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.

(WHAM Rochester) NewsFlash NRA yesterday: We should have armed guards at every school. NRA after this morning: We're gonna need armed guards at fires too   (13wham.com) divider line 1058
    More: NewsFlash, Strong Memorial Hospital, fires, firefighters, morning  
•       •       •

19809 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 9:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

1058 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-24 11:32:06 AM  

Infernalist: Handguns are not designed for hunting. Nor assault rifles. Now, if he comes and borrows your hunting rifle, that's one thing and a completely different case.

But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?


And there are absolutely handguns that are designed for hunting. There are even entire seasons in some states that are limited to handgun hunting only.
 
2012-12-24 11:33:32 AM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: Right. How could you possibly assume that the guy you loaned your gun to is going hunting, or that he wants to defend his home. That couldn't possibly be what he's going to do with it because all guns are bad, bad, bad.

Handguns are not designed for hunting. Nor assault rifles. Now, if he comes and borrows your hunting rifle, that's one thing and a completely different case.

But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

Depends on where you live. There are a lot of people in this country that live more than a half hour away from a law enforcement response. That's a long time to wait when someone is trying to break into your house/garage/shop. Is it ideal? Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people use weapons for self defense and have for literally hundreds of years.


People owned slaves for literally thousands of years.
 
2012-12-24 11:34:35 AM  

Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: Right. How could you possibly assume that the guy you loaned your gun to is going hunting, or that he wants to defend his home. That couldn't possibly be what he's going to do with it because all guns are bad, bad, bad.

Handguns are not designed for hunting. Nor assault rifles. Now, if he comes and borrows your hunting rifle, that's one thing and a completely different case.

But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

Depends on where you live. There are a lot of people in this country that live more than a half hour away from a law enforcement response. That's a long time to wait when someone is trying to break into your house/garage/shop. Is it ideal? Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people use weapons for self defense and have for literally hundreds of years.

People owned slaves for literally thousands of years.


That's the equivalent of Godwinning the thread. You should be very ashamed.
 
2012-12-24 11:34:57 AM  

DrExplosion: Infernalist: But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

None of those things works half as well as being able to shoot the guy who broke into your house. Killing people isn't always bad.


Armed home invasions, like meteors and lightning strikes, are not a problem you need to mitigate.

If your solution causes a bigger problem than it solves, then it is not much of a solution.
 
2012-12-24 11:35:12 AM  

DrExplosion: Infernalist: DrExplosion: Infernalist: But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

None of those things works half as well as being able to shoot the guy who broke into your house. Killing people isn't always bad.

I'm sure Lanza thought the same thing.

Yes, I'm sure he thought he lived in that school and was confused and terrified at all the children who were invading it with the intent to harm him.

Really, though, you're seriously equating self-defense with mass murder? In your mind, there is absolutely no justification for ever killing another human being, and all killings are morally equal? Is this accurate? I know from looking at the rest of the thread that you're either a troll or a retard, I just want to hear you say it.


You statement was..."Killing people isn't always bad." I simply pointed out that Lanza would have agreed with you. If you have a problem with that, too farking bad. The truth hurts.
 
2012-12-24 11:35:16 AM  

Infernalist: Depends on where you live. There are a lot of people in this country that live more than a half hour away from a law enforcement response. That's a long time to wait when someone is trying to break into your house/garage/shop. Is it ideal? Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people use weapons for self defense and have for literally hundreds of years.

People owned slaves for literally thousands of years.


Your dumbest response of the day. Congrats.
 
2012-12-24 11:35:19 AM  
The Catch 22 of firearms is that the more guns in the hands of the law abiding, the more guns in the hands of criminals.

It is true criminals don't obey gun laws. So, manufacturing limitations must be considered. Automatics are quite rare.

The "Guns as religion" crowd have fallen for firearms manufacturer propaganda hook, line and sinker.

It was unbelievable nothing was done after Virginia Tech. I will be both disgusted and impressed if nothing is done after the 2012 mass shootings. Ultimately it's a combination of the voting public's fault and the politicians' fault. The politicians have created a system of legalized bribery by which they obtain money. The public has shrugged and accepted it.
 
2012-12-24 11:35:32 AM  

iheartscotch: I always wondered why more schools don't employ a few members of the local police force to provide security.

/ I know a few do, but not all.


I always wondered why the police don't serve and protect automagically like they're supposed to.  Why the hell should a public institution need to hire members of the local police force to protect them when that's what they are supposed to be farking doing in the first farking place.

Free market something something bullshiat
 
2012-12-24 11:35:53 AM  

Amos Quito: I suspect that the shooter (death wish) torched his own house with the intent of shooting firefighters on arrival.

Why? I have no idea.


I was thinking it was probably somebody who's house was being foreclosed on and instead of letting the bank have it, torched it, and decided to take out anybody that tried to stop it from burning.
 
2012-12-24 11:36:48 AM  

Delecrious: I could care less about gun laws. Sure, I'd prefer keeping them legal so I can get them legitimately, but if they're banned... I'd still get one if I wanted one, fark the government.


nice to know that you are a law abiding citizen. Why is it that so many of you gun nuts are anti-government but you tell us that you are protecting the government and us?
 
2012-12-24 11:37:23 AM  

ronaprhys: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: Right. How could you possibly assume that the guy you loaned your gun to is going hunting, or that he wants to defend his home. That couldn't possibly be what he's going to do with it because all guns are bad, bad, bad.

Handguns are not designed for hunting. Nor assault rifles. Now, if he comes and borrows your hunting rifle, that's one thing and a completely different case.

But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

Depends on where you live. There are a lot of people in this country that live more than a half hour away from a law enforcement response. That's a long time to wait when someone is trying to break into your house/garage/shop. Is it ideal? Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people use weapons for self defense and have for literally hundreds of years.

People owned slaves for literally thousands of years.

That's the equivalent of Godwinning the thread. You should be very ashamed.


On the contrary. I merely used the fact that slavery was not just accepted but 'expected' in most societies for many thousands of years. In fact, it wasn't until relatively recently that it fell into the category of 'immoral'.

It's an effort to show that just because something is currently acceptable in society, that doesn't make it truly acceptable or moral.

tl;dr version: Shiat changes.
 
2012-12-24 11:38:20 AM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: Depends on where you live. There are a lot of people in this country that live more than a half hour away from a law enforcement response. That's a long time to wait when someone is trying to break into your house/garage/shop. Is it ideal? Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people use weapons for self defense and have for literally hundreds of years.

People owned slaves for literally thousands of years.

Your dumbest response of the day. Congrats.


Defeat the logic or admit defeat, son.
 
2012-12-24 11:38:40 AM  

Mondak: "Looks like the police have themselves a recreational vehicle."


Arg! No!
"RV". He says RV. I know it's the same thing, but your quote is incorrect.

Damn people who quote incorrectly! I'll kill you! I'll kill you all!
 
2012-12-24 11:38:43 AM  

amoral: chuckufarlie: Mr. Eugenides: chuckufarlie: Mr. Eugenides: czei: I get it: gun violence is caused by liberals working for Obama has part of a grand conspiracy to take away our guns?

I don't know that they're working for Obama or are working to take away our guns, but yeah, I doubt any of the recent mass shooters were registered as Republicans. In fact, a fair number of them (Side show bob and Loughner) seem to have been Democratic activists of sorts.

right, the kid's mother was a survivalist. How many survivalists do you think are Democrats? The kid grew up in a Republican household.

The idea that these maniacs are working to take away your guns is incredibly stupid. They do not have a political agenda, they are pissed and want to take it out on people.

You should go find a mental health professional and have a nice long talk. They cannot cure stupid, but they can help with the crazy.

Interesting; you make some fatuous leaps and then insult me without providing a shred of corroboration for your assertions. But somehow you're actually proud of your skill at debate aren't you?

this is not a debate, you moron. You are either crazy or stupid, possibly and more likely you are both, You post is proof of it.

Buddy, you are so worked up that your typing and spelling has broken down. That's like waving the white flag in an internet argument. Everyone who reads this knows you lost, and that you lost so badly that you are agitated.


yea, I left out an R so that means that I have lost. You came into this with no brain, You lost before you started.
 
2012-12-24 11:39:25 AM  

chuckufarlie: DrExplosion: Infernalist: But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

None of those things works half as well as being able to shoot the guy who broke into your house. Killing people isn't always bad.

Most people, when confronted by the situation would freeze. Then the crook could take you gun and kill you and your family with it.

Killing people is not as easy as you think. Pulling the trigger is easy. Actually doing so is mental and emotional.


Killing people is exactly as easy as I think. I'm a veteran. I've done it before.

My first time, I had never killed anyone before. I had only trained. When the moment came, I didn't hesitate. Don't try to tell me that what I've done is impossible and people should not be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. The alternative is to force them to put themselves entirely at the mercy of those who would do them harm. I'll take "I might not successfully defend myself" over "I sure hope this big mean guy stops beating me before I die" any day.
 
2012-12-24 11:39:54 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: david_gaithersburg: Oh the outrage, how dare they make a sensible statement such as having city schools be patrolled by city police officers. That would call fro removing the police from the doughnut shops.

Ooh, it was a good try up until the easy spelling error.


I would argue that the spelling error was the clincher.
 
2012-12-24 11:40:22 AM  

ows: and it will turn out to be a 5 shot bolt operated hunting rifle.

obama will outlaw all guns. well , he'll try anyway.


i'm sorry for your loss.
 
2012-12-24 11:41:01 AM  

Infernalist: Handguns are not designed for hunting. Nor assault rifles. Now, if he comes and borrows your hunting rifle, that's one thing and a completely different case.

But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?


The only way one can own an assault rifle is to file very significant amounts of papework, subject themselves to a thorough background check, drop thousands of dollars to actually buy the rifle, etc. On top of that, those that are legally purchased aren't used for crimes to any appreciable degree. What you're probably thinking about are "evil black rifles", something that looks like but is not an assault rifle. Get your terms correct.

As for their use in hunting, they actually do quite well for specific types of game. However, since game varies in size, method of locomotion, environment, and several other characteristics, a wide range of firearms are desirable. Just like a wide range of golf clubs are desirable.

Now, to address your point on the police - one reason we have them is deterrence. The larger reason is to investigate and apprehend criminals after the fact - which is the larger part of their deterrent impact. Consequences and all, but that's the entire legal system, not just the police. You are responsible for your own security and the law has shown, time and time again, the the police are not legally responsible for stopping someone from violating your rights.
 
2012-12-24 11:42:21 AM  

DrExplosion: chuckufarlie: DrExplosion: Infernalist: But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

None of those things works half as well as being able to shoot the guy who broke into your house. Killing people isn't always bad.

Most people, when confronted by the situation would freeze. Then the crook could take you gun and kill you and your family with it.

Killing people is not as easy as you think. Pulling the trigger is easy. Actually doing so is mental and emotional.

Killing people is exactly as easy as I think. I'm a veteran. I've done it before.

My first time, I had never killed anyone before. I had only trained. When the moment came, I didn't hesitate. Don't try to tell me that what I've done is impossible and people should not be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. The alternative is to force them to put themselves entirely at the mercy of those who would do them harm. I'll take "I might not successfully defend myself" over "I sure hope this big mean guy stops beating me before I die" any day.

 
2012-12-24 11:43:43 AM  

ronaprhys: Infernalist: Handguns are not designed for hunting. Nor assault rifles. Now, if he comes and borrows your hunting rifle, that's one thing and a completely different case.

But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

The only way one can own an assault rifle is to file very significant amounts of papework, subject themselves to a thorough background check, drop thousands of dollars to actually buy the rifle, etc. On top of that, those that are legally purchased aren't used for crimes to any appreciable degree. What you're probably thinking about are "evil black rifles", something that looks like but is not an assault rifle. Get your terms correct.

As for their use in hunting, they actually do quite well for specific types of game. However, since game varies in size, method of locomotion, environment, and several other characteristics, a wide range of firearms are desirable. Just like a wide range of golf clubs are desirable.

Now, to address your point on the police - one reason we have them is deterrence. The larger reason is to investigate and apprehend criminals after the fact - which is the larger part of their deterrent impact. Consequences and all, but that's the entire legal system, not just the police. You are responsible for your own security and the law has shown, time and time again, the the police are not legally responsible for stopping someone from violating your rights.


Assault rifles are not hunting rifles. Saying it doesn't make it true. They're designed for the intent to kill people, not animals.
 
2012-12-24 11:43:48 AM  

Infernalist: On the contrary. I merely used the fact that slavery was not just accepted but 'expected' in most societies for many thousands of years. In fact, it wasn't until relatively recently that it fell into the category of 'immoral'.

It's an effort to show that just because something is currently acceptable in society, that doesn't make it truly acceptable or moral.

tl;dr version: Shiat changes.


Yeah - and dictators existed for thousands of years. Doesn't make Godwinning acceptable in a thread. Try again.
 
2012-12-24 11:44:55 AM  

hdhale: So subby...been a troll since you were born, or was it more a process of de-evolution? My theory is that you were breast feed by your mother until you were 5 and your mom would threaten to take you and leave your father if he even looked sternly at you, but please, enlighten us.

/oh and...what happened to the firefighters could have been pulled off with a bolt action rifle or any hunting rifle really, so any talk of this making any case for the banning of "assault weapons" is just more trolling


Wayne, is that you?

/Not subby
//slashies
 
2012-12-24 11:45:33 AM  

Infernalist: Assault rifles are not hunting rifles. Saying it doesn't make it true. They're designed for the intent to kill people, not animals.


They are used every day to hunt a wide variety of animals. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.
 
2012-12-24 11:45:56 AM  

tonguedepressor: KarmicDisaster: Orgasmatron138: ongbok: Cataholic: Verrai: iheartscotch: I always wondered why more schools don't employ a few members of the local police force to provide security.

/ I know a few do, but not all.

Columbine High School had armed guards.

And by "armed guards", you mean one police officer who was off campus eating lunch in his car.

By armed he means armed with a radio and a whistle like at most non gang riddled high schools.

I would like to see a citation that the Columbine school security were armed when that shooting happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_234 7 096.html

He shot at the attackers and missed. Oops.

The problem is that you are expecting a guy that stands there day after day after day for years on end in the most boring job ever, to go from most boring job ever to full on expert marksman against pumped up crazies in a fraction of a second with no warning. Just does not happen.

I also think we should utilize military personnel to guard our schools and equip 'em w/ the firepower necessary and make use of "panic buttons" that could employ them on scene asap.

Columbine guards didn't even know what was going down til it was far too late.


It is not even legal to use the military in that manner. Beyond that, the idea that we have to go from one fortified position to the next is hardly what I would call freedom. Put guards at schools and the idiots will attack malls (as they have already done), put guards at the malls and the idiots will attack cinemas (as they already have). Where do you think it will stop? Maybe we should just ban any meeting of more than two people. Maybe we should shred 9 of the 10 Bill of Rights in order to protect the one.

If we are going to live in freedom without worrying about somebody shooting up a school, or a mall or a cinema then we have to eliminate the guns that are being used - rifles that utilize magazines.
 
2012-12-24 11:46:09 AM  

amoral: DrExplosion: Infernalist: But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

None of those things works half as well as being able to shoot the guy who broke into your house. Killing people isn't always bad.

Armed home invasions, like meteors and lightning strikes, are not a problem you need to mitigate.

If your solution causes a bigger problem than it solves, then it is not much of a solution.


Mass shootings are even less common. By your own logic, they are not a problem you need to mitigate.

I also fail to see how one dead bad guy would be a bigger problem than my own family being the victims. Unless of course you mean to imply that my (few) guns are somehow responsible for the acts of madmen across the country, or that the simple fact that I am armed is causing irreparable damage to society as a whole.
 
2012-12-24 11:47:33 AM  
Stop shooting and start loving.
 
2012-12-24 11:47:51 AM  

Verrai: iheartscotch: I always wondered why more schools don't employ a few members of the local police force to provide security.

/ I know a few do, but not all.

Columbine High School had armed guards.


And he was outside, in the opposite end of the building at the time of the shooting (catching the deadly smokers). It took him five minutes to get to the cafeteria (he was notified three minutes into the shooting, and it took him two minutes to get to the cafeteria), enough time to kill a good number of kids even with a snub-nosed 22. He did exchange fire twice in the shootout, which diverted their attention from shooting the students, saving lives. If the security guard wasn't there, the massacre would have been a heck of a lot worse, since the police were preoccupied with a bomb they detonated someplace else. Grant you if the officer was closer (it is a large campus), it might not have stopped the two from killing anyone, but he did in fact save a lot of lives that day, at least as a diversion.

At my school (which has armed police), he is just down the hall, and doesn't leave the school while in session (not even to the parking lot, that's what the principal and his team is for). He can get to the reception area in seconds (and the doors all over the rest of the building lock upon start of school). Also, during lunch he would be near the lunchroom, watching the kids eat. Backup's less than a minute away for him, and since he is a police officer, he has proper two-way communication.

There are a lot of things to be learned from any shootings, but alas, it has to come at a price, much like script-kiddies and computer attacks.
 
2012-12-24 11:48:37 AM  
Personally , Cars kill more kids then school shootings in this country...

BAN CARS!!!
 
2012-12-24 11:49:59 AM  

Kit Fister: I don't own guns to fight the government. I own guns because they're fun to shoot, and where I'm at, I'm much less likely to have a cop show up should I need one before I'm dead than I am to have a cop save my ass. I hunt, I shoot competitively, and I occasionally work security.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Besides, the first rule of war if it came to it: Kill the enemy, take his weapons, and use his supply lines against him.

I don't even need a gun, just need to get close and have a weapon.


Ok there Rambo
 
2012-12-24 11:50:02 AM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: Assault rifles are not hunting rifles. Saying it doesn't make it true. They're designed for the intent to kill people, not animals.

They are used every day to hunt a wide variety of animals. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.


The fact that they are being used to hunt any animal but feral hogs does not mean that they should be, What sort of a hunter fires off a three round burst to bring down any game animal? If you need an automatic weapon to be a successful hunter, you need to find another hobby.
 
2012-12-24 11:50:07 AM  

hdhale: So subby...been a troll since you were born, or was it more a process of de-evolution? My theory is that you were breast feed by your mother until you were 5 and your mom would threaten to take you and leave your father if he even looked sternly at you, but please, enlighten us.

/oh and...what happened to the firefighters could have been pulled off with a bolt action rifle or any hunting rifle really, so any talk of this making any case for the banning of "assault weapons" is just more trolling



People like YOU are the reason nothing will be done and more people will get shot.
Look at all the butthurt you put into your answer to Subby's little humorous jab at recent events.
One joke and it's all OH YA?! WELL FARK YOU!!

You are the stereotype people see when they see gun owners and....you're not helping.
 
2012-12-24 11:51:17 AM  

MassAsster: Personally , Cars kill more kids then school shootings in this country...

BAN CARS!!!


this has been explained time and time again and yet there is always another moron that comes along to make an asinine statement.
 
2012-12-24 11:51:43 AM  

chuckufarlie: Scerpes: Infernalist: Assault rifles are not hunting rifles. Saying it doesn't make it true. They're designed for the intent to kill people, not animals.

They are used every day to hunt a wide variety of animals. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.

The fact that they are being used to hunt any animal but feral hogs does not mean that they should be, What sort of a hunter fires off a three round burst to bring down any game animal? If you need an automatic weapon to be a successful hunter, you need to find another hobby.


Semi-auto, chief. Automatic weapons are heavily restricted, expensive, and difficult to get.
 
2012-12-24 11:52:27 AM  

Delecrious: I could care less about gun laws. Sure, I'd prefer keeping them legal so I can get them legitimately, but if they're banned... I'd still get one if I wanted one, fark the government.


And that's the other logical disconnect from the gun slurpers.  They're afraid of the government more than anything else, as illustrated by their distrust for it.  And if the government bans guns they want, then they will be "criminalized" by a government they distrust in the first place.

So if you don't trust the government, and think you can defeat it in a necessary armed revolt, then why do you care what the law is?  You can OPENLY  talk about overthrowing the government, but you think you're oppressed to the point of tyranny?  You OPENLY talk about rebellion being the reason for your guns, but you NEED THEM TO BE LEGAL to fight the oppressive government?  Wouldn't a true rebel in a country with an evil, tyrannical government NOT CARE if the guns he wanted were illegal, because he'd be trying to overthrow them anyway?

And let's not have a database of gun owners, BUT let's have a database and testing of all citizens who might buy or handle guns, so theoretically we can ban them from access to them???

How does any of this make sense?  That's right:  it doesn't.
 
2012-12-24 11:52:45 AM  

chuckufarlie: Scerpes: Infernalist: Assault rifles are not hunting rifles. Saying it doesn't make it true. They're designed for the intent to kill people, not animals.

They are used every day to hunt a wide variety of animals. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.

The fact that they are being used to hunt any animal but feral hogs does not mean that they should be, What sort of a hunter fires off a three round burst to bring down any game animal? If you need an automatic weapon to be a successful hunter, you need to find another hobby.



yeah... Minus the fact that you need a federal tax stamp to have a rifle that fires three round bursts, and your standard "assault rifle" is simply a semi-auto rifle... You came so close to sounding like you knew what you were talking about though... A+ for effort.
 
2012-12-24 11:52:51 AM  

People_are_Idiots: Verrai: iheartscotch: I always wondered why more schools don't employ a few members of the local police force to provide security.

/ I know a few do, but not all.

Columbine High School had armed guards.

And he was outside, in the opposite end of the building at the time of the shooting (catching the deadly smokers). It took him five minutes to get to the cafeteria (he was notified three minutes into the shooting, and it took him two minutes to get to the cafeteria), enough time to kill a good number of kids even with a snub-nosed 22. He did exchange fire twice in the shootout, which diverted their attention from shooting the students, saving lives. If the security guard wasn't there, the massacre would have been a heck of a lot worse, since the police were preoccupied with a bomb they detonated someplace else. Grant you if the officer was closer (it is a large campus), it might not have stopped the two from killing anyone, but he did in fact save a lot of lives that day, at least as a diversion.

At my school (which has armed police), he is just down the hall, and doesn't leave the school while in session (not even to the parking lot, that's what the principal and his team is for). He can get to the reception area in seconds (and the doors all over the rest of the building lock upon start of school). Also, during lunch he would be near the lunchroom, watching the kids eat. Backup's less than a minute away for him, and since he is a police officer, he has proper two-way communication.

There are a lot of things to be learned from any shootings, but alas, it has to come at a price, much like script-kiddies and computer attacks.


The price is now too high. The rifles that use magazines need to be collected and taken to a blast furnace.
 
2012-12-24 11:53:13 AM  

BalugaJoe: Stop shooting and start loving.


But it's right at the end of loving that the shooting starts!

/shooting blanks.
 
2012-12-24 11:53:20 AM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: Have there been a rash of incidents in which people use a car as a weapon? Driving them into crowds on purpose?


i.imgur.com

/i keed
//was not on purpose
 
2012-12-24 11:53:47 AM  

Infernalist: ronaprhys: Infernalist: Handguns are not designed for hunting. Nor assault rifles. Now, if he comes and borrows your hunting rifle, that's one thing and a completely different case.

But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

The only way one can own an assault rifle is to file very significant amounts of papework, subject themselves to a thorough background check, drop thousands of dollars to actually buy the rifle, etc. On top of that, those that are legally purchased aren't used for crimes to any appreciable degree. What you're probably thinking about are "evil black rifles", something that looks like but is not an assault rifle. Get your terms correct.

As for their use in hunting, they actually do quite well for specific types of game. However, since game varies in size, method of locomotion, environment, and several other characteristics, a wide range of firearms are desirable. Just like a wide range of golf clubs are desirable.

Now, to address your point on the police - one reason we have them is deterrence. The larger reason is to investigate and apprehend criminals after the fact - which is the larger part of their deterrent impact. Consequences and all, but that's the entire legal system, not just the police. You are responsible for your own security and the law has shown, time and time again, the the police are not legally responsible for stopping someone from violating your rights.

Assault rifles are not hunting rifles. Saying it doesn't make it true. They're designed for the intent to kill people, not animals.


So did our forefathers write a Constitution to protect your right to shoot squirrels or people?
The hunting weapon thingie is a strawman adhoiminenium fark all lie.
The Constitution addresses anti personnel guns. The best the times could provide.
 
2012-12-24 11:53:53 AM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: I think it's time we did away with the 2nd Amendment.

Fantastic. You go ahead and start on that Constitutional Amendment.


How about this: make getting any type of gun require a background check prior to purchase. Most states already require that for handguns. Require training in use and safe storage of guns. Make the owner legally liable for any mischief committed by the guns.

There, done.
 
2012-12-24 11:54:26 AM  

Infernalist: DrExplosion: Infernalist: DrExplosion: Infernalist: But handguns and assault rifles are not 'hunting weapons' at all. As for defending his home? From whom? Isn't that why we have police? Alarm systems? Dogs? Tasers?

None of those things works half as well as being able to shoot the guy who broke into your house. Killing people isn't always bad.

I'm sure Lanza thought the same thing.

Yes, I'm sure he thought he lived in that school and was confused and terrified at all the children who were invading it with the intent to harm him.

Really, though, you're seriously equating self-defense with mass murder? In your mind, there is absolutely no justification for ever killing another human being, and all killings are morally equal? Is this accurate? I know from looking at the rest of the thread that you're either a troll or a retard, I just want to hear you say it.

You statement was..."Killing people isn't always bad." I simply pointed out that Lanza would have agreed with you. If you have a problem with that, too farking bad. The truth hurts.


Hitler would have agreed with me if I said the sky was blue. This doesn't make me wrong. Perhaps you would like to explain why I am wrong in thinking that sometimes people need to die. Share with me that "truth" which hurts so much. It seems to me that your "truth" is that nobody ever needs to kill anyone else under any circumstances. Is this correct?
 
2012-12-24 11:54:26 AM  

MassAsster: Personally , Cars kill more kids then school shootings in this country...

BAN CARS!!!


Banning cars would not work. Cars are necessary. Banning guns would not work. Guns are clearly allowed under the second amendment. Regulating cars helps reduce the death rate.  Regulating guns similarly to cars would help. Training, testing, registration and insurance.
 
2012-12-24 11:54:48 AM  

ronaprhys: lordjupiter: It seems we have different definitions of those things.

Potentially, but that doesn't matter. What matters is how I'm seeing and who I'm calling out.

None of your rationalizations change what I said, which is that you characterize anything that might make you feel bad as MADD tactics; which, even if assumed to be true, for some reason is supposed to be an insult.

No I don't - go back and look what needlenuts had posted. It was pictures of one of the young girls who died in the horrific shooting and then proceeded to berate all of us for not agreeing to his plan of weapon confiscation and other unconstitutional acts which would not, in any way, actually work nor stop these crimes. That's how MADD worked. Maybe if you actually went back and read the thread, it'd help you look less silly?

I don't think you ever answered my question the other day about whether or not you think drunk driving is OK.  You gave some nonsensical response about 0% BAC or something, which I guess is possibly indicative of some belief that you have a special ability to drive after drinking more than other people, or something.  Still not sure what your hangup is.  Not that it makes one bit of difference because IT IS YET ANOTHER DISTRACTION.

Well, obviously you've failed. That wasn't me. Maybe you should go back and read that thread instead of making false accusations.

Back on topic...

Yes - let's get there. What are your exact suggestions? How would they work? Are they Constitutional? What measurement would you use to show success?


The usual last resort:  "what's YOUR plan??"

You don't want a plan, you want something you can ignore and line-item with shiatty retorts.  I have my own ideas as does everyone else, but I'm not a lawmaker or an expert who can determine the cut-off lines for ballistics or regulations.  My suggestion is, and always has been, for the gun lobby astroturfers to stop blocking the discussion.  Start with that.
 
2012-12-24 11:54:50 AM  

letrole: BronyMedic: I agree. It's high time we turned from the wicked sinful choice of homosexuality, and back to Jesus H Christ, our lord and savior.


But the guns have always been there. Something has changed.

Care to wager about the shooter being a disaffected young white male?


The guns have always been there and these things have always happened. This shiat isn't new, man.
 
2012-12-24 11:54:51 AM  
Jesus wanted these two sheep back in his flock, so He obviously sent His messenger to bring these firemen sheep to His bosom.

Praise Jesus!
 
2012-12-24 11:55:07 AM  
Hey guys, there is a lot of hate in this thread. It's not helping.

Local news is having a press conference with local authorities. More info will come out. Working theory is that this was a trap intentionally set.
 
2012-12-24 11:56:19 AM  
Just think.
Tomorrow a new gun will be invented that you never thought of.

How about a drone? Watch how fast those puppies get put up.
 
2012-12-24 11:56:23 AM  

Coastalgrl: Hey guys, there is a lot of hate in this thread. It's not helping.

Local news is having a press conference with local authorities. More info will come out. Working theory is that this was a trap intentionally set.


The fark? A trap. Unreal.
 
2012-12-24 11:56:28 AM  

Easy Reader: If I was believing in conspiracies, I'd say shooting firefighters working a fire was the most perfectly timed next step toward villainizing guns and gun people.


If we have a shooting at a puppy farm next week, I'll give you credit for being on to something.
 
2012-12-24 11:56:34 AM  

MassAsster: chuckufarlie: Scerpes: Infernalist: Assault rifles are not hunting rifles. Saying it doesn't make it true. They're designed for the intent to kill people, not animals.

They are used every day to hunt a wide variety of animals. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.

The fact that they are being used to hunt any animal but feral hogs does not mean that they should be, What sort of a hunter fires off a three round burst to bring down any game animal? If you need an automatic weapon to be a successful hunter, you need to find another hobby.


yeah... Minus the fact that you need a federal tax stamp to have a rifle that fires three round bursts, and your standard "assault rifle" is simply a semi-auto rifle... You came so close to sounding like you knew what you were talking about though... A+ for effort.


Are you saying that you cannot fire off a three round burst with a semi-automatic? All you need to do is pull the trigger three times fast. Is that something that you cannot grasp?

I am not going to use labels like assault rifle so that people like you can debate what is or is not an assault rifle, an assault weapon or whatever. You are arguing semantics. Do you understand what semantics is?

I simply state that we need to confiscate and make illegal all rifles that utilize a magazine or a clip. Screw semantics.
 
Displayed 50 of 1058 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report