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.

(Huffington Post)   "We reached out to all 31 pro-gun rights senators in the new Congress to invite them on the program to share their views on the subject this morning," ... "We had no takers"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 1019
    More: Sad, congresses, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Louie Gohmert, assault weapons, Michael Bloomberg, senate democrats, Mayor of New York City, Fox News Sunday  
•       •       •

4949 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 5:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1019 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 11:29:59 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?

they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.

TWO CLASSROOM, moron.


unreal - as I said I feel gross talking about this sort of thing at the moment. I'm done. You're still a moron. A dishonest one too.
 
2012-12-16 11:30:58 PM

jst3p: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?

they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.

TWO CLASSROOM, moron.

So you are saying he did go looking for more kids to kill after he was done in the first room?

chuckufarlie: according the a teacher, he kept shooting until he ran out of targets. He did not go looking for the kids that were hiding. That is why your comment was stupid because it did not fit the facts.

Keep posting, turducken.


Is that your best shot? How old are you?

You are the moron who came up with a scenario that was not at all factual.


Are you going to take me up on that shooting match?
 
2012-12-16 11:31:44 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: cptjeff: skullkrusher: FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat

No, they did not. Cannons were incredibly expensive, casting them was not easy. Just a few could turn a battle, you're talking about each side having single digits in major battles. At Trenton, we captured an entire Hessian division and all their supplies- 1000 or so captives, 30 killed, and a grand total of 6 cannon.

They were not common weapons that a common guy might own. Owning a cannon would be the equivalent of some random joe owning a top of the line M1A2 tank. Just not gonna happen.

skullcrushed is not the sharpest pencil in the box. He is wrong about lots of things.

ah, so you point was that many people couldn't afford cannon rather than whether the 2nd amendment covered them? Of course, it's all clear. You've been caught trying to move the goalposts yet again.

I did not move the goalposts, you moron. You stated that individuals owned cannons.and I pointed out that once again you were wrong. I never said anything about their ability to afford them.

You are a true moron/ Are you married to your sister or do you just live together with your kids?


you agree with a guy who talked about how most people couldn't afford them as if it somehow proved your point. I gave you a LONG list of privateers. Not only did those guys own farking cannons and farking WARSHIPS and there wasn't an attempt by the government to confiscate them, their use was sanctioned by the government!
 
2012-12-16 11:32:25 PM

Githerax: All this talk about 'proper mental health care' is smoke. You aren't crazy until you open fire, and then it's too late.


Nah, it's only attempted crazy, or conspiracy to commit crazy. One of those. I'm no law talking guy.
 
2012-12-16 11:32:27 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?

they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.

TWO CLASSROOM, moron.

unreal - as I said I feel gross talking about this sort of thing at the moment. I'm done. You're still a moron. A dishonest one too.


Just because you have been shown to be wrong at every turn is no reason to run away.

You are a bit of a coward, aren't you!!
 
2012-12-16 11:32:33 PM

chuckufarlie: I did not move the goalposts, you moron


When you are the one being called a moron by multiple other people and no one is agreeing with you, you might want to take a step back and think about what that means.

I am sure the conclusion you will come to is "I am the only non-idiot here!"

That's what idiots always think.
 
2012-12-16 11:33:43 PM

jst3p: I am not a gun nut, I think we should look at some reasonable restrictions in light of recent events.


How are reasonable restrictions going to keep an insane person from killing the legal owner of guns and going on a rampage?

The shooter didn't own the guns used in the school massacre. He stole them from one of his first victims.

Sane people don't shoot up classrooms full of kindergarteners. Sane people don't kill their parents and siblings.

I guarantee you that this guy has been deeply disturbed for a long time and was showing lots of warning signs. People don't just flip their shiat like that with no warning.

The problem is that people are reluctant to speak up when someone close to them is having mental problems - and in many/most cases, rightfully so. A bad psychological diagnosis can be as damaging as a felony conviction - if not worse, as there are far fewer checks and balances. Never mind getting access to proactive mental health care is nearly impossible if you're uninsured.

Unfortunately for all the whiny crybabies looking for a quick easy solution - there isn't one. The mental health problem needs to be attacked on multiple fronts - the general public to be educated on how to recognize the warning signs, there needs to be a streamlined process to get people professionally evaluated and/or placed in involuntary care, there needs to be work on the medical/research side to come up with accurate and objective diagnostic criteria, and there needs to be a system of checks and balances to make sure the system doesn't get abused. It's a very hard problem to solve and it will take years of careful deliberation to come up with a system that is both effective and just.

Under current law you can get someone put under a 72 hour psych hold for observation, but unless they're already over the edge there is no follow up and no care. There's no way under the current system to help someone who is in a downward spiral pull out of it - they just keep going down and down until they kill themselves and/or somebody else. The system is powerless to treat them until it's already too late.
 
2012-12-16 11:34:02 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: cptjeff: skullkrusher: FWIW, the 2nd amendment probably referred to ordnance too. People owned their own cannons and shiat

No, they did not. Cannons were incredibly expensive, casting them was not easy. Just a few could turn a battle, you're talking about each side having single digits in major battles. At Trenton, we captured an entire Hessian division and all their supplies- 1000 or so captives, 30 killed, and a grand total of 6 cannon.

They were not common weapons that a common guy might own. Owning a cannon would be the equivalent of some random joe owning a top of the line M1A2 tank. Just not gonna happen.

skullcrushed is not the sharpest pencil in the box. He is wrong about lots of things.

ah, so you point was that many people couldn't afford cannon rather than whether the 2nd amendment covered them? Of course, it's all clear. You've been caught trying to move the goalposts yet again.

I did not move the goalposts, you moron. You stated that individuals owned cannons.and I pointed out that once again you were wrong. I never said anything about their ability to afford them.

You are a true moron/ Are you married to your sister or do you just live together with your kids?

you agree with a guy who talked about how most people couldn't afford them as if it somehow proved your point. I gave you a LONG list of privateers. Not only did those guys own farking cannons and farking WARSHIPS and there wasn't an attempt by the government to confiscate them, their use was sanctioned by the government!


I agreed that you are wrong about a lot of things, in this case that individuals owned cannons. That was proven to be wrong just like many of your statements. The militia owned cannons. There is a difference.
 
2012-12-16 11:34:10 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?

they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.

TWO CLASSROOM, moron.

unreal - as I said I feel gross talking about this sort of thing at the moment. I'm done. You're still a moron. A dishonest one too.

Just because you have been shown to be wrong at every turn is no reason to run away.

You are a bit of a coward, aren't you!!


obviously a troll. There is no way anyone is this woefully unable to see their countless mistakes without intent.
 
2012-12-16 11:34:50 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?

they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.

TWO CLASSROOM, moron.

unreal - as I said I feel gross talking about this sort of thing at the moment. I'm done. You're still a moron. A dishonest one too.

Just because you have been shown to be wrong at every turn is no reason to run away.

You are a bit of a coward, aren't you!!


turducken:

angrymanspeaks.files.wordpress.com

"Running away, are you? Chicken! Chicken!"
 
2012-12-16 11:35:15 PM

chuckufarlie: I agreed that you are wrong about a lot of things, in this case that individuals owned cannons. That was proven to be wrong just like many of your statements. The militia owned cannons. There is a difference.


oh and these guys.
 
2012-12-16 11:35:36 PM

jst3p: chuckufarlie: I did not move the goalposts, you moron

When you are the one being called a moron by multiple other people and no one is agreeing with you, you might want to take a step back and think about what that means.

I am sure the conclusion you will come to is "I am the only non-idiot here!"

That's what idiots always think.


Is that what you think about yourself??

The people who do not agree with me are a bunch of redneck gun nuts and one cowardly piece of shiat too cowardly to admit that he is a redneck gun nut.
 
2012-12-16 11:36:49 PM

skullkrusher: obviously a troll. There is no way anyone is this woefully unable to see their countless mistakes without intent.


Yeah, this is getting stupid. Thanks for turning this into another one of your toilets, chuck.

webpages.charter.net

Sigh.
 
2012-12-16 11:37:01 PM
I'm just glad this thread is civil, with minimal name calling and challenges to gunfights
 
2012-12-16 11:37:51 PM

jst3p: chuckufarlie: I did not move the goalposts, you moron

When you are the one being called a moron by multiple other people and no one is agreeing with you, you might want to take a step back and think about what that means.

I am sure the conclusion you will come to is "I am the only non-idiot here!"

That's what idiots always think.


Is his defense, and i do have him ignored prior to this thread, nearly all of the people calling him names are also on my ignore list.

Anyway, the shooter definitely didnt kill all these people with pistols. Considering none of the children were hit with just one bullet, in addition to reports of over 100 shots, he would have to have been carrying either extended pistol clips, or about a dozen or so regular clips. It seems much more likely he was using a high capacity, semi automatic rifle for the majority of the killings. Though admittely, i cant say this for certain. I just cant really imagine shooting a child 11 times with only a pistol. Doesnt that seem excessive and wasteful if you're a murderous psycho?
 
2012-12-16 11:38:34 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: I agreed that you are wrong about a lot of things, in this case that individuals owned cannons. That was proven to be wrong just like many of your statements. The militia owned cannons. There is a difference.

oh and these guys.


privateers usually asked the government for cannons. I guess you did not know that either. And a privateer was not an individual either, it was a ship full of men. All shared in the booty and all shared in the ownership of the cannons.

Besides a ship out on the high seas is hardly the same as a bunch of guys running around New Jersey. There were all sorts of dangers on the seas and having a cannon was a sensible thing. But the cannon were not, as you want to believe, owned by individuals.
 
2012-12-16 11:39:21 PM

justtray: jst3p: chuckufarlie: I did not move the goalposts, you moron

When you are the one being called a moron by multiple other people and no one is agreeing with you, you might want to take a step back and think about what that means.

I am sure the conclusion you will come to is "I am the only non-idiot here!"

That's what idiots always think.

Is his defense, and i do have him ignored prior to this thread, nearly all of the people calling him names are also on my ignore list.

Anyway, the shooter definitely didnt kill all these people with pistols. Considering none of the children were hit with just one bullet, in addition to reports of over 100 shots, he would have to have been carrying either extended pistol clips, or about a dozen or so regular clips. It seems much more likely he was using a high capacity, semi automatic rifle for the majority of the killings. Though admittely, i cant say this for certain. I just cant really imagine shooting a child 11 times with only a pistol. Doesnt that seem excessive and wasteful if you're a murderous psycho?


he fired one shot from a handgun and he shot himself with that.
 
2012-12-16 11:39:23 PM

Farker Soze: skullkrusher: obviously a troll. There is no way anyone is this woefully unable to see their countless mistakes without intent.

Yeah, this is getting stupid. Thanks for turning this into another one of your toilets, chuck.

[webpages.charter.net image 390x877]

Sigh.


Yeah, I am done too. I hope he is a troll and not really that dumb. Either way I will remember the name. (I refuse to use the ignore feature mostly because of the image you posted, it just makes one pile of crap look like another). Sorry for contributing by replying to him.
 
2012-12-16 11:40:28 PM

justtray: jst3p: chuckufarlie: I did not move the goalposts, you moron

When you are the one being called a moron by multiple other people and no one is agreeing with you, you might want to take a step back and think about what that means.

I am sure the conclusion you will come to is "I am the only non-idiot here!"

That's what idiots always think.

Is his defense, and i do have him ignored prior to this thread, nearly all of the people calling him names are also on my ignore list.

Anyway, the shooter definitely didnt kill all these people with pistols. Considering none of the children were hit with just one bullet, in addition to reports of over 100 shots, he would have to have been carrying either extended pistol clips, or about a dozen or so regular clips. It seems much more likely he was using a high capacity, semi automatic rifle for the majority of the killings. Though admittely, i cant say this for certain. I just cant really imagine shooting a child 11 times with only a pistol. Doesnt that seem excessive and wasteful if you're a murderous psycho?


My point isn't that he did it with pistols, only that he could have given the semi-automatic pistols he had.
 
2012-12-16 11:40:31 PM

Farker Soze: You're an asshole for assuming I agree with him.


Yet you didn't speak out against him. Only those "dirty libs". Very telling.


Farker Soze: Gee, I'm sorry I didn't post my opinion on this matter for your special benefit in fark thread #69843587.


And there you have it. Only matters to you when ONE side says something you don't like. No time when it is "your side".

Hypocrite.
 
2012-12-16 11:40:48 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?

they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.

TWO CLASSROOM, moron.

unreal - as I said I feel gross talking about this sort of thing at the moment. I'm done. You're still a moron. A dishonest one too.

Just because you have been shown to be wrong at every turn is no reason to run away.

You are a bit of a coward, aren't you!!

obviously a troll. There is no way anyone is this woefully unable to see their countless mistakes without intent.


I have made no mistakes at all. Even though you wish that I had.
 
2012-12-16 11:41:29 PM

clyph: jst3p: I am not a gun nut, I think we should look at some reasonable restrictions in light of recent events.

How are reasonable restrictions going to keep an insane person from killing the legal owner of guns and going on a rampage?

The shooter didn't own the guns used in the school massacre. He stole them from one of his first victims.

Sane people don't shoot up classrooms full of kindergarteners. Sane people don't kill their parents and siblings.

I guarantee you that this guy has been deeply disturbed for a long time and was showing lots of warning signs. People don't just flip their shiat like that with no warning.

The problem is that people are reluctant to speak up when someone close to them is having mental problems - and in many/most cases, rightfully so. A bad psychological diagnosis can be as damaging as a felony conviction - if not worse, as there are far fewer checks and balances. Never mind getting access to proactive mental health care is nearly impossible if you're uninsured.

Unfortunately for all the whiny crybabies looking for a quick easy solution - there isn't one. The mental health problem needs to be attacked on multiple fronts - the general public to be educated on how to recognize the warning signs, there needs to be a streamlined process to get people professionally evaluated and/or placed in involuntary care, there needs to be work on the medical/research side to come up with accurate and objective diagnostic criteria, and there needs to be a system of checks and balances to make sure the system doesn't get abused. It's a very hard problem to solve and it will take years of careful deliberation to come up with a system that is both effective and just.

Under current law you can get someone put under a 72 hour psych hold for observation, but unless they're already over the edge there is no follow up and no care. There's no way under the current system to help someone who is in a downward spiral pull out of it - they just keep ...


Reducing the amount of guns in circulation will reduce the amount of gun related crime. If his mom couldnt afford to own all the weapons used, then more people would be alive today.

So therefore the solution, while adhering to the 2nd ammendment, is simple.

Tax guns more, register them, require yearly property tax on every weapon, have stricter restriction on the number of weapons a single individual can own based on categorization, require annual mental health screenings and/or background checks into entire families.

But you don't really want solutions. You want to keep the status quo for entirely selfish reasons, and I find that horribly disgusting.
 
2012-12-16 11:41:43 PM

jst3p: justtray: jst3p: chuckufarlie: I did not move the goalposts, you moron

When you are the one being called a moron by multiple other people and no one is agreeing with you, you might want to take a step back and think about what that means.

I am sure the conclusion you will come to is "I am the only non-idiot here!"

That's what idiots always think.

Is his defense, and i do have him ignored prior to this thread, nearly all of the people calling him names are also on my ignore list.

Anyway, the shooter definitely didnt kill all these people with pistols. Considering none of the children were hit with just one bullet, in addition to reports of over 100 shots, he would have to have been carrying either extended pistol clips, or about a dozen or so regular clips. It seems much more likely he was using a high capacity, semi automatic rifle for the majority of the killings. Though admittely, i cant say this for certain. I just cant really imagine shooting a child 11 times with only a pistol. Doesnt that seem excessive and wasteful if you're a murderous psycho?

My point isn't that he did it with pistols, only that he could have given the semi-automatic pistols he had.


and he would not have killed as many people. That is the part of this that you fail to understand.
 
2012-12-16 11:41:47 PM

Farker Soze: mediablitz: Farker Soze: James F. Campbell: Farker Soze: And they told me gun nuts were the violent ones who wish death on others.

I bet you cheer for cancer.

You're the one wishing people to be killed by their own family members. What kind of monster are you?

Mike Huckabee level? You know, taking "God out of schools" means it's okay to kill kids.

That's one farked up God. Didn't see you getting your panties in a wad over THAT.

What the hell is your problem? Huckabee is an asshole, and so is his god. You're an asshole for assuming I agree with him. Gee, I'm sorry I didn't post my opinion on this matter for your special benefit in fark thread #69843587.

Idiot.


VERY telling how angry you get when it is pointed out how selective your outrage is.

Piss poor excuse for a human being...
 
2012-12-16 11:42:25 PM

Peter von Nostrand: I'm just glad this thread is civil, with minimal name calling and challenges to gunfights


Yeah that was a:

25.media.tumblr.com

moment.
 
2012-12-16 11:42:36 PM

Farker Soze: skullkrusher: obviously a troll. There is no way anyone is this woefully unable to see their countless mistakes without intent.

Yeah, this is getting stupid. Thanks for turning this into another one of your toilets, chuck.

[webpages.charter.net image 390x877]

Sigh.


Hey, looks like my pages!
 
2012-12-16 11:43:08 PM

clyph: jst3p: I am not a gun nut, I think we should look at some reasonable restrictions in light of recent events.

How are reasonable restrictions going to keep an insane person from killing the legal owner of guns and going on a rampage? ...


If those guns had been banned or restricted, he could not have stolen them from his mother (who purchased them legally).
 
2012-12-16 11:43:14 PM

iq_in_binary: As am I, read what I proposed, ask any questions, and let's see if we can get something ironed out to flood our representative's inboxes with.


No. Americans love their guns too much, and they won't learn their lesson unless it hurts. The real question is this: how many mass murders will be enough to change their minds? We'll probably find out sooner rather than later.
 
2012-12-16 11:45:19 PM

Wayne 985: clyph: jst3p: I am not a gun nut, I think we should look at some reasonable restrictions in light of recent events.

How are reasonable restrictions going to keep an insane person from killing the legal owner of guns and going on a rampage? ...

If those guns had been banned or restricted, he could not have stolen them from his mother (who purchased them legally).


IF the guns had been banned then his mother could not have purchased them legally.
 
2012-12-16 11:45:57 PM

Pokey.Clyde: Oh, look. Yet another gun thread filled with people who know little to nothing about guns telling the rest of us what we can and can't do with our legal, constitutionally protected firearms.


Oh, look. Another so-called victim. Buck up, buttercup. If you can't handle discussions like this, how do you expect to be brave enough to use your constitutionally protected firearms to defend the union?
 
2012-12-16 11:46:19 PM

justtray: Anyway, the shooter definitely didnt kill all these people with pistols. Considering none of the children were hit with just one bullet, in addition to reports of over 100 shots, he would have to have been carrying either extended pistol clips, or about a dozen or so regular clips. It seems much more likely he was using a high capacity, semi automatic rifle for the majority of the killings. Though admittely, i cant say this for certain. I just cant really imagine shooting a child 11 times with only a pistol. Doesnt that seem excessive and wasteful if you're a murderous psycho?


It seems excessive and wasteful if you're not a murderous psycho. One seems excessive to me. Anyway, a Glock 17 would require 5 reloads for over 100 shots, standard size.
 
2012-12-16 11:48:11 PM

James F. Campbell: iq_in_binary: As am I, read what I proposed, ask any questions, and let's see if we can get something ironed out to flood our representative's inboxes with.

No. Americans love their guns too much, and they won't learn their lesson unless it hurts. The real question is this: how many mass murders will be enough to change their minds? We'll probably find out sooner rather than later.


We're finding out right now, it's very interesting to watch it happen. Sad it has taken so many lives to come to this, but at least it's happening.

If you truely care though, don't try to ban anything. Make it economically unfeasible and desirable to own weapons. Tax, regulation, and buyback programs are what will reduce the amount of guns in circulation, not forced bans.
 
2012-12-16 11:48:50 PM

mediablitz: Farker Soze: mediablitz: Farker Soze: James F. Campbell: Farker Soze: And they told me gun nuts were the violent ones who wish death on others.

I bet you cheer for cancer.

You're the one wishing people to be killed by their own family members. What kind of monster are you?

Mike Huckabee level? You know, taking "God out of schools" means it's okay to kill kids.

That's one farked up God. Didn't see you getting your panties in a wad over THAT.

What the hell is your problem? Huckabee is an asshole, and so is his god. You're an asshole for assuming I agree with him. Gee, I'm sorry I didn't post my opinion on this matter for your special benefit in fark thread #69843587.

Idiot.

VERY telling how angry you get when it is pointed out how selective your outrage is.

Piss poor excuse for a human being...


Oh look, you must be James Cambell's alt. I thought I smelled vaseline again.
 
2012-12-16 11:48:53 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?

they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.

TWO CLASSROOM, moron.

unreal - as I said I feel gross talking about this sort of thing at the moment. I'm done. You're still a moron. A dishonest one too.

Just because you have been shown to be wrong at every turn is no reason to run away.

You are a bit of a coward, aren't you!!

obviously a troll. There is no way anyone is this woefully unable to see their countless mistakes without intent.

I have made no mistakes at all. Even though you wish that I had.


hehe, nah it's just that you think you successfully explained them away. You ain't bright, man,
 
2012-12-16 11:49:42 PM

justtray: James F. Campbell: iq_in_binary: As am I, read what I proposed, ask any questions, and let's see if we can get something ironed out to flood our representative's inboxes with.

No. Americans love their guns too much, and they won't learn their lesson unless it hurts. The real question is this: how many mass murders will be enough to change their minds? We'll probably find out sooner rather than later.

We're finding out right now, it's very interesting to watch it happen. Sad it has taken so many lives to come to this, but at least it's happening.

If you truely care though, don't try to ban anything. Make it economically unfeasible and desirable to own weapons. Tax, regulation, and buyback programs are what will reduce the amount of guns in circulation, not forced bans.


In effect do what conservatives have done with abortion
 
2012-12-16 11:50:18 PM

justtray: James F. Campbell: iq_in_binary: As am I, read what I proposed, ask any questions, and let's see if we can get something ironed out to flood our representative's inboxes with.

No. Americans love their guns too much, and they won't learn their lesson unless it hurts. The real question is this: how many mass murders will be enough to change their minds? We'll probably find out sooner rather than later.

We're finding out right now, it's very interesting to watch it happen. Sad it has taken so many lives to come to this, but at least it's happening.

If you truely care though, don't try to ban anything. Make it economically unfeasible and desirable to own weapons. Tax, regulation, and buyback programs are what will reduce the amount of guns in circulation, not forced bans.


too many of these rednecks are not going to give up their guns until they are forced to do so. Look at the idiot in Indiana. He was well stocked with guns and ammo. No tax was going to make him change his mind.
 
2012-12-16 11:51:29 PM

justtray: So therefore the solution, while adhering to the 2nd ammendment, is simple.

Tax guns more, register them, require yearly property tax on every weapon, have stricter restriction on the number of weapons a single individual can own based on categorization, require annual mental health screenings and/or background checks into entire families.

But you don't really want solutions. You want to keep the status quo for entirely selfish reasons, and I find that horribly disgusting.


Which saves the 2nd while completely gutting the 4th, and is open to all sorts of abuse.

Maybe if we required elected officials and voters to pass the same test (without the examiner knowing why), so at least there's some other class of citizen impacted to complain about it. Plus, less sociopaths in office can't hurt.
 
2012-12-16 11:51:39 PM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?

they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.

TWO CLASSROOM, moron.

unreal - as I said I feel gross talking about this sort of thing at the moment. I'm done. You're still a moron. A dishonest one too.

Just because you have been shown to be wrong at every turn is no reason to run away.

You are a bit of a coward, aren't you!!

obviously a troll. There is no way anyone is this woefully unable to see their countless mistakes without intent.

I have made no mistakes at all. Even though you wish that I had.

hehe, nah it's just that you think you successfully explained them away. You ain't bright, man,


I will admit that I have dumbed down my comments in the hopes that you would be able to understand. Sadly, it appears that I did not dumb them down enough for you.
 
2012-12-16 11:51:44 PM

Farker Soze: justtray: Anyway, the shooter definitely didnt kill all these people with pistols. Considering none of the children were hit with just one bullet, in addition to reports of over 100 shots, he would have to have been carrying either extended pistol clips, or about a dozen or so regular clips. It seems much more likely he was using a high capacity, semi automatic rifle for the majority of the killings. Though admittely, i cant say this for certain. I just cant really imagine shooting a child 11 times with only a pistol. Doesnt that seem excessive and wasteful if you're a murderous psycho?

It seems excessive and wasteful if you're not a murderous psycho. One seems excessive to me. Anyway, a Glock 17 would require 5 reloads for over 100 shots, standard size.


Yeah, theoretically, assuming he'shiatting at a 70% rate that could account for all the bullets in the bodies, but not the number of fatalities. Correct me if im wrong, but i believe people can survive a shot or two or 9 from a glock if not well placed. Seems like a higher power weapon would be required to see the ratio of fatalities to injuries we saw here.

The only way i see this as a handgun spree is if he was doing it execution style then pumping bullets into corpses. Otherwise kids would flee while he was reloading.

I dont think we'll ever get those gory details released to the public though...
 
2012-12-16 11:52:43 PM

Peter von Nostrand: justtray: James F. Campbell: iq_in_binary: As am I, read what I proposed, ask any questions, and let's see if we can get something ironed out to flood our representative's inboxes with.

No. Americans love their guns too much, and they won't learn their lesson unless it hurts. The real question is this: how many mass murders will be enough to change their minds? We'll probably find out sooner rather than later.

We're finding out right now, it's very interesting to watch it happen. Sad it has taken so many lives to come to this, but at least it's happening.

If you truely care though, don't try to ban anything. Make it economically unfeasible and desirable to own weapons. Tax, regulation, and buyback programs are what will reduce the amount of guns in circulation, not forced bans.

In effect do what conservatives have done with abortion


Strange how many parallels there are, isn't it?
 
2012-12-16 11:53:39 PM

justtray: Farker Soze: justtray: Anyway, the shooter definitely didnt kill all these people with pistols. Considering none of the children were hit with just one bullet, in addition to reports of over 100 shots, he would have to have been carrying either extended pistol clips, or about a dozen or so regular clips. It seems much more likely he was using a high capacity, semi automatic rifle for the majority of the killings. Though admittely, i cant say this for certain. I just cant really imagine shooting a child 11 times with only a pistol. Doesnt that seem excessive and wasteful if you're a murderous psycho?

It seems excessive and wasteful if you're not a murderous psycho. One seems excessive to me. Anyway, a Glock 17 would require 5 reloads for over 100 shots, standard size.

Yeah, theoretically, assuming he'shiatting at a 70% rate that could account for all the bullets in the bodies, but not the number of fatalities. Correct me if im wrong, but i believe people can survive a shot or two or 9 from a glock if not well placed. Seems like a higher power weapon would be required to see the ratio of fatalities to injuries we saw here.

The only way i see this as a handgun spree is if he was doing it execution style then pumping bullets into corpses. Otherwise kids would flee while he was reloading.

I dont think we'll ever get those gory details released to the public though...


the police have reported that the only handgun that was fired was the one he killed himself with.
 
2012-12-16 11:55:45 PM

joe714: justtray: So therefore the solution, while adhering to the 2nd ammendment, is simple.

Tax guns more, register them, require yearly property tax on every weapon, have stricter restriction on the number of weapons a single individual can own based on categorization, require annual mental health screenings and/or background checks into entire families.

But you don't really want solutions. You want to keep the status quo for entirely selfish reasons, and I find that horribly disgusting.

Which saves the 2nd while completely gutting the 4th, and is open to all sorts of abuse.

Maybe if we required elected officials and voters to pass the same test (without the examiner knowing why), so at least there's some other class of citizen impacted to complain about it. Plus, less sociopaths in office can't hurt.


I dont see how what i suggested infringes on any rights anymore than usual. I assume you're cherry picking 'background checks' or 'mental health screenings.' I can do without those. Though, personally, I think they could be implemented in such a way as to not infringe much more than an employer will demand or TSA already does.
 
2012-12-16 11:57:36 PM

chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: He used more than one magazine in the rifle. Why do you not understand that it is easier to deal with one weapon with 30 rounds as opposed to two weapons that hold 15 each. Can you honestly tell me that the rifle allowed him to shoot more people in a short period of time before the teachers could hide them?

they were trapped in a farking classroom you farking dolt.

TWO CLASSROOM, moron.

unreal - as I said I feel gross talking about this sort of thing at the moment. I'm done. You're still a moron. A dishonest one too.

Just because you have been shown to be wrong at every turn is no reason to run away.

You are a bit of a coward, aren't you!!

obviously a troll. There is no way anyone is this woefully unable to see their countless mistakes without intent.

I have made no mistakes at all. Even though you wish that I had.

hehe, nah it's just that you think you successfully explained them away. You ain't bright, man,

I will admit that I have dumbed down my comments in the hopes that you would be able to understand. Sadly, it appears that I did not dumb them down enough for you.


no you haven't and no one believes that you have. You are actually this dumb.
 
2012-12-17 12:00:14 AM

justtray: Yeah, theoretically, assuming he'shiatting at a 70% rate that could account for all the bullets in the bodies, but not the number of fatalities. Correct me if im wrong, but i believe people can survive a shot or two or 9 from a glock if not well placed. Seems like a higher power weapon would be required to see the ratio of fatalities to injuries we saw here.


6 out of 7 survive a handgun shooting if they receive medical attention in a reasonable amount of time. High caliber rifles and intermediate ones (like the .223) at close range are much more deadly.
 
2012-12-17 12:02:11 AM

Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.


And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Statistically, your odds of getting shot and killed are virtually nil unless you're a black male with a criminal record who's involved in the drug trade and/or a gang member. The vast majority of murders are criminals killing other criminals - according to CDC the top two risk factors for being the victim of a murder or an attempted murder are having a criminal record and gang affiliation.

Freak occurrences like this are just that - freak occurrences. They are tragic, but they are rare - which is what makes them newsworthy. There are a lot of other dangers that are much more real that you don't hear about on the news precisely because they are so commonplace. You are several times more likely to drown in your own home, or have a heart attack while doing yard work, or get run over crossing the street than you are to be a murder victim. You are getting yourself all worked up over a threat that is FAR less common than the real threats you blithely ignore every day

20 dead kids is a tragedy, no doubt. But, to put it in perspective, an average of around 60 kids die in accidental drownings EVERY MONTH (Source: CDC - average of 10 accidental drownings/day, 20% children). Where's the cry for swimming pool and bathtub control? Those kill LOTS more kids than guns. Mandatory water safety classes would save a lot more lives than any gun control law that you can think up.
 
2012-12-17 12:02:37 AM

chuckufarlie: jst3p: chuckufarlie: I did not move the goalposts, you moron

When you are the one being called a moron by multiple other people and no one is agreeing with you, you might want to take a step back and think about what that means.

I am sure the conclusion you will come to is "I am the only non-idiot here!"

That's what idiots always think.

Is that what you think about yourself??

The people who do not agree with me are a bunch of redneck gun nuts and one cowardly piece of shiat too cowardly to admit that he is a redneck gun nut.


You are such a charming bigot.
 
2012-12-17 12:03:04 AM

The Why Not Guy: edmo: I would love to hear some serious proposals from them on how to deal with this stuff. Or the deficit. Or the national debt. Or the debt ceiling. At least the NFL, NBA,and PGA are still non-profit organizations exempt from taxes. Yay Senate.

Good luck. I know Facebook isn't a scientific data collection method, but here's how it breaks down among my friends:

Liberal Friends: some are calling for stronger gun control. Some are calling for stronger ammunition control. Some are calling for increased investment in mental health services.

Conservative Friends: Posting pictures of candles and talking about how 20 new angels are spending Christmas with Jesus.


Holy hell that's exactly what my conservative facebook friends are doing. They almost seem to enjoy it. At least more than dealing with the issue. I think they think everyone is going too say "awwwww", shed a tear and forget about it.
 
2012-12-17 12:04:33 AM

LargeCanine: chuckufarlie: jst3p: chuckufarlie: I did not move the goalposts, you moron

When you are the one being called a moron by multiple other people and no one is agreeing with you, you might want to take a step back and think about what that means.

I am sure the conclusion you will come to is "I am the only non-idiot here!"

That's what idiots always think.

Is that what you think about yourself??

The people who do not agree with me are a bunch of redneck gun nuts and one cowardly piece of shiat too cowardly to admit that he is a redneck gun nut.

You are such a charming bigot.


bigot? Nonsense. I am nothing of the sort.
 
2012-12-17 12:06:02 AM
You know, your chances of dying in a mass shooting is approximately zero. Maybe 500 people have died from mass shootings in recent history. Think about your chances of even being involved in one...
ZERO.
Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society. There's better things you can do rather than restrict gun ownership. Things such as, oh, I don't know- security in the schools (have a police officer there all the time), or perhaps better access to mental health care. But you know, none of you will ever admit it.
There's plenty of reasons you cannot ban all firearms, both technical and legal. No one will willingly give up their firearms, and the gun nuts would be completely willing to go bat-shiat crazy to stop people from taking it. Not to mention, trying to do that would violate many other laws.
Banning rifles isn't the answer though- the perpetrator or the Virgina tech massacre just used two hand guns the whole time. The Columbine shooters used sawed off shotguns which are illegal. That didn't stop them.

Why are the same people who called the patriot act an overreaction (and I do believe it is one) now overreacting to mass shootings? Can someone please explain this to me? I cannot figure out why. You'd think the liberal, the one who believes that people should have the right to whatever they want, would be for the right to own firearms. Liberals usually think the government is untrustworthy when it comes to law. So why are they the ones clamoring for the government to restrict access to firearms?

I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.
 
2012-12-17 12:06:09 AM

clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Statistically, your odds of getting shot and killed are virtually nil unless you're a black male with a criminal record who's involved in the drug trade and/or a gang member. The vast majority of murders are criminals killing other criminals - according to CDC the top two risk factors for being the victim of a murder or an attempted murder are having a criminal record and gang affiliation.

Freak occurrences like this are just that - freak occurrences. They are tragic, but they are rare - which is what makes them newsworthy. There are a lot of other dangers that are much more real that you don't hear about on the news precisely because they are so commonplace. You are several times more likely to drown in your own home, or have a heart attack while doing yard work, or get run over crossing the street than you are to be a murder victim. You are getting yourself all worked up over a threat that is FAR less common than the real threats you blithely ignore every day

20 dead kids is a tragedy, no doubt. But, to put it in perspective, an average of around 60 kids die in accidental drownings EVERY MONTH (Source: CDC - average of 10 accidental drownings/day, 20% children). Where's the cry for swimming pool and bathtub control? Those kill LOTS more kids than guns. Mandatory water safety classes would save a lot more lives than any gun control law that you can think up.


The odds have an absurd way of putting things in perspective when you consider them.
I think I remember reading that you're more likely to be crushed by a vending machine than to die in a terrorist attack.
 
Displayed 50 of 1019 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report