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.

(National Review)   Except for the attack on Gabrielle Giffords, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S., in which more than three people have been killed, has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns   (nationalreview.com) divider line 608
    More: Interesting, Gabrielle Giffords, Newtown, Bowling Green State University, concealed handgun, mass shooting, school massacres, Cornell Law School, Minnesota Department of Corrections  
•       •       •

2852 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Dec 2012 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-17 11:59:31 AM
NO KIDDING!!!

Those murderous assholes are not going to plan shootings where they can be stopped. Stop being sheep, waiting for your slaughter.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
 
2012-12-17 12:04:26 PM
Hence we should create a society where everyone from kindergarten teachers to nuns carry assault weapons. Where only the well-armed and biggest supporters of the NRA survive. This is what what had 10,000 years ago. One would think out society could have evolved even slightly in that length of time. Apparently not.
 
2012-12-17 12:05:41 PM
If only someone would have had a gun in Ft. Hood back in 2009, then that tragedy could have been averted.
:(
 
2012-12-17 12:06:14 PM

kbronsito: If only someone would have had a gun in Ft. Hood back in 2009, then that tragedy could have been averted.
:(


Came here to say this.
 
2012-12-17 12:08:47 PM

kbronsito: If only someone would have had a gun in Ft. Hood back in 2009, then that tragedy could have been averted.
:(


Someone with a gun finally stopped him. Sadly not everyone was allowed to be armed or he may have been stopped earlier.
 
2012-12-17 12:09:38 PM
How many have happened with an (R) or (D) in the office. I have a theory, but I'm too lazy to research this myself.
 
2012-12-17 12:09:51 PM
Two cops got shot in Kansas last night. Clearly, Kansas police officers should be armed as well.
 
2012-12-17 12:11:32 PM
Let's put guns in every classroom, surely that will cut down on deaths by firearm.
 
2012-12-17 12:12:07 PM

R.A.Danny: kbronsito: If only someone would have had a gun in Ft. Hood back in 2009, then that tragedy could have been averted.
:(

Someone with a gun finally stopped him. Sadly not everyone was allowed to be armed or he may have been stopped earlier.


So a military base isn't armed enough? What exactly are schools supposed to do?
 
wee [TotalFark]
2012-12-17 12:14:09 PM

kbronsito: If only someone would have had a gun in Ft. Hood back in 2009, then that tragedy could have been averted.
:(


When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away.

That's the utopia some people want for us. At least there'll be someone to write a report afterwards, I guess.
 
2012-12-17 12:14:19 PM

Lumpmoose: So a military base isn't armed enough? What exactly are schools supposed to do?


They surrender their weapons on base.
 
2012-12-17 12:15:19 PM

wee: When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away.


Well said.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2012-12-17 12:15:54 PM

Lumpmoose: So a military base isn't armed enough?


You can't even keep a personal weapon in on-base housing. You have to turn it into the armory.
 
2012-12-17 12:16:25 PM
You'll feel real safe when your deranged kid gets a hold of your safety guns.
 
2012-12-17 12:16:50 PM
Here's how we fix this:

Impose a 200% of purchase price Federal excise tax on all new firearm sales. Used firearm sales, 100%. Ammunition, reloading supplies, and other accessories designed to manufacture ammunition should be taxed at 300%.

Gun safety devices (safes, trigger locks, marksmanship classes, etc) are non-taxeable. Also, any ammo you purchase AND USE at shooting ranges is subject to just normal sales tax.

All the revenue is put toward improving our nation's mental health treatment programs, and so on. Also, counseling for shooting victims' families should be included.

As a nation, we have elected to allow citizens to arm themselves to the teeth without regard for how they may use or misuse firearms.

Since controlling access to firearms is a dead issue, then the next thing for all citizens to embrace is the idea that the great freedoms granted, and the unfortunate consequences of the abuse of those freedoms by a very small percentage of people, should be properly dealt with as a shared responsibility.
 
2012-12-17 12:20:15 PM
Why are Mods trolling?
 
2012-12-17 12:20:53 PM
And they have all taken place on a day of the week ending in Y.


/mind ... blown
 
2012-12-17 12:21:42 PM

R.A.Danny: Why are Mods trolling?



Pointing out facts from the latest Freedom Tragedy is trolling?
 
2012-12-17 12:22:01 PM

kbronsito: If only someone would have had a gun in Ft. Hood back in 2009, then that tragedy could have been averted.
:(


you're an idiot and have obviously never been on a military base.
 
2012-12-17 12:22:07 PM
i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-17 12:24:06 PM

bradkanus: kbronsito: If only someone would have had a gun in Ft. Hood back in 2009, then that tragedy could have been averted.
:(

you're an idiot and have obviously never been on a military base.


You're saying that nobody, but nobody is carrying on a military base? Including the MPs?
 
2012-12-17 12:26:08 PM

FlashHarry: [i47.tinypic.com image 500x411]


TFA JUST PROVED your silly little picture wrong.
 
2012-12-17 12:27:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: kbronsito: If only someone would have had a gun in Ft. Hood back in 2009, then that tragedy could have been averted.
:(

you're an idiot and have obviously never been on a military base.

You're saying that nobody, but nobody is carrying on a military base? Including the MPs?


MPs are carrying loaded weapons - and as for bases like Fort Bliss in El Paso Texas where I have spent a tremendous amount of time - they are few and far between.

I have heard hearsay accounts that the Ft. Hood shooter did what hed where he did it, when he did and how did it based on the fact he knew he'd be the only one armed. his planning didn't exactly work out.
 
2012-12-17 12:28:13 PM
I was unaware that guns were illegal in Connecticut. In fact I specifically remember hearing the guns in this shooting were all legal.
 
2012-12-17 12:29:05 PM
How ironic is it that the man responsible for this country's lack of available help for the mentally ill was himself shot by a looney with a gun?

media.commercialappeal.com
 
2012-12-17 12:30:19 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: How ironic is it that the man responsible for this country's lack of available help for the mentally ill was himself shot by a looney with a gun?

[media.commercialappeal.com image 607x287]



I don't understand. Surely the secret service was armed.  How could that shooting have happened?


 
 
2012-12-17 12:30:33 PM
Unless Subby meant that the shootings all took place in a place where guns are restricted in some fashion.

In which case, you could just as easily make the same claim about cars and traffic accidents.
 
2012-12-17 12:30:35 PM

FlashHarry: [i47.tinypic.com image 500x411]


I don't know how chaotic it was, but there's a doctor here in town who shot a mugger dead who pulled a gun on he and his date in the French Quarter a couple of years ago. Three tight shots to the chest, too. The cops who responded were impressed, quite frankly. You could probably look up the story in the archives at NOLA.com.
 
2012-12-17 12:30:51 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: How ironic is it that the man responsible for this country's lack of available help for the mentally ill was himself shot by a looney with a gun?

[media.commercialappeal.com image 607x287]


no argument here - although I would add some people to the list of blame going back to Kennedy.
 
2012-12-17 12:31:44 PM

gilgigamesh: Unless Subby meant that the shootings all took place in a place where guns are restricted in some fashion.

In which case, you could just as easily make the same claim about cars and traffic accidents.


I think submitter meant carry them, not own them. As in concealed carry or open carry.
 
2012-12-17 12:31:56 PM

R.A.Danny: Lumpmoose: So a military base isn't armed enough? What exactly are schools supposed to do?

They surrender their weapons on base.


You didn't answer my questions, but assuming you want to arm teachers:

Can we arm ourselves against guns?-- A veteran's view:

First, if more people are defensively armed, we can expect that crazed shooters will continue to focus on those targets that are most vulnerable. Darkened movie theaters, elementary schools, and similar sites will remain thinly defended areas. There may be fewer targets, but those that remain will provide sufficient opportunity for future tragedy.

Second, simply giving guns to people will not arm them with the tools needed to respond effectively in case of an attack. It is simply unreasonable to expect teachers, for example, burdened as they already are, to take on the further responsibilities of trianing to respond like soldiers to a battlefield situation.

Third, as the three-way firefight I describe above illustrates, in the event people are able to fire back, the likely outcome will be a panicked melee, increasing the general bloodshed. When multiple people start shooting, nobody will know who is the aggressor, and everyone will become a target. It is not as easy to hit a target in action as it appears on TV -- in fact many shots will go wild. Each shot fired can cause "collateral damage." The shooting could conceivably go on until nobody is left standing. If disciplined soldiers can get into a three way friendly fire fight, what can we expect from untrained, un-uniformed, panicked civilians when they face their first shocking attach?

Finally, those who train to respond to emergencies with gunfire will become additional threats to public safety. The Viet Nam firefight I describe above happened because soldiers were trained to respond aggressively to panic situations, to shoot when presented with an unexpected noise, to ready their guns when faced with the unknown. An alert soldier or "ready" civilian must maintain what is essentially a paranoid state of mind. This is what has happened with the tragic shootings in Florida and elsewhere. Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis were shot by people who wanted to protect themselves, who believed that they needed to be armed against potential danger, and who conditioned themselves to respond aggressively in the face of perceived danger in their wars against the unknown. Martin and Davis were "civilian" casualties of that war.
 
2012-12-17 12:33:30 PM

Lumpmoose: You didn't answer my questions, but assuming you want to arm teachers:


On site guards work pretty well in Israel. What made you assume anything in the first place?
 
2012-12-17 12:33:50 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: How ironic is it that the man responsible for this country's lack of available help for the mentally ill was himself shot by a looney with a gun?

[media.commercialappeal.com image 607x287]


Honestly, I think it would be far more productive if we as a society had a very serious debate about the deplorable state of our mental health resources in the wake of this. We may find that it enables us to prevent some future tragedies and help many, many people who are not nearly as dangerous, but nevertheless need help. Or, we can keep bickering about gun control, which seems to get us nowhere and doesn't help the mentally ill, either.
 
2012-12-17 12:33:58 PM

Nabb1: gilgigamesh: Unless Subby meant that the shootings all took place in a place where guns are restricted in some fashion.

In which case, you could just as easily make the same claim about cars and traffic accidents.

I think submitter meant carry them, not own them. As in concealed carry or open carry.


Ah, fair enough. It would have helped to RTA I guess, but I get a skin condition from NRO editorials.
 
2012-12-17 12:34:20 PM

gilgigamesh: I was unaware that guns were illegal in Connecticut. In fact I specifically remember hearing the guns in this shooting were all legal.


Who said anything to the contrary?
 
2012-12-17 12:35:19 PM

Nabb1: gilgigamesh: Unless Subby meant that the shootings all took place in a place where guns are restricted in some fashion.

In which case, you could just as easily make the same claim about cars and traffic accidents.

I think submitter meant carry them, not own them. As in concealed carry or open carry.


Or that the kids were in a "Gun Free Zone"
 
2012-12-17 12:37:22 PM

Lumpmoose: So a military base isn't armed enough? What exactly are schools supposed to do?


Soliders on bases on US soil can't carry generally.
 
2012-12-17 12:40:30 PM
So the conservative answer is: "Don't try to prevent mass shootings, just interrupt them in a way that may make things worse."
 
2012-12-17 12:40:42 PM

R.A.Danny: Lumpmoose: You didn't answer my questions, but assuming you want to arm teachers:

On site guards work pretty well in Israel. What made you assume anything in the first place?


Let's look:

kbronsito: If only someone would have had a gun in Ft. Hood back in 2009, then that tragedy could have been averted.
:(

R.A.Danny: Someone with a gun finally stopped him. Sadly not everyone was allowed to be armed or he may have been stopped earlier.

Lumpmoose: So a military base isn't armed enough? What exactly are schools supposed to do?

R.A.Danny: They surrender their weapons on base.

Lumpmoose: You didn't answer my questions, but assuming you want to arm teachers...

R.A.Danny: On site guards work pretty well in Israel. What made you assume anything in the first place?


You went from "Sadly not everyone was allowed to be armed" to "On site guards work pretty well..."

If you keep obfuscating your points, I'll keep making assumptions.
 
2012-12-17 12:42:19 PM

Lumpmoose: You went from "Sadly not everyone was allowed to be armed" to "On site guards work pretty well..."

If you keep obfuscating your points, I'll keep making assumptions.


Obfuscation? Where have I not been clear? Should I type slower?
 
2012-12-17 12:43:03 PM
Here's an idea: what if we had decent mental health services in this country? 'Cause banning guns is not going to help at this point. There are so many guns already out there that anyone with reasonable intelligence can find one, or several, legal or not. And apparently most of these deranged lunatics have higher than average intelligence.
Not only that, but there is about to be such a massive spike in gun sales it will make the spike when Obama was first elected pale in comparison. You thought there were a lot of guns now? Just wait 'til the anti-gun rhetoric really gets heated up, then go into any store that sells guns and see how many guns and how much ammo are still on the shelves. The gun and ammo manufacturers are probably getting ready to put on extra shifts about now.
 
2012-12-17 12:44:01 PM

Nabb1: AdolfOliverPanties: How ironic is it that the man responsible for this country's lack of available help for the mentally ill was himself shot by a looney with a gun?

[media.commercialappeal.com image 607x287]

Honestly, I think it would be far more productive if we as a society had a very serious debate about the deplorable state of our mental health resources in the wake of this. We may find that it enables us to prevent some future tragedies and help many, many people who are not nearly as dangerous, but nevertheless need help. Or, we can keep bickering about gun control, which seems to get us nowhere and doesn't help the mentally ill, either.


I'm still on the fence about this. I used to be in favor of strict gun control. Then I did a 180 when the post-Katrina gun grab opened my eyes. OK, maybe a 120, or a 90. But still.

Anyway right now I'm not so sure. I am still convinced that the right of people to own firearms for whatever legal purpose they intend should be sacrosanct, but think maybe some restriction on certain types of guns which are so easily utilized in mass killings would be a good idea.

But then this country is awash in guns, something like 270 million, so any kind of restriction of any sort would be self defeating because it couldn't possibly have any immediate effect. Generationally, perhaps, a ban on manufacture would help things, but there would inevitably be a mass killing in the meantime that would be used to show the ban is ineffective and we'd probably end up back where we started.

Clearly, however, some debate on treatment of the mentally ill is in order. Pretty much anyone who knew this kid said they weren't surprised in the least that he snapped. Gun debate aside, this was an avoidable tragedy.
 
2012-12-17 12:44:14 PM
I did not know that Luby's in Texas had a ban on weapons
 
2012-12-17 12:45:26 PM

bradkanus: cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: kbronsito: If only someone would have had a gun in Ft. Hood back in 2009, then that tragedy could have been averted.
:(

you're an idiot and have obviously never been on a military base.

You're saying that nobody, but nobody is carrying on a military base? Including the MPs?

MPs are carrying loaded weapons - and as for bases like Fort Bliss in El Paso Texas where I have spent a tremendous amount of time - they are few and far between.

I have heard hearsay accounts that the Ft. Hood shooter did what hed where he did it, when he did and how did it based on the fact he knew he'd be the only one armed. his planning didn't exactly work out.


My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Nidal plan his attack.
 
2012-12-17 12:46:17 PM

NuttierThanEver: I did not know that Luby's in Texas had a ban on weapons


They had one of these on the door
i1231.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-17 12:47:21 PM

R.A.Danny: NuttierThanEver: I did not know that Luby's in Texas had a ban on weapons

They had one of these on the door
[i1231.photobucket.com image 193x251]



So it's the sign's fault!
 
2012-12-17 12:48:05 PM

gilgigamesh: Nabb1: AdolfOliverPanties: How ironic is it that the man responsible for this country's lack of available help for the mentally ill was himself shot by a looney with a gun?

[media.commercialappeal.com image 607x287]

Honestly, I think it would be far more productive if we as a society had a very serious debate about the deplorable state of our mental health resources in the wake of this. We may find that it enables us to prevent some future tragedies and help many, many people who are not nearly as dangerous, but nevertheless need help. Or, we can keep bickering about gun control, which seems to get us nowhere and doesn't help the mentally ill, either.

I'm still on the fence about this. I used to be in favor of strict gun control. Then I did a 180 when the post-Katrina gun grab opened my eyes. OK, maybe a 120, or a 90. But still.

Anyway right now I'm not so sure. I am still convinced that the right of people to own firearms for whatever legal purpose they intend should be sacrosanct, but think maybe some restriction on certain types of guns which are so easily utilized in mass killings would be a good idea.

But then this country is awash in guns, something like 270 million, so any kind of restriction of any sort would be self defeating because it couldn't possibly have any immediate effect. Generationally, perhaps, a ban on manufacture would help things, but there would inevitably be a mass killing in the meantime that would be used to show the ban is ineffective and we'd probably end up back where we started.

Clearly, however, some debate on treatment of the mentally ill is in order. Pretty much anyone who knew this kid said they weren't surprised in the least that he snapped. Gun debate aside, this was an avoidable tragedy.


Funny thing is that while I was not in favor of "strict" gun control per se, I was more open-minded about the issue until Katrina and took a hard right turn on the issue.
 
2012-12-17 12:48:40 PM

James!: R.A.Danny: NuttierThanEver: I did not know that Luby's in Texas had a ban on weapons

They had one of these on the door
[i1231.photobucket.com image 193x251]


So it's the sign's fault!


Well, the sign WAS supposed to keep everyone safe.
 
2012-12-17 12:49:05 PM

NuttierThanEver: I did not know that Luby's in Texas had a ban on weapons


concealed carry was not legal in Texas then. Lubys was in 1991.
 
2012-12-17 12:49:31 PM

R.A.Danny: Lumpmoose: You went from "Sadly not everyone was allowed to be armed" to "On site guards work pretty well..."

If you keep obfuscating your points, I'll keep making assumptions.

Obfuscation? Where have I not been clear? Should I type slower?


Do you have a solution to prevent another Sandy Hook and if so, what is it?
 
Displayed 50 of 608 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report