-12-15 04:49:41 PM
1 votes:

NotoriousFire: If one truly does outlaw guns/stricter gun control, does anyone expect the future-criminals-of-America to really not have access to such weapons? I mean, seriously? Between Mexico, Latin America, etc - guns are I imagine relatively easy to obtain. How many weapons used in serious crime are actually registered to the criminal?

It will be about as successful as outlawing cocaine and heroin. Guess what, people still have access to both. And who has access? I'll give you a hint - not law-abiding citizens...


I kind of like what is being proposed in Michigan -- that people can obtain a proper license to carry in "no carry" zones. They require significantly more stringent mental health and other checks than a regular concealed carry permit. Now, they need to back it up with things like "schools must have someone employed who has this license and carries".
2012-12-15 04:45:06 PM
1 votes:
How does this relate to the school shooting? This was a guy with a gun, who was confronted police, and opened fire on them instead. He wasn't hunting down random people to shoot.
2012-12-15 04:42:49 PM
1 votes:

Generation_D: To everyone defending gun rights as they currently are in America:

Your arguments are what helped this kid get weapons and murder 6 year olds.

I doubt you think that is true, but I do. Many others will too.


Your irrational assessment is not a valid basis for public policy.
2012-12-15 04:42:22 PM
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: What "registered" firearms do you keep referring to? Only a tiny fraction of the weapons in this country could be construed as registered in any way. There is no "lisT'. You would basically be dependant on the honour system to get people to declare them and turn them in.

Keep thinking that.


The vast majority of my life you could buy any firearm directly over the counter,cash and carry, no question asked,no records kept. So,yeah, I will keep thinking that.
2012-12-15 04:39:09 PM
1 votes:
Guns aren't really the problem, it's the attitudes towards them, as well as the over-glorification of violence.

The USA is basically screwed; this problem isn't going to go away no matter what: you can't fix stupid.
2012-12-15 04:34:21 PM
1 votes:
6 mass shootings in under 4 months. Another arrested yesterday plotting to do the same to a school in OK. This shooter was handled by those who had no weapons. The mass shooter at the army base was surrounded by trained soldiers with weapons and did more damage. The shooter in Texas was surrounded by those who could openly carry and a few did but was not stopped by them until he ran out of bullets.

The only way to stop this is to make move gun control to the Federal level. This way your gun permits are valid in EVERY state. Same rules in EVERY state. And the mentally ill can be prevented from getting guns. Nearly 90% of all these massacres were from folks who had LEGALLY OBTAINED guns. And nearly all of the shooters were WHITE.
2012-12-15 04:33:57 PM
1 votes:

mr lawson: justtray: You tell me, you're the one who ignorantly uses it as a deflection. Who gets locked up?

Start here


Be specific. I know rhe DS4. Do people with depression get locked up? How about semi autistic? Whose judgement do we defer to? All of those diagnoses are subjective. I accurately played two of the as pseudo patients in my psych class ~10 years ago. Everyone has some level of the disorders, and I think you'd be surprised to find out you do too, as well as most gun nuts having anti social personality disorder.

Like i said, we're locking you up, based on your own suggestion.
2012-12-15 04:33:47 PM
1 votes:

whither_apophis: So Obama gets reelected... suddenly a bunch of shootings happen... then the next thing you know he'll want to take away all our guns... OMG!!!

/sorry took off the tinfoil hat for a moment.


There were a bunch of people at Midway airport last night talking about how it's all a government conspiracy to blame it on a secret cult of secret gunmen that are trying to appear individual but are actually all in a group, to cover up the fact that it's actually the government shooting people.

I wanted to punch them in their faces so hard. SO HARD.
2012-12-15 04:28:57 PM
1 votes:

iq_in_binary: Generation_D: mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]

Thats funny. I would vote "All weapons prohibited on the premises." And define that as the whole country.

I'd much rather outlaw guns entirely and then sort out who the criminals are, than leave guns lying around and wait for the next round of victims to happen.

Good luck getting my guns for less than market value. Otherwise you'll be finding the confiscation process to be a right biatch.


I dont think I care what you own.

What I care about is the society we both share over values what you own as a necessity for survival and defense.

The rest of the world that we call civilized for the most part disputes the value you placed on owning weapons.

Thats what will eventually fix this. The rest of the world keeps seeping into America as much as we try and deny it.

Just like the Romney bots were shocked and amazed to find a majority didn't want their derp, so too will the gun owners one day be shocked and amazed that most in America dispute their need to own a gun, or their fear-based requirement that everyone else own one to feel defended too.
2012-12-15 04:25:50 PM
1 votes:
The way I see it, there is no one answer, but everything needs to be on the table for discussion in the U.S. That doesn't mean that Big Brother is going to take away your guns, but it does mean that the national dialogue needs to be all-inclusive and not all-dismissive as I fear it will be.

Again, in my opinion, three things need to change:

1. Violence (not just gun violence) needs to become less socially acceptable in the U.S., period. This will take quite a large sociocultural shift.

2. The U.S. needs a robust mental healthcare system, which includes education for the populace at large that having a mental disorder doesn't make you "defective" and that sometimes, you can't just "suck it up, Nancy". I'm sick of hearing "Back in my day, we didn't have therapy and talk about our emotions." Well, back in your day, schools were segregated and women were relegated to the kitchen. In a historical sense, "your day" sucked and you're on the wrong side of history.

3. We (the U.S.) need to make it more difficult to obtain a gun. That doesn't have to mean "impossible", but you'll have to go through more hoops. Sorry if you feel like you need your M-15 to protect your double-wide a few weeks earlier. You can be patient.
2012-12-15 04:20:35 PM
1 votes:

DoomPaul: Generation_D: DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

[i45.tinypic.com image 539x539]

Now put that up against stats showing how many people in a Western country outside the USA are killed by guns, at all. See how it does.

[i48.tinypic.com image 659x819]


The problem is Japan and Switzerland can not be compared to the US and Mexico. They are both extremely disciplined by nature, where as Americans and Mexicans are not.
2012-12-15 04:18:36 PM
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
Don Letts RIP
2012-12-15 04:15:57 PM
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The Ca. national guard is approx 22k strong. There are 12 million households in California. Good luck with that house to house confiscation.

So you think most registered gun owners would ignore laws to turn in their weapons after being given notice to do so?


I suspect that many firearm owners would wait until the Supreme Court of the United States ruled upon the validity of the confiscation order.
2012-12-15 04:13:49 PM
1 votes:
This Nick Meli fellow (one of those mystical concealed carry heroes) is popping up as "something you'll never hear from the liberal media." I think it's more of a "this guy is possibly a full of shiat attention whore" issue but was wondering if anybody had another take.
2012-12-15 04:13:20 PM
1 votes:

KiwDaWabbit: DoomPaul: Surely it's fine to give up some liberty in exchange for security.

Where does someone else's liberty to carry firearms end and my liberty not to get shot start?


When the gun nuts tell you its OK to keep living in their country, obviously.

Or, when the rest of the world tells the USA to cut out the crap.

We're 6% of the worlds population, and the world doesn't have gun laws even close to ours.

With immigration like it is, with more and more people growing up in fear of gun nuts and gun nut demands for violence, I have no doubt eventually we will outlaw guns, or at the least, bring back "Well-Regulated" militias.

Not this crap we have now, a bunch of dufuses with minor arsenals thinking they're more secure, then acting amazed and shocked (or increasingly, defensive and angry) when their failed philosophy results in Yet Another Massacre.
2012-12-15 04:13:15 PM
1 votes:
Here is a modest proposal that I'm actually kind of liking - http://moproposal.blogspot.com/2012/12/121512-i-am-extraordinarily-ang ry-and.html

1. Firearms remain legal. But, they must be larger than a grown man's arm, so that they cannot be concealed. They must also be day-glo orange, so that they are unmistakably guns. Whoever carries their gun must wear a day-glo orange hat that says, CARRYING A GUN on it. Hunters will not have to change their behavior or (with the exception of painting their guns) their outfits in any real way. Failure to adhere to this law will result in 20 years in prison, no exceptions.

2. Any entertainment (TV, Movies, Video Games, Books, etc.) that feature gun-play will be subject to a tax of 20% of the producers' profits. Producers can still make blood-soaked entertainment, understanding that their profits will be reduced.

3. The press can only publish the names or biographies of mass killers by paying a 20% tax on their organization's profits for the year. To avoid the tax, mass killers can be denoted by an alias ("A-hole #4", for example), insuring that slaughter is not an easy road to fame. Any news organization will also be fined $200,000.00 every time they ask a victim of senseless violence "how they feel". They fine doubles if a minor is asked that inane question (We can guess how they feel on our own, thanks).
2012-12-15 04:12:39 PM
1 votes:

tshauk: Generation_D: tshauk: TheEdibleSnuggie: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.

Really..... Just this year? School shooting's have been taking place in this country since the 1700's. Not to mention all the other types of gun violence. Don't by naive, this is America, we were built by the use of firearms.

And now we're crumbling from within because of it. Hopefully we don't become Somalia or Afghanistan.

I'll agree we are crumbling, but not because of weapons in our homes, no no...that's just to simple; it's because Americans have lost any back bone and are no controlled by what the media and politicians tell them to think, and the masses drink it all up. No will power to adjust a corrupt Government. We used to be a nation FOR the people, BY the people, when was the last time you felt your Government was on YOUR side?


Oooooookay. So the guy shot kindergartners because the government is corrupt? Are the Illuminati and the Reptilians also working with the government to make the New World Order?
2012-12-15 04:10:54 PM
1 votes:

zippolight2002: Keeping YOUR guns unlocked, is NOT responsible.


Do we know that's what she did?

But do you not see the fallacy/slipper slope here?

As the details come out I foresee gun owners falling into a false sense of security, "Well obviously if she'd just ___________ then this wouldn't have happened. I know I don't __________ so it won't happen to me and mine"

When will we eventually run out of ___________'s?
2012-12-15 04:10:18 PM
1 votes:

mr lawson: We don't need gun control. We need Psychos control.
Criminals do not shoot up schools...Psychos do.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net

To be fair, they think we're man-animals.
2012-12-15 04:08:08 PM
1 votes:

DoomPaul: Surely it's fine to give up some liberty in exchange for security.

[i50.tinypic.com image 500x270]


Except I'm not afraid of the government, I'm afraid of some lone wolf wackjob mad at being spanked by his big breasted mother and deciding to mow me down while I buy porn and mac n cheese at 7-11.
2012-12-15 04:07:38 PM
1 votes:

globalwarmingpraiser: Most gun owners consider their guns like insurance. Something that they never need.


I'm don't doubt that's what Nancy Lanza thought. She probably even taught her kids responsible ownership and respect for the guns. Maybe even took them to the range.

I know that's what I thought until yesterday.
2012-12-15 04:07:07 PM
1 votes:

Friction8r: cameroncrazy1984: Friction8r: Generation_D: I realize that I won't outshout the internet tough guy gun rights brigade. Thats not the point.

A whole lot of us out here think you guys are idiots, and I bet I live to see the day you all are outvoted.

Its happened before, it'll happen again. Gun Rights is just a sh*tty 220 year old thought on a piece of paper. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed by modern interpretation, the First Amendment is in tatters compared to its meaning back when it was written. The Second Amendment actually had a good reason for being, but it doesn't any more. Tyranny is not overthrown by your home collection of weapons. However, many innocent people quite often could be.

I'm fed up with it, I suspect many others are too.

Since you ignored me the first time, I'll say it again: Have your vote. You STILL aren't getting our guns. How do you propose to do that? Good luck!

It's funny how you gun nuts think that the US Military will have such a problem confiscating your semi-auto AR when it pretty much dismantled two foreign militaries.

Hilarious! The US Military's going house to house in a hundred million homes to confiscate weapons? Hell, most of them are sons and daughters of gun owners. Plus, are they gonna have metal detectors cover the hundred acres of our family farm searching? Like I said, you haven't seen bloodshed till you try that stunt.

/Duke sucks!
/BIG BLUE! National Champs!


How do you think the US military secures a country?

You legitimately have zero idea of how military operations work.
2012-12-15 04:03:53 PM
1 votes:

globalwarmingpraiser: How about we justify you not being thrown in jail? You might rape someone. Shouldn't you justify that you won't rape someone.


Okay, let's set down some firm boundaries, regardless of what the law says. Even though one might have a concealed-carry permit, even though one might be ALLOWED to carry a gun into an elementary school, even though we just had a shooting in an elementary school, that does not make it OKAY to carry a gun into an elementary school. It doesn't matter if the Supreme Court okays it 9-0. You do not pack heat in an elementary school. Under any circumstances. Full stop. You do not pack heat in a hospital. Under any circumstances. Full stop. You do not place 5-year-olds or hospital patients in a position to get caught in the crossfire of a shootout. That's not advocating law. That's advocating basic human decency. Just because the law says you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. The law doesn't prevent me from hiding under the seat of a movie theater and leaping out and screaming out the ending to everyone the second the lights dim. But if I did so, I would be an asshole. If you pack heat in a hospital or an elementary school, you are an asshole.

People need to stop themselves for five seconds and consider, truly consider, where the hell they're thinking it's okay to have a gun. They need to stop themselves for five seconds and truly THINK about what kind of guns they really need to have, and how many they need to have. You are in Anytown USA. Al Qaeda is not coming over the horizon in a fleet of helicopters with Ride of the Valkyries playing in the background, and if it was, the Army's got it handled anyway. If the arsenal you have on hand in your house is sufficient to take on such a fleet, you need to scale back. A simple handgun is sufficient for most of your home-invasion needs, and that's in the unlikely event that a home invasion ever happens to you at all and you are able to reach your gun before the intruder does AND that the intruder does not bring his own gun and gets the drop on you. And by the way, the deer you're hunting? It does not know how to use firearms and likely just wants to be left alone. You do not need a gun rated above that which is sufficient to bring down the largest game commonly found near you.

And in any case, there is no circumstance you are going to run into that is going to require you pumping death into someone or something with more than one bullet at a time. You do not need anything that does such a thing. Full stop. You do not. Besides, anything after that first bullet is going to be wildly inaccurate anyway because the recoil is going to screw with you. 'Suppressive fire' is not a phrase that needs to be in your hunting or home-protection vocabulary, and if you think it does, you need to rethink at least a couple of your life decisions.
2012-12-15 04:03:24 PM
1 votes:

ultraholland: Generation_D: So apparently the model gun-owning citizen.

aside from letting her crazy-ass son use them


In this incident, the problem was clearly with access by an unstable individual, not ability for an unstable individual to purchase. A reasonable means of addressing this situation -- beyond examining the overall state of mental health care and treatment in the United States of America -- is consideration of firearms storage (or even presence) when a mentally ill individual lives in the residence.

I do know that individuals may be arrested for storing firearms in homes in which a convicted felon resides, even if the owner of the firearms is not a prohibited person. How this law currently applies to mentally unstable individuals, however, I do not know.
2012-12-15 04:02:38 PM
1 votes:

Generation_D: tshauk: TheEdibleSnuggie: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.

Really..... Just this year? School shooting's have been taking place in this country since the 1700's. Not to mention all the other types of gun violence. Don't by naive, this is America, we were built by the use of firearms.

And now we're crumbling from within because of it. Hopefully we don't become Somalia or Afghanistan.


I'll agree we are crumbling, but not because of weapons in our homes, no no...that's just to simple; it's because Americans have lost any back bone and are no controlled by what the media and politicians tell them to think, and the masses drink it all up. No will power to adjust a corrupt Government. We used to be a nation FOR the people, BY the people, when was the last time you felt your Government was on YOUR side?
2012-12-15 04:01:26 PM
1 votes:
We don't need gun control. We need Psychos control.
Criminals do not shoot up schools...Psychos do.
2012-12-15 03:59:22 PM
1 votes:
Responsible gun owners are the reason you can embarrass yourself on Fark assigning blame to an object rather than the user of that object.
2012-12-15 03:59:21 PM
1 votes:
Oh for christ sake. You will never ban guns here in America. It will never happen. After anything like this you get the knee jerk reactions of "Let's BAN GUNS!" or "Their coming to TAKE OUR GUNS!". Might as well talk about banning alcohol everytime some drunk driver crashes a kills a family of four. That is just as stupid and will never happen either.
2012-12-15 03:58:41 PM
1 votes:
zippolight2002: Soooo the current gun-control laws worked? It was the parent that f'ed up? Why are we having this debate at all?

because guns bad, that's why. There is no other reason.
2012-12-15 03:58:23 PM
1 votes:

John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.


How about we justify you not being thrown in jail? You might rape someone. Shouldn't you justify that you won't rape someone.
2012-12-15 03:55:35 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: Your irrational belief is not a valid basis for public policy


Actually, in the UK it is. The Firearms act of 1997 was enacted after the Dunblane school massacre. And it works.
2012-12-15 03:55:09 PM
1 votes:

mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]


Thats funny. I would vote "All weapons prohibited on the premises." And define that as the whole country.

I'd much rather outlaw guns entirely and then sort out who the criminals are, than leave guns lying around and wait for the next round of victims to happen.
2012-12-15 03:54:16 PM
1 votes:

TheEdibleSnuggie: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.


Really..... Just this year? School shooting's have been taking place in this country since the 1700's. Not to mention all the other types of gun violence. Don't by naive, this is America, we were built by the use of firearms.
2012-12-15 03:52:29 PM
1 votes:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-12-15 03:51:09 PM
1 votes:

John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.


I'm fully in favor of removing the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. Outdated crap that holds us back, makes us the slow kid in the world.
2012-12-15 03:49:39 PM
1 votes:
Copycat? Please. Completely unrelated. I'm guessing at this right now, but...

The guy paniced on seeing cops and opened fire.

He's alright got warrants out for him. Possibly serious ones. Came to the hospital to look for someone - maybe a friend who got shot up in a turf war, maybe an enemy who did. When the cops showed up, he thought he was cornered - so he opens fire. If there had been no cops there, there would've been likely been no gunfire - but, well, I'll bet anything this guy was already a serious felon. He just happened to get picked up at a hospital instead of a ghetto, and that made it news. Nothing special here, really. People just on edge and looking for copycats, looking for more stuff to get into a gun control fight over - but this really wasn't anything too special. Dangerous suspect opens fire at cops, gets shot and killed.
2012-12-15 03:49:32 PM
1 votes:

camaroash: I rarely hear mention of "I can't get a gun so I'll build a bomb" scenarios.

Explosives and triggers are incredibly easy to make in advance from very benign materials.

Tack an extra zero on the end of body counts. Scary.

Fix the people and they won't do evil shiat.


You're conflating two kinds of people. One is the kind of person who deliberately and purposefully goes out to kill people. The other is the one who just snaps and grabs something and kills people. They sometimes cross, but that Venn diagram is really very small. The person who snaps and then deliberately and purposefully sets out to kill large numbers of people, although a staple of action movies and video games, is very rare.

The kid yesterday is an example of the latter. Yes, he appears to have had mental issues for some time; but something triggered him at the end, he snatched up the guns that were handy and started killing people. Had he been in a household without guns, he wouldn't have sat patiently around and assembled several bombs to run down to the school and kill kids.

Now, there are people who want to kill large number of people; but they wouldn't be randomly targeting grade schools. Despite what people like to believe, terrorists pick their targets with specific ends in mind, and don't need guns to do their deeds. But this is a different social issue.
2012-12-15 03:49:16 PM
1 votes:

John Dewey: phenn: Read the thread. People are actually suggesting that the constitution and the amendments (our laws) need to be done away with. Not amended.

Where are they suggesting to do away with the constitution? I know I haven't read this thread THAT carefully, but....I seriously doubt someone did that.



I'll go on record as saying the entire constitution needs to be shredded and rewritten. Beyond the obvious reason that it was written by people whose ideas of "freedom", "equality", and "rights" are unrecognizable from ours, it's a vague, flaccid, document that is mostly useless at guiding the country.

Consider this - more than a few Supreme Court decisions are by 5-4 votes. That means that the top legal experts in the country, who have studied the constitution most of their lives, cannot agree on what it says. If you were in your calculus 101 class, and every 15 minutes a group of full professors had to be convened to decide what the texbook was saying, you'd be remarkably stupid to not request a new textbook.

The procedure is about the same as reading tea leaves, so it's time that we recognized that tea leaves do not have any intrinsic epistemological value.
2012-12-15 03:48:31 PM
1 votes:

John Dewey: ultraholland: I do not allow mentally unstable people even know I have them, let alone handle them.

I know and fully believe you and the overwhelming majority of the gun owners in this country act what they feel is a responsible manner with their firearms. I know and fully believe that 99.99813857194% of gun owners would never knowingly let someone who is mentally unstable around their firearms.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Time and time again.

When will enough be enough? What cost is too high?

26 hours ago I believed there was such a thing as responsible gun ownership. No more.


Now replace every instance of "gun owners" with "Muslims." Voila! You're a modern racist, xenophobic American. Also known as a Republican.
2012-12-15 03:44:23 PM
1 votes:

ultraholland: I do not allow mentally unstable people even know I have them, let alone handle them.


I know and fully believe you and the overwhelming majority of the gun owners in this country act what they feel is a responsible manner with their firearms. I know and fully believe that 99.99813857194% of gun owners would never knowingly let someone who is mentally unstable around their firearms.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Time and time again.

When will enough be enough? What cost is too high?

26 hours ago I believed there was such a thing as responsible gun ownership. No more.
2012-12-15 03:42:55 PM
1 votes:

Friction8r: Generation_D: I realize that I won't outshout the internet tough guy gun rights brigade. Thats not the point.

A whole lot of us out here think you guys are idiots, and I bet I live to see the day you all are outvoted.

Its happened before, it'll happen again. Gun Rights is just a sh*tty 220 year old thought on a piece of paper. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed by modern interpretation, the First Amendment is in tatters compared to its meaning back when it was written. The Second Amendment actually had a good reason for being, but it doesn't any more. Tyranny is not overthrown by your home collection of weapons. However, many innocent people quite often could be.

I'm fed up with it, I suspect many others are too.

Since you ignored me the first time, I'll say it again: Have your vote. You STILL aren't getting our guns. How do you propose to do that? Good luck!


It's funny how you gun nuts think that the US Military will have such a problem confiscating your semi-auto AR when it pretty much dismantled two foreign militaries.
2012-12-15 03:42:13 PM
1 votes:

justtray: Absolute best is comparing to car fatalities. You have to have an IQ in the single digits to think thats a legitimate argument. Cars are essential to every single person's way of life, are owned by nearly everyone, and used every day. Compare the number of fatalities per mile driven to the number of fatalities per bullet shot, and get back to me.


Considering the number of bullets expended in training by the numerous law enforcement agencies in the US (everything from local police to Coast Guard to FBI), I imagine the fatalities-per-bullet-shot is extremely low. Even less than fatalities-per-mile-driven. Would be interesting to see...
2012-12-15 03:41:52 PM
1 votes:

NotoriousFire: John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.

Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.


Then why are things like full-auto weapons and rocket launchers illegal to purchase without heavy restrictions? Why can't other weapons also be restricted?
2012-12-15 03:41:48 PM
1 votes:

John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.


In free societies, rights of action and of ownership are allowed by default, and restriction requires justification. Perhaps you prefer residence in an authoritarian society.
2012-12-15 03:41:29 PM
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: Popcorn Johnny: What would the average number of people killed in mass shootings be if nobody had guns?

The same amount of people who were drinking during prohibition.


you don't say?

www.nypost.com
2012-12-15 03:40:44 PM
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: Popcorn Johnny: What would the average number of people killed in mass shootings be if nobody had guns?

The same amount of people who were drinking during prohibition.


Funny, you don't see a whole lot of shooting deaths in the UK
2012-12-15 03:39:55 PM
1 votes:
My favorite part of these threads is the gun nuts with their cherry picked, out of context, bullshiat stats.

Absolute best is comparing to car fatalities. You have to have an IQ in the single digits to think thats a legitimate argument. Cars are essential to every single person's way of life, are owned by nearly everyone, and used every day. Compare the number of fatalities per mile driven to the number of fatalities per bullet shot, and get back to me.
2012-12-15 03:38:03 PM
1 votes:
Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.
2012-12-15 03:37:35 PM
1 votes:

ultraholland: PlatypusPuke: Then, after enough mass shootings occur, the government will disarm everyone at the public's behest.

Obama engineered all of this so the UN can grab our guns, or something.


I've already seen posts popping up on Facebook about the shootings being some revival of an MKULTRA-esque program to turn public opinion.
2012-12-15 03:35:20 PM
1 votes:
1.bp.blogspot.com
2012-12-15 03:33:45 PM
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: Generation_D: IDK. They said gays would never marry, they said pot would never be legalized. They said smoking would never be outlawed in bars.
Ah yes, the 11th, 12th and 13th amendments in the Bill of Rights... Most people don't know about those.

A whole lot of sh*t they say that eventually happens.

I have zero emotional connection to needing to own a gun. The ople that own guns and brag about it always seem like internet tough guys who are compensating. I know there are literally millions of people in Westernized countries worldwide who somehow manage to go through their happy productive lives without owning a gun.
\
American Exceptionalism is useful until it starts killing more Americans than it saves. Then it needs to evolve.

Europeans somehow live their lives without the need to shoot at things to feel fulfilled or feel defended.

I don't see why we're so special, other than our violent past. Which lately, seems to also be our violent present.

Look, if you want to increase gun control, change the constitution.


We are going to. Then we're going to use that argument against you, and you don't get to make a sound about it.

Conservatives won't have presidental power again anytime soon, and we're going to replace Thomas, Alito, possibly more with liberals who will override their previous ruling on guns.

Its only a matter of time, deal with it.
2012-12-15 03:33:25 PM
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: Look, if you want to increase gun control, change the constitution.


Why? It says a right to bear arms, not which ones. The Supreme Court has already rules that such limits are constitutional. Just need to add Handguns and assault rifles to the NFA, amking them title II weapons
2012-12-15 03:33:24 PM
1 votes:
thismodernworld.com
2012-12-15 03:31:56 PM
1 votes:
2012-12-15 03:31:52 PM
1 votes:
Hardly a copycat if it happens on an almost daily basis anyway. The idea of gun control in America is screwed at this point, because there are too many guns and too many nuts out there to control. All that can be done now is have armed security at every soft target to minimize the killing sprees that are pretty much inevitible in a gun-saturated society.
2012-12-15 03:29:30 PM
1 votes:
Yeah. Sure. Mexico has low gun availability. You just keep thinking that.
2012-12-15 03:29:12 PM
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: Generation_D: IDK. They said gays would never marry, they said pot would never be legalized. They said smoking would never be outlawed in bars.
Ah yes, the 11th, 12th and 13th amendments in the Bill of Rights... Most people don't know about those.

A whole lot of sh*t they say that eventually happens.

I have zero emotional connection to needing to own a gun. The ople that own guns and brag about it always seem like internet tough guys who are compensating. I know there are literally millions of people in Westernized countries worldwide who somehow manage to go through their happy productive lives without owning a gun.
\
American Exceptionalism is useful until it starts killing more Americans than it saves. Then it needs to evolve.

Europeans somehow live their lives without the need to shoot at things to feel fulfilled or feel defended.

I don't see why we're so special, other than our violent past. Which lately, seems to also be our violent present.

Look, if you want to increase gun control, change the constitution.


That is literally what it would take. The Constitution's been amended many times throughout history. I am wondering when the tipping point on it being amended to fix the 2nd Amendment will be, if it will be.

Lots of angry gun owners. You all need to chill the eff out. The world doesn't agree with you, and probably only about a 60/40 majority in America even agrees with you.

You are the minority, clinging to outmoded solutions to modern problems.
2012-12-15 03:27:57 PM
1 votes:

ShuyaNanahara: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

The last night of Hanukkah always gets people riled up. This is the obvious outcome when someone loses all of their chocolate coins in a high-stakes game of dreidel.


And also you. Bravo, you wacky farker, and thanks for putting the farking fun back in my fark.
2012-12-15 03:26:17 PM
1 votes:
I rarely hear mention of "I can't get a gun so I'll build a bomb" scenarios.

Explosives and triggers are incredibly easy to make in advance from very benign materials.

Tack an extra zero on the end of body counts. Scary.

Fix the people and they won't do evil shiat.
2012-12-15 03:20:53 PM
1 votes:
If one truly does outlaw guns/stricter gun control, does anyone expect the future-criminals-of-America to really not have access to such weapons? I mean, seriously? Between Mexico, Latin America, etc - guns are I imagine relatively easy to obtain. How many weapons used in serious crime are actually registered to the criminal?

It will be about as successful as outlawing cocaine and heroin. Guess what, people still have access to both. And who has access? I'll give you a hint - not law-abiding citizens...
2012-12-15 03:20:04 PM
1 votes:

Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.


Sure you could amend that "piece of paper."But you STILL won't get our guns! You haven't seen bloodshed until you try to take guns away from the populace. House to house searches to connfiscate weapons? Good luck with that. And if you think all guns are registered, so you have a handy list of what homes to barge into, you're nuts.
2012-12-15 03:18:42 PM
1 votes:
The gun nuts will get another night of wet dreams now. Enjoy it freaks. Hope you like living in the world you created.
2012-12-15 03:16:04 PM
1 votes:

phenn: The law is the law. Again, find another place where the laws suit you better.


Yes because we never change laws based on new understandings or new evidence that makes us rethink previous laws.
2012-12-15 03:12:23 PM
1 votes:

phenn: shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?

You might have missed the point. He still tried to harm or kill them. Doesn't matter what he did it with. There was something intrinsically WRONG with the farker. Wrong with HIM.

It doesn't mean all people who own knives are going to try stabbing a bunch of children.

You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.


I have a hard time seeing how keeping you owning a limited number of weapons and having you go through extensive training/psych checks to own said weapons is "punishment." It's actually called "be a responsible member of society."
2012-12-15 03:10:09 PM
1 votes:

NotoriousFire: All this reminds of a series of school attacks that took place in China over a year and a half time frame, shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%93201 1)

You'll notice 21 dead, 90 injured after a series of school attacks across China. Even more interesting - no guns were used. Only knives, hammers and cleavers. So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


Just leave it alone...they are in heaven...every single one of these makes them salivate even more. Just let them enjoy it...its what theyve always wanted...people to die so they can ban something they are scared of.

Banning guns isnt going to stop muggers, rapists, home invaders, robbery, assault and the vast majority of all other crime...and they know it...but getting those scary guns taken away will make them feel safe, for a little while. Until a friend, family member, or even them personally is a victim of crime...then they will have something new to scream about.

But for now...just let them rant and rave and have their happiness.
2012-12-15 03:09:03 PM
1 votes:

SilentStrider: BSABSVR: Did this man play Mass Effect? This is important!

I'm about to, so you might want to call the cops in my area and tell them to be on alert.

/only owns nerf guns


Has the word gun in it therefore dangerous... Stop him!
2012-12-15 03:07:25 PM
1 votes:
I'm fairly certain that a gun is the opposite of a hospital.
2012-12-15 03:07:19 PM
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org

"Nurse, scalpel. Thank you. Clamp. GUN."

*BLAMMO!*

"Thank you. Pressure here."
2012-12-15 03:06:02 PM
1 votes:

Nefarious: Weaver95: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

mayan apocalypse maybe?

Is it wrong that I was thinking that Dec. 21st is why the crazy is coming out of the woodwork recently. Not that I think anything will come of it but these assholes might.


The diminishing prospects for the future in a world of growing authoritarianism might not help, either.
2012-12-15 03:05:07 PM
1 votes:

NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?



You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?
2012-12-15 03:04:45 PM
1 votes:

ElLoco: Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.

Amen. I've been saying the same thing about several of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They're all outdated and don't fit in with today's society.


So is that an indictment of the Amendments, or society?
2012-12-15 03:04:12 PM
1 votes:
www.rhythmism.com

I guess the cops pulled the plug on him.
2012-12-15 03:03:54 PM
1 votes:

ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!


AND the anti-gunners are out of the gate first....putting some real distance on the competition...
2012-12-15 03:03:39 PM
1 votes:

Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.


Amen. I've been saying the same thing about several of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They're all outdated and don't fit in with today's society.
2012-12-15 03:01:01 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

mayan apocalypse maybe?


Is it wrong that I was thinking that Dec. 21st is why the crazy is coming out of the woodwork recently. Not that I think anything will come of it but these assholes might.
2012-12-15 02:59:59 PM
1 votes:

globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.


A lot. But, some of us cope. The others are farked up on prescription meds. Or, maybe it's that devil's breath shiat. Who knows.

To me, people stopped acting 'normally' decades ago.

And it sucks.
2012-12-15 02:58:35 PM
1 votes:

globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.


mayan apocalypse maybe?
2012-12-15 02:57:49 PM
1 votes:
At approximately 4:00 a.m., officers from the South Precinct responded to the incident location to investigate a report of a person with a gun. Upon arrival, officers located the suspect on the 5th floor hallway. As officers approached, the suspect began firing a handgun at the officers, striking one officer and two members of the hospital staff. An assisting Birmingham Police officer returned gunfire fatally wounding the suspect. Due to the circumstances at the scene, the victims were transported to a neighboring hospital for treatment. The three victims' injuries are not life threatening.


Were the cops taking cover behind the hospital staff?
2012-12-15 02:43:49 PM
1 votes:

basemetal: What if the civilian only took out the gunman, would they still be a dumbass civilian?


Again, that's never happened before so...
2012-12-15 02:43:43 PM
1 votes:

violentsalvation: make me some tea: Link

That isn't going to happen, so maybe we should look for an actual solution.


And also. Link Link

Crazies goona craze.
2012-12-15 02:40:20 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.

And had the same happened with the cop, would he have been a dumbass cop? Since we're dealing in the land of what ifs and all.

Yes. See, I have this weird thing wherein I trust people with formal training more than nuts. But hey, that's just me.


Ha! You haven't hung around with a bunch of cops before, have you?

/they have some real winners in their ranks too, Johnny
2012-12-15 02:39:36 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.

And had the same happened with the cop, would he have been a dumbass cop? Since we're dealing in the land of what ifs and all.

Yes. See, I have this weird thing wherein I trust people with formal training more than nuts. But hey, that's just me.


So taking a CCW class isn't training? How about prior military?
2012-12-15 02:30:48 PM
1 votes:

basemetal: cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.

If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?


Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.
2012-12-15 02:19:58 PM
1 votes:
2012-12-15 02:19:23 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: And had it been a dumbass civilian?


Considering that that rarely if ever happens, I don't think we need to worry about that.
2012-12-15 02:16:44 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.


And had it been a dumbass civilian?

I

unyon: FTFA: After the shooting, the suspect immediately put down the gun and surrendered to hospital security


What article did you read?!
2012-12-15 02:13:06 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.


Please, please tell me this isn't meant to be an argument that the carnage was limited because of other armed people that prevented it. If so, it'd be pretty clear that you didn't bother to RTFA before commenting.

FTFA: After the shooting, the suspect immediately put down the gun and surrendered to hospital security
2012-12-15 01:45:49 PM
1 votes:

thismomentinblackhistory: Thus making today too soon to discuss this.


Maybe tomorrow?
 
Displayed 171 of 171 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report