Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(My Fox Memphis)   And for today's school shooting we have... Atlanta. 14-year old in hospital with gunshot wound to the head, one faculty member injured   (myfoxmemphis.com) divider line 915
    More: Sad, Carlos Campos, Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta Fire Department, DeKalb County, gunshot wound, elementary schools  
•       •       •

7728 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2013 at 5:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-31 07:13:09 PM  

Mugato: The cat's out of the bag in the US when it comes to guns. There's a shiatload of them and they're not going away. No amount of background checks, registration or anything else is going to stop some psycho from shooting up a place if he really needs to.

It is pretty retarded though that we have all these background check laws and anyone can walk into a gun show and buy anything they want with no ID check whatsoever. I'm not saying the background checks help but if you're going to have them, don't leave such an obvious loophole.

Buy all the guns you want just shut up about the second amendment and how people have guns to protect themselves from the government. If Hilary Clinton wants in, she's coming in and no amount of assault rifles you bought at the Brandon Gun Expo is going to stop that. Enjoy your toys but don't act like you're some last line of defense against the oppressive State.


Why bother with a gun, people are just going to shoot you anyway.
 
2013-01-31 07:13:55 PM  

whidbey: OnlyM3: whidbey
How would background checks stop "law-abiding people" from legally buying firearms?

Be specific. What you're trying now is called moving the goal post. You made a claim. You were called on it. You have shown you are incapable of supporting your claim, even when given multiple chances. So now you try to change the argument and throw the burden onto your opponent. Debates don't work that way.

I've actually been quite consistent in my arguments here.

You clearly don't want this country to have any kind of uniform standards in place regarding firearms.   My point was that if we had, neither Columbine nor Sandy Hook might have occurred.

This is not "moving goalposts, this is you attempting to avoid the point altogether.


No, this is you being your usual stupid self, comrade.
 
2013-01-31 07:13:58 PM  
We should make a law where it's illegal to have a gun at school.  That'll fix it.
 
2013-01-31 07:14:19 PM  

OnlyM3: whidbey

OnlyM3: whidbey

OnlyM3: So tel us oh enlightened one. How would a background check have stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc...?

You mean how would this country have benefited from having a uniform system of standards regarding gun ownership if we had enacted policies decades ago, don't you?
I see you failed to answer the direct question. Care to try again?

I did answer it.

You didn't care for the answser.

If we had had a longtime system of standards for gun owners for decades, neither incident might have even happened.
No, that's a lie, those firearms were sold via background checks and later taken by thieves. You're proving how uninformed and silly your side is. You throw out a "solution" that won't have any real affect. Lie about prior incidents and hope nobody calls you on it.

Well. You've been called on it.


Not really. You still have this irrational fear of having a nationwide system in place to determine how firearms are obtained by the public.

I submit that the NRA and the other gun lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of firearms as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.
 
2013-01-31 07:14:34 PM  
NO kills?

Son, I am dissapoint.
 
2013-01-31 07:15:01 PM  

pedrop357: Now the big question is, did they simply find another way to kill themselves?


Read the link, maybe? The researchers believe that there was not a noticeable increase in suicide by other method.

But, there are other problems you could point out. You can proceed with calm.

For example, the access to the weapon was temporary (just the weekend leave), and it doesn't represent the prevention or failures beyond the weekend leave situation.
 
2013-01-31 07:15:11 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 80 percent of state inmates purchased guns from family, friends, a street buy or an illegal source. Those guns don't grow on trees. ATF trafficking investigations show that many of them come from trafficking from gun shows.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloo ph ole#Harlow

Gun shows are a major trafficking channel according to ATF, with an average of 130 guns trafficked per investigation, and over 25,000 firearms trafficked in total over one 17-month period alone http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloop h ole#ATF

Bush Attorney General Gonzales:  "...gun shows are a marketplace for felons and other prohibited persons to buy firearms from unlicensed sellers without background checks "


Holy crap, you're citing the f'ing Brady campaign?  The same group that got busted talking about how many "Children" are killed each year by guns until they got called out for classifying anyone under the age of 26 as a 'child' and including people the Police shot during the commission of a crime?  Really?
 
2013-01-31 07:16:10 PM  

whidbey: I submit that the NRA and the other gun lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of firearms as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.


I submit that the ACLU and the other speech lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of books and magazines as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.
 
2013-01-31 07:16:54 PM  

RevMercutio: muck4doo: Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.

Serial numbers can be taken out.

And giant meteors can fall on your house tomorrow. Just because something can happen doesn't mean it always does.


Yes, giant meteors falling on my house and criminals scratching out serial numbers on illegally purchased guns have the same absolute chance of happening.

/This is why most people don't take you gun grabbing tards seriously.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:07 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier

CPR, AED, First Responder, Lifeguard Trainer, and Emergency Tracheotomy. I've used it twice, both times in a situation where someone was in peril (anaphylactic shock and a distressed child struggling to stay above water, in that order). I don't own a gun, and I'm a liberal.

If you've fired a gun at a human being with the sole purpose of saving the lives of people around you less than 2 times, then I'm winning that race. There are better means to save a life than carrying a projectile launcher.
So by your argument, if we find a person who has had your training and not saved anyone than their efforts are wasted?

So your claim is since I -one person out of millions- have thankfully never had to discharge my weapon than all guns are useless for defense? I've never driven my car to NY. Does that mean cars aren't needed in NY State?

You're free to google up the thousands of times firearms are used by non-cops to save lives. I posted a list of 7 or so just this month -including examples with "AR15 style firearms"- in another thread yesterday, so it shouldn't be to hard for you to find.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:21 PM  

whidbey: Farkage: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

So if a criminal breaks into your locked garage, steals your car and kills someone with it, you go to jail because f*ck you.  That's what you're saying?

No,  you are saying that a gun should be equated with an automobile.  Which has nothing to do with my point.


You're saying you should be held responsible for what someone does with your property even when you've taken steps to secure it.  In other words, what I said was dead on.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:24 PM  

Farkage: Princess Ryans Knickers: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 80 percent of state inmates purchased guns from family, friends, a street buy or an illegal source. Those guns don't grow on trees. ATF trafficking investigations show that many of them come from trafficking from gun shows.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloo ph ole#Harlow

Gun shows are a major trafficking channel according to ATF, with an average of 130 guns trafficked per investigation, and over 25,000 firearms trafficked in total over one 17-month period alone http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloop h ole#ATF

Bush Attorney General Gonzales:  "...gun shows are a marketplace for felons and other prohibited persons to buy firearms from unlicensed sellers without background checks "

Holy crap, you're citing the f'ing Brady campaign?  The same group that got busted talking about how many "Children" are killed each year by guns until they got called out for classifying anyone under the age of 26 as a 'child' and including people the Police shot during the commission of a crime?  Really?


Attack the source... also known as having no argument or supporting facts to defend their position. AKA Fail.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:41 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: I submit that the NRA and the other gun lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of firearms as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.

I submit that the ACLU and the other speech lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of books and magazines as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.


Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:44 PM  

OnlyM3: highendmighty
Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms. It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use. Expensive? Yes. More valuable than innocent human lives? We've spent more money on less noble causes... even those clowns on mythbusters were able to circumvent biometric locks. Care to try for a real world, non-sci-fi answer?


Are you serious?  Mythbusters said it isn't possible, ergo ???
You are assuming I am taking a "do it today" position, talking like a politician who thinks if you can't do it now,  it won't matter for the future.  It's called investing resources into something that will matter for generations, not whether or not implementing a half-assed plan today would make a half-assed difference tomorrow.
Everything is science fiction - that's how we develop technology; and, the truth is, there are multiple  smart gun technologies on the verge of working as reliably as the existing mechanisms.
 
2013-01-31 07:17:56 PM  
A paraprofessional suffered minor injuries when she was trampled by students who had heard the gunshot
 
DAFUG?
 
2013-01-31 07:18:34 PM  

whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.


Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.
 
2013-01-31 07:18:48 PM  

Farkage: No, you are saying that a gun should be equated with an automobile. Which has nothing to do with my point.

You're saying you should be held responsible for what someone does with your property even when you've taken steps to secure it. In other words, what I said was dead on.


I am talking about a GUN.  Which someone OWNS and was stolen.

Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?
 
2013-01-31 07:19:25 PM  

pedrop357: I submit that the ACLU and the other speech lobbies have wanted to keep the industry and the sale of books and magazines as unregulated as possible, and that has proven to be a great deal of the problem.


Magazines, I can see.
What about round clips?
 
2013-01-31 07:19:33 PM  

whidbey: I am talking about a GUN. Which someone OWNS and was stolen.

Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?


You're a farking moron if you can't understand the usefulness of parallels and analogies.
 
2013-01-31 07:21:01 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.


Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.
 
2013-01-31 07:21:20 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: HeWhoHasNoName: The 40% falsehood is from a single poorly-conducted survey from before background checks were even in place under the Brady Act. It included transactions between immediate family members, dealers buying from the public and from other dealers, and several other situations that can only be construed as "loopholes" with extraordinary intellectual dishonesty.

The actual figure for the type of transactions you're trying to represent is significantly less than 10%.

Odd since someone else further up the thread from you provided the 40% and he, also, was claiming I was wrong. Funnily he had supporting documentation... and you don't.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-l ot t#

That link includes the .pdf to the original survey - which was less than 300 samples, and was conducted more than two decades ago, at a point in time prior to changes in federal law about how gun sales were conducted.  Ignoring for a moment that less than 300 samples is dubiously small for the subject in question, that data is two decades and a significant change in federal law out of date.

So yes.  I DO have documentation.  You can choose to ignore it or try and wave your arms around and call it spin or propaganda or whatever excuse I'm sure you'll trot out to try and salvage your argument, but the fact of the matter is that analysis of the data by people more familiar with the details of the laws and activities in question at the time the data was collected have determined the "40%" figure is factually inaccurate as a representation of "overall gun sales without background checks".

Continue to present it as such at your own imperilment of what little credibility you have left.
 
2013-01-31 07:21:27 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.


You're talking to whidbey. Authoritarian extraordinaire.
 
2013-01-31 07:21:31 PM  

muck4doo: RevMercutio: muck4doo: Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.

Serial numbers can be taken out.

And giant meteors can fall on your house tomorrow. Just because something can happen doesn't mean it always does.

Yes, giant meteors falling on my house and criminals scratching out serial numbers on illegally purchased guns have the same absolute chance of happening.

/This is why most people don't take you gun grabbing tards seriously.


Not a gun grabber. Try again.
 
2013-01-31 07:21:40 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.


Bullshiat.

We are talking about GUNS.  Not anything else.   If you can't discuss the actual topic, then I have no use for you.
 
2013-01-31 07:22:03 PM  

whidbey: Farkage: No, you are saying that a gun should be equated with an automobile. Which has nothing to do with my point.

You're saying you should be held responsible for what someone does with your property even when you've taken steps to secure it. In other words, what I said was dead on.

I am talking about a GUN.  Which someone OWNS and was stolen.

Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?


I'm talking about your CAR.  Which (in this argument) you OWN and was STOLEN.  Obviously you should go to jail if someone gets hurt as a result of how the thief uses it.
Honestly, what is the difference here?  Are you to be held responsible for your property or not?
 
2013-01-31 07:22:12 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.



The right of the people is not limited by the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-01-31 07:22:39 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: I am talking about a GUN. Which someone OWNS and was stolen.

Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?

You're a farking moron if you can't understand the usefulness of parallels and analogies.


Ah personal attacks.

The hallmark of a weak argument.
 
2013-01-31 07:22:44 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks? You are Soft on Crime if you don't support changing the law to change this.


Sorry Princess, but false and misleading statements are false and misleading. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show. Source

And has already been pointed out upthread, the 40% figure is not painting an accurate picture. It includes a lot more than sales made at gun shows.

Lastly, your "often no background checks" statement is patently false and uninformed.
 
2013-01-31 07:22:55 PM  

highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...


When such a system is 100% reliable and effective, fine, feel free to mandate it. Not 99.99999999999999% Even a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that it could prevent my gun from going off when I pull the trigger is unacceptable. You can test it on guns issued to federal agents, police officers, and military until its all nailed down. Until then you can pound sand, it has absolutely no place on my carry arm.
 
2013-01-31 07:23:08 PM  

muck4doo: pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.

You're talking to whidbey. Authoritarian extraordinaire.


I know.  He's in asshole 'grey 1'  for me, but it's nice to see how far he's willing to go with his BS.
 
2013-01-31 07:23:52 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: False, NRA's LaPierre stated, and you can find this video on YouTube, to Congress that there IS a gun show loophole.


It's not a "loophole", any more than buying a used car privately is a "used car loophole".

With cars, you can go through a dealer (who states tend to regulate fairly strictly), or you buy from an individual.  Because the individuals aren't regularly in the business of selling cars, they don't have to go through the large amount of red tape that people who do it for a living do.  This is fortunate, as it would place a rather large burden on them.  The alternative would be to force individuals to sell all cars through dealers, which would be ridiculous.

Likewise, businesses that sell things regularly are required to have business licenses, meet zoning and code requirements, collect taxes, etc.  Individuals who sell their old goods infrequently aren't required to do so - they are private sellers, selling private property, not as a business.  Requiring everyone on eBay to go through a "licensed reseller" is also ridiculous, and poses an undue burden for sellers.

Guns are the same way.  If you regularly sell guns, you are a business, and are regulated like one.  You have to register with the federal government, deal with all city/state/federal laws, regulations, and taxes, and run background checks.  If you are an individual who occasionally sells, trades, or gifts property, this is a rather large burden to go through.  Requiring everyone who ever transfers a gun to go through a licensed dealer is also ridiculous, and poses an undue burden.

I have a CCW.  I have a friend who also has a CCW.  We own a security company together.  We've both been through strict background checks.  There is no sensible reason for the two of us to have to use a dealer to trade firearms to each other, yet we're part of the so-called "loophole".  Parents shouldn't need to use a dealer to give a firearm for hunting or target practice to their child, especially after they have already gone through a background check themselves to purchase the firearm.

The number one way criminals get guns (per ATF, 1994)  is through straw purchases - someone who can pass a background check buying them from someone who won't.  The next largest source is by corrupt firearms dealers.  Another source is illegal sellers who resell guns that were stolen or purchased by straw purchasers.

Yes, an insignificant percentage of sales at gun shows are private sales that don't require a background check.  The selection is generally poor, and the dealers themselves are fairly hard to find.  Unlike a lot of the talking heads, I've specifically gone to gun shows to try to find private parties and see what they have for sale.  It's not a loophole, and it's not the problem.
 
2013-01-31 07:23:57 PM  

whidbey: Ah personal attacks.

The hallmark of a weak argument.


I know.  I figured I need a weak argument against some who only seems to understand and formulate weak arguments.
 
2013-01-31 07:24:00 PM  

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.


The right of the people is not limited by the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment.


Really? Oddly Supreme Court Justice Scalia disagreed with you. You know him right? The ultra right wing strict Constutionalist?
 
2013-01-31 07:24:16 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Farkage: Princess Ryans Knickers: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 80 percent of state inmates purchased guns from family, friends, a street buy or an illegal source. Those guns don't grow on trees. ATF trafficking investigations show that many of them come from trafficking from gun shows.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloo ph ole#Harlow

Gun shows are a major trafficking channel according to ATF, with an average of 130 guns trafficked per investigation, and over 25,000 firearms trafficked in total over one 17-month period alone http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/gunshowloop h ole#ATF

Bush Attorney General Gonzales:  "...gun shows are a marketplace for felons and other prohibited persons to buy firearms from unlicensed sellers without background checks "

Holy crap, you're citing the f'ing Brady campaign?  The same group that got busted talking about how many "Children" are killed each year by guns until they got called out for classifying anyone under the age of 26 as a 'child' and including people the Police shot during the commission of a crime?  Really?

Attack the source... also known as having no argument or supporting facts to defend their position. AKA Fail.


Wow... You fail here.  I don't go to Fox News for data on Global Warming and I don't go to the Brady Campaign for data on firearms.  There are more reliable sources that aren't provably full of sh*t on the issue.  And no, I don't go to the NRA either.  Nice to see you cherry pick your fake statistics though.
 
2013-01-31 07:24:20 PM  

Farkage: Why do you feel the need to talk about something completely unrelated?

I'm talking about your CAR. Which (in this argument) you OWN and was STOLEN. Obviously you should go to jail if someone gets hurt as a result of how the thief uses it.
Honestly, what is the difference here? Are you to be held responsible for your property or not?


Because a car is not a weapon.

You are clearly misunderstanding my comment to mean ALL property.    Yes, in this case, a gun is a piece of property which the owner should be held accountable for, no matter what.

Saying "he did his best to secure it" is a defense that should be heard in a courtroom.
 
2013-01-31 07:24:22 PM  
handgun

So naturally let's ban AR15's
 
2013-01-31 07:24:32 PM  

whidbey: pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.

Bullshiat.

We are talking about GUNS.  Not anything else.   If you can't discuss the actual topic, then I have no use for you.


That's our authoritarian whidbey. He whittles away at the Constitution one amendment at a time,
 
2013-01-31 07:24:34 PM  

iq_in_binary: highendmighty: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Guns are not like any other item on this planet.

Bull honkey.

whidbey: They should be held to the highest standard of responsibility.

How do you make something theft-proof?

Stimulate the economy by legislating biometric triggers on all existing firearms.  It wouldn't be theft proof, or insane-wielder proof, but it would prevent the unauthorized use.  Expensive?  Yes.  More valuable than innocent human lives?  We've spent more money on less noble causes...

When such a system is 100% reliable and effective, fine, feel free to mandate it. Not 99.99999999999999% Even a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that it could prevent my gun from going off when I pull the trigger is unacceptable. You can test it on guns issued to federal agents, police officers, and military until its all nailed down. Until then you can pound sand, it has absolutely no place on my carry arm.


Your gun is not 100% reliable.
 
2013-01-31 07:24:41 PM  

texdent: We should just ban schools.


Funny/sad thing is, I've had a teabagger argue with me that we should just scrap public schools altogether.  Reasons included:
1) Kids these days don't want to learn anyway, so why waste our money on their ungrateful asses?
(as if kids have ever understood the value of education or appreciated what it takes for society to raise them)

2) Those kids would be better off going into the workforce right away, rather than waste all those years learning things they won't use anyway.  Then, by the time they would have just been finishing high school, they will own their own business!
(because nothing says "successful business owner" like someone who can't do basic arithmetic, read, write, and missed out on all the social development that comes from interacting with peers in school)

3) Our schools are falling behind those in several other countries anyway, so let's stop wasting money on these teachers and administrators, because anything but further decreasing of funding is rewarding them for failing our children.
(perfect solution fallacy, where would modern conservatives be without it.)

4) {When asked why he is so against using similar approaches that these more successful countries use to get better results, with less money, than U.S. schools}  SOSHULIZM!!!! MURIKAN ACCEPTIONALIZM!!!!
 
2013-01-31 07:25:01 PM  
Is this thread cross posted the Mole tab or something?
 
2013-01-31 07:25:10 PM  

Biner: Princess Ryans Knickers: Also, did you know that 40% of felons obtained their guns at gun shows where there are often no background checks? You are Soft on Crime if you don't support changing the law to change this.

Sorry Princess, but false and misleading statements are false and misleading. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show. Source

And has already been pointed out upthread, the 40% figure is not painting an accurate picture. It includes a lot more than sales made at gun shows.

Lastly, your "often no background checks" statement is patently false and uninformed.


So you deny that the vast majority of private gun sales (which are unregulated) are done at gun shows and only 7 states bother to regulate?
 
2013-01-31 07:25:24 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: pedrop357: whidbey: Ah the old guns are books, cars, knives, jars of peanut butter bullshiat and not actual GUNS subject to specific criteria.

Guns and books are both articles of a protected right, and all rights are equal.

Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.


Now I know you're a troll.

Well played, though.  Masterful, even.  We must do this more often.
 
2013-01-31 07:25:37 PM  

pedrop357: whidbey: Ah personal attacks.

The hallmark of a weak argument.

I know.  I figured I need a weak argument against some who only seems to understand and formulate weak arguments.


My argument stands.

Gun owners should be held accountable for their property.

So far, I have not heard a reasonable counter to that.
 
2013-01-31 07:25:39 PM  

RevMercutio: muck4doo: RevMercutio: muck4doo: Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: whidbey: Dimensio: Gun owners are not gods. They are people, and you want them to be treated with more rights than people.

I have advocated no additional rights for firearm owners. Your claim is a lie, and your proposal of absolute liability without exception regardless of any precautions taken by a firearm owner remains entirely unreasonable.

You are insisting that gun owners not be held accountable for their property and you are loathe to allow the legal system be the arbiter in such cases.  You clearly  want special rights.

No, more like you want to do blanket punishments on people who never did anything wrong. But you're an authoritarian douche asshat, and we already know that.

I don't think you should be charged if your gun was stolen by a criminal, but if you knowingly gave a weapon to a criminal of your free will, then you deserved to be charged for something IMHO.

Serial numbers can be taken out.

And giant meteors can fall on your house tomorrow. Just because something can happen doesn't mean it always does.

Yes, giant meteors falling on my house and criminals scratching out serial numbers on illegally purchased guns have the same absolute chance of happening.

/This is why most people don't take you gun grabbing tards seriously.

Not a gun grabber. Try again.


Meteor grabber?
 
2013-01-31 07:26:31 PM  
Which makes more sense....?

Locking up all teenage boys?
Banning "Assault Rifles"?

Banning "Assault Rifles" will prevent less than 1% of school shootings, but locking up all teenage boys will prevent 98% of school shootings.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

For our children's safety, we MUST lock up all teenage boys.
 
2013-01-31 07:26:50 PM  

whidbey: Bullshiat.

We are talking about GUNS. Not anything else. If you can't discuss the actual topic, then I have no use for you.


In other words, the discussion terms are to be set by you and you want to control them as much as possible so as to render any argument but yours to be invalid.
 
2013-01-31 07:26:56 PM  

Kathrin: It's not a "loophole", any more than buying a used car privately is a "used car loophole".


 A loophole that the NRA lobbied (bribed) heavily to get into place in order to not hurt sales.
 
2013-01-31 07:26:56 PM  
And the witch hunt continues! This is not news.

Oh and guess what? The shooter was stopped by an armed guard! OMG! The horror of having armed guards in schools!
 
2013-01-31 07:27:00 PM  

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: Except Freedom of Speech isn't pre-faced with WELL-REGULATED as guns are.


The right of the people is not limited by the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment.


I got your back on this one!
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
 
2013-01-31 07:27:37 PM  
Update: Armed officer working at middle school disarmed suspect, says chief. But remember, guns are always bad and the NRA was crazy to suggest more armed guards at schools.
 
Displayed 50 of 915 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report