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 1070
    More: NewsFlash, Strong Memorial Hospital, fires, firefighters, morning  
•       •       •

19806 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?

1070 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-24 12:38:12 PM

skylabdown: Reasonable Man:  Maybe we could increase the number of armed security/police in schools.  We already have them in many schools, including the schools of many in government that say it's a bad idea.   Also, whenever one of these idiot murderers are confronted with someone who has a gun, they usually stop or shoot themselves in the head.

US Media and many Farkers: OMG!!!  CRAZY!!!  WHY DON'T WE ARM HAMSTERS WHILE WERE AT IT!  THIS GUY WANTS US TO HAVE NUCLEAR MISSLES IN OUR SCHOOLS!!!!  AGGGGHHH!!!!  WHAT AN IDIOT!!!


Installing Armed Officers in our schools will actually INCREASE the Power and the Presence of government even more than it is today. Our children will become institutionalized to fearing their own government.

But regulating health insurance and establishing market mechanisms to drive down costs is an evil government overreach?
 
2012-12-24 12:38:28 PM
Update: Including today's now.

volcs0: Running total of shooting deaths since Newtown

Not including today's.

Just providing data.

 
2012-12-24 12:39:20 PM

volcs0: Running total of shooting deaths since Newtown

Not including today's.

Just providing data.


data that is not at all relevant to the conversation. Mass shootings - try to focus.
 
2012-12-24 12:39:24 PM

computerguyUT: Bontesla: computerguyUT: Bontesla: computerguyUT: Natsumi: I don't know if this has been asked before and please be nice... I don't live in America...
What is it with people and guns in America? Really?
I mean we (in Namibia) are avid hunters and such but we don't really take it to this level.

It's being overblown by the media.
Yesterday somehow 319,999,999 people managed to not shoot anybody.

So you're saying the number of people shot was an acceptable level? Good to know.

That's amazing how you took what I wrote and turned it into what I really mean for me jackhole.

You guys spout "take them all away" like that would solve anything since it's not law abiding gun owners that are going nutjob.
Where's your real solution? It's so much easier to just spout crap and rhetoric in funny redneck misspelled words and make funny DEHURRRR sounds. Just makes you feel so superior doesn't it.
This country is in the situation it is currently is because we are building a structure that panders to the lowest common denominator.
The problem is there are just too damn many ways for the .0001% to go apeshiat.

Where does it end? passing laws does not affect criminals. I don't know how else to phrase it so you guy can undertand it.
Every gun I own is locked in a safe. If the Gestapo were to come by and take them all, what would that have accomplished?
I have managed to go 45 years without losing one and without shooting someone.
Why is the viloent .0001% more important than me?

When I said, "So you're saying the number of people shot was an acceptable level? Good to know", I only needed to deduce that from your statement that x number of people managed not to shoot anyone today. Your argument only makes sense if you establish an acceptable threshold of unnecessary gun violence. If you don't think any number of unnecessary shootings are acceptable then that would be a really odd statement for you to make.

Further - law abiding gun owners also snap. Here's the thing about law-abidi ...


The last thing we need is to have a heated discussion about gun regulation. There's no reason why we can't all set our passions aside and talk about this practically. People hear the word "gun regulation" and they stop thinking practically. It invokes some latent sense of fear irrationality and I'm not sure why. I have a firearm. I keep it secured. I show no one. No one (aside from my husband) knows where it's at. We purchase training classes so that we're both confident in using it and know how to use it safely. I'm not against guns although it isn't a hobby of mine. Halo 4 - I use all sorts of guns. I don't shoot on the weekends for fun.

Here are the facts:
1). Having a firearm in your home increases the odds that you will be killed at home. It also increases the odds that you will be killed by a firearm at home (although risk varied by age). Suicide, accidents, your spouse mistaking you for an intruder, fits of passion and rage, etc. Removing a gun doesn't remove the mechanisms that lead to suicides, accidents, fits of rage, and so on... however it does change the lethality. Source: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

2). Gun violence is the leading cause of death in homicide cases. If you want to kill someone - people are choosing guns over knives, cars, poison, explosions, etc (same source). Why? Because guns tend to be more accurate and lethal.

So pretending that reducing the amount of guns will not reduce the amount of deaths is a bit absurd. The question is - will it reduce it enough to justify the type of regulations we're considering? How do we balance the need to protect members of society against the need to maintain certain freedoms? There's no reason why we can't compromise for a solution but a compromise requires both parties to give something up in exchange for an agreement. If the extreme positions are: no guns ever vs guns free with birth - what compromise can we strike that allows us to meet in the middle? Obviously someone's going to have to give up some gun rights and someone's going to have to accept that our society is one in which there are guns.
 
2012-12-24 12:39:30 PM
When Sci-fi world comes to fruition and all guns are outlawed (LOL) then a smart investor would be loathe not to immediately invest in shovel & reinforced plastic bag stocks.
 
2012-12-24 12:40:34 PM
The amusing thing here is the way that all these yahoos are just arranging deckchairs on the titanic and blubbering about how sad they are and wanting to outlaw guns. You can put down that copy of Mother Jones and go stampy-stamp all around town square with a big protest sign. Yawn. Who gives a flying fark?

There are just too damn many guns in circulation -- and ammunition has a practical shelf life of +50 years.

The hard-core gun nutters? They're already having a sick old time wanking whilst fantasising about jackbooted things kicking in the door to take their guns. The guns are ready to be packed in grease and buried for safe keeping.

The criminals? Guns are already illegal for felons and those guns already get destroyed if confiscated. How much more dead than dead is dead? Oh great, another layer of law. It might be good for pre-trial stacking of charges, but not much else.

Regular citizens? They'll be burying guns in a grease filled four inch pipe just like the nutters -- sans the incriminating bumper stickers on the SUV that indicate they once owned guns.
 
2012-12-24 12:40:39 PM

People_are_Idiots: When the day comes when it's a criminal offense to own a gun, we'll find ourselves put in jail for shooting the "poor victim" that tried to break into our house with a gun, or put in jail for shooting the "poor bear" that mauled an "accomplice."


Why? do you really think that the only way to defend your house is with a gun? How about with one of these - maxcdn.nexternal.com
 Or some of this - highdesertprotection.com
 
2012-12-24 12:41:14 PM
astouffer:

chuckufarlie: Of course it could happen. More importantly, it needs to happen. Unless you are saying that all of those gun owners would not obey the law. Is that the type of person who has all of those rifles?

Man I'm so glad drugs are illegal. Oh wait...


That's not a very good analogy unless you mean prescription drugs. I've never heard of anyone making an illegal gun factory in their basement like they'd create a pot grow-op, or making a batch of semiautos in their trailer like shake-and-bake meth. We don't have millions of homemade zip guns.

Like prescription drugs, guns start in a licensed factory and initially have a paper trail.

Unlike guns, we have strict controls over who can buy or sell prescription drugs, they can only be bought from someone who's gotten an exhaustive background check (pharmacist) after the purchaser undergoes a background check of sorts (a licensed doctor examines the patient) and they have a paper trail at every step.

We don't let people buy all the prescription drugs they ask for just because they asked. We even require them to be sold in child-resistant packaging. Sure, the system gets abused (Rush Limbaugh would be an example) but we at least make SOME effort to regulate prescription drug traffic.
 
2012-12-24 12:41:17 PM
firemanbuck

I don't know if it was because what i asked here... but thanks for the Totalfark...
 
2012-12-24 12:41:43 PM

Bontesla: There's nothing wrong with saying any unnecessary gun violence exceeds an acceptable level (which is 0) and then work toward reasonably bringing that number down (with the goal of getting it as close to 0 as possible). That was my point. By saying look at all of these people that don't flip out - and isn't that a much bigger number - he's getting at what he determines is an acceptable level of risk. It's implicit in his argument. When a hammer is used to slaughter children in a school then I'll consider additional regulations for hammers. A hammer is inherently different than a gun and we should consider them separately. A gun and a vehicle are more comparable and we do heavily regulate driving.


We heavily regulate driving for a number of reasons, most of which have to do with public use of roads - which are, by and large, provided by the government. So to allow them to have rules on the roads they provide might seem to make sense, no? Additionally, the hours of use for vehicles by the average individuals and their overall impact on the economy drive even higher levels of necessary regulation. Firearms really don't fall into that category. Yes, they can be carried publically - but generally aren't used publically (ranges don't count here - that'd be closer to race tracks, which we'll discuss later). If they are used, it's either a crime or legitimate self-defense. So again, by your count, that legislation already exists.

Secondly, by your logic, no unnecessary death is allowable (a laudable proposition, just impossible). However, as I recall, firearm deaths are the minority. Well behind vehicles. For children, pools are responsible for many more deaths than firearms. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the biggest hitters and work your way down?

To the last part of the argument, yes we do (as citizens) accept a certain amount of unnecessary death. That's a fact. If we didn't, the speed limit would be 12.5mph or something equally slow. There would be no private transportation - everything would be public and set up in such a way as to prevent any possible death. That's not the case. Same with pools, hammers, table saws, and any other number of things.

None of that means we shouldn't look to ways to reduce the number of incidents, however, we also shouldn't respond in knee jerk fashions. Any debate needs to be reasoned, use statistics and logic, look at the positives and negatives, and weigh all factors prior to making a decision. One thing you seem to be leaving out are the number of times firearms prevent a crime (rape, murder, theft, assault, etc). How many of those are acceptable and what might the increase be if you increase the restrictions on firearms?

There's a reason why your neighbor isn't building a nuclear bomb in his garage. We regulate certain weapons so that they cannot be used in every day violence because the potential cost to society exceeds one's right to possess weaponry. Regulation can be tool against decreasing gun violence. (Example: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-g un-deaths/69354/) Also - I said that you'll probably know someone who is the victim of gun violence (injury or death). This brings the number of people you need to know in order to know someone who was a victim of gun violence down significantly. Do the research. Count your friends, family, colleagues, and associates.

Actually, that might have something to do with arms vs armaments. These terms are different and have specific meanings. Nor can you actually compare a nuclear weapon with a firearm. Simply put, that's an illogical comparison.

As for knowing someone, that's still going to be exceedingly rare. 1/25,000 are not good odds for your point. Even friends, family, associates, and colleagues doesn't make it likely. That's a very, very silly thing to say unless you happen to know a significant number of high risk folks.

Technically - you're only banned from street racing on city, county, and state roads/streets/highways/etc. Many states contain one area in which street racing is legal (a race track designed for this type of racing). That was my point entirely - there are some hobbies that pose a risk to others and we regulate that. My analogies were used to illustrate how regulations have mitigated risk and not how bad behavior is a type of regulatory tool. There are other regulations that aren't focused on bad behavior but on other aspects. For example - the type of weapons you should be allowed to possess can be tiered based on licensing and specialized training or restricted based on type (your neighbor cannot own a nuclear bomb). We can also use tax on gun sales to provide free training classes to households in which there are guns present. There are literally hundreds of ways we can approach the topic. Some of the ways would be more effective than others and we should probably use the least amount of regulation with the greatest efficacy as a general rule. However, to completely take certain common sense types of regulation off the table because . . . hobbies . . . is absurd.

Then it wouldn't be street racing, it'd be racing. There's a difference. One is illegal, one is not. Regulations already exist on firearms. You know the other reason what you're saying is silly? Because street racing and other activities don't ban or make illegal the vehicle (assuming it meets the normal requirements to be street legal), they ban the illegal activity. Which is the exact same on firearms. Murder and shooting people is illegal. Using a firearm in the commission of a crime is illegal.

Also, quit using the word hobbies. Why do I say that? Because we're discussing a specifically-enumerated right. You're trying to minimize the appropriate uses of firearms by using a word with specific connotations and that's inappropriate in a debate.
 
2012-12-24 12:42:00 PM

chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: chuckufarlie: Scerpes: chuckufarlie: Scerpes: chuckufarlie: I simply state that we need to confiscate and make illegal all rifles that utilize a magazine or a clip. Screw semantics.

There are probably 50 million of them in the U.S. Good luck with that.

All the more reason that banning further manufacture is pointless and all the more reason to have them turned in and made illegal. Anybody who does not turn them in would be a criminal and could be arrested.

Not going to happen. Keep fantasizing, though.

Of course it could happen. More importantly, it needs to happen. Unless you are saying that all of those gun owners would not obey the law. Is that the type of person who has all of those rifles?

You realize that 80% of GOP reps. tout their gun ownership as part of their re-election platform? Who is going to vote for these confiscation laws?

You have not been paying attention to the news. Lots of those very reps are now changing their tune. And the GOP is losing ground in this country. Saner heads are taking over.


Not in the House. They're absolutely batshiat and won't vote for anything let alone any new restrictions no matter how mild.
 
2012-12-24 12:42:02 PM

skylabdown: Reasonable Man:  Maybe we could increase the number of armed security/police in schools.  We already have them in many schools, including the schools of many in government that say it's a bad idea.   Also, whenever one of these idiot murderers are confronted with someone who has a gun, they usually stop or shoot themselves in the head.

US Media and many Farkers: OMG!!!  CRAZY!!!  WHY DON'T WE ARM HAMSTERS WHILE WERE AT IT!  THIS GUY WANTS US TO HAVE NUCLEAR MISSLES IN OUR SCHOOLS!!!!  AGGGGHHH!!!!  WHAT AN IDIOT!!!


Where does it end? You put guards in schools and these idiots will attack a mall or a cinema. So we put armed guards there as well. Then they might shoot up a grocery store, so we put armed guards there. They would find another target and we would put guards there. Soon, we would be living in armed camps.

Is that your idea of freedom?
 
2012-12-24 12:43:02 PM
chuckyoufarlie, you keep telling people to focus yet you can't get a single person to see the same color of sky you are looking at.
 
2012-12-24 12:44:48 PM

Waxing_Chewbacca: chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: chuckufarlie: Scerpes: chuckufarlie: Scerpes: chuckufarlie: I simply state that we need to confiscate and make illegal all rifles that utilize a magazine or a clip. Screw semantics.

There are probably 50 million of them in the U.S. Good luck with that.

All the more reason that banning further manufacture is pointless and all the more reason to have them turned in and made illegal. Anybody who does not turn them in would be a criminal and could be arrested.

Not going to happen. Keep fantasizing, though.

Of course it could happen. More importantly, it needs to happen. Unless you are saying that all of those gun owners would not obey the law. Is that the type of person who has all of those rifles?

You realize that 80% of GOP reps. tout their gun ownership as part of their re-election platform? Who is going to vote for these confiscation laws?

You have not been paying attention to the news. Lots of those very reps are now changing their tune. And the GOP is losing ground in this country. Saner heads are taking over.

Not in the House. They're absolutely batshiat and won't vote for anything let alone any new restrictions no matter how mild.


Members of the House come up for re-election on a regular basis. There are enough sane people in most of the districts to get the pro-gun types ousted.
 
2012-12-24 12:45:47 PM

tonguedepressor: chuckyoufarlie, you keep telling people to focus yet you can't get a single person to see the same color of sky you are looking at.


to be accurate, the people who do not see the same color of sky that I see are all gun nutz.
 
2012-12-24 12:49:39 PM

STRYPERSWINE: We should totally punish everybody for this, while making us all less safe.


Simply solution from a simpleton
 
2012-12-24 12:49:45 PM

letrole: The amusing thing here is the way that all these yahoos are just arranging deckchairs on the titanic and blubbering about how sad they are and wanting to outlaw guns. You can put down that copy of Mother Jones and go stampy-stamp all around town square with a big protest sign. Yawn. Who gives a flying fark?

There are just too damn many guns in circulation -- and ammunition has a practical shelf life of +50 years.

The hard-core gun nutters? They're already having a sick old time wanking whilst fantasising about jackbooted things kicking in the door to take their guns. The guns are ready to be packed in grease and buried for safe keeping.

The criminals? Guns are already illegal for felons and those guns already get destroyed if confiscated. How much more dead than dead is dead? Oh great, another layer of law. It might be good for pre-trial stacking of charges, but not much else.

Regular citizens? They'll be burying guns in a grease filled four inch pipe just like the nutters -- sans the incriminating bumper stickers on the SUV that indicate they once owned guns.


you are saying that all of these people will break the law? I doubt it, The die hard gun nutz will. Very few criminals use rifles and regular citizens are not reacting at all in the way you believe.

Saying that something cannot be done is admitting defeat. It can be done.
 
2012-12-24 12:50:28 PM

Scerpes: Machine guns are legal. Period.


You know how I can tell you are under the age of 40?
I didn't say they were illegal. They have a tax. The Branch Davidian raid started because David Koresh didn't pay that tax, regardless of all the reasons that were floated afterwards.
This is also a reason that that whacked out nut jobs are afraid.


//then there's Ruby Ridge
 
2012-12-24 12:51:08 PM

Bontesla: The last thing we need is to have a heated discussion about gun regulation. There's no reason why we can't all set our passions aside and talk about this practically. People hear the word "gun regulation" and they stop thinking practically. It invokes some latent sense of fear irrationality and I'm not sure why. I have a firearm. I keep it secured. I show no one. No one (aside from my husband) knows where it's at. We purchase training classes so that we're both confident in using it and know how to use it safely. I'm not against guns although it isn't a hobby of mine. Halo 4 - I use all sorts of guns. I don't shoot on the weekends for fun.


That's because most people using the term "gun regulation" think in terms of banning specific types of firearms, an approach that's been shown to fail in our society. Additionally, they tend to come up with unconstitutional, impractical, unenforceable, and/or ineffective solutions. No one wants to see their rights eroded and infringed for something that's not going to work. Now, if someone has a practical solution, most people are willing to discuss it - assuming it has appropriate safeguards to prevent the excesses of our government.

Here are the facts:
1). Having a firearm in your home increases the odds that you will be killed at home. It also increases the odds that you will be killed by a firearm at home (although risk varied by age). Suicide, accidents, your spouse mistaking you for an intruder, fits of passion and rage, etc. Removing a gun doesn't remove the mechanisms that lead to suicides, accidents, fits of rage, and so on... however it does change the lethality. Source: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full


I don't believe anyone is disputing this. The argument would generally be the same around vehicles and pools. If you don't have nor use a pool nor a vehicle, your chances of being injured or killed by one go down drastically. However, if it's your personal choice to bring one of these things into your home, it is not my business to stop you. That's your responsibility.

2). Gun violence is the leading cause of death in homicide cases. If you want to kill someone - people are choosing guns over knives, cars, poison, explosions, etc (same source). Why? Because guns tend to be more accurate and lethal.

Again, this isn't being debated.

So pretending that reducing the amount of guns will not reduce the amount of deaths is a bit absurd. The question is - will it reduce it enough to justify the type of regulations we're considering? How do we balance the need to protect members of society against the need to maintain certain freedoms? There's no reason why we can't compromise for a solution but a compromise requires both parties to give something up in exchange for an agreement. If the extreme positions are: no guns ever vs guns free with birth - what compromise can we strike that allows us to meet in the middle? Obviously someone's going to have to give up some gun rights and someone's going to have to accept that our society is one in which there are guns.

What is your solution? Banning types of firearms has been shown to be unconstitutional (Heller, McDonald). How do you address the fact that most of the homicides appear to be gang or drug related? Or the fact that firearm ownership has increased drastically but that the firearm homicide rate has decreased? How can you, without violating the Constitution, reduce the number of firearms?
 
2012-12-24 12:51:22 PM

chuckufarlie: volcs0: Running total of shooting deaths since Newtown

Not including today's.

Just providing data.

data that is not at all relevant to the conversation. Mass shootings - try to focus.


Tell that to these guys (well their families anyway). Maybe it will make them feel better.

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-24 12:52:09 PM

X-boxershorts: Installing Armed Officers in our schools will actually INCREASE the Power and the Presence of government even more than it is today. Our children will become institutionalized to fearing their own government.


Not really taking a side here, but I had an armed resource officer in my high school. His name was Doug, he'd sit in the lunchroom and was a regular guy. It actually was one of my first interactions with a LEO and I, along with others, had a better opinion of police officers because of it. Maybe I'm just crazy.
 
2012-12-24 12:53:26 PM

Amos Quito: And how are the People to respond, not if, but when their Government falls into tyranny?


But we live in the future now. Where humans are no longer greedy, there are no power struggles, and no one would ever want to rule over anyone else. I read about tyranny in a history book once. Things used to be bad but we have the internet now and iphones so we'll be ok.
 
2012-12-24 12:54:04 PM

People_are_Idiots: chuckufarlie: 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.

Hmm, so you want to effectively do... what? Banning rifles with magazines is about as effective as banning chemicals that make explosives. I can take a standard handgun and convert it to a magazine-f ...


Just because you believe that you can convert a handgun into a rifle is hardly a reason to eliminate the actual rifles that use magazines. Instead of several millions, we would face a handful. Much better odds.

If you are waiting for a perfect solution, you can stop waiting. Perfect solutions do not exist. What we need is the most effective that will stop mass shootings.
 
2012-12-24 12:54:42 PM
www.stephenking.ru
 
2012-12-24 12:55:26 PM

Dinki: People_are_Idiots: When the day comes when it's a criminal offense to own a gun, we'll find ourselves put in jail for shooting the "poor victim" that tried to break into our house with a gun, or put in jail for shooting the "poor bear" that mauled an "accomplice."

Why? do you really think that the only way to defend your house is with a gun? How about with one of these - [maxcdn.nexternal.com image 225x275]
 Or some of this - [highdesertprotection.com image 228x228]


Some times i wonder if you people even think before you spill the diarrhea that comes out of your head onto the forums.

Tasers - Require a distance and accuracy and despite having both, THEY STILL FAIL. why? Clothing: Often times the person being shot at is wearing heavy winter clothing.. the prongs don't fair well against this. Failed Prong launch: Some times shyt just doesn't go as planned... if one prong fails to hit it's target, the entire weapon is rendered useless and now requires you to remove the cartridge and make "contact" with your target. You have to literally now press the end of the taser against the person and pull the trigger. Effective? no...

Pepper spray: Wide area / non-target specific - Often intoxicated people, or people high on certain drugs feel little effect from this mixture of food grade pepper.

Why do police carry these? Because it's an escalation process, If one fails, you can attempt another, if that fails you can attempt another - the end result? Some times you just run out of options and have to use lethal force to stop someone.

Don't offer solutions that have no merit in the hands of civilians .
 
2012-12-24 12:55:41 PM

volcs0: chuckufarlie: volcs0: Running total of shooting deaths since Newtown

Not including today's.

Just providing data.

data that is not at all relevant to the conversation. Mass shootings - try to focus.

Tell that to these guys (well their families anyway). Maybe it will make them feel better.

[i48.tinypic.com image 118x96]


I did not say that their death was not relevant. I said that the data was not relevant to this conversation.

I am sure that you do not see the difference.
 
2012-12-24 12:56:15 PM
Why even have guns? It's obvious that people are going to shoot us anyway.
 
2012-12-24 12:56:54 PM

dr_blasto: The guns have always been there and these things have always happened. This shiat isn't new, man


Batshiat insane Teabaggers are though
 
2012-12-24 12:57:29 PM

Dinki: People_are_Idiots: When the day comes when it's a criminal offense to own a gun, we'll find ourselves put in jail for shooting the "poor victim" that tried to break into our house with a gun, or put in jail for shooting the "poor bear" that mauled an "accomplice."

Why? do you really think that the only way to defend your house is with a gun? How about with one of these - [maxcdn.nexternal.com image 225x275]
 Or some of this - [highdesertprotection.com image 228x228]


Both of those items are sometimes ineffective. The taser is more expensive to maintain, and can kill. Mace is effective, but can disable both the criminal and the victim. A gun is cheap to clean, maintain, and keep, tends to scare most criminals into compliance when shown, and is quite effective to those that aren't scared enough. Plus, they make a louder sound than either deterrent you showed that is distinguishable to many people (hence they'll call the cops if you didn't get a chance to).
 
2012-12-24 12:57:48 PM

mittromneysdog: Scerpes: I think you have to have a background check to buy any firearm any more.

No, you don't. The rapist loophole in the Brady Act lets convicted rapists, child molesters, and terrorists avoid background checks by buying firearms from non-federally licensed firearms dealers. The NRA has lobbied heavily to keep the rapist loophole in place. Rape. Rape rape rape.


 Obviously they're only concerned about legitimate rape.
 
2012-12-24 12:58:02 PM

chuckufarlie: volcs0: Running total of shooting deaths since Newtown

Not including today's.

Just providing data.

data that is not at all relevant to the conversation. Mass shootings - try to focus.



How many counts as "mass"?
 
2012-12-24 12:59:16 PM

dr_blasto: chuckufarlie: dr_blasto: 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.

The fact that this is not new is no reason to take all possible steps to make sure it does not happen again.

Either society has hit the practical limit for tolerance of this or it hasn't. We've never collectively done shiat about it before, maybe the time is now.

If we, as a nation, decide to do something then we need to address both the root causes and the access to the tools. Just doing one thing isn't going to make a change.


Addressing the root cause? Let's do that after we eliminate the weapons. You will find that the root cause in each case in different. I'd rather take the guns off the streets.
 
2012-12-24 12:59:38 PM

lordjupiter: So we've officially gone Godwin AND tinfoil hat with a conspiracy theory akin to the Reichstag fire? Because if so, that's some uncut derp right there.


look at the source
 
2012-12-24 01:01:00 PM

BalugaJoe: We could get crips and bloods to protect schools. pay them in menthols.


That is some awesome trolling right there, people.

/if not trolling, that's some racist shiat
 
2012-12-24 01:01:25 PM
chuckufarlie:you are saying that all of these people will break the law? I doubt it, The die hard gun nutz will. Very few criminals use rifles and regular citizens are not reacting at all in the way you believe.
Saying that something cannot be done is admitting defeat. It can be done.


If you outlaw the guns just like the die hard gun nutz said you would, then it's a bit asinine to call them 'nutz'.
 
2012-12-24 01:01:55 PM

WippitGuud: How many counts as "mass"?


This would count as an MCI, or mass casualty incident, so, yeah. It's the low end as far as numbers go, but the mechanism of injury is why I would use SMART triage.
 
2012-12-24 01:02:59 PM

WippitGuud: chuckufarlie: volcs0: Running total of shooting deaths since Newtown

Not including today's.

Just providing data.

data that is not at all relevant to the conversation. Mass shootings - try to focus.


How many counts as "mass"?


I hardly see where the actual number is relevant. A mass shooting is when a person enters a location and shoots everybody that he sees. As in most things, it is the intent that matters, not the actual numbers.
 
2012-12-24 01:04:20 PM

chuckufarlie: WippitGuud: chuckufarlie: volcs0: Running total of shooting deaths since Newtown

Not including today's.

Just providing data.

data that is not at all relevant to the conversation. Mass shootings - try to focus.


How many counts as "mass"?

I hardly see where the actual number is relevant. A mass shooting is when a person enters a location and shoots everybody that he sees. As in most things, it is the intent that matters, not the actual numbers.


You said the conversation was about mass shootings. I simple asked how many victims, living or dead, is required to label it as a 'mass' shooting.
 
2012-12-24 01:05:06 PM

letrole: The amusing thing here is the way that all these yahoos are just arranging deckchairs on the titanic and blubbering about how sad they are and wanting to outlaw guns. You can put down that copy of Mother Jones and go stampy-stamp all around town square with a big protest sign. Yawn. Who gives a flying fark?

There are just too damn many guns in circulation -- and ammunition has a practical shelf life of +50 years.

The hard-core gun nutters? They're already having a sick old time wanking whilst fantasising about jackbooted things kicking in the door to take their guns. The guns are ready to be packed in grease and buried for safe keeping.

The criminals? Guns are already illegal for felons and those guns already get destroyed if confiscated. How much more dead than dead is dead? Oh great, another layer of law. It might be good for pre-trial stacking of charges, but not much else.

Regular citizens? They'll be burying guns in a grease filled four inch pipe just like the nutters -- sans the incriminating bumper stickers on the SUV that indicate they once owned guns.


This is one of those word-searches, isn't it.
 
2012-12-24 01:05:19 PM
Please stop feeding Chuck

Thanks
 
2012-12-24 01:06:27 PM

WippitGuud: chuckufarlie: WippitGuud: chuckufarlie: volcs0: Running total of shooting deaths since Newtown

Not including today's.

Just providing data.

data that is not at all relevant to the conversation. Mass shootings - try to focus.


How many counts as "mass"?

I hardly see where the actual number is relevant. A mass shooting is when a person enters a location and shoots everybody that he sees. As in most things, it is the intent that matters, not the actual numbers.

You said the conversation was about mass shootings. I simple asked how many victims, living or dead, is required to label it as a 'mass' shooting.


I think the number would be "more than one"

Otherwise it's "a murder"
 
2012-12-24 01:06:45 PM

letrole: chuckufarlie:you are saying that all of these people will break the law? I doubt it, The die hard gun nutz will. Very few criminals use rifles and regular citizens are not reacting at all in the way you believe.
Saying that something cannot be done is admitting defeat. It can be done.

If you outlaw the guns just like the die hard gun nutz said you would, then it's a bit asinine to call them 'nutz'.


That is a rather stupid thing to say. I do not call them gun nutz because of any belief they have that guns might be outlawed. I call them gun nutz because they stand firm against the idea that any gun should be removed. I call them gun nutz because so many of them look at their guns the same way that most of us look at Heidi Klum or other heavenly bodies like her.
 
2012-12-24 01:06:54 PM
Humanity is failing at an alarming rate...
 
2012-12-24 01:08:18 PM

WippitGuud: chuckufarlie: WippitGuud: chuckufarlie: volcs0: Running total of shooting deaths since Newtown

Not including today's.

Just providing data.

data that is not at all relevant to the conversation. Mass shootings - try to focus.


How many counts as "mass"?

I hardly see where the actual number is relevant. A mass shooting is when a person enters a location and shoots everybody that he sees. As in most things, it is the intent that matters, not the actual numbers.

You said the conversation was about mass shootings. I simple asked how many victims, living or dead, is required to label it as a 'mass' shooting.


and I explained to you that assigning a number is not important. I explained that the intent of the shooter is important.

Did I type too fast? Should I use smaller words?
 
2012-12-24 01:08:28 PM

Fapinator: Too soon?


Window seat or aisle?

/I'll be on the bus to hell with you for laughing
//yeah that probably is too soon
 
2012-12-24 01:08:29 PM

Benjamin Orr: Please stop feeding Chuck

Thanks


Actually, the best thing to do would be to discuss him with others. So, whenever he replies to someone, quote that and then address the original person instead of him. Refuse to actually discuss anything with him. He'll go into histrionics and completely meltdown, which will be nothing but pure comedy gold.
 
2012-12-24 01:08:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: WippitGuud: chuckufarlie: WippitGuud: chuckufarlie: volcs0: Running total of shooting deaths since Newtown

Not including today's.

Just providing data.

data that is not at all relevant to the conversation. Mass shootings - try to focus.


How many counts as "mass"?

I hardly see where the actual number is relevant. A mass shooting is when a person enters a location and shoots everybody that he sees. As in most things, it is the intent that matters, not the actual numbers.

You said the conversation was about mass shootings. I simple asked how many victims, living or dead, is required to label it as a 'mass' shooting.

I think the number would be "more than one"

Otherwise it's "a murder"


Actually, I think the FBI classifies a mass-murder as 4+ w/o a cool-off period. If it's 4+ with a cool-off period, I think it's a 'serial killing'. 600+ posts and now we're into definitions... awesome.
 
2012-12-24 01:09:10 PM

kingflower: Humanity is failing at an alarming rate...


You've never really studied history, have you?
 
2012-12-24 01:09:23 PM
ronaprhys:

We heavily regulate driving for a number of reasons, most of which have to do with public use of roads - which are, by and large, provided by the government. So to allow them to have rules on the roads they provide might seem to make sense, no? Additionally, the hours of use for vehicles by the average individuals and their overall impact on the economy drive even higher levels of necessary regulation. Firearms really don't fall into that category. Yes, they can be carried publically - but generally aren't used publically (ranges don't count here - that'd be closer to race tracks, which we'll discuss later). If they are used, it's either a crime or legitimate self-defense. So again, by your count, that legislation already exists.

Secondly, by your logic, no unnecessary death is allowable (a laudable proposition, just impossible). However, as I recall, firearm deaths are the minority. Well behind vehicles. For children, pools are responsible for many more deaths than firearms. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the biggest hitters and work your way down?

To the last part of the argument, yes we do (as citizens) accept a certain amount of unnecessary death. That's a fact. If we didn't, the speed limit would be 12.5mph or something equally slow. There would be no private transportation - everything would be public and set up in such a way as to prevent any possible death. That's not the case. Same with pools, hammers, table saws, and any other number of things.


You may have just made an argument for mandatory trigger locks. Buy a gun, you get a lock with it.

Most municipalities will not allow you to put in a swimming pool without building a lockable fence around it to prevent kids from wandering in. OSHA won't allow a manufacturer to create a table saw without certain safety features. Automobiles all are constructed with an ignition lock to prevent unauthorized use.

Sure, you can not lock the pool gate, disable the shutoff bar on your table saw, leave the keys in your car ignition, and not use a trigger lock. But if someone gets hurt by your negligence in these things, you're at *least* subject to civil punishment.
 
2012-12-24 01:10:07 PM

WippitGuud: chuckufarlie: volcs0: Running total of shooting deaths since Newtown

Not including today's.

Just providing data.

data that is not at all relevant to the conversation. Mass shootings - try to focus.


How many counts as "mass"?


I dunno..I was always trained to shoot for the mass...center mass.
 
Displayed 50 of 1070 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report