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  
•       •       •

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?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-24 01:17:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Then why is it that the UK and Australia have not seen a mass shooting since they banned "items"?


What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
 
2012-12-24 01:18:43 PM  
This sadly happened allot at the projects (we had 3 such projects) in the big city where i used to live. They would start dumpster fires, and when the fireman showed up to put them out, they would come under fire. So the fireman would just say fark them, and leave, and let the place farking burn to the ground. Oh i wish it were so. Prostitution, gangs, drugs, people shiatting on the sidewalks right in daytime, assholes on the corner selling crack, bums running around drinking sterno and puking on the streets and sidewalks, and gang members and even small children pissing on the street or wherever they happened to be. Lovely place. Not to mention the gang shootings, rapes, burglaries, and knife attacks, dirty aids infected needles laying around, used condoms, broken crack pipes and old half cooked up Heroin spoons.

/Moved away...far away as possible as soon as i was able.
/easy fix for this though, just send the police to each fire, as they usually do. I'm guessing they were a bit late to the party, hence the gunfire.
 
2012-12-24 01:19:21 PM  
letrole: 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'.

chuckufarlie 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.


So it would seem that you have a much much greater personal issue with gun owners than the guns themselves.
 
2012-12-24 01:20:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: People_are_Idiots: I'm pointing out that banning things is not even an effective way to stopping mass shootings. Simply banning items will cause those wanting to get a gun to get clever

Then why is it that the UK and Australia have not seen a mass shooting since they banned "items"?


Didn't the UK have one with like 15+ casualties in 2010?
 
2012-12-24 01:20:27 PM  

BronyMedic: Goddamnit so much.


I hear ya.

I want to contribute to this thread but I think it's all been said by now... and what CAN we say, really?

Any solution on the gun control front sounds like a bad idea one way or another, so I think I'll just go with a first responder kit and hope instead of a 1911.
 
2012-12-24 01:21:30 PM  

maxheck: 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.


Mandatory trigger locks fail the Constitutional test. See Heller. I see your point, though and personally have no issue with using the appropriate safeguards for firearms, just like I do for anything else. But making them mandatory fails - just like the safeguards you call out cannot be used in all circumstances. Specific safeguards on a table saw must be removed for certain activities. It's standard practice. And in those instances, you're not liable for any damages if you remove them and use them on yourself.
 
2012-12-24 01:21:44 PM  

People_are_Idiots: chuckufarlie: 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.


I'm pointing out that banning things is not even an effective way to stopping mass shootings. Simply banning items will cause those wanting to get a gun to get clever. Perfect example: the zip gun. Ever heard of it? Typically it's a small caliber gun made from spare parts. Easy to make, hide, and use. Of course, for better examples, find yourself a way to get to UT Austin's gun museum. Also, read all about improvised weapons here.


Of course it is an effective way to stop these shootings. You are just going to extremes to justify your position. If you listen to the FBI specialists, you would have learned that mass shootings are conducted by people who have "snapped" and want to lash out at their perceived enemy. That is hardly the mindset that is going to lend itself to taking the time to construct a zip gun. These are people who want to strike NOW. The rage that they feel would not survive long enough to allow them to build a weapon.

The FBI also has stated that the people who are cold and calculating usually use bombs to kill people. They are willing to take the time needed to build a bomb. Mass shooters are not.

And yes, there will still be people who use bombs. But the existence of one type of killer does not mean we should not try to eliminate another.

It really would be helpful if you would get yourself educated on the subject so I do not have to explain all of this to you.
 
2012-12-24 01:21:54 PM  

BronyMedic: cameroncrazy1984: Then why is it that the UK and Australia have not seen a mass shooting since they banned "items"?

What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)


Uh, the Port Arthur Massacre lead to the gun control laws in Australia....
 
2012-12-24 01:22:09 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Prostitution, gangs, drugs, people shiatting on the sidewalks right in daytime, assholes on the corner selling crack, bums running around drinking sterno and puking on the streets and sidewalks, and gang members and even small children pissing on the street or wherever they happened to be. Lovely place. Not to mention the gang shootings, rapes, burglaries, and knife attacks, dirty aids infected needles laying around, used condoms, broken crack pipes and old half cooked up Heroin spoons.


Sounds like Baltimore.
 
2012-12-24 01:22:13 PM  

maxheck: 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, ...


I have gotten a trigger lock with every gun purchased. Including some FTF transfers.

There's already a voluntary system in place for trigger locks. Plus they are not very expensive if you want to get one.

The locks ON the guns tend to fail and disable the gun, and so far, they have been easy to remove if the owner was so inclined.

I can also tell you have never seen one, the locks are a simple "V" shape cam end that can be locked or unlocked with a tweezers as well.

They might keep grade school kids from getting the gun to work, but that's all they'll do.
 
2012-12-24 01:23:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: People_are_Idiots: I'm pointing out that banning things is not even an effective way to stopping mass shootings. Simply banning items will cause those wanting to get a gun to get clever

Then why is it that the UK and Australia have not seen a mass shooting since they banned "items"?


.
And the UK has seen their violent crime rate sky rocket since they banned "items". Good lord, are you afraid to use the word "gun"?

Now bugger off to the Royal Bun Toss and hope they are kind enough to throw some food in your general direction.
 
2012-12-24 01:24:26 PM  

david_gaithersburg: And the UK has seen their violent crime rate sky rocket since they banned "items"


No they haven't.

david_gaithersburg: Good lord, are you afraid to use the word "gun"?


No, I was using the same term as the person I was replying to.
 
2012-12-24 01:24:58 PM  
For those advocating a repeal of the 2nd amendment......you can't honestly think that's going to solve anything.  Drugs are illegal.  People still make them, buy them, sell them, and use them.  Prohibition made alcohol illegal, but the country still drank itself stupid.  There is currently no national database of gun owners, so even if the amendment were to be repealed, there would be no logistical way for the government to confiscate every single firearm in this country, and expecting people to just voluntarily surrender them isn't going to happen either.  Not when they think the baby Jesus told George Washington that guns were a sacred right under God, or some such derp.
 
2012-12-24 01:25:04 PM  

chuckufarlie: The problem is guns. Why can you not see that? It does not take all that much intelligence and that is what you have - not much intelligence.


Actually, the problem is crazy people. Take away the crazy people, this stuff would not happen. Take away the guns, and maybe the crazy people would have a lower kill score.
 
2012-12-24 01:26:33 PM  
The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.
 
2012-12-24 01:26:44 PM  

letrole: letrole: 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'.

chuckufarlie 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.


So it would seem that you have a much much greater personal issue with gun owners than the guns themselves.


I own a gun, Granted, it is a muzzle loader. I have owned other guns in the past for hunting purposes but I find the muzzle loader to be more of a challenge and more enjoyable. At this point, I am against rifles that use magazines. Any true hunter will tell you that this sort of rifle is not needed for hunting.

A gun sitting in a corner is not a problem. It becomes a problem when some unstable person decides to use it against other people. We cannot lock up all of the people who are, or will become, unstable. That means that the only option to break up the unstable person and a gun scenario is to eliminate the rifle that uses a magazine.
 
2012-12-24 01:26:49 PM  

BronyMedic: cameroncrazy1984: Then why is it that the UK and Australia have not seen a mass shooting since they banned "items"?

What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)


According to your link Port Arthur was before the change in law, and in fact was the trigger for it.

In the UK we had Raoul Moat who killed two people in 2010. Three if you count the policeman he blinded who later killed himself. He used a shotgun which are much, much easier to get in the UK than a handgun. Yeah, our gun rampages are pretty small fry these days.
 
2012-12-24 01:27:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: MassAsster: 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 .

Where do you live that you are scared shiatless about being attacked? Actually, the solutions offered did have merit. They may not be perfect but they certainly have merit.

It seems that the people who insist that they need to be armed are people living in fear. You are afraid that the big bad men are going to attack you. I would hate to live in fe ...


I live on earth.. and my profession is to capture the " big bad men "...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04/teen-mom-shoots-kills-intruder-w i th-11-dispatcher-on-phone/
http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Dallas-City-Leaders-React-to-911-Call- t hat-Captures-Womens-death-167096425.html
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20 1 20102_12_0_BACADA768148

and many more...
 
2012-12-24 01:27:57 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: david_gaithersburg: And the UK has seen their violent crime rate sky rocket since they banned "items"

No they haven't..


Ok, help me out here. I only had info until 2004 from the Australian govt. Has it been getting a lot better in the UK after that?

Link
 
2012-12-24 01:28:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: david_gaithersburg: And the UK has seen their violent crime rate sky rocket since they banned "items"

No they haven't.

david_gaithersburg: Good lord, are you afraid to use the word "gun"?

No, I was using the same term as the person I was replying to.


img171.imageshack.us

Nothing like a bunch of defenseless peasants. Amazing that you haven't learned anything from the US or India over the centuries.
 
2012-12-24 01:29:28 PM  

cbunny: BronyMedic: cameroncrazy1984: Then why is it that the UK and Australia have not seen a mass shooting since they banned "items"?

What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

According to your link Port Arthur was before the change in law, and in fact was the trigger for it.

In the UK we had Raoul Moat who killed two people in 2010. Three if you count the policeman he blinded who later killed himself. He used a shotgun which are much, much easier to get in the UK than a handgun. Yeah, our gun rampages are pretty small fry these days.


Cumbria not count? I think he'd make our top 10.
 
2012-12-24 01:30:11 PM  

tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.


There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution concerning assault weapons or guns that use magazines. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, the only guns were muzzle loaders. SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution to allow assault weapons. Interpretations change over time. There is no guarantee that assault weapons will always be allowed by SCOTUS.
 
2012-12-24 01:30:27 PM  
The guy was probably just walking along with his gun, and someone shouted "fire!".
 
2012-12-24 01:30:39 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Nothing like a bunch of defenseless peasants. Amazing that you haven't learned anything from the US or India over the centuries.


Hey, you never answered my post upthread. Since we're talking about history, why don't we discuss how every "revolution" in countries since World War II has been financed by either the Americans/NATO, or the Russians/Soviet Bloc as a proxy war and testbed for new equipment and weapon systems? Angola, Afganistan, Iran, Korea, Vietnam, Iran again, etc?
 
2012-12-24 01:31:26 PM  

MichiganFTL: cameroncrazy1984: david_gaithersburg: And the UK has seen their violent crime rate sky rocket since they banned "items"

No they haven't..

Ok, help me out here. I only had info until 2004 from the Australian govt. Has it been getting a lot better in the UK after that?

Link


Did you even read your own link?

Right at the top it says:

The way in which crime is recorded varies across jurisdictions and over time, so comparing crime rates between countries (and, sometimes, within a country) is not necessarily an accurate indicator of differences in actual levels of crime in those countries. Similarly, crime rate trend data in a single jurisdiction are not necessarily reflective of trends in actual levels of crime. Changes in rates of recorded crime may be the result of changes in the way crime data are collected, or changes in the proportion of victims reporting criminal offences to police. The figure below shows a dramatic increase in recorded violent crime in England and Wales between 1998 and the present. Rather than indicating a sharp rise in actual violence, however, this increase is largely the direct result of major changes to the way crime data are recorded in the England and Wales. First in 1998 and then again in 2002, amendments were introduced to include a broader range of offences, to promote greater consistency, and to take a more victim-led approach where alleged offences were recorded as well as evidence-based ones. The changes affected recorded violent crimes more than property or other crimes. Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries.

Your supposed "increase" reflects a change in the way data is collected and reported.
 
2012-12-24 01:31:46 PM  

Wise_Guy: 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.

Does that mean it can't work because it didn't in that particular situation?


I think it means NRA activists can't pretend it will work all the time, or even most of the time for that matter. It remains to be seen if it might not occasionally/frequently even turn out worse (a common fear espoused by anti-gun advocates).

In any event, if armed guards is the bulk of the solution they're peddling then this is an appropriate rebuttal. Because it didn't detour the kids at Columbine nor did it serve to hinder or reduce the length of their rampage. It was, for all intents and purposes, a worthless endeavor that solved/resolved nothing.
 
2012-12-24 01:32:19 PM  

chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.


Sorry, the whole 'We'll just make bullets illegal' would be difficult to pass by a judge. It would be infringing on the 2nd amendment in the way that someone can say "Oh you can have free speech, but we're taking away the internet, print media, tv, and phones' would be on the first.
 
2012-12-24 01:33:33 PM  
2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured
 
2012-12-24 01:33:46 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MichiganFTL: cameroncrazy1984: david_gaithersburg: And the UK has seen their violent crime rate sky rocket since they banned "items"

No they haven't..

Ok, help me out here. I only had info until 2004 from the Australian govt. Has it been getting a lot better in the UK after that?

Link

Did you even read your own link?

Right at the top it says:

The way in which crime is recorded varies across jurisdictions and over time, so comparing crime rates between countries (and, sometimes, within a country) is not necessarily an accurate indicator of differences in actual levels of crime in those countries. Similarly, crime rate trend data in a single jurisdiction are not necessarily reflective of trends in actual levels of crime. Changes in rates of recorded crime may be the result of changes in the way crime data are collected, or changes in the proportion of victims reporting criminal offences to police. The figure below shows a dramatic increase in recorded violent crime in England and Wales between 1998 and the present. Rather than indicating a sharp rise in actual violence, however, this increase is largely the direct result of major changes to the way crime data are recorded in the England and Wales. First in 1998 and then again in 2002, amendments were introduced to include a broader range of offences, to promote greater consistency, and to take a more victim-led approach where alleged offences were recorded as well as evidence-based ones. The changes affected recorded violent crimes more than property or other crimes. Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries.

Your supposed "increase" reflects a change in the way data is collected and reported.


Exactly why I asked you to help me out. Can you provide me with statistics showing a decreased violent crime rate after the ban? I'm not having much luck.
 
2012-12-24 01:34:37 PM  

BronyMedic: david_gaithersburg: Nothing like a bunch of defenseless peasants. Amazing that you haven't learned anything from the US or India over the centuries.

Hey, you never answered my post upthread. Since we're talking about history, why don't we discuss how every "revolution" in countries since World War II has been financed by either the Americans/NATO, or the Russians/Soviet Bloc as a proxy war and testbed for new equipment and weapon systems? Angola, Afganistan, Iran, Korea, Vietnam, Iran again, etc?

.
Because four flying off on a tangent and I have no clue what it is that you want to discuss. The French and the Prussians backed us during the revolution. Someone is always backing someone somewhere.

/Unstable people fly off on tangents.
//You appear unstable.
///Slashies!
 
2012-12-24 01:35:21 PM  

MassAsster: chuckufarlie: MassAsster: 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 .

Where do you live that you are scared shiatless about being attacked? Actually, the solutions offered did have merit. They may not be perfect but they certainly have merit.

It seems that the people who insist that they need to be armed are people living in fear. You are afraid that the big bad men are going to attack you. I would hate ...


I am not sure what you point is. I never said that people do not break into houses or that people do not get attacked. But to cower in fear that it is going to happen to you is just sad. If a person believes that having a pistol in the house will protect them, fine. But the idea that anybody needs a rifle that uses a magazine to protect them is not thinking clearly.

My father and my brother are both police officers. My opinion is based a lot on listening to them over the years.
 
2012-12-24 01:35:23 PM  

Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured


Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.
 
2012-12-24 01:35:33 PM  

david_gaithersburg: BronyMedic: david_gaithersburg: Nothing like a bunch of defenseless peasants. Amazing that you haven't learned anything from the US or India over the centuries.

Hey, you never answered my post upthread. Since we're talking about history, why don't we discuss how every "revolution" in countries since World War II has been financed by either the Americans/NATO, or the Russians/Soviet Bloc as a proxy war and testbed for new equipment and weapon systems? Angola, Afganistan, Iran, Korea, Vietnam, Iran again, etc?
.
Because four yor're flying off on a tangent and I have no clue what it is that you want to discuss. The French and the Prussians backed us during the revolution. Someone is always backing someone somewhere.

/Unstable people fly off on tangents.
//You appear unstable.
///Slashies!

 
2012-12-24 01:35:36 PM  

MichiganFTL: chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.

Sorry, the whole 'We'll just make bullets illegal' would be difficult to pass by a judge. It would be infringing on the 2nd amendment in the way that someone can say "Oh you can have free speech, but we're taking away the internet, print media, tv, and phones' would be on the first.


Wasn't advocating so much as..well, trolling, I guess.
 
2012-12-24 01:35:41 PM  

MichiganFTL: cbunny: BronyMedic: cameroncrazy1984: Then why is it that the UK and Australia have not seen a mass shooting since they banned "items"?

What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

According to your link Port Arthur was before the change in law, and in fact was the trigger for it.

In the UK we had Raoul Moat who killed two people in 2010. Three if you count the policeman he blinded who later killed himself. He used a shotgun which are much, much easier to get in the UK than a handgun. Yeah, our gun rampages are pretty small fry these days.

Cumbria not count? I think he'd make our top 10.


I'd plain forgotten about that. You're quite right, 12 dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

Shotgun (again) and rifle.
 
2012-12-24 01:35:45 PM  

Singleballtheory: Wise_Guy: 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.

Does that mean it can't work because it didn't in that particular situation?

I think it means NRA activists can't pretend it will work all the time, or even most of the time for that matter. It remains to be seen if it might not occasionally/frequently even turn out worse (a common fear espoused by anti-gun advocates).

In any event, if armed guards is the bulk of the solution they're peddling then this is an appropriate rebuttal. Because it didn't detour the kids at Columbine nor did it serve to hinder or reduce the length of their rampage. It was, for all intents and purposes, a worthless endeavor that solved/resolved nothing.


Bear in mind the way these situations were responded to was a bit different too. At the time, I believe police were under the orders to surround the area, create a safe perimiter and wait for SWAT units. This is why the assailants at Columbine had a larger amount of time to do their evil deeds. Now the police rush in immediately.
 
2012-12-24 01:36:02 PM  

MichiganFTL: chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.

Sorry, the whole 'We'll just make bullets illegal' would be difficult to pass by a judge. It would be infringing on the 2nd amendment in the way that someone can say "Oh you can have free speech, but we're taking away the internet, print media, tv, and phones' would be on the first.


The best thing we can do now is discuss Chuckle's like he's not here. Simply put, he's shown no capacity to understand the Constitution, our political environment, etc. He's railing against rifles right now when handguns are used much, much more frequently in homicides. So when the next mass shooting occurs with something that he's not currently arguing against, he'll just move the goalposts. He cares not for the Constitution and would happily allow all sorts of assaults, rapes, etc., because they're smaller in count than a mass murder, even though the actual number of people involved will massively outweigh the others.
 
2012-12-24 01:38:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.


But it's unconstitutional. They banned many firearms, make you prove need in order to possess, and confiscated firearms from the general populace (though they did buy them - of course, I've not seen whether or not they paid market value).
 
2012-12-24 01:39:10 PM  

chuckufarlie: I am not sure what you point is. I never said that people do not break into houses or that people do not get attacked. But to cower in fear that it is going to happen to you is just sad. If a person believes that having a pistol in the house will protect them, fine. But the idea that anybody needs a rifle that uses a magazine to protect them is not thinking clearly.

My father and my brother are both police officers. My opinion is based a lot on listening to them over the years.


Must not have listened well enough -- All firearms, save for black powder or single shot, use a magazine, dumbass. A magazine is a device or enclosure that stores and feeds ammunition into the bolt mechanism to be loaded and fired. A clip is a device that holds rounds in a collected group and allows them to be easily fed into a magazine.

Also, do I need an AR-15 to defend my house from attackers? Nah. I don't know many common thieves that come in platoon strength. Then again, if I lived somewhere like LA during the riots or New Orleans after Katrina, I would consider an AR-15 a wise investment.

Now, screw the cock rubbing and the pantie pissing and foaming at the mouth. I've got a real life to live andit's my farking birthday. Time to go to the range and blow off some ammo and have some fun.
 
2012-12-24 01:39:40 PM  

Banned on the Run: armed resistance against those in uniform carrying assault rifles may be necessary


Why beat around the bush?

Just say, "I need these things to shoot American soldiers."
 
2012-12-24 01:39:52 PM  

ronaprhys: cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.

But it's unconstitutional. They banned many firearms, make you prove need in order to possess, and confiscated firearms from the general populace (though they did buy them - of course, I've not seen whether or not they paid market value).


Why do you think there is an amendment process to the Constitution? They're not set in stone, you know.
 
2012-12-24 01:40:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.


img171.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-24 01:40:30 PM  
If only Ackbar would have been there in time....


wiki.ytmnd.com
 
2012-12-24 01:41:07 PM  

MichiganFTL: chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.

Sorry, the whole 'We'll just make bullets illegal' would be difficult to pass by a judge. It would be infringing on the 2nd amendment in the way that someone can say "Oh you can have free speech, but we're taking away the internet, print media, tv, and phones' would be on the first.


I am not the one who made the asinine statement about bullets.

But since you brought it up, the idea that eliminating certain types of weapons would be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment is just silly. What is or is not an infringement of the Constitution is based purely on opinion of SCOTUS and the American people. Nothing in the Constitution is eternal. That is why we have the Amendment Process.

Every right comes with responsibilities. Those responsibilities mean that we impose limits on the rights we have. Your statements show that you do not understand that.
 
2012-12-24 01:41:10 PM  

chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution concerning assault weapons or guns that use magazines. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, the only guns were muzzle loaders. SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution to allow assault weapons. Interpretations change over time. There is no guarantee that assault weapons will always be allowed by SCOTUS.


There's nothing in the constitution that says you are allowed freedom of speech with other than a soapbox and bullhorn, or a slow movable type printing press that prints one page at a time, or a quill pen.

By your logic, you shouldn't be allowed to use the internet without a license and what you say should be heavily regulated by the government.

After all, its not in the constitution that you can do that.
 
2012-12-24 01:41:33 PM  

david_gaithersburg: cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.

[img171.imageshack.us image 466x341]


Well that graph is completely nonsensical.
 
2012-12-24 01:43:02 PM  

ronaprhys: MichiganFTL: chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.

Sorry, the whole 'We'll just make bullets illegal' would be difficult to pass by a judge. It would be infringing on the 2nd amendment in the way that someone can say "Oh you can have free speech, but we're taking away the internet, print media, tv, and phones' would be on the first.

The best thing we can do now is discuss Chuckle's like he's not here. Simply put, he's shown no capacity to understand the Constitution, our political environment, etc. He's railing against rifles right now when handguns are used much, much more frequently in homicides. So when the next mass shooting occurs with something that he's not currently arguing against, he'll just move the goalposts. He cares not for the Constitution and would happily allow all sorts of assaults, rapes, etc., because they're smaller in count than a mass murder, even though the actual number of people involved will massively outweigh the others.


Good thing we can keep this handy:

imageshack.us
 
2012-12-24 01:43:47 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Banned on the Run: armed resistance against those in uniform carrying assault rifles may be necessary

Why beat around the bush?

Just say, "I need these things to shoot American soldiers."


.
/Duh!
//Libyan's had to shoot Libyan soldiers,
///Algerian's had to shoot Algerian soldiers.
 
2012-12-24 01:44:39 PM  

chuckufarlie: MichiganFTL: chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.

Sorry, the whole 'We'll just make bullets illegal' would be difficult to pass by a judge. It would be infringing on the 2nd amendment in the way that someone can say "Oh you can have free speech, but we're taking away the internet, print media, tv, and phones' would be on the first.

I am not the one who made the asinine statement about bullets.

But since you brought it up, the idea that eliminating certain types of weapons would be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment is just silly. What is or is not an infringement of the Constitution is based purely on opinion of SCOTUS and the American people. Nothing in the Constitution is eternal. That is why we have the Amendment Process.

Every right comes with responsibilities. Those responsibilities mean that we impose limits on the rights we have. Your statements show that you do not understand that.


lol, tell me the difference between banning all firearms and banning all bullets you twit.
 
2012-12-24 01:44:45 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Why even have guns? It's obvious that people are going to shoot us anyway their eye out.


ftfy
 
Displayed 50 of 1058 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report