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.

(New York Daily News)   NRA: "Israel only stopped school shootings by putting armed security guards in their schools." Israel: "Yeah, about that"   (nydailynews.com) divider line 57
    More: Obvious, NRA, school shootings, Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel, northern israel, Jewish state, corporals, gun ownership, Israeli citizen  
•       •       •

23842 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 8:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2012-12-24 12:51:03 AM
12 votes:
I wonder how much overlap there is between those who support arming teachers and those who said a month ago that teachers are overpaid, underworked unionists who live high on the hog while Real Amerikans struggle in "real" jobs.
2012-12-24 08:52:59 AM
10 votes:
Columbine had armed security guards.

Virginia Tech had it's own police department.

Fort Hood was a farking military base.

Tell me again how more guns will solve things.
2012-12-24 09:09:05 AM
6 votes:
"It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion," he added.

What a weird sentiment. I wonder what would happen if you reversed it?
2012-12-24 09:27:07 AM
5 votes:
Note to the American fringe right:  The Israelis that you seem to worship are not the roving band of warriors you read about in the Old Testament.  They're a modern country, and like the rest of the world, they think you're all idiots.
2012-12-24 12:35:21 AM
4 votes:
Can these idiots get anything right? I mean other than blaming 20-year-old movies and video games.
2012-12-24 09:58:15 AM
3 votes:
HindiDiscoMonster:

What i would like to know is how do these countries (with strict gun regulation) keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

/serious question


Consistent national-level laws, background checks, and it probably helps that they don't have such a farked up enforcement system and have a few million fewer guns floating around to begin with.

We have a patchwork of arbitrary state laws which basically means that there's a steady flow of guns from states with lax laws allowing "collector" sales from the trunks of cars at gun shows and no limits on how many a "collector" can buy in a month to states that actually have gun laws.

On top of that, at least in my state the local and state police can't enforce gun laws. They have to depend on the ATF for that, and that leads to absolutely insane incidents like this one where a gun shop "lost" almost 500 guns, it took 6 years for it to grind through the system, and when they finally did get busted the owners just sold their stock to a friend and effectively just transferred the shop from one pocket to the other.
2012-12-24 09:54:01 AM
3 votes:

nucular_option: To "solve things" you need friendly guns close by at every turn. An armed society is a polite society.


I'd rather not live in a culture where an arguement with the neighbor about his dog crapping on my front lawn naturally escalates to pistols at dawn.
2012-12-24 09:24:10 AM
3 votes:
cdn.ricochet.com

I've seen numerous people posting this picture on Facebook and my first thought each time was "you know, she's not trying to protect those kids from their own citizens, she's trying to protect them from terrorists." It's a fundamentally different situation and shouldn't be seen as a model for us to follow in our own borders where our people *should* be able to walk around without fear of being shot.
2012-12-24 01:33:10 AM
3 votes:
"Israeli citizens are not allowed to carry guns unless they are serving in the army or working in security-related jobs that require them to use a weapon," said Berko.

i'm starting to get really offended at the NRA. they can't even bother to think up a believable lie.  this got exposed what?  within 24 hours?
2012-12-24 09:47:09 AM
2 votes:

nucular_option: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7501666/81477700#c81477700" target="_blank">Shadowknight</a>:</b> <i>Columbine had armed security guards.

Virginia Tech had it's own police department.

Fort Hood was a farking military base.

Tell me again how more guns will solve things.</i>

The Columbine guards did not handle the improvised grenades very well...
VT's police were a ways away and not in the building...
Ft. Hood's security was contract security and a ways away...

To "solve things" you need friendly guns close by at every turn. An armed society is a polite society. Don't bring a Calculus book to a gunfight.


And exactly how are you going to ensure that every gun wielder is sane, sober, and friendly? No to mentioned trained and competent?

What's your plan for that good sir?

/people use tools to make tasks easier
//when tools are available people will use them
///guns are tools that make killing and maiming people easy
2012-12-24 09:46:12 AM
2 votes:

HindiDiscoMonster: What i would like to know is how do these countries (with strict gun regulation) keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

/serious question



Economics. More regulations means fewer guns sold or possessed. Fewer guns means limited supply. Limited supply means the price for guns and ammo is higher. Higher prices proclude certain criminals from committing gun crimes. What's the point of paying $700 for a pistol and ammo to rob $250 from a local grocery store?

It's the same reason there aren't many crimes committed in the U.S. with fully automatic weapons.
2012-12-24 09:12:19 AM
2 votes:

spcMike: Shadowknight: Columbine had armed security guards.

Virginia Tech had it's own police department.

Fort Hood was a farking military base.

Tell me again how more guns will solve things.

We don't carry weapons on Post.


Your MP's are unarmed?
2012-12-24 08:34:07 AM
2 votes:

Chariset: I wonder how much overlap there is between those who support arming teachers and those who said a month ago that teachers are overpaid, underworked unionists who live high on the hog while Real Amerikans struggle in "real" jobs.


Here is the Venn diagram: O
2012-12-24 02:51:16 AM
2 votes:
Just in case he tries to bring up Switzerland next:

Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias
2012-12-24 01:17:54 AM
2 votes:

MisterTweak: Any defense attorney who handles intoxication manslaughter cases would kill for his talent, but only if they had the matching lack of a conscience.


If they had a lack of conscience, they'd be a prosecutor.
2012-12-24 03:35:21 PM
1 votes:

Bad_Mojo: I also don't like the idea of being lectured to by someone that has never touched a firearm on how terrible they are. That's just your opinion and thankfully, I and others are not ruled by just your opinion.


So until I actually shoot a gun, my opinion that unfettered access to high-powered military-quality firearms is a problem has no validity.

I await your bizarre, otherworldly explanation as to why that is.
2012-12-24 03:22:46 PM
1 votes:

Carlip: Simplified version.
Are there armed guards in Israeli schools? Yes.
Are there school shoots in Israeli schools? No.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.


Are there Jews in Israel? Yes.
Did they kill Jesus? Maybe,
2012-12-24 01:38:26 PM
1 votes:

Farkage: Flappyhead: Poot beer: I think there are three very important words in the 2nd Amendment.

/well regulated militia
//well regulated
//regulated


The problem is you're assuming most NRA supporters can read.

And naturally, you're assuming that the word 'regulated" means what you think it does. Try looking into the context of when the Bill of Rights was written. Go ahead, do a little homework!
And I'll leave this here with you, since apparently you have trouble with comprehension...

"Well regulated" back when the Bill of Rights was written meant "In it's proper working order" These days people like you try to redefine it as "Strictly controlled". It's not the same thing no matter how much you try to pretend it is. And why would the Founding Fathers make it a right strictly controlled by the government when they just fought a war to get us away from a very oppressive government and guarantee we will never be forced to endure oppression again?

Here are a few more that you'll just end up ignoring anyway (since things like facts and history trouble you so much):
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future ...


All well in and good, but do you think the Founders envisioned automatic weapons, chemical weapons or nuclear weapons?

If so or if not, would you agree that as long as the automatic, chemical or nuclear weapon is in good working order, then you should be able to possess it?
2012-12-24 12:58:16 PM
1 votes:

Bad_Mojo: I am a gun owner & not a member of the NRA. I own several guns but do not hunt. My son and I spend a lot of time at our local range and enjoy the bonding that results from our outings.

I don't have an issue with reasonable gun control with the key word here being reasonable. The left's meaning of resonable seems to be ban all guns. The right's meaning of reasonable seems to be no laws at all. There has to be a middle ground.

1. Require background checks & a reasonable waiting period at the initial purchase of the gun.
2. Close any loopholes with personal sales and require all transactions be done through a licensed dealer along with a background check and a waiting period.
3. Require that the person be certified through a training course to be administered during the waiting period. No certification means no gun purchase. The only exception being gun store owners buying stock or collectable guns such as black powder rifles and pistols.
4. Require recertification each year. Have the instructors trained to spot possible issues and set up a board to review the recommendations of the instructors so that there is no bias against an individual and the decision on whether to recertify an individuall is not in 1 person's hands.
5. Failure to be certified requires the gun owner to surrender all weapons until he/she is able to be recertified.
6. Make the costs of certification and the follow up classes affordable for the average person.



The only two things I would add is a mental health screening when you apply for a firearms certification and one each time you recertify. And a ban on any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. I don't care about the cosmetics of the gun, unlike most people who are pushing for the assault weapons ban, I think the only part of the ban that should remain is the high capacity magazine part.

Now a lot of people on the right think that this is too much, and would even say that the regulations that you suggested is a violation of their rights, and is somehow an attempt at an outright ban on guns. From my experience most people on the left do not want to ban guns, but want some common sense measure in place that prevent certain types of weapons from hitting the streets and unstable people from legally being able to own guns.
2012-12-24 12:11:53 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: RevCarter: Your MP's are unarmed?

The joke is that people don't realize that you have to be an on-duty MP to carry on a military base. Everyone's armed to them.


So...do we need to arm our on-base military to protect them from future shootings?
2012-12-24 12:09:02 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Any bets on how long until LaPierre is laughed out of his job?


He's gotten the discussion away from new gun legislation, so he'll probably get a nice bonus.
2012-12-24 12:08:07 PM
1 votes:

Snatch Bandergrip: If the pro-gun crowd had a brain cell to spare, they would argue for better access to mental healthcare; particularly for individuals like Adam Lanza, whose latent psychological problems may have been addressed - and thus a massacre averted - had he had someone to look out for his mental well-being. Taking this position would not only address the disease instead of the symptom, it would argue the position they're arguing anyway, and they wouldn't look like such infantile psychopaths in the process.


I actually have heard some gun owners arguing for this. In general, I think we need to treat mental-health problems better in our culture. We need to treat it like any other medical problem. If you have cancer you see an oncologist, if you have a knee problem you see an orthopedic surgeon. Nobody looks at you funny for those. If your brain isn't working right you should be able to go see a counselor and/or a psychiatrist in the same way, without it being any big deal. Treatment also needs to be covered by insurance in the same way that physical illness is. (That's been the law where I live--Massachusetts--for some while; I don't recall offhand if it got incorporated into the recent health-care laws or not.)

As regards mental health and firearms, the $64,000 questions:

--Contrary to popular belief, the overwhelming majority of people who have mental-health issues are not prone to violence. (And, by the way, that belief--that "mentally people are all potentially violent"--is part of the stigma we should be fighting.) How do you separate out those who are? What's the threshold for judging someone as dangerous? The current threshold is, "Have you ever been committed by a court order to a mental-health institution?" Obviously, that's a pretty high bar. Most people who want to go out and commit mass-murder aren't going to tell their shrink, unless they really do feel a compulsion to commit an act of violence and retain enough sanity to want to be stopped.

--How do you do this without creating a national database of everyone who's sought out mental health treatment? If it turns out you can't do it without creating such a database, how do you prevent such a database from being abused? How do you keep, e.g., someone's potential future employer from accessing it, and denying someone a job? Can it be used by your ex-spouse to deny visitation to your kids?

--How do you avoid creating a situation in which fear of losing the right to self-defense is not a perverse incentive to keep people from seeking help? Hell, if you have a national mental-health database, potential appearance in such a database will prevent some people from seeking help even if they don't own and want nothing to do with guns, for (IMO legitimate) fear that the database will be abused. Already, some people pay for therapy and meds out-of-pocket because they don't want to appear on insurance-company records as having sought mental-health treatment.

--Who's more dangerous: someone whose wife died a dozen years ago, throwing him into clinical depression, for which he sought counseling and treatment with SSRIs and therapy, and has since gotten better and no longer needs meds, or someone with, say, undiagnosed bipolar disorder who's never sought treatment? Which one is likely to show up in a mental-health background check?

--We all know at least one person about whom we say or think, "Man, I'm glad that guy doesn't own/have access to guns." How do you avoid creating a situation where one person's inexpert word that you're not a suitable person to own firearms doesn't get someone's guns confiscated?

--If you have, or have had, a mental-health issue, is the ban on owning firearms a lifetime disqualifier? Because that's the only kind of DQ that exists in law right now. If it's not a lifetime DQ, what's the process for getting your firearms rights reinstated?
2012-12-24 11:48:47 AM
1 votes:

born_yesterday: badhatharry: The founders of this country would disagree with you. They believed it was necessary for civilians to be armed. They believed that "well regulated" civilian militias were necessary for the security of a free state. And they did not mean regulated by the federal government. The hope was that it would prevent the need to ever have to overthrow a tyrannical government.

They also believed that black people only counted as 3/5th of a human. Good thing we never changed our stance on that, who knows what tragedy would have befallen our country!


Yes, but do you know why? Because the northern states didn't want southern states using slaves to be counted as full citizens only for the purposes of representation in Congress. It would have given slave states more power than northern states in Congress. It actually helped lead to the end of slavery.
2012-12-24 11:24:59 AM
1 votes:

Farkage: Flappyhead: Poot beer: I think there are three very important words in the 2nd Amendment.

/well regulated militia
//well regulated
//regulated


The problem is you're assuming most NRA supporters can read.

And naturally, you're assuming that the word 'regulated" means what you think it does. Try looking into the context of when the Bill of Rights was written. Go ahead, do a little homework!
And I'll leave this here with you, since apparently you have trouble with comprehension...

"Well regulated" back when the Bill of Rights was written meant "In it's proper working order" These days people like you try to redefine it as "Strictly controlled". It's not the same thing no matter how much you try to pretend it is. And why would the Founding Fathers make it a right strictly controlled by the government when they just fought a war to get us away from a very oppressive government and guarantee we will never be forced to endure oppression again?

Here are a few more that you'll just end up ignoring anyway (since things like facts and history trouble you so much):
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future ...


Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution. - Supreme Court, 1857

See? People, societies, and ideas -- and Constitutions -- evolve, according to the times. At least, if they are not unintelligent and want to survive.

Course, I'm just an unmitigated tool, so what do I know.
2012-12-24 11:24:14 AM
1 votes:
I am a gun owner & not a member of the NRA. I own several guns but do not hunt. My son and I spend a lot of time at our local range and enjoy the bonding that results from our outings.

I don't have an issue with reasonable gun control with the key word here being reasonable. The left's meaning of resonable seems to be ban all guns. The right's meaning of reasonable seems to be no laws at all. There has to be a middle ground.

1. Require background checks & a reasonable waiting period at the initial purchase of the gun.
2. Close any loopholes with personal sales and require all transactions be done through a licensed dealer along with a background check and a waiting period.
3. Require that the person be certified through a training course to be administered during the waiting period. No certification means no gun purchase. The only exception being gun store owners buying stock or collectable guns such as black powder rifles and pistols.
4. Require recertification each year. Have the instructors trained to spot possible issues and set up a board to review the recommendations of the instructors so that there is no bias against an individual and the decision on whether to recertify an individuall is not in 1 person's hands.
5. Failure to be certified requires the gun owner to surrender all weapons until he/she is able to be recertified.
6. Make the costs of certification and the follow up classes affordable for the average person.

I'm sure I have forgotten something and it will soon be pointed out to me by other farkers, which brings me to my next point. The current gun buying frenzy appears to be due to fear that a gun ban is on the way. Prices have escalated on everything from guns to magazines to ammo. This has been driven much in part by the MSM and the constant reporting on the need for tighter gun control. It was reported by CBS news radio that anti-gun articles vs. pro-gun are currently running a 2:1 ratio. Posts in forums are running a 6:1 ratio in favor of gun control. I would have liked to hear how that was broken down in a ratio of total ban fanatics vs. resonable gun control.

My reasoning for this is that most responsible gun owners won't post to a forum due to the the swarm of total ban zealots that will then start the name calling etc rather than debate the situation in a civilized manner. I fully expect to be called an idiot among other things for posting this but then I don't plan to feed the trolls with any further posts.

I also don't like the idea of being lectured to by someone that has never touched a firearm on how terrible they are. That's just your opinion and thankfully, I and others are not ruled by just your opinion.

Go to a range...rent a gun...put a few rounds down range or go to a gun safety course to see what is discussed during these courses and then tell me I shouldn't own a gun. I may not agree but I would respect your opinion a lot more at that point.
2012-12-24 11:20:41 AM
1 votes:

Flappyhead: The Green Manalishi:
There are too many gun owners - not a majority, but too many - who rely on guns to fill some void in themselves. The Red Dawn fantasies, the guys who can't wait to use their guns "for real." Most of them would shiat their pants if they ever had to look down the business end. Once again, this doesn't describe the majority of gun owners, but there are too many irresponsible ones for my taste.

The ones that get me the most are the owners who "need" to own certain types of firearms. You don't need a handgun with a fifteen round clip, you need to hit the firing range more so one shot does all you require(if that ever happens). You don't need a semi-auto rifle modeled after the AR-15(or an AR-15 for that matter) when a simple hunting rifle will do the same job and again, the target range is your freind. And anybody saying their automatic shotgun with the drum barrel is anything but a penis extension is a damn liar. You didn't buy it because you have safety concerns, you bought it because it gave you wood. It's not a large group, but it's vocal enough to drag the conversation down into semantics and rhetoric.


Absolutely. No one needs an AR-15 for home defense, or to overthrow tyrants or water the tree of liberty. They "need" it because they are enthusiasts and hobbyists, and get off on having a house full of guns and showing off to their friends.
2012-12-24 11:13:39 AM
1 votes:

justinsmith354: liam76: The whole 'shall not be infringed' speaks to owners, not sellers. If you want to sell dangerous weapons you shoul have to record what you are selling, who you are selling to and make stre the person you are selling two gets thumbs up from the ATF.

replace "ATF" with FBI and you just described what happens every time a gun store sells a firearm.


Good thing the only way to buy a firearm is from a gun store.
2012-12-24 10:51:10 AM
1 votes:
"What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years," he said.

Uh huh. It was not only the armed guards. It was also some other men, and women, with guns.
2012-12-24 10:40:23 AM
1 votes:

Flappyhead: Poot beer: I think there are three very important words in the 2nd Amendment.

/well regulated militia
//well regulated
//regulated


The problem is you're assuming most NRA supporters can read.


And naturally, you're assuming that the word 'regulated" means what you think it does. Try looking into the context of when the Bill of Rights was written. Go ahead, do a little homework!
And I'll leave this here with you, since apparently you have trouble with comprehension...

"Well regulated" back when the Bill of Rights was written meant "In it's proper working order" These days people like you try to redefine it as "Strictly controlled". It's not the same thing no matter how much you try to pretend it is. And why would the Founding Fathers make it a right strictly controlled by the government when they just fought a war to get us away from a very oppressive government and guarantee we will never be forced to endure oppression again?

Here are a few more that you'll just end up ignoring anyway (since things like facts and history trouble you so much):
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. - Richard Henry Lee 1788

And last but not least:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Now, since you're a unmitigated tool that refuses to actually think about what the Founding Fathers meant, please explain all of the above in your "people aren't allowed to have arms unless they are in a militia strictly controlled by the government" mindset.
2012-12-24 10:37:40 AM
1 votes:

thornhill: Here's another reason why the "put a guard in every school" plan is a poorly thought out and impractical:

The high school I went to was composed of 6 buildings on nearly 20 acres. You'd need a minimum of 6 guards, but realistically 10 or more. I think the schools budget was about $14 million; the Atlantic estimated the cost of a guard with benefits is about $90k; increasing the budget by $1 million on a non-programatic expenses is huge and never going to happen. It's just not realistic. And that's to say nothing about the increased cost of insurance from having so many guns on campus.


It would be an unfunded mandate, and the kids would be less educated for it.
2012-12-24 10:36:57 AM
1 votes:

nucular_option: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7501666/81477700#c81477700" target="_blank">Shadowknight</a>:</b> <i>Columbine had armed security guards.

Virginia Tech had it's own police department.

Fort Hood was a farking military base.

Tell me again how more guns will solve things.</i>

The Columbine guards did not handle the improvised grenades very well...
VT's police were a ways away and not in the building...
Ft. Hood's security was contract security and a ways away...

To "solve things" you need friendly guns close by at every turn. An armed society is a polite society. Don't bring a Calculus book to a gunfight.


Yeah that's why it was called "The polite, polite Wild West." And why do you think the armed forces, who trains people to handle guns, restrict the use of weapons on base? Moron.
2012-12-24 10:32:51 AM
1 votes:
Problem: far too much gun violence, an amendment protecting gun ownership, a powerful pro-gun lobby, and a broke-ass economy.
Solution: 500+% ammunition tax.
2012-12-24 10:24:37 AM
1 votes:
I do not support the alarmist reaction to the Newtown massacre of making tighter gun laws - one, because I do not believe they will address the deeper issue of a gun-happy culture in general (or the mental wellbeing of perpetrators in particular); and two, because restricting our freedom in response to safety threats is a slippery slope towards extinguishing what makes this country great.

BUT

The pro-gun crowd is not doing itself any favors by arguing that tighter gun laws are not the solution - not because they are necessarily incorrect, but because it makes the massacre about THEM, and not about the twenty people that were needlessly executed this month. Hey, Joe Bob, twenty kids just got murdered; no one gives a shiat that you might not get to play with your AR-15 with the extended mag.

And that childishly selfish mindset, coupled with relatively unfettered access to lethal weaponry, is what's scaring people now.

If the pro-gun crowd had a brain cell to spare, they would argue for better access to mental healthcare; particularly for individuals like Adam Lanza, whose latent psychological problems may have been addressed - and thus a massacre averted - had he had someone to look out for his mental well-being. Taking this position would not only address the disease instead of the symptom, it would argue the position they're arguing anyway, and they wouldn't look like such infantile psychopaths in the process.

But deep down, we all know that people who say tighter gun laws couldn't stop incidents like Newtown, also oppose a healthcare system that potentially could stop incidents like Newtown.
2012-12-24 10:16:11 AM
1 votes:

Karac: nucular_option: To "solve things" you need friendly guns close by at every turn. An armed society is a polite society.

I'd rather not live in a culture where an arguement with the neighbor about his dog crapping on my front lawn naturally escalates to pistols at dawn.


I really wish people would keep reading past Washingtons "an armed society is a safe society" quote so they'd realize he was talking about Western expansion into Native territory and the very real possibilty that England might invade via Upper Canada.

/F*cking context, how does it work?
2012-12-24 10:15:53 AM
1 votes:
I think there are three very important words in the 2nd Amendment.

/well regulated militia
//well regulated
//regulated
2012-12-24 10:00:13 AM
1 votes:
What the NRA believes all security guards in schools look like
lifeinsurancebyjeff.com
What an actual security guard in a school tends to look like
www.hudsonlee.com
2012-12-24 09:56:04 AM
1 votes:

HindiDiscoMonster: I'm an Egyptian!: nucular_option: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7501666/81477700#c81477700" target="_blank">Shadowknight</a>:</b> <i>Columbine had armed security guards.

Virginia Tech had it's own police department.

Fort Hood was a farking military base.

Tell me again how more guns will solve things.</i>

The Columbine guards did not handle the improvised grenades very well...
VT's police were a ways away and not in the building...
Ft. Hood's security was contract security and a ways away...

To "solve things" you need friendly guns close by at every turn. An armed society is a polite society. Don't bring a Calculus book to a gunfight.

Because Somalia and Afghanistan are so polite. Next!

I heard they smile when they shoot... that's polite, right?


Hmm. Never thought of it that way. I guess an armed society is a polite society. A bloody one, but polite. Dare I say, mission accomplished?
2012-12-24 09:47:37 AM
1 votes:

born_yesterday:


I'm curious; did part of the class cover when NOT to draw? If so, how much emphasis was placed on the individuals responsibilities in a live fire situation?

/Honest question
//Thank you in advance


Yes, much of the classes were learning not to draw and understanding the consequences of when you draw. Basically it came down to two sentences: "If you are in a situation where someone is being threatened and you are not, don't be a hero and call the cops. If you are in a situation where it is the other guy or you, then defend yourself."
2012-12-24 09:39:09 AM
1 votes:
My gun-nut cousins were all over this "Israel arms teachers" nonsense for a good solid 3 days, until I finally got fed up and found a "Lol, no" link to post in response. I got a "Well well well I guess we need fences/armed security personnel", but it at least stopped the flow of tasteless viral Facebook pics for a while.

They didn't have Word One to say to me at our Christmas get-together the other night, so I think I might be persona non grata after my betrayal, which honestly is fine by me. At least this year he didn't use Grandma's money to buy and wrap himself a box of 9mm shells, then spend 10 minutes telling everyone how he probably wouldn't be able to buy them next year.
2012-12-24 09:39:00 AM
1 votes:

spcMike: Shadowknight: Columbine had armed security guards.

Virginia Tech had it's own police department.

Fort Hood was a farking military base.

Tell me again how more guns will solve things.

We don't carry weapons on Post.


Bullshiat. Security Forces and MPs are always armed.
2012-12-24 09:33:45 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Any bets on how long until LaPierre is laughed out of his job?


He will never be. He has the support of millions upon millions of armed idiots.
2012-12-24 09:29:28 AM
1 votes:

ElBarto79: [cdn.ricochet.com image 800x382]

I've seen numerous people posting this picture on Facebook and my first thought each time was "you know, she's not trying to protect those kids from their own citizens, she's trying to protect them from terrorists." It's a fundamentally different situation and shouldn't be seen as a model for us to follow in our own borders where our people *should* be able to walk around without fear of being shot.


I like how the gun rests on her ass.
2012-12-24 09:26:17 AM
1 votes:

Elzar: Oh hai all you anti-semite gun haters. You know who else hated jews with guns?"


Prime Minister Netanyahu. Especially after the assassination of the guy who had his job before him.
2012-12-24 09:25:19 AM
1 votes:
www.troll.me
2012-12-24 09:24:23 AM
1 votes:

Chariset: I wonder how much overlap there is between those who support arming teachers and those who said a month ago that teachers are overpaid, underworked unionists who live high on the hog while Real Amerikans struggle in "real" jobs.


doublethink comes easy to those people.
2012-12-24 09:24:09 AM
1 votes:
Want to get rid of school shootings? Easy. Just get rid of schools.

Problem solved.

/My bill is in the mail.
2012-12-24 09:21:41 AM
1 votes:

fusillade762: Just in case he tries to bring up Switzerland next:

Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias



The NRA folks also forgot that Switzerland, like several European countries, requires a year of military service for all able bodied male citizens. So, even the ones that have semi-automatic rifles have likely undergone extensive training with them, unlike some random yahoo at a gun show.
2012-12-24 09:21:33 AM
1 votes:

Shadowknight: Columbine had armed security guards.

Virginia Tech had it's own police department.

Fort Hood was a farking military base.

Tell me again how more guns will solve things.


This. The NRA has two solutions to your dilemma:

1. Spend trillions putting armed guards in not only every school, but every classroom, and/or...

2. Let everyone openly carry a gun. In which case, America is turned into a John Carpenter film where soccer moms get strapped to go grocery shopping.

Sounds like just the world I want to live in.
2012-12-24 09:18:40 AM
1 votes:

nucular_option: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7501666/81477700#c81477700" target="_blank">Shadowknight</a>:</b> <i>Columbine had armed security guards.

Virginia Tech had it's own police department.

Fort Hood was a farking military base.

Tell me again how more guns will solve things.</i>

The Columbine guards did not handle the improvised grenades very well...
VT's police were a ways away and not in the building...
Ft. Hood's security was contract security and a ways away...

To "solve things" you need friendly guns close by at every turn. An armed society is a polite society. Don't bring a Calculus book to a gunfight.


This "armed society is a polite society" bull needs to stop. Crazy people don't really mind being shot at, and, in any given situation, these "friendly guns" you are talking about do. Think of any given story where police end up shooting someone. You commonly hear "18 shots were fired, the suspect was hit twice." If you don't spend a whole lot of time actively engaged in shooting people, you are not going to do well when shiat goes down (in fact, you are more likely to make things worse). Just think for one moment if you were an armed security guard at a school. You would spend most of your time sitting at a desk doing nothing. Would you be prepared when some nutjob came in with an AR-15? No.

I can a Conceal and Carry from MN. I know I'm not an action hero, and my instructor made that painfully clear in classes. You can' really regulate against crazy people, but you can make things much much worse.
2012-12-24 09:18:02 AM
1 votes:
New rule: Israel can no longer be used as an example when discussing security measures. Every country has unique security concerns. No one is lobbing mortars at my house every five minutes.
/I don't give a flying fark about Israel
2012-12-24 09:12:34 AM
1 votes:
MisterTweak:

cameroncrazy1984: Any bets on how long until LaPierre is laughed out of his job?

The companies he represents is on course for a year of spectacularly record-shattering profits. He's a scumbag, but the worse he acts, the most his customers obediently line up to buy shiat at margins DeBeers has wet dreams over.


This, and the NRA does not give one shiat about the 2nd amendment... It's a lobbying corporation that basically is only interested in perpetuating it's own existence.

I've been telling this CSB a lot lately:

I used to have a client in the NRA's headquarters building, and because I'm a smoker I ended up shooting the breeze (ha!) with a couple of their execs every so often out in the smoking area. They completely, unapologetically said that they made shiat up and started "OMG! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!" rumors in order to get the base to send them money. They were proud of it.

The worst part is, they had no idea who I was, I could have been some hippy gun-grabber reporter for Rolling Stone magazine or something. As it happens I'm just some random IT geek, but they didn't know me, and they didn't *care* who knew they were running a scam. They are that confident in their ability to lie and keep on taking their member's money.
2012-12-24 09:10:51 AM
1 votes:
Everyone needs their own armed guard. Including the armed guards. This will fix our unemployment problem.
2012-12-24 09:03:54 AM
1 votes:

Shadowknight: Columbine had armed security guards.

Virginia Tech had it's own police department.

Fort Hood was a farking military base.

Tell me again how more guns will solve things.


We don't carry weapons on Post.
2012-12-24 09:02:28 AM
1 votes:
If you have a gun then someone can shoot you.
2012-12-24 02:34:38 AM
1 votes:
The NRA apologist I have to work with told me with a straight face the other day that the US should copy Israel's model. I would love to see the look on his face if we actually did.

/This was after he got done blaming the media, movies, video games, and public school female teachers for the killings.
//I hate his derp so much.
2012-12-24 01:21:09 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Any bets on how long until LaPierre is laughed out of his job?


Never.
2012-12-24 12:56:03 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Any bets on how long until LaPierre is laughed out of his job?


The companies he represents is on course for a year of spectacularly record-shattering profits. He's a scumbag, but the worse he acts, the most his customers obediently line up to buy shiat at margins DeBeers has wet dreams over.

Granted, the ethics of blame-shifting to the parents who are still burying their children is pretty horrific, but absolutely nobody is laughing at him. Any defense attorney who handles intoxication manslaughter cases would kill for his talent, but only if they had the matching lack of a conscience.
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report