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 177
    More: NewsFlash, Strong Memorial Hospital, fires, firefighters, morning  
•       •       •

19799 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?

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


Archived thread
2012-12-24 09:40:09 AM
15 votes:
How come the NRA wasn't clamoring for all blacks to carry guns after Trayvon Martin was killed?
2012-12-24 09:25:38 AM
7 votes:
How about an armed guard for this thread?
2012-12-24 09:26:16 AM
6 votes:
God damnit what's wrong with people?
2012-12-24 10:28:57 AM
5 votes:
I'll be the first one to come out and admit it.

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

It's outdated, it's a holdover from a time before we had a National Guard and it's used as a blanket shield by a handful of corporations to flood our society with weapons simply for the sake of profit without a thought given to the damage that it's doing to our people and society as a whole.

The Constitution is not written in stone and not only 'can' it be changed, but it 'should' be changed to reflect a changing nation. And I think it's past time for us to retire this Amendment. Guns do not make us safer. They make us less safe, less secure and they're a detriment to the common good of the American people.

Enough.
2012-12-24 09:39:16 AM
5 votes:

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?


No, but it does show that if someone who is batshiat crazy and heavily armed wants to kill a shiatload of people, simply havng an armed guard probably won't help that much. They'll just shoot the guard and get to it.
2012-12-24 09:28:10 AM
5 votes:
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.
2012-12-24 09:34:36 AM
4 votes:

FarkinFarker: God damnit what's wrong with people?


Some people just want to watch the world burn.
2012-12-24 09:32:43 AM
4 votes:
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.
2012-12-24 09:25:59 AM
4 votes:
Not sure what shooting the *firefighters* will accomplish, especially if you live in the neighborhood where they're trying to PUT OUT THE FIRE.
2012-12-24 12:24:16 PM
3 votes:
Over 550 posts, and no one thought to post this...

jessicacristiane.files.wordpress.com
2012-12-24 10:23:03 AM
3 votes:

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.


Nah, see, this is pure damage control. They 'have' to maintain their stance of 'persecuted victims' because then they don't have to explain how this is acceptable for our society to simply have to deal with on a daily basis.

Our society is saturated with small, easily hidden, easily carried tools meant only to kill other people. And then we have the balls to act surprised with unbalanced people get a hold of some and kill people.
2012-12-24 10:14:32 AM
3 votes:

KarmicDisaster: Infernalist: 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.

Then I guess armed guards in school is a stupid idea, isn't it?

I think that there is a deterrent factor and it is definitely needed in some schools for that. Should be an option when needed, as it is already. The evidence so far is that universal armed guards aren't going to help with this type of school shooting by maniacs.


guards in schools today are there to keep students from hurting each other. Guards in schools to protect the students from outside attack would be pointless. Now you have a gun battle going on inside of a school, with both sides killing students, even if it is by accident.

The answer is LESS guns, not more. Take the guns off the streets.
2012-12-24 10:02:42 AM
3 votes:

Mimic_Octopus: WhippingBoy: 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.

There's a lot of colored boys and Messicans in the USA who are just waiting for the chance to break into the homes of real 'Murrucans in order to rape their white women, steal their bibles, and burn their American flags. To prevent this, it's necessary to own military grade weapons. It's just common sense.

we need the military grade weapons (which a semi-auto rifle is not) for when the US govt ends up like the british one we threw off a few years ago. do you think history stops because you are here right now ?


How many dictators have been overthrown by gun-owning citizenry?
2012-12-24 09:57:00 AM
3 votes:
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, Wayne delivered a poorly timed, poorly worded, nonsensical argument.

Muta: If he didn't have a gun he would have strangled them or drowned the firemen in a pool.


After reading about the Chinese stabbing incident, I was really surprised to find out that none of the victims died. Also, what balls on those kids, holding the guy off with broomsticks until help arrived.

In the country with lax gun laws, 20 kids died. In the country with strict gun laws, 20 kids were wounded.

If only outlaws have guns when guns are outlawed, where the fark were that nutcases' guns?
2012-12-24 09:40:26 AM
3 votes:
The problem with spree shootings isn't the innercity youths who are indeed armed to the teeth and willing to pull the trigger. The vast majority of firearm murders in the US comes from gangbangers and street thugs killing each other for practical reasons -- with specific targets. If the number of guns or the mere presense of guns were the problem, then you would expect to see pointless mass murders on the news each night.

The problem is rich white male misfits. Modern society is corrupt. The natural mechanisms that always kept erratic behaviour in check have been broken and perverted to favour the individual at the expense of the community.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses, and a new order reforms from the ashes
2012-12-24 09:33:44 AM
3 votes:

Fapinator: [img689.imageshack.us image 729x600]

Too soon?


Just a bit. Go back to 4chan, you 12 year old chucklef*ck.
2012-12-24 09:27:09 AM
3 votes:
Honestly, he doesn't need to say one single thing. He should stop talking.

The fear of inability to buy weapons in the future has many gun stores cleaned out.

NRA should sit back and relax. Let the Obama administration keep on keepin' on.
2012-12-24 09:27:00 AM
3 votes:

Catymogo1: Not sure what shooting the *firefighters* will accomplish, especially if you live in the neighborhood where they're trying to PUT OUT THE FIRE.


If you're the one that set it, you may not want to see it extinguished.
2012-12-24 09:53:42 PM
2 votes:
The idea that personal arms will be needed to defend the USA, or will be effective, is silly. Not only does the US have the most powerful military ever to exist, but in a hypothetical war between NRA members and the modern British military the pros will win. One Vangaurd class submarine carries enough weaponry to render the entire bible belt a wasteland from the Gulf of Mexico. And the French don't like you anymore.

Solving mass shootings is not only hard, it's scratching the surface ... the real ROI is preventing quotidian murders carried out by someone who happened to have a gun, and snapped. A ban on handguns would save thousands of lives a year. Remember the dog poop murder a few weeks ago?

The supreme court are political shills for whomever appointed them. Right now we have a Republican sc. When there is a Democrat sc, sensible gun laws will become a possibility. As to arms types, the sc already sets arbitrary interpretations ... some arms which the writer of the 2nd could never have envisaged are permitted, while most are not. It is not 1779.

It's amazing no-one has come up with the obvious on the mental health check: make it a positive screen. Require anyone applying for a gun license to have a mh interview with a specially trained therapist not of their choosing, and periodic folowups. Again, crazy is not predictable so making sure far fewer people have guns on hand prevents problems when their mental health suddenly goes south.

The way to curb gang bangers illegal sales and straw buyers is to federally register every individual weapon, and track them. Requirement to present each annually for serial no. confirmations. Anyone who "loses" several is deemed de jure to be a straw buyer, the way possession of more than a certain amount of weed makes people de jure dealers even if they are not. All guns are test fired by maker and the ballistics data registered with the FBI. If a crime is committed with a gun registered to you, then you are considered the primary suspect and arrested. Gun safes mandatory and subject to inspection.

Part of the point is to make owning a gun a bit of a PITA so fewer people choose to - risk mitigation. Sport shooting enthusiasts are the people who will willingly jump through the hoops, and they are 9much lower risk than SoF readers.

In Scotland, we have a thriving sport shooting industry, a gun murder rate 50x less than the USA, and an overall murderer rate that is 7x less. Progress in this direction is possible.

The comparison between banning guns and banning intoxicants is false. Intoxicants are pleasurable and addictive, and harm no-one but their consumer. Thus a far higher proportion of people are willing to break the law with drugs or booze in which they see no social ill, than will be prepared to do so to keep i of the cheap pistol they bought in 1997 for "home defence" and never took out of the bedside drawer. I live in Texas, and more people I know here smoke weed illegally than own guns legally.

I am aware that defence guns actually make homes in normal hoods like mine less safe overall and not more. However, as many level headed gun experts have pointed out, if you feel the need for a gun, a shotgun works better, and you have the option to use an disabling but non-lethal load first (e.g. load 1 rock salt and one 8 pellet). I don't really want to kill a messed up kid who is only looking to steal my TV and buy crack.

It is worth moving to a model like Canada or Europe to save this many lives. Not being allowed to own a semi-machine gun or Saturday night special is an acceptable price to pay in the 21st century.
2012-12-24 05:43:11 PM
2 votes:
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-12-24 05:40:04 PM
2 votes:
I see this thread is a train wreck for a Christmas Eve.  I'll just put this here and be on my way.  Merry Christmas Gunmerica!

i.imgur.com
2012-12-24 01:26:33 PM
2 votes:
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 12:14:25 PM
2 votes:

lordjupiter: 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?



When the People no longer have the ability to resist, their "rights" are meaningless.

Seems to me that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were crafted in the hopes of guaranteeing liberties for the People, and limitations on the Government.

Now if the FF's felt that the Government they were crafting would be perpetually benevolent, why on earth do you suppose they would have guaranteed said rights and enacted said limitations?

And how are the People to respond, not if, but when their Government falls into tyranny?
2012-12-24 11:20:27 AM
2 votes:

FriarReb98: Who needs a yule log?


news.thomasnet.com
2012-12-24 11:04:59 AM
2 votes:
Well, let's be goddamn sure to run this story ON EVERY TV CHANNEL FOR 24 HOURS A DAY FOR A WEEK, SO THE NEXT PSYCHOPATH KNOWS HE CAN GET HIS NAME EVERY-GODDAMN-WHERE BY SHOOTING PEOPLE!!!

I really think we should rethink this national wallowing in these tragedies. As an internet psychiatrist, I'm sure we're encouraging these events.

/We have met the enemy, and it is the media.
2012-12-24 11:02:20 AM
2 votes:

Scerpes: Infernalist: Depends on the person, and whether they're actively trying to cause a serious physical injury to myself or someone else.

I wonder if Lanza thought those kids needed killing, too. You wonder?

And that would be a great reason to keep crazy people and people who make weapons available to crazy people from buying firearms. It sure would be nice to be able to have a database to check to see if someone is mentally ill, like we can do with felons.


This is the height of selfishness and short-sightedness from this crowd.

Do you honestly think gun owners are going to go along with sanity checks run by the government or anyone else? fark no.

That's just another scapegoat and bullshiat non-solution they never intend to implement.  They will fight it in the courts, and claim the 2nd requires no such provision.  They KNOW this will never work, and they will never go along with it at a nationally organized or individual level.  The only reason it even sounds good right now is because they just want to make the issue go away for now, and blaming crazy people is a better alternative to looking at the gun problem.

What's the cut-off for "too crazy to own guns"?  Does that mean the government accesses your medical records and tests your sanity?  That they can force mental health care on you if you already own a gun, or can take your gun away if you're on certain medications?  What are those medications?  Will they allow you to be around your own guns if, say, you're recovering from surgery and on some pills that make you loopy for a while?  And if guns are out there and the health care issues don't work, then what?  Institutionalization for all people who can't be trusted around guns, just so Gun Derper can fantasize about blasting hippies and minorities creeping through his window?

Who pays for all that shiat? You have nearly half the country going bananas over some imagined "death panels" in Obamacare, and you want to tie the 2nd Amendment to all of this healthcare crap on top of it? No farking way they will ever go along with it.

Total bullshiat.  The answer is not to wave a magic wand and make all the crazy and bad people go away, it's to remove some of their resources or at least make those resources harder to get.
2012-12-24 10:56:02 AM
2 votes:
Why would anyone need this many matches in a single box!??
www.readydepot.com
2012-12-24 10:55:02 AM
2 votes:

david_gaithersburg: 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.

.
As human beings we believe ourselves to have certain basic human rights that are inalienable, and have provided that those basic human rights shall never be infringed upon by the government. One of those rights is the basic right to protect one's self from anything, including an out of control government. Our second amendment also serves to guarantee that the government will think twice before attempting to infringe upon any of the other basic human rights enshrined in the first ten amendments to our constitution.

240 years ago we had a standing army, and the best trained army in the world too. Our government became tyrannical and out of control, we took up arms and formed local militias to stand up against the biggest and best trained army and navy on the planet. That newly formed US government began to erode during the FDR administration and it is still slowly dissolving today.


A bunch of armed rednecks is not a guarantee of anything. You sure as hell could not stand up the the real military. You want to believe it because it gives your pathetic life some meaning.

You need to do some research on the American Revolution. The local militia did not win the war, It was a standing army that had been trained to fight in the European style. The militia was not reliable in battle. They were known to fire one round and then run away.

Also, what we see as the American Revolution was just part of a larger war that the British were fighting against the French.

The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.
2012-12-24 10:48:43 AM
2 votes:
So if the future, when firefighters, paramedics, and police are hesitant to secure a school, or put out a fire, or respond to a 911 call because they first need to ensure that no one will shoot them, will the NRA pick up the slack and serve as first responders?

/no need to respond... everyone knows what the answer is...
2012-12-24 10:44:59 AM
2 votes:

IronTom: And bad people will have guns no matter what restrictions are put on the good people.


Bad people will always find ways to do bad things. A society that's saturated with and desensitized to guns just makes it so much easier. And it's not just the bad people who are using them. Good people snap and if there are guns handy, they're liable to use them. The statistics on women shot by their domestic partners are appalling.

Trying to demonize the mentally ill and claim this is a problem with crazy people rather than guns is ignoring the real issue.
2012-12-24 10:29:52 AM
2 votes:
How is having armed guards at schools a deterrent? How many school shootings have there been where the gunmen lived a healthy life everafter? They go into this knowing what the outcome is. Having a guard there just means they're the first shot.
2012-12-24 10:28:04 AM
2 votes:
Guns don't kill people, bullets do.  Therefore all arguments about guns are invalid and should be stopped immediately since they are not bullets.  Further, every gun-related crime is proof that more guns are needed, since the only way to stop someone with a gun is with another gun, but that doesn't mean that guns are better than knives or bats and in no way disproves our own stance that all items are equally deadly. And if you don't believe that you're a frightened commie that wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

/NRA expanded "logic"
2012-12-24 10:25:01 AM
2 votes:

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?
2012-12-24 10:20:40 AM
2 votes:

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.
2012-12-24 10:10:11 AM
2 votes:

Mimic_Octopus: Infernalist: rth

umm, just about every single one that has ever been toppled ? you think they all stepped down after a debate ?

how many revolutions were successfully carried out without guns ?


No no. I'm not asking you how many dictators got overthrown by their own military or by a foreign military.

I'm asking you how many dictators have been overthrown by popular citizen uprising with civilian weaponry.

Because, that's the silly premise here: That an armed citizenry will overthrow an American dictator with their civilian owned weaponry.

So. How often has that actually happened in history?
2012-12-24 10:06:16 AM
2 votes:

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.


Then I guess armed guards in school is a stupid idea, isn't it?
2012-12-24 10:05:38 AM
2 votes:

letrole: The problem with spree shootings isn't the innercity youths who are indeed armed to the teeth and willing to pull the trigger. The vast majority of firearm murders in the US comes from gangbangers and street thugs killing each other for practical reasons -- with specific targets. If the number of guns or the mere presense of guns were the problem, then you would expect to see pointless mass murders on the news each night.

The problem is rich white male misfits. Modern society is corrupt. The natural mechanisms that always kept erratic behaviour in check have been broken and perverted to favour the individual at the expense of the community.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses, and a new order reforms from the ashes


"Our Earth is degenerate in these later days; there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book and the end of the world is evidently approaching." ~ 4800 year-old Assryian tablet

Folks like you have been decrying the end of civilization as we know it for nearly 5,000 years.
2012-12-24 10:04:30 AM
2 votes:

Mimic_Octopus: WhippingBoy: 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.

There's a lot of colored boys and Messicans in the USA who are just waiting for the chance to break into the homes of real 'Murrucans in order to rape their white women, steal their bibles, and burn their American flags. To prevent this, it's necessary to own military grade weapons. It's just common sense.

we need the military grade weapons (which a semi-auto rifle is not) for when the US govt ends up like the british one we threw off a few years ago. do you think history stops because you are here right now ?


You do realize that the USA has a military that is responsible for protecting us from invasion, right? Or are you afraid of the legally elected government that we replace on a regular basis?

Exactly what is the stupidity that you are so afraid of?
2012-12-24 10:02:23 AM
2 votes:

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.
2012-12-24 10:02:05 AM
2 votes:

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.


On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and one teacher at Columbine. On the scene that day was Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff's deputy who had been policing the school for almost two years.
2012-12-24 10:00:10 AM
2 votes:
The surprising thing is that Americans still seem to be surprised by this. The rest of the world is wondering why this even rates as news any more.

You Americans need to get one of those "America: 2 days since last mass shooting" signs.
2012-12-24 09:57:51 AM
2 votes:

FarkinFarker: God damnit what's wrong with people?


We've taken God out of house fires.
2012-12-24 09:54:11 AM
2 votes:

iheartscotch: Counter_Intelligent: 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.

But you don't. Unless you're crazy/f*cking stupid. You aren't either of those, are you?

It's a conspiracy!!!!

Let's examine the facts:

1. Could the government do it? Yes; the US has pulled off many, more complicated operations.

2. Would the government do it? Given the right circumstances, yes.

3. Did the government do it? We don't know.

/ just sayin'


lets look at another possibility, since you are all about conspiracies. Say that some radical right wing organization like the NRA sets up these attacks. Then in response to the attacks, the NRA proposes to train and pay guards to be placed at all the important places to "protect the public". Once the NRA has its own people in place, it makes it easy to take over the government, insuring that they always have their guns.

/ just sayin'

It seems to make a lot more sense for a bunch of right wing morons to kill people so they can take over than to think that a bunch of liberals would kill people to get the guns off the streets.

/ just sayin'
2012-12-24 09:54:03 AM
2 votes:
Schools are enough like prisons already without the police monitoring them.
2012-12-24 09:44:39 AM
2 votes:
This is the country you wanted, gun drooling microdicked constitution manipulating derp farmers.

I hope the sane people stand up and shut this sh*t down once and for all. Enough is enough.
2012-12-24 09:42:09 AM
2 votes:
You are going to need armed guards at every gathering of any sort. And since the NRA thinks that in an ideal world it is everyone's right to carry everywhere, you won't be able to exclude people with guns from any gathering. You will have to wait until they start shooting.  Then you will also need guard for the guards if they turn out to be as reliable as TSA.
2012-12-24 09:38:16 AM
2 votes:
This is disgusting.  Last thing I need to worry about is another piece of gear on the fire scene.  Let's see...we have:  Helmet, bunker pants, bunker coat, hood, 2x pair gloves, radio, flashlight, boots, mask, airpack, pliers, Z-hook, thermal camera, gas meter, axe, halligan, sidearm.  WTF.
2012-12-24 09:34:59 AM
2 votes:
Those damn video games!!!!
2012-12-24 09:30:56 AM
2 votes:
Are the guns okay? That's the important thing. Let's keep some perspective here
2012-12-24 09:27:10 AM
2 votes:
I'll take coo coo for cocoa puffs for 1500 Alex.
2012-12-25 11:22:09 AM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: ParaHandy: I'll reiterate:

- the original purpose of the 2nd amendment is obsolete


Tyrants are obsolete?

That's good to know.


Tyrants are most certainly not obsolete. The concept of a bunch of cvivilians with light arms as an effective response to an organized modern military force is.

Assad has 90% of the populace aginst him, limited supply lines and 70's soviet tech, and the Syrian rebels have a very long row to hoe. They will need external support or to wait until the Russians stop supplying him heavy arms.

Also, the idea that the US might descend into tyranny is unlikely ... the only scenario I can see is a GOP sweep of the house, senate, white house and sc, where the balance of power is held by the Teahadis. Even at that, once they start implementing Christian Sharia "for the moral good of the nation" and repealing term limits because "we need President Bachmann's leadership in these troubled times" the standing army will intervene and restore democracy. Can you see someone like Colin Powell or David Patreus standing by and letting this happen? It's the 21st century.
2012-12-24 09:59:04 PM
1 votes:

ParaHandy: The idea that personal arms will be needed to defend the USA, or will be effective, is silly. Not only does the US have the most powerful military ever to exist, but in a hypothetical war between NRA members and the modern British military the pros will win. One Vangaurd class submarine carries enough weaponry to render the entire bible belt a wasteland from the Gulf of Mexico. And the French don't like you anymore.

Solving mass shootings is not only hard, it's scratching the surface ... the real ROI is preventing quotidian murders carried out by someone who happened to have a gun, and snapped. A ban on handguns would save thousands of lives a year. Remember the dog poop murder a few weeks ago?

The supreme court are political shills for whomever appointed them. Right now we have a Republican sc. When there is a Democrat sc, sensible gun laws will become a possibility. As to arms types, the sc already sets arbitrary interpretations ... some arms which the writer of the 2nd could never have envisaged are permitted, while most are not. It is not 1779.

It's amazing no-one has come up with the obvious on the mental health check: make it a positive screen. Require anyone applying for a gun license to have a mh interview with a specially trained therapist not of their choosing, and periodic folowups. Again, crazy is not predictable so making sure far fewer people have guns on hand prevents problems when their mental health suddenly goes south.

The way to curb gang bangers illegal sales and straw buyers is to federally register every individual weapon, and track them. Requirement to present each annually for serial no. confirmations. Anyone who "loses" several is deemed de jure to be a straw buyer, the way possession of more than a certain amount of weed makes people de jure dealers even if they are not. All guns are test fired by maker and the ballistics data registered with the FBI. If a crime is committed with a gun registered to you, then you are considered the primary suspect and arrested. Gun safes mandatory and subject to inspection.

Part of the point is to make owning a gun a bit of a PITA so fewer people choose to - risk mitigation. Sport shooting enthusiasts are the people who will willingly jump through the hoops, and they are 9much lower risk than SoF readers.

In Scotland, we have a thriving sport shooting industry, a gun murder rate 50x less than the USA, and an overall murderer rate that is 7x less. Progress in this direction is possible.

The comparison between banning guns and banning intoxicants is false. Intoxicants are pleasurable and addictive, and harm no-one but their consumer. Thus a far higher proportion of people are willing to break the law with drugs or booze in which they see no social ill, than will be prepared to do so to keep i of the cheap pistol they bought in 1997 for "home defence" and never took out of the bedside drawer. I live in Texas, and more people I know here smoke weed illegally than own guns legally.

I am aware that defence guns actually make homes in normal hoods like mine less safe overall and not more. However, as many level headed gun experts have pointed out, if you feel the need for a gun, a shotgun works better, and you have the option to use an disabling but non-lethal load first (e.g. load 1 rock salt and one 8 pellet). I don't really want to kill a messed up kid who is only looking to steal my TV and buy crack.

It is worth moving to a model like Canada or Europe to save this many lives. Not being allowed to own a semi-machine gun or Saturday night special is an acceptable price to pay in the 21st century.


Thank you noncitizen for dictating to us what is and is not acceptable. Now kindly allow us to unfark ourselves and mind your own issues, okay?
2012-12-24 06:37:55 PM
1 votes:

ParaHandy: Infernalist: I'll be the first one to come out and admit it.

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

It's outdated, it's a holdover from a time before we had a National Guard and it's used as a blanket shield by a handful of corporations to flood our society with weapons simply for the sake of profit without a thought given to the damage that it's doing to our people and society as a whole.

The Constitution is not written in stone and not only 'can' it be changed, but it 'should' be changed to reflect a changing nation. And I think it's past time for us to retire this Amendment. Guns do not make us safer. They make us less safe, less secure and they're a detriment to the common good of the American people.

Enough.

This. This. And more of this.


Sorry, not going to happen. I won't, if I have any choice in the matter, allow our nation to become one so wrapped up in the illusion of safety provided by disarmament and the installation of a police state a la Britain that we willingly hand over control of everything to the state because "they know better".

We did that in part after 9/11, and we got DHS, TSA, and a whole lot of craptastic laws that have allowed the government to spy on, detain without cause or conviction, and control the populace through the fear of terrorists. And just what good have these laws done for us? How much more secure are we now than we were before the laws were enacted?

It may require my death, or at least my blood, to stop this shiat from happening, but I will not give an inch if it means that my life is ruled by and under constant watch by someone else. That's neither safety nor security.

Also as a side note:

- The police and government have no legal requirement to protect you. The supreme court has found over and over again that cops are neither responsible nor liable for your individual safety. It's not their job.
- Average police response time to crime scenes where a person is in distress is 10+ minutes unless you plan to live right across the street from the police station. How many people are raped, mugged, attacked, or killed every day where a cop wasn't there to protect them? And you're okay with abdicating your life and personal responsibility for your safety to cops who are overwhelmed as it is?

Man, you guys are morons.
2012-12-24 06:34:00 PM
1 votes:
The argument that the Framers didn't have 'assualt weapons' in mind in fallacious. Weapons have evolved from sticks, to bows, to primitive flintlocks, matchlocks, all the way up to the famed Kentucky rifle used in the Revolutionary way. Weapons became loger ranged, more accurate, higher rate of fire and more lethal even in their time. The first repeating rifle of any kind was made in 1779, so the Framers was surely aware of the possibility. The fact that they deliberately kept any limitation out and specifically enumerated that the right of the people (NOT militias) shall not be infringed shows that they thought well ahead about this.
2012-12-24 05:12:48 PM
1 votes:
i think a total of four people in this thread actually read the article.

/welcome to fark
//you guys are idiots
2012-12-24 05:12:07 PM
1 votes:
People disarmed and murdered by their own governments within the last 100 years: 170,000,000 humans.

Emotional morons who believe in gun control in the United States who actually read a history book: 0.

2012-12-24 04:16:58 PM
1 votes:

noitsnot: Kit Fister: Singleballtheory: I know very few gun owners who feel the constitution does -- or even should -- protect an individuals "right" to own a grenade launcher or bazooka. These are "arms" in the same general terms as an assault rifle is, yet a clear "logical" distinction is made against general ownership of them. So it seems to me the root of this argument is NOT that there is no gray area or boundary allowed within the context of the 2nd Amendment, but rather its where exactly the line should be drawn. At what point is a given "arm" deemed too dangerous to be allowed by the genre populous to own and/or carry in public? At what point is a given armorment deemed acceptable to restrict and/or regulate?

As it pertains to another standard arguing point, it's similar to what constitutes a "safe" automobile and an "unsafe" one. Few people agree with the notion that automobiles should be banned because they cause a tremendous amount of death relative to their usage. But virtually everyone agrees that "unsafe" vehicles should not be allowed on the roads. So again, clearly there is a logical line being drawn in such a regard. The question is merely what does and does not constitute "safe"? It is never reduced to the same kind of black-and-white rhetoric typically at the forefront of 2nd Amendment debates.

Erm, you do know that things like active bazookas, 40mm grenade launchers and the rounds for them, etc are legal, provided you fill out the NFA paperwork and get your class three stamp for the gun and a stamp for each round of ammo...

I really doubt that.


http://www.autoweapons.com/products/destructivedevices.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device

Per the NFA laws, grenades, mines, etc are considered destructive devices. File your NFA forms, go through the fingerprint process and background check, and pay your $200 and it's yours.

So, $200 and paperwork to own the launcher, and 200 and paperwork for each grenade for it.

Perfectly legal, and I know a few folks that own M203 grenade launchers and grenades, useable bazookas, etc.
2012-12-24 04:12:00 PM
1 votes:

dericwater: We can realistically remove all guns from the US. Or at least have better control of them.


go ahead and tell me how that is going to happen since all of our other prohibition efforts have gone so well.
2012-12-24 03:56:28 PM
1 votes:

ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.


www.tpwd.state.tx.us
Bro, did you take your hunters' ed?
2012-12-24 03:31:37 PM
1 votes:

Delecrious: chuckufarlie: 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?

I never said I'm protecting you from the government. I'm a libertarian with my own self values and morals. Which are close to none. Protect yourself and I'll protect myself. If you want the police to defend you, go for it. But I prefer to solve problems with my own solutions. I'm not a gun-nut. I just don't like having someone telling me what to do and not. If I /want/ to own a gun, I /will/.


Libertarian might be one description, but there are others which might fit.
2012-12-24 03:28:55 PM
1 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: Catymogo1: Not sure what shooting the *firefighters* will accomplish, especially if you live in the neighborhood where they're trying to PUT OUT THE FIRE.


During the Rodney King Riots in LA, I remember firemen had to have a guy literally riding shotgun on board their trucks because they were driving into a virtual war zone to put out the fires started by the rioters. I don't really have a point to make, just a CSB.


Shoulda got themselves some Koreans.

imageshack.us
/Don't see no police protecting them.
//That one on the right, that's a Mini-14, one the gun grabbers and Fudds here would have banned.
///Looks pretty useful to have at that moment to me.... for self defense.
2012-12-24 03:24:22 PM
1 votes:

chuckufarlie: What you are saying is nothing more than your interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment means. And obviously your interpretation is wrong. There are lots of weapons in the hands of the military that you are not allowed to legally own,


That's where tempering the interpretation comes into play and should. But the reason the amendment is there has nothing to do with hunting.


No, the Constitution said nothing about hunting. But the only viable reason to own a rifle is for hunting. You can hunt four legged animals or you can hunt two legged animals. I am perfectly okay with people have the appropriate gun for hunting the four legged animals or the two legged animals that have wings. Those guns that only serve the purpose of killing people have no place in the homes of the people.


When the Constitution mentions "...security of a free State..." it's talking about just that. Another viable reason to own a rifle. And obviously your interpretation is wrong.
2012-12-24 03:22:39 PM
1 votes:

Delecrious: chuckufarlie: 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?

I never said I'm protecting you from the government. I'm a libertarian with my own self values and morals. Which are close to none. Protect yourself and I'll protect myself. If you want the police to defend you, go for it. But I prefer to solve problems with my own solutions. I'm not a gun-nut. I just don't like having someone telling me what to do and not. If I /want/ to own a gun, I /will/.


This
2012-12-24 03:21:17 PM
1 votes:

Bontesla: Rockstone: Bontesla: I didn't realize you were talking about gun safety in a well-regulated militia? Technically, that's the only specifically-enumerated right you have. I'm talking about the use of guns in society at large (and not within a militia). My usage is accurate. Your hobby of gun collecting shouldn't usurp my right to life.


No it isn't. SCOTUS has interpreted the right to bear arms to mean the right to bear arms. The well regulated militia has no bearing on the fact you can own a firearm. Both are rights.

Your usage is wrong.

Anyway, no. Our right to own a firearm is more important than our right to be safe. Freedom is more important than Safety.

/ There are reasonable limitations to that

Ah. Yes. The old argument that SCOTUS is filled with demi-gods and all of their rulings will exist forever in the land of eternity.

Interpretation and meaning change as society evolves. Interpretation and meaning change as the justices are replaced. Further - just because SCOTUS has previously interpreted the Constitution to mean x doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution actually means x. It's a living document. Can you think of anything that used to be okay per SCOTUS but has since changed? Or vice versa? I'll give you a minute.

We're discussing whether or not we should regulate guns and how. To answer, "B-b-but SCOTUS" isn't a valid response. Congress has every right to enact laws they deem are constitutional and it's SCOTUS' job to evaluate those laws. We can submit challenges to current rulings - and we do every day. It's only a law until it ceases to be a law. You're going to need to root your response in actual logic.

And to address your comment, "There are reasonable limitations to that,": Yes. This is what we're talking about.


And what is reasonable depends on which side you're in. To example I find very few of your proposals reasonable or logical.
2012-12-24 03:10:46 PM
1 votes:

Spare Me: Rockstone: At any rate, I say we should ban gasoline while we're at it.

I'm thinking we should also ban forks. There are hundreds of thousands die every year from obesity. It's a slow painful death. We ban forks and we'll save lives!


And swimming pools and hot tubs! Those kills lots of people too. So do cars. And electrical wiring...
2012-12-24 03:08:28 PM
1 votes:

Rockstone: At any rate, I say we should ban gasoline while we're at it.


I'm thinking we should also ban forks. There are hundreds of thousands die every year from obesity. It's a slow painful death. We ban forks and we'll save lives!
2012-12-24 02:58:01 PM
1 votes:

Rockstone: Chagrin: People_are_Idiots: How about a national database that has two items: criminal, and mental. If a convicted person (for the same reasons that can deny them firearms) goes to buy a gun/rifle/etc, a red flag goes up. Mental: black flag.

Medical records (including mental disabilities) are private between a doctor and patient.

People are forgetting this.
People are also forgetting that if a law passed that forced doctors to turn over mental records, you'll have less people going for mental checkups.


Yeah, I'm thinking the last thing you want to give a mentally unstable person is an excuse to avoid treatment.
2012-12-24 02:43:14 PM
1 votes:

People_are_Idiots: How about a national database that has two items: criminal, and mental. If a convicted person (for the same reasons that can deny them firearms) goes to buy a gun/rifle/etc, a red flag goes up. Mental: black flag.


Medical records (including mental disabilities) are private between a doctor and patient.
2012-12-24 02:39:38 PM
1 votes:

Rockstone: cameroncrazy1984: Rockstone: cameroncrazy1984: Rockstone: ONE armed guard. That wasn't on campus when the shooting started.

Yes he was.

Erm, no he wasn't. He arrived on campus after it started, but he wasn't on campus when it started.

"Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Neil Gardner - a community resource officer at Columbine High School - was the first to arrive, around 11:24 AM. As soon as he stepped out of his patrol car, Eric Harris fired 10 shots at him. Gardner fired four shots in return, without hesitation. Eric's gun jammed and the gunman ducked into the school to avoid being taken down."
(from: http://acolumbinesite.com/swat.html)

Yes, they were eating lunch in the patrol car, ON CAMPUS.

Just because he was in his car doesn't mean he wasn't on campus at the time.

Here, read this CNN article from the time

Alright, fair enough. If he had been in the cafeteria at the time though, he *might* have been able to stop it.

(I'm amazed he never arrested any underage students for smoking)


He exchanged gunfire with them. Which, served as a distraction to doing what they came there to do. Saying he was completely ineffective is inaccurate.
2012-12-24 02:25:19 PM
1 votes:

chuckufarlie: Calling police officers "pigs" tells me quite a bit about your mindset. I never said anything about not defending yourself. You seem to believe that one needs an assault weapon to defend yourself. There are many ways to defend yourself that does not require the use of a rapid fire weapon.


Here's four guys in a home invasion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0

While it's possible to defend with lesser weapons, an AR15 with 30 rounds in it sure would tip the odds back in the homeowner's favor a bit. Disparity of force, four armed guys, and you want people to be limited to Fudd guns and single shot locked up bullshiat weapons.

Didn't see the pigs in your family defending this house neither.
2012-12-24 02:24:47 PM
1 votes:

MassAsster: cameroncrazy1984: MassAsster: YOU CAN NOT STOP CRAZY

You can stop crazy from owning a gun, yes.

As was pointed out earlier, we've had more deaths from mass shootings in the past two weeks than the UK and Australia have in the past 10 years.

You can absolutely stop crazy.

You may stop them from owning a weapon - you are NOT going to stop them from killing people....

Crazy will still find a way....


Then why haven't they "found a way" to continue mass shootings in the UK and Australia?

Oh wait, because it's REALLY HARD to find a gun capable of such things.
2012-12-24 02:22:22 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: MassAsster: YOU CAN NOT STOP CRAZY

You can stop crazy from owning a gun, yes.

As was pointed out earlier, we've had more deaths from mass shootings in the past two weeks than the UK and Australia have in the past 10 years.

You can absolutely stop crazy.


You may stop them from owning a weapon - you are NOT going to stop them from killing people....

Crazy will still find a way....
2012-12-24 02:17:42 PM
1 votes:

Rockstone: Freedom is more important than Safety.


Owning something that can only kill others is not "freedom"
2012-12-24 02:17:01 PM
1 votes:

Rockstone: ONE armed guard. That wasn't on campus when the shooting started.


Yes he was.
2012-12-24 02:15:53 PM
1 votes:

Bontesla: I didn't realize you were talking about gun safety in a well-regulated militia? Technically, that's the only specifically-enumerated right you have. I'm talking about the use of guns in society at large (and not within a militia). My usage is accurate. Your hobby of gun collecting shouldn't usurp my right to life.



No it isn't. SCOTUS has interpreted the right to bear arms to mean the right to bear arms. The well regulated militia has no bearing on the fact you can own a firearm. Both are rights.

Your usage is wrong.

Anyway, no. Our right to own a firearm is more important than our right to be safe. Freedom is more important than Safety.

/ There are reasonable limitations to that
2012-12-24 02:08:55 PM
1 votes:

chuckufarlie: trappedspirit: chuckufarlie: 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.

Which meant that the citizens had access to the same weapons as the military. The Constitution says nothing about hunting.

What you are saying is nothing more than your interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment means. And obviously your interpretation is wrong. There are lots of weapons in the hands of the military that you are not allowed to legally own,

No, the Constitution said nothing about hunting. But the only viable reason to own a rifle is for hunting. You can hunt four legged animals or you can hunt two legged animals. I am perfectly okay with people have the appropriate gun for hunting the four legged animals or the two legged animals that have wings. Those guns that only serve the purpose of killing people have no place in the homes of the people.


If the second amendment protected the right to own a musket with a bayonet, it referred to two devices whose only purpose was to make war. Not simply to kill humans, but to make war. Besides that, items with the purpose of killing do indeed have a legitimate place in the home of any who are willing and able to kill in defense of themselves or others.

Your understanding of guns is tremendously flawed and I can only assume it has been colored by your incredible, irrational fear of them. Your interpretation of the Constitution and your view of reality as a whole also seem to have been skewed by this fear.
2012-12-24 02:06:31 PM
1 votes:

willyfreddy:

- If having more guns made a country safer, America would be the safest country in the world. It isn't.


If having more gun control laws made a country safer, Mexico would be the safest country in the world. It isn't.
2012-12-24 02:06:05 PM
1 votes:

Orgasmatron138: Regardless of where you stand on the issue, Wayne delivered a poorly timed, poorly worded, nonsensical argument.

Muta: If he didn't have a gun he would have strangled them or drowned the firemen in a pool.

After reading about the Chinese stabbing incident, I was really surprised to find out that none of the victims died. Also, what balls on those kids, holding the guy off with broomsticks until help arrived.

In the country with lax gun laws, 20 kids died. In the country with strict gun laws, 20 kids were wounded.

If only outlaws have guns when guns are outlawed, where the fark were that nutcases' guns?


If only we lived in a totalitarian place where police could come in and bust up your house because you may have a dangerous weapon.

Counter point: Google UK massacres

In the UK (Where they have very strict gun laws), there was a mass shooting spree in 2010. They don't even have a serious smuggling problem like we have in the US. If we were to outlaw guns, we'd have the drug cartels smuggling guns in anyways. Gun bans would be exactly as effective as our war on drugs.
2012-12-24 02:02:14 PM
1 votes:

Banned on the Run: 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."

Not now, obviously. American soldiers and the government are the good guys. Right now.
"I need these things so politicians are less likely to order American soldiers to threaten to shoot me."

How's that?
Get it yet?


No.

Who do you want to shoot? American soldiers or American politicians?

Why don't you vote? Lines too long?
2012-12-24 02:01:08 PM
1 votes:
It's been a few years since the rest of the world looked at America and collectively slapped their forehead (since Bush left, really). Oh well, a few years ain't bad!

img546.imageshack.us

A few quick points before I turn off the internet for xmas time:

- If having more guns made a country safer, America would be the safest country in the world. It isn't.

- A year or so ago (last time I tracked down solid stats for this issue), America had 10x the population of Canada and 56x the number of murders (gun-related or not).

- Yes, the constitution says "right to bear arms". Of course, there's a reason you don't allow just anyone to buy dynamite, C4, grenades, or rocket launchers (etc.). A rocket launcher could be argued to be included in "right to bear arms". But it's not... because that would be insane! Well... that's how most people feel about assault rifles. Of course, a tragedy can be created by someone with a knife (as in China), the question is the amount of damage they can do, and how long it would take them to do it.

- Schools can't afford to pay their teachers or to even get proper supplies. How on earth are they going to pay for multiple security guards, each of whom has to be trained on the proper use of assault rifles?

- There were security guards at Columbine. They failed to prevent it. Add more?
2012-12-24 02:00:11 PM
1 votes:

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."


Not now, obviously. American soldiers and the government are the good guys. Right now.
"I need these things so politicians are less likely to order American soldiers to threaten to shoot me."

How's that?
Get it yet?
2012-12-24 01:55:13 PM
1 votes:

spelletrader: We have to admit to ourselves that we are facing a new wave of domestic terrorism and begin to take action from that stand point.


It does seem like some of this is false flag ops. For instance, both Holmes the theater shooter and Lanza the school shooter have parents directly related to the LIBOR banking scandals going on.

It's creepy, almost like some sort of hidden message is triggering them....

Oh wait, it's not hidden. It's hordes of drooling ghouls from the mass media that love to get ratings by spouting falsehoods about the events that makes every crazy autist go "hmm, I could be famous too!"
2012-12-24 01:45:41 PM
1 votes:
The only thing that can stop this is more fires.
2012-12-24 01:41:33 PM
1 votes:

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 01:35:23 PM
1 votes:

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 01:35:21 PM
1 votes:

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 01:26:44 PM
1 votes:

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 01:24:26 PM
1 votes:

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 01:21:44 PM
1 votes:

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 01:20:27 PM
1 votes:

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 01:15:09 PM
1 votes:

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"?
2012-12-24 01:14:59 PM
1 votes:

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 fear.

I lived in the actual city of Detroit for four years and I did not own a gun. I went where I wanted, when I wanted to go. I was cautious, but I was not afraid.

People who live in cowering fear are sad people. I suppose that it starts with paranoia.
2012-12-24 01:09:10 PM
1 votes:

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


You've never really studied history, have you?
2012-12-24 01:05:19 PM
1 votes:
Please stop feeding Chuck

Thanks
2012-12-24 12:59:16 PM
1 votes:

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 12:57:29 PM
1 votes:

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 12:38:12 PM
1 votes:

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 12:37:57 PM
1 votes:

SRD: 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.

You know whats funny you think all rifles should be turned in yet only about 300 people die a year from rifles maybe 100 are from ar15 type rifles. thats it more people die from fist fights and knives than rifles per year. But dont let facts get to you.

Also i wouldnt turn in my rifles if they were made illegal. In fact most wouldnt. That would be an over reach of the govt. The 2nd amendment is as important as the 1st dont give rights away so easy. You probably also didnt know permit holders are 7-14 times less likely to be arrested for a crime. Seems gun owners are the more responsible of the citizens in this nation.


I did not say ALL rifles. I said those that use magazines or clips should be made illegal and that they should be confiscated.

What concerns me and a lot of other people are these situations where one person commits mass murders. Your comments about fist fights and knifes is pointless because that is not the problem being addressed. You cannot go in to a school and beat a bunch of people to death, nor can you do so with a knife. You are the one not paying attention to the facts. In fact, you are not paying attention at all.

Are you under the impression that the 2nd Amendment cannot be modified? After all, there is nothing in the wording about what type of weapon you can own. That distinction was made by a court opinion. Court opinions change. That means that any change to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be legal.

In the beginning or one paragraph you stated that you would gladly break the law of the land. At the end of that same paragraph you state that gun owners are more responsible. How do you balance those two statements? You have stated that you will only follow those laws that you agree with. That is hardly the position of a responsible citizen.

Like more of your ilk, you have displayed that you are not at all rational. Hardly a ringing endorsement for gun ownership.
2012-12-24 12:32:38 PM
1 votes:
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!!!
2012-12-24 12:26:55 PM
1 votes:

Mimic_Octopus: Infernalist: rth

umm, just about every single one that has ever been toppled ? you think they all stepped down after a debate ?

how many revolutions were successfully carried out without guns ?


Gandhi would like a word with you.
2012-12-24 12:22:27 PM
1 votes:

computerguyUT: You guys spout "take them all away" like that would solve anything since it's not law abiding gun owners that are going nutjob.


No, the "law-abiding" gun owners are the ones who have children die in their home from playing with a gun, or accidentally kill a member of their own family mistaking them for an intruder or by mishandling a weapon, or kill themselves and leave their families to discover their blood remains (too common to be "newsworthy"). These are the every-day tragedies of America's obsession with guns, the ones you nuts are so eager to defend. WTF is wrong with you?

computerguyUT: 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.


Ahh, right, you prefer ignorance. The solutions are readily apparent. Reduce the number of handguns and assault weapons in your country and you'll reduce the amount of indiscriminate murders. It works for the rest of the civilized world, so it might just work for you too..
2012-12-24 12:22:18 PM
1 votes:

snocone: 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.

That ain't gonna happen no matter what.
Running that flag up the pole on fire is is sorta inflamitory, eh?


There is every reason to believe that it should and can happen. It is the only way to resolve the problem. All anybody needs to do to realize that lots of unstable, irrational people are armed with weapons that they should not own is to read the posts of the gun nutz.

99% or you are anti-government. The only threat to the stability of the USA is you and your buddies.
2012-12-24 12:17:02 PM
1 votes:

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.


The USA was created by violently overthrowing the existing government (British) and creating a new one.  The idea that armed insurrection is a legitimate tool with which to enact political change is pretty fundamental to this day.  Not every American believes that, of course, but enough do that it shapes our society.
2012-12-24 12:13:40 PM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Why not ban guns based on political party affiliation? If you and your party are against guns, then ban yourselves. Win-win!


Liberals have every right to defend themselves from the paranoid misinformed and bigoted Birchers who make up the base of the Republican party,
2012-12-24 11:52:51 AM
1 votes:

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 11:52:27 AM
1 votes:

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 11:50:02 AM
1 votes:

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 11:45:56 AM
1 votes:

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 11:40:22 AM
1 votes:

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 11:35:32 AM
1 votes:

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 11:35:12 AM
1 votes:

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 11:29:36 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-24 11:25:52 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-24 11:21:32 AM
1 votes:

lordjupiter: IronTom: lordjupiter: IronTom: lordjupiter: too crazy to own guns

You sound reasonable, but then you call for banning guns.  How will a little old lady protect herself from big attackers?

Show me where I called for banning all guns.  Do it.

At the end of your post there was this line:  The answer is not to wave a magic wand and make all the crazy and bad people go away, it's to remove some of their resources or at least make those resources harder to get.

And I did not say you called for banning ALL guns, show men where ... dah dah dah,...

You must be some kind of troll to post such contradictions, in clear text, for all the world to read and laugh at.


little girls call people trolls
2012-12-24 11:18:06 AM
1 votes:
Do you know who else hated firefighters getting shot responding to calls?  That's right...

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Seriously, this is terrible.  We had a lot of first responders getting shot at in the days after Katrina.
2012-12-24 11:17:16 AM
1 votes:
People, PEOPLE!!! Settle down...

There is only one way to stop this...
www.dziennik.com

/your welcome.
2012-12-24 11:13:18 AM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: WhippingBoy: chuckufarlie: The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.

No way man. Cletus and Zeke could totally take out a Nimitz class aircraft carrier if they had enough guns and ammunition. Why just last year Zeke was named NRA's "cool shot" of the year by the Bumfark, Georgia chapter of the NRA.

.
Educate yourself before presenting yourself as an expert on farking everything under the sun. Link


You are living under three false impressions:

1. You are NOT the protector of American Freedom
2. You will NOT gain the support of the American people when you act.
3. You would get your collective asses kicked so hard by the FBI or the DoD. You have no chance against them.

While we are debating taking guns away from crazy people, we should include taking them away from stupid people. Take your guns to your local police force and turn them in. We would all feel safer if you did.
2012-12-24 11:12:01 AM
1 votes:

Spaced Lion: [assets.diylol.com image 510x486]


The occasional civilian massacre is the price we all pay -- and will continue to pay -- for freedom.
2012-12-24 11:09:22 AM
1 votes:
The new NRA spokesperson later told people to remain calm.

i81.photobucket.com

Everything is fine. Nothing to see here.
We have arrested the guns that did this.
2012-12-24 11:04:02 AM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: chuckufarlie: david_gaithersburg: 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.

.
As human beings we believe ourselves to have certain basic human rights that are inalienable, and have provided that those basic human rights shall never be infringed upon by the government. One of those rights is the basic right to protect one's self from anything, including an out of control government. Our second amendment also serves to guarantee that the government will think twice before attempting to infringe upon any of the other basic human rights enshrined in the first ten amendments to our constitution.

240 years ago we had a standing army, and the best trained army in the world too. Our government became tyrannical and out of control, we took up arms and formed local militias to stand up against the biggest and best trained army and navy on the planet. That newly formed US government began to erode during the FDR administration and it is still slowly dissolving today.

A bunch of armed rednecks is not a guarantee of anything. You sure as hell could not stand up the the real military. You want to believe it because it gives your pathetic life some meaning.

You need to do some research on the American Revolution. The local militia did not win the war, It was a standing army that had been trained to fight in the European style. The militia was not reliable in battle. They were known to fire one round and then run away.

Also, what we see as the American Revolution was just part of a larger war that the British were fighting against the French.

The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. woul ...


Maybe you haven't noticed but the USA is not like those countries. We are not ruled by a dictator. We have a legally elected government that peacefully turns over the leadership when it loses an election. That is hardly the stage for a revolution. Sure, there are ignorant rednecks who "want the government back" but that is a position based on ignorance and stupidity.
2012-12-24 11:01:36 AM
1 votes:

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-abiding gun owners: they can be law-abiding every single day for fifty years and then one day decide to kill everyone in sight. So saying that just because you've previously obeyed all laws and have not shot anyone yet doesn't mean that you'll continue to obey all laws and will not shoot anyone in the future. You may be pretty confident in your sanity but I'm not. It's nothing personal but statistically speaking - I'm going to know people who die or be injured as a direct result of being shot. People in your circle will also know someone who will either die or be injured as a direct result of being shot. It's entirely likely that you know who will be that shooter and it's also entirely likely that you'd be surprised at who the shooter is.

I'm not arguing that guns should be banned. I'm saying that one's hobby should not put everyone else in society at risk. Society can regulate high risk behavior. It's why many states have regulated street racing, we have hunting seasons, and you can be arrested for driving drunk. We haven't banned street racing - merely designated areas in which it can be carried out and specified the conditions in which it can be enjoyed. We haven't banned duck hunting - merely created a season and designated zones in which it can be enjoyed. We haven't banned alcohol - merely stipulated that you cannot both drink and drive. Likewise - we shouldn't ban guns. We should, however, enact common sense regulations that help create a safer society. These common sense regulations should also be accompanied by other laws because regulating the tool, alone, will be insufficient.
2012-12-24 10:52:27 AM
1 votes:

LikeALeafOnTheWind: Im about half way through the book Columbine, pretty fascinating book. Most of what most people took away from that tragedy is a bunch of bull. I recommend the book for those that want a little insight into that nightmare. The guard at the school was armed and exchanged fire with the Columbine shooters. Additional police were on the scene very quickly, in only a matter of a few minutes. The chaos and uncertainty of the situation is what kept them from going into the school for nearly 45 minutes. Also.. the local cops engaged in a cover up.. Eric Harris had been reported to the police 15 times in the two years prior to the shooting. They had at one point drawn up a search warrant for his house because they had been told he was building pipe bombs. It was never executed.  Anyways.. check out the book it doesnt spend an inordinate amount of time on the gory details, and the rest of the story is intriguing.


Stop clouding the issue with facts and logic. ;-)

It's much easier to penalize the population while the illogical emotional frenzy is in full force.
2012-12-24 10:52:19 AM
1 votes:
cameroncrazy1984: Oh man, this might be some of your best trolling yet. Alright, if you can't legislate morality, why the 10 commandments?

Because the ten commandments aren't legislation, you miserable farktard.
2012-12-24 10:49:20 AM
1 votes:
cameroncrazy1984: You're right. Mass shootings didn't really occur until automatic weapons were introduced.

But these shooters aren't using automatic weapons.

But these shooters aren't using automatic weapons.

But these shooters aren't using automatic weapons.

But these shooters aren't using automatic weapons.

But these shooters aren't using automatic weapons.

But these shooters aren't using automatic weapons.
2012-12-24 10:49:10 AM
1 votes:

Infernalist: snocone: Infernalist: snocone: Infernalist: snocone: Infernalist: snocone: Infernalist: snocone: Infernalist: I'll be the first one to come out and admit it.

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



You really work at the stupid, eh?
2012-12-24 10:49:01 AM
1 votes:

Scerpes: Infernalist: Depends on the person, and whether they're actively trying to cause a serious physical injury to myself or someone else.

I wonder if Lanza thought those kids needed killing, too. You wonder?

And that would be a great reason to keep crazy people and people who make weapons available to crazy people from buying firearms. It sure would be nice to be able to have a database to check to see if someone is mentally ill, like we can do with felons.


Lanza didn't buy his guns. He stole them. Are you suggesting that we violate the civil rights of a potential gun owner because he has a son with autism? I'm shocked at you, sirrah. Shocked, I say.
2012-12-24 10:46:46 AM
1 votes:

Mentalpatient87: Mimic_Octopus: for when the US govt ends up like the british one we threw off a few years ago.

Hah! You'll sit fat and content in your easy chair while it happens. You won't even notice, unless they take something from you during a commercial break...


When? It's already a corrupt oligarchy. Billionaires pay half the tax rate a family doctor or small business owner does. The federal government pays taxes to GE. Despite record prices and profits, the government subsidises Exxon. Minimum wage is half the poverty level in Europe. The income and wealth of the 0.1% has tripled in the last 10 years, while the middle class has stagnated and the poor have gotten poorer.

Welcome to feudalism 21st century style.
2012-12-24 10:45:25 AM
1 votes:

Scerpes: Infernalist: And some people need killing.

That's not for gun owners to decide.

Depends on the person, and whether they're actively trying to cause a serious physical injury to myself or someone else.


I wonder if Lanza thought those kids needed killing, too. You wonder?
2012-12-24 10:45:11 AM
1 votes:
TeddyRooseveltsMustache What's next? Are they gonna shoot paramedics when they respond to areas where people have been shot? This country does need gun control. Like you wouldn't believe.


Oh, it's too late for that. There hasn't been a need for that sort of regulation before.

The libertines and the amoral have bleated for years, each time they set forth to tear down the established order: You cannot legislate morality.

That's absolutely true.
2012-12-24 10:42:54 AM
1 votes:

Scerpes: Infernalist: Hmmm...and yet they kill more than guns. I guess that's just a sad byproduct.

yeah, actually, it is. Cars are designed for transportation and with safety in mind. People misuse them and people die as a result.

Handguns and assault rifles are designed solely with the intent to kill people. Not hunt. Not target practice. Not sport shooting. They are made with the intent to be used to kill people.

That's the difference.

And some people need killing.


That's not for gun owners to decide.
2012-12-24 10:42:02 AM
1 votes:
Im about half way through the book Columbine, pretty fascinating book. Most of what most people took away from that tragedy is a bunch of bull. I recommend the book for those that want a little insight into that nightmare. The guard at the school was armed and exchanged fire with the Columbine shooters. Additional police were on the scene very quickly, in only a matter of a few minutes. The chaos and uncertainty of the situation is what kept them from going into the school for nearly 45 minutes. Also.. the local cops engaged in a cover up.. Eric Harris had been reported to the police 15 times in the two years prior to the shooting. They had at one point drawn up a search warrant for his house because they had been told he was building pipe bombs. It was never executed.  Anyways.. check out the book it doesnt spend an inordinate amount of time on the gory details, and the rest of the story is intriguing.
2012-12-24 10:41:57 AM
1 votes:
Really, we need semi-automatic weapons to kill 6-year-olds. The tree of liberty demands such sacrifices of our children and their parents and brothers and sisters.. Such sacrifice from ones so small. It makes me well up with tears of patriotism, how brave the little ones were as they were sacrificed.
2012-12-24 10:39:39 AM
1 votes:

Scerpes: Infernalist: I guess you've never been behind the wheel of a car.

Cars are not designed to kill people.

Hmmm...and yet they kill more than guns. I guess that's just a sad byproduct.


yeah, actually, it is. Cars are designed for transportation and with safety in mind. People misuse them and people die as a result.

Handguns and assault rifles are designed solely with the intent to kill people. Not hunt. Not target practice. Not sport shooting. They are made with the intent to be used to kill people.

That's the difference.
2012-12-24 10:39:27 AM
1 votes:

Scerpes: Machine guns are legal. Period.


Good luck getting one made after 1982 without being a Class III FFL Dealer and selling to Law Enforcement or select PMCs vetted for ownership of such weapons.3

There's a reason why LEGAL Machine Guns are rare on the civilian market, and why they cost more than your firstborn son will.
2012-12-24 10:38:57 AM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Our second amendment also serves to guarantee that the government will think twice


You could just say, "I need these things to shoot American soldiers."
If you were honest.
2012-12-24 10:33:58 AM
1 votes:

Infernalist: I'll be the first one to come out and admit it.

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

It's outdated, it's a holdover from a time before we had a National Guard and it's used as a blanket shield by a handful of corporations to flood our society with weapons simply for the sake of profit without a thought given to the damage that it's doing to our people and society as a whole.

The Constitution is not written in stone and not only 'can' it be changed, but it 'should' be changed to reflect a changing nation. And I think it's past time for us to retire this Amendment. Guns do not make us safer. They make us less safe, less secure and they're a detriment to the common good of the American people.

Enough.


^^^^^^^^
Hitler would have loved this guy!
2012-12-24 10:31:54 AM
1 votes:

Infernalist: I'll be the first one to come out and admit it.

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

It's outdated, it's a holdover from a time before we had a National Guard and it's used as a blanket shield by a handful of corporations to flood our society with weapons simply for the sake of profit without a thought given to the damage that it's doing to our people and society as a whole.

The Constitution is not written in stone and not only 'can' it be changed, but it 'should' be changed to reflect a changing nation. And I think it's past time for us to retire this Amendment. Guns do not make us safer. They make us less safe, less secure and they're a detriment to the common good of the American people.

Enough.


If yur gonna change it, legalize RPGs and machine guns so we can keep up with the neighbors.
THAT was the intent of the Constitution, to arm the citizens with people killing weapons.
Huntin' squirrel hardly seems to be worth all the Constitutionalizing.
2012-12-24 10:29:59 AM
1 votes:

BokerBill: What would a well regulated militia look like? 'Cause, with all these mass shootings it's apparent we need one.


blog.nj.com
Pictured: New Jersey National Guard on Parade, 4 Jul 2012.
2012-12-24 10:28:58 AM
1 votes:

Mimic_Octopus: Infernalist: t actually happene

oh, well. ours then. you are familiar with how troops were raised from up and down the eastern seaboard and frontier for the revolution, no ?


then they were trained in the European style of fighting. Until that happened, they lost every battle that they fought.

And if you read any accounts of the Revolution, you will see that the militia was looked down on by the real Army. The only thing that you could count on was that they would run away at the first chance.

99% of US gun owners would be piss poor soldiers. Overweight is no way to fight a war.
2012-12-24 10:24:30 AM
1 votes:

Mimic_Octopus: Infernalist: rth

umm, just about every single one that has ever been toppled ? you think they all stepped down after a debate ?

how many revolutions were successfully carried out without guns ?


Well, every revolution that predates guns and a smattering of revolutions in recent history. Recent is a relative term so keep that in mind when doing your research.

Further - guns are for well regulated militias and not your uncle Bob who still watches the tree lines for "Japs".

The problem with this discussion is that somehow you think you can acquire enough guns to fight in a revolution against the US. A gun is worthless without continued training and downright dangerous without strict regulation.

If having armed forces to fight against this future government makes you feel better then you're responsible for establishing a plan that doesn't make everyone more dangerous in doing so.
2012-12-24 10:20:06 AM
1 votes:
You know something?

I was having a great morning. I managed to get a stroke patient within the window last night, and her NIH Score is now a 2 because they gave her the clotbuster. So I was feeling pretty good.

Then I read this, and found out three firefighters had been ambushed by an asshole. Two are critical, and may not survive.

fark these people so much.
2012-12-24 10:19:07 AM
1 votes:
feral hogs are some mean madafaks brah. defo recco sum GUNZ to fix ya pig problems
2012-12-24 10:15:40 AM
1 votes:
www.cuerpoyarte.com

/too inside info?
2012-12-24 10:15:32 AM
1 votes:

Real Women Drink Akvavit: 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.

There's  a part in our constitution that guarantees our right to bear arms and maintain a militia and it seems a lot of people seem to think there should be no restrictions on any guns at all because of it - no training classes required, no test, buy semi-autos and automatic weapons if you want them - things like that. Which is stupid when you have such a cultural problem in your country with people mishandling guns or outright going on a killing  spree.

We also  apparently have more crazy people. When I lived in Norway for a brief time, where many are also avid hunters, there were no such problems. They recently had that one incident where a crazy rampage shooter, Anders Breivik,  killed over 80 people, but  other than  that, it's usually pretty calm over there, except for stabbings, but you are going to have a hard time taking out multiple targets with a knife very effectively. So I'm going to go with "Americans are crazy, though I am still  proud to be one, I am just sad about all of this". Especially since I am a gun owner myself. So is my sister, and we live in the same house.

/all guns are safely locked away when not in use, except one


Living in Norway now- high rate of gun ownership here--- zero handguns, cops unarmed, and citizens need to keep weapons in gun safes at home. C&C? Forget about it.

That all said, there much more stabbings around hear.
2012-12-24 10:15:05 AM
1 votes:

Mimic_Octopus: Infernalist: t actually happene

oh, well. ours then. you are familiar with how troops were raised from up and down the eastern seaboard and frontier for the revolution, no ?


You mean the one with the American military force, supplied by the French?

What else you got?
2012-12-24 10:13:14 AM
1 votes:

Wasilla Hillbilly: I'll allow that having armed police/guards at every school could potentially work as a deterrent,


Hell, I won't even allow for that. Every person that's walked in and shot up a school had no intention of walking back out. They plan on dying. At best they won't be concerned about an armed guard at all (like Columbine) and just go about their business. At worst you'll have armed parties exchanging gunfire in a school full of children and at that point my money is on the crazies versus the hugely outgunned rent a cop that has no idea wtf is going on.
2012-12-24 10:09:51 AM
1 votes:

Infernalist: How many dictators have been overthrown by gun-owning citizenry?


Not many, they are usually overthrown by the military and form a military dictatorship.
2012-12-24 10:07:05 AM
1 votes:

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.


Ons hou van gewere en ons wil dinge om te skiet.
2012-12-24 10:05:45 AM
1 votes:

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.


Columbine had armed guard. Did he save lives? I'm sure he did. The point is that obviously he was not a deterrent. He wasn't off campus either, he was just on the other side of the building. They had no problem shooting at him, too.

Address the root of the problem, don't react to it with "moar gunz!".

/yes, I own guns
//so does my sis
///obviously not anti-gun
2012-12-24 10:05:20 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-24 10:03:48 AM
1 votes:
I'll allow that having armed police/guards at every school could potentially work as a deterrent, but in the event of an actual shooting, I can't imagine they would stand much chance of making a huge difference. Although maybe it wouldn't take 20 plus minutes to respond. The reality is that events such as this are still going to be relatively uncommon, and I could see it being difficult to maintain a high-alert state while patrolling a school after enough time has passed without an incident. Of course, the amount of security that would really be required to make schools "safe" would create a prison-like atmosphere that I am not sure is a great environment for learning and growing.
2012-12-24 10:03:35 AM
1 votes:

Mimic_Octopus: for when the US govt ends up like the british one we threw off a few years ago.


Hah! You'll sit fat and content in your easy chair while it happens. You won't even notice, unless they take something from you during a commercial break...
2012-12-24 09:57:00 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-24 09:55:38 AM
1 votes:

letrole: Godamnlimey Sure do talk purty for a troll.

My surname is Le Trôle.


No it isn't, nobody believes you, you can stop trying now.
2012-12-24 09:54:53 AM
1 votes:

letrole: The problem with spree shootings isn't the innercity youths who are indeed armed to the teeth and willing to pull the trigger. The vast majority of firearm murders in the US comes from gangbangers and street thugs killing each other for practical reasons -- with specific targets. If the number of guns or the mere presense of guns were the problem, then you would expect to see pointless mass murders on the news each night.

The problem is rich white male misfits. Modern society is corrupt. The natural mechanisms that always kept erratic behaviour in check have been broken and perverted to favour the individual at the expense of the community.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses, and a new order reforms from the ashes


Dude, really? Trolling this thread? Bad form.
2012-12-24 09:54:45 AM
1 votes:

Community Agitator: I'd be willing to bet you think you are one of the 'sane people' ?


I'm sane enough not to defend policies that enable lunatics to fulfill their sick, murderous fantasies.

Also... letrole posted that exact same list in one of the other threads.
2012-12-24 09:52:59 AM
1 votes:
2012-12-24 09:52:41 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-24 09:51:58 AM
1 votes:
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.


The inner-city thugs and gansters and wide-boys are the most heavily armed group down to the last man.

They don't do this shiat. It's the sick fark maladjusted rich white boys who do this.
2012-12-24 09:48:27 AM
1 votes:

letrole: The problem with spree shootings isn't the innercity youths who are indeed armed to the teeth and willing to pull the trigger. The vast majority of firearm murders in the US comes from gangbangers and street thugs killing each other for practical reasons -- with specific targets. If the number of guns or the mere presense of guns were the problem, then you would expect to see pointless mass murders on the news each night.

The problem is rich white male misfits. Modern society is corrupt. The natural mechanisms that always kept erratic behaviour in check have been broken and perverted to favour the individual at the expense of the community.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses, and a new order reforms from the ashes


We do see pointless murders on the news every night so that part of your argument is busted.

Your numbered list is out of touch with reality, is completely wrong and entirely stupid.

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.
2012-12-24 09:45:56 AM
1 votes:
If he didn't have a gun he would have strangled them or drowned the firemen in a pool.
2012-12-24 09:44:57 AM
1 votes:

jake_lex: 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?

No, but it does show that if someone who is batshiat crazy and heavily armed wants to kill a shiatload of people, simply havng an armed guard probably won't help that much. They'll just shoot the guard and get to it.


I think cops at schools have the potential to serve as a deterrent in most cases. With Columbine, those kids shot up the school they went to-- I don't think they were shopping around for a place to kill people, like in other incidents.

That said, I still think cops in schools are a tremendous waste or resources. Even though school shootings get a ton of press, they are incredibly rare, and the 'cops in school' thing is just something to do to appease that masses.
2012-12-24 09:43:35 AM
1 votes:
What if all of these recent shootings are a last ditch effort by Karl Rove attemting to make the GOP relevant again?
2012-12-24 09:42:08 AM
1 votes:

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.


or pushing an agenda to have radical right wing gun nutz stationed all of the cities of America, just waiting to take over.
2012-12-24 09:41:37 AM
1 votes:

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.


There's  a part in our constitution that guarantees our right to bear arms and maintain a militia and it seems a lot of people seem to think there should be no restrictions on any guns at all because of it - no training classes required, no test, buy semi-autos and automatic weapons if you want them - things like that. Which is stupid when you have such a cultural problem in your country with people mishandling guns or outright going on a killing  spree.

We also  apparently have more crazy people. When I lived in Norway for a brief time, where many are also avid hunters, there were no such problems. They recently had that one incident where a crazy rampage shooter, Anders Breivik,  killed over 80 people, but  other than  that, it's usually pretty calm over there, except for stabbings, but you are going to have a hard time taking out multiple targets with a knife very effectively. So I'm going to go with "Americans are crazy, though I am still  proud to be one, I am just sad about all of this". Especially since I am a gun owner myself. So is my sister, and we live in the same house.

/all guns are safely locked away when not in use, except one
2012-12-24 09:39:27 AM
1 votes:
Isn't this how American History X started?
2012-12-24 09:37:04 AM
1 votes:

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.


But you don't. Unless you're crazy/f*cking stupid. You aren't either of those, are you?
2012-12-24 09:36:57 AM
1 votes:
ARSONISTS ARE ON 0BAMA'S PAYROLL. THIS IS WHY THEY GET ALL THE GIRLS.
2012-12-24 09:35:30 AM
1 votes:
any possibility that live rounds could have asploded due to the fire?

/devils advocate
//think of the bullets - they only have one chance to get it right.
2012-12-24 09:34:21 AM
1 votes:
assets.diylol.com
2012-12-24 09:34:14 AM
1 votes:
Not sure if I've ever seen the fire department was dispatched to a location where the police didn't also respond...

WTF?
2012-12-24 09:33:45 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-24 09:33:06 AM
1 votes:

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?
2012-12-24 09:32:02 AM
1 votes:
Did s/he set the fire to attract firefighters to shoot or is s/he shooting the firefighters because they are trying to put out the fire?
2012-12-24 09:31:47 AM
1 votes:
Meth lab?
2012-12-24 09:27:42 AM
1 votes:
img689.imageshack.us

Too soon?
2012-12-24 09:26:35 AM
1 votes:
Yay for morons.
 
Displayed 177 of 177 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report