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.

(NBC News)   Thank goodness Texas has allowed teachers to bring guns in the classroom, or else students would miss out on the teachers accidentally shooting themselves during class   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 305
    More: Asinine, concealed handgun, Texas, Union Grove, Texas District  
•       •       •

13046 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2013 at 2:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-28 02:20:26 PM  
"Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.
 
2013-02-28 02:39:28 PM  
Won't someone think of the gunless gang members!
 
2013-02-28 02:40:48 PM  
Surprised it took this long.
 
2013-02-28 02:40:49 PM  
Overzealous staffer.  Non-incident.
 
2013-02-28 02:40:56 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.


It's like raaaaaiiiinnnn on your wedding day...
 
2013-02-28 02:41:03 PM  
someone needs to post the Picard facepalm
 
2013-02-28 02:41:36 PM  
Is there a "we saw this coming a mile away" category?
 
2013-02-28 02:41:51 PM  
I laughed.
 
2013-02-28 02:42:28 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.


Exactly
It the weapon was being handled in a safe manner, I doubt it would have happened.
Safe = unloaded,not pointed anywhere it would cause harm at all, given any physics involved.
 
2013-02-28 02:42:32 PM  
I hate it when "irony" walks right up to you - all smiling while it kicks you in the nuts.
 
2013-02-28 02:43:10 PM  
It's more likely that the malfunction was in the interface between the teacher and the weapon.
 
2013-02-28 02:43:41 PM  
I can see this happening in one of the more pansy states, but Texans should know better. Ship this guy off to somewhere like Iowa or Ohio where he can think about what he did.
 
2013-02-28 02:43:50 PM  
It's only a matter of time before a disgruntled teacher offs a challenging student, or vice versa, with one of these safety devices.
 
2013-02-28 02:44:19 PM  
One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.
 
2013-02-28 02:44:24 PM  
You know in those samurai movies how there's always one guy who can't even draw his sword without cutting himself?
 
2013-02-28 02:44:53 PM  
Did he preface it by saying "I'm the only one professional enough to carry a Glock 40??"
 
2013-02-28 02:45:30 PM  
Well, that was educational.
 
2013-02-28 02:45:49 PM  
I live in east Texas now. Van's school mascot is the" Vandals". It is a stereotypical redneck town.

/I can only callously say "Good"
 
2013-02-28 02:46:38 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.


See? Guns  do kill people.

/or injure, in this case
 
2013-02-28 02:46:50 PM  

Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.


You know that there would be people who would respond to this by saying that all the children should be armed too, in order to protect themselves in just such a situation.  They will do so without a hint of irony in their voices.

"There was an old lady who swallowed a spider..."
 
2013-02-28 02:46:52 PM  
But, if only the students had been armed too, one of them could have shot the teacher before he was able to shoot himself!
 
2013-02-28 02:47:51 PM  
Surprised this is texas.  This had florida all over it.
 
2013-02-28 02:48:01 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.


So... guns DO kill people?
 
2013-02-28 02:48:08 PM  
Well if the students had just had guns, then... yeah, I got nothin'.
 
2013-02-28 02:48:28 PM  
As long as there's no collateral damage, I approve of people hurting themselves through incompetence.

/I guess that's hardly a radical position on Fark.
 
2013-02-28 02:49:26 PM  
a concealed handgun class

Ah, so they were being TRAINED on firearms use, in a class full of adults.
 
2013-02-28 02:49:27 PM  
www.mhmcintyre.us

Worm? What worm?
 
2013-02-28 02:50:16 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.

So... guns DO kill people?


Only when they malfunction.

// see? PREFECTLY safe in the right hands
// and in schools, where nobody ever makes bad decisions (including teachers and custodians)
 
2013-02-28 02:50:37 PM  

you have pee hands: As long as there's no collateral damage, I approve of people Texans hurting themselves through incompetence.


FTFY
 
2013-02-28 02:50:48 PM  
Subby is a bit misleading. Sure makes it sound like it happened in a school but then it says "it was unclear whether it was held on school grounds."

Accidents happen at shooting ranges too, should we shut them all down and ban them all so the only people left with guns are untrained and prone to more accidents? While we're at it, lets close down phy ed classes in schools because get bloody noses during dodgeball on occasion.
 
2013-02-28 02:51:29 PM  

Adalius: Subby is a bit misleading. Sure makes it sound like it happened in a school but then it says "it was unclear whether it was held on school grounds."

Accidents happen at shooting ranges too, should we shut them all down and ban them all so the only people left with guns are untrained and prone to more accidents? While we're at it, lets close down phy ed classes in schools because get bloody noses during dodgeball on occasion.


... this actually happened...
 
2013-02-28 02:51:38 PM  

Gifted Many Few: I can see this happening in one of the more pansy states, but Texans should know better. Ship this guy off to somewhere like Iowa or Ohio where he can think about what he did.


Everything is Herp-a-derpier in Texas.


/Alaskan.
//Don't piss us off, or we'll split in half and make you the third largest state.
 
2013-02-28 02:51:58 PM  

Carn: You know that there would be people who would respond to this by saying that all the children should be armed too, in order to protect themselves in just such a situation. They will do so without a hint of irony in their voices.


Some of them seriously recommended that husky 12-year-olds throw themselves at gunmen to stop school massacres. I'm shocked these people are able to get out of the house without walking repeatedly into the doorframe.
 
2013-02-28 02:52:00 PM  

Yogimus: a concealed handgun class

Ah, so they were being TRAINED on firearms use, in a class full of adults.


So what you're telling me that someone paid good money to be taught how to not completely fark this up, and it STILL went wrong?
 
2013-02-28 02:52:03 PM  

Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.


More likely is someone using bad judgment or simply spacing out (if those aren't the same thing) and leaving a gun where it is accessible to students.  Cops do that sometimes.  Parents seem to do it often.  If teachers can bring guns to school, it's just a matter of time.
 
2013-02-28 02:52:18 PM  
I would not allow my child to attend a public school with armed teachers.

I've worked in a public school before. Half of the teachers there shouldn't be trusted with cleaning solvents, much less firearms. And that wasn't even in Texas.
 
2013-02-28 02:53:24 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.

So... guns DO kill people?


They do seem to, at the least, maim people.
 
2013-02-28 02:53:34 PM  

SpdrJay: But, if only the students had been armed too, one of them could have shot the teacher before he was able to shoot himself!


That made me laugh so that a tiny string of booger flew from my nose, and I can't see where it went.  I'm hoping it didn't land on my sandwich.  In short, you owe me a sandwich.

/eating it anyway.
 
2013-02-28 02:55:32 PM  

evilmrsock: Yogimus: a concealed handgun class

Ah, so they were being TRAINED on firearms use, in a class full of adults.

So what you're telling me that someone paid good money to be taught how to not completely fark this up, and it STILL went wrong?


Some jackass brought a loaded gun to school, the teacher said "We can't have loaded guns in here", jackass says "Its not loaded, see?" and pulls trigger.   - This is why MOST safety courses don't actually allow guns to be brought to class.
 
2013-02-28 02:56:33 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.


Well, given that it's an instructor that assumably does this thousands of time in a given year, I'd give slightly more credence to it being an actual malfunction instead of negligence.  And it's a ricochet that got 'em, so at least the gun was pointed in a safe direction.

That said, why was the instructor fiddling with a loaded gun in the classroom?  I know my CCP teacher was armed during the lecture segment, but it stayed in its holster where it's supposed to be until we were actually out on the range doing the practical qualifier.  I'm somewhat skeptical of a teacher that's doing something that could set off a mechanical failure while they're in a building with other people, I don't even clean my pistol unless I know where my roommate is and have never removed it from its carrier outside of my house and the range.

I'm kinda... dubious about the competence involved here, though technically I'd call the story somewhat plausible, basically.
 
2013-02-28 02:56:43 PM  
So how long until someone demands all the students start carrying?
 
2013-02-28 02:57:52 PM  
Oh, and "a mechanical malfunction with his weapon caused his gun to misfire" sounds a hell of a lot like "the gun went off while I was cleaning it" which is universally interpreted as  "I was doing something stupid".
 
2013-02-28 02:57:54 PM  

Adalius: Subby is a bit misleading. Sure makes it sound like it happened in a school but then it says "it was unclear whether it was held on school grounds."

Accidents happen at shooting ranges too, should we shut them all down and ban them all so the only people left with guns are untrained and prone to more accidents? While we're at it, lets close down phy ed classes in schools because get bloody noses during dodgeball on occasion.


I'm confused.  Do we make kids aged 4-18 hang out at shooting ranges for 30 hours a week?
 
2013-02-28 02:58:00 PM  

Adalius: Subby is a bit misleading. Sure makes it sound like it happened in a school but then it says "it was unclear whether it was held on school grounds."

Accidents happen at shooting ranges too, should we shut them all down and ban them all so the only people left with guns are untrained and prone to more accidents? While we're at it, lets close down phy ed classes in schools because get bloody noses during dodgeball on occasion.


are you seriously equating getting hit in the face with a ball to being shot?
 
2013-02-28 02:58:03 PM  

Adalius: Subby is a bit misleading. Sure makes it sound like it happened in a school but then it says "it was unclear whether it was held on school grounds."

Accidents happen at shooting ranges too, should we shut them all down and ban them all so the only people left with guns are untrained and prone to more accidents? While we're at it, lets close down phy ed classes in schools because get bloody noses during dodgeball on occasion.


No, of course not.  Don't be silly.  We should fill shooting ranges with children.
 
2013-02-28 02:58:57 PM  
Hee-haw!
 
2013-02-28 02:59:09 PM  
Setting aside the issue of school staff carrying weapons for a second, what was a loaded weapon being used for in a class I'm assuming is about firearm safety.

The firearms safety classes I've taken used guns with the firing mechanism removed, maybe that's just a thing in socialist Canuckistan.
 
2013-02-28 02:59:25 PM  
And THIS is exactly why the "ARM THE TEACHING/MAINTENANCE STAFF!!!" is so freaking retarded!

These people are not cops. They are not soldiers. They are not trained security guards. They are average schlubs. Add to that even with trained personnel the more firearms that are around the more likely it is there will be an accidental discharge. Classrooms and school hallways have a high concentration of people in them at any given point in time. You have an accidental discharge in that type of environment it is very likely someone is going to get hurt.

The moral of the story is... your "solutions" are more problematic than anything, NRA/gun weirdos. You're gonna end up killing your own damned kids.

Obvious post is obvious... but apparently not enough because the whargarblers will STILL find a way to try and justify cramming the schools with guns.

Pathetic.
 
2013-02-28 03:00:24 PM  
LAWSUIT! LAWSUIT!
 
2013-02-28 03:00:59 PM  
This is why you don't let Barney fife keep his gun loaded
 
2013-02-28 03:01:01 PM  
Darwin is going to be very very busy.  Fortunately nobody will be able to tell because it's against the law to teach science.  Because then everybody would know who Darwin was and then it just becomes self-fulfilling.
 
2013-02-28 03:01:29 PM  

Adalius: Subby is a bit misleading. Sure makes it sound like it happened in a school but then it says "it was unclear whether it was held on school grounds."

Accidents happen at shooting ranges too, should we shut them all down and ban them all so the only people left with guns are untrained and prone to more accidents? While we're at it, lets close down phy ed classes in schools because get bloody noses during dodgeball on occasion.


A misleading headline?  On Fark?!  Oh, you!
 
2013-02-28 03:01:34 PM  

Raoul Eaton: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

More likely is someone using bad judgment or simply spacing out (if those aren't the same thing) and leaving a gun where it is accessible to students.  Cops do that sometimes.  Parents seem to do it often.  If teachers can bring guns to school, it's just a matter of time.


People who are not properly trained, and required to maintain that training, often do.
Those who have been, and are religiously maintaining it, rarely do.
 
2013-02-28 03:02:01 PM  
Firearms training class off school property?

Mechanical malfunction?

Infromed gun control modmins stirring the pot or not reading the article?
 
2013-02-28 03:03:40 PM  

BunkoSquad: Carn: You know that there would be people who would respond to this by saying that all the children should be armed too, in order to protect themselves in just such a situation. They will do so without a hint of irony in their voices.

Some of them seriously recommended that husky 12-year-olds throw themselves at gunmen to stop school massacres. I'm shocked these people are able to get out of the house without walking repeatedly into the doorframe.


Well that's a new one.  "Sacrifice the chubby kids so that the rest may escape!"
 
2013-02-28 03:03:49 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.

Well, given that it's an instructor that assumably does this thousands of time in a given year, I'd give slightly more credence to it being an actual malfunction instead of negligence.


Read it again.
 
2013-02-28 03:04:29 PM  
I am still thinking that a student brought a gun to class and the instructor was attempting to unload it. A single action revolver, where he didn't properly half cock the hammer could EASILY discharge if he was holding the hammer with his thumb, as could a semiautomatic if he didn't remove the magazine prior to cycling the action, and the extractor failed to grip the chambered round, a doublefeed COULD cause a primer strike.
 
2013-02-28 03:05:27 PM  

curtis_e_bare: Adalius: Subby is a bit misleading. Sure makes it sound like it happened in a school but then it says "it was unclear whether it was held on school grounds."

Accidents happen at shooting ranges too, should we shut them all down and ban them all so the only people left with guns are untrained and prone to more accidents? While we're at it, lets close down phy ed classes in schools because get bloody noses during dodgeball on occasion.

No, of course not.  Don't be silly.  We should fill shooting ranges with children.


They would get VERY GOOD AT DODGEBALL.

/at least, the ones that were left...
 
2013-02-28 03:06:02 PM  

Paul Baumer: Oh, and "a mechanical malfunction with his weapon caused his gun to misfire" sounds a hell of a lot like "the gun went off while I was cleaning it" which is universally interpreted as  "I was doing something stupid".


So much this. The odds of a modern gun just magically going off are similar to me getting to nail Kate Upton.
 
2013-02-28 03:06:38 PM  

Giltric: Firearms training class off school property?

Mechanical malfunction?

Infromed gun control modmins stirring the pot or not reading the article?


Just wait until these guns ARE actually in the school. This type of thing can and will happen.

If you are going to have guns in schools to protect the kids don't half ass it. Get trained security guards. Not this stupid "EVERYONE IS RAMBO!!" bullsh*t. There will be far more deaths and injuries dues to accidents than lives saved when these policies are applied on a large scale.
 
2013-02-28 03:06:42 PM  
Most likely scenario? "Hurr Durr I gots me a gun, I can teach others Hurr"
 
2013-02-28 03:08:40 PM  
Somebody's got to up the entertainment value in school (I say that in all sarcasm)

Let me entertain you
Let me make you smile
Let me do a few tricks
Some old and then some new tricks
I'm very versatile
 
2013-02-28 03:09:38 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.


It's not guns that kill people... It's the malfunctioning pieces within the gun that kills people.
 
2013-02-28 03:10:09 PM  

Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.


It's the price we pay for Freedumb.
 
2013-02-28 03:11:31 PM  

MFAWG: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

It's the price we pay for Freedumb.



Here is the thing: Kids have already been shot in schools when we tried it your way.
 
2013-02-28 03:11:48 PM  

Raoul Eaton: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

More likely is someone using bad judgment or simply spacing out (if those aren't the same thing) and leaving a gun where it is accessible to students.  Cops do that sometimes.  Parents seem to do it often.  If teachers can bring guns to school, it's just a matter of time.


That's my biggest concern with allowing guns in schools. Or, that a kid could forcibly take it from a teacher. I'm 5'6", and when I worked in an elementary school, there were 4th graders already taller than me. A 6-foot-something teenager with a chip on his shoulder? I'd be dead.
 
2013-02-28 03:13:01 PM  
I'm all for arming teachers.

/after they receive the equivalant of a law enforcement firearm certification

//you wanna arm up like a cop? you gotta certify at cop level.

///not that that is really saying much...
 
2013-02-28 03:13:22 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: So how long until someone demands all the students start carrying?


It has already begun.
 
2013-02-28 03:13:53 PM  

pudding7: Adalius: Subby is a bit misleading. Sure makes it sound like it happened in a school but then it says "it was unclear whether it was held on school grounds."

Accidents happen at shooting ranges too, should we shut them all down and ban them all so the only people left with guns are untrained and prone to more accidents? While we're at it, lets close down phy ed classes in schools because get bloody noses during dodgeball on occasion.

I'm confused.  Do we make kids aged 4-18 hang out at shooting ranges for 30 hours a week?


Not yet, but they're working on it.
 
2013-02-28 03:15:53 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: Raoul Eaton: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

More likely is someone using bad judgment or simply spacing out (if those aren't the same thing) and leaving a gun where it is accessible to students.  Cops do that sometimes.  Parents seem to do it often.  If teachers can bring guns to school, it's just a matter of time.

That's my biggest concern with allowing guns in schools. Or, that a kid could forcibly take it from a teacher. I'm 5'6", and when I worked in an elementary school, there were 4th graders already taller than me. A 6-foot-something teenager with a chip on his shoulder? I'd be dead.



A majority (over 50%) of schools already have armed security officers in the school. It is the rural areas that do not have them where as the urban areas (NY, Balt., Det., Phil. etc) have their own police forces specifically for their school system.

Cops in NY have a 7% hit rate on their intended target in shootouts and a 17% hit rate on other cops and innocent bystanders.....rural areas have alot of people who hunt where if you don't hit your target with your first shot you don't eat.

I'd wager rural civillians carrying firearms in schools will be much safer than having cops carry guns.
 
2013-02-28 03:16:00 PM  

here to help: And THIS is exactly why the "ARM THE TEACHING/MAINTENANCE STAFF!!!" is so freaking retarded!

These people are not cops. They are not soldiers. They are not trained security guards. They are average schlubs. Add to that even with trained personnel the more firearms that are around the more likely it is there will be an accidental discharge. Classrooms and school hallways have a high concentration of people in them at any given point in time. You have an accidental discharge in that type of environment it is very likely someone is going to get hurt.

The moral of the story is... your "solutions" are more problematic than anything, NRA/gun weirdos. You're gonna end up killing your own damned kids.

Obvious post is obvious... but apparently not enough because the whargarblers will STILL find a way to try and justify cramming the schools with guns.

Pathetic.


Obligatory

shiat happens man.  This firearm discharge was a "good" accident.  The injury was not serious, and that is a result of proper handling of the firearm.  The firearm was not pointed directly at anyone when the accidental discharge occured, in contrast with the trained officer in the video.  There is no moral to the story, but anti-Bill of Rights assholes will attempt to find one anyway.  They never stop.  They are like the vietcong - varmintcong.
 
2013-02-28 03:16:50 PM  

Yogimus: MFAWG: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

It's the price we pay for Freedumb.


Here is the thing: Kids have already been shot in schools when we tried it your way.


Creating a situation where they're even more likely to get shot seems like a typically brain dead, conservative solution
 
2013-02-28 03:17:21 PM  
fknra:

^This.  Certify them. Make it VOLUNTARY, and NOT a condition of employment.
 
2013-02-28 03:18:00 PM  

fknra: I'm all for arming teachers.

/after they receive the equivalant of a law enforcement firearm certification

//you wanna arm up like a cop? you gotta certify at cop level.

///not that that is really saying much...


Not that that would even help.

Newly hired security officer leaves gun unattended in school bathroom

"The armed security guard at The Chatfield School in Lapeer, Michigan, was hired in response to the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School."

Well, what do you expect from some rent-a-cop who took a 'safety course'

"WNEM has identified the officer as Clark Arnold, a 32-year-veteran of the Lapeer County Sheriff's office. "

ohhh...
 
2013-02-28 03:18:14 PM  
Guns don't shoot people blah blsh blah
 
2013-02-28 03:18:33 PM  

MFAWG: Yogimus: MFAWG: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

It's the price we pay for Freedumb.


Here is the thing: Kids have already been shot in schools when we tried it your way.

Creating a situation where they're even more likely to get shot seems like a typically brain dead, conservative solution


Libertarian/Humanist. Sorry, you missed with your labeling.

/must be because you are a filthy swede
 
2013-02-28 03:19:34 PM  

Yogimus: MFAWG: Yogimus: MFAWG: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

It's the price we pay for Freedumb.


Here is the thing: Kids have already been shot in schools when we tried it your way.

Creating a situation where they're even more likely to get shot seems like a typically brain dead, conservative solution

Libertarian/Humanist. Sorry, you missed with your labeling.

/must be because you are a filthy swede


Riiiiiiiggghhhttt.
 
2013-02-28 03:19:46 PM  

Giltric: rural areas have alot of people who hunt where if you don't hit your target with your first shot you don't eat.


Umm, what century are you talking about?
 
2013-02-28 03:20:03 PM  

duenor: Raoul Eaton: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

More likely is someone using bad judgment or simply spacing out (if those aren't the same thing) and leaving a gun where it is accessible to students.  Cops do that sometimes.  Parents seem to do it often.  If teachers can bring guns to school, it's just a matter of time.

People who are not properly trained, and required to maintain that training, often do.
Those who have been, and are religiously maintaining it, rarely do.


Trained professionals:
Link
Link
 
2013-02-28 03:23:19 PM  
Gun nuts are hilariously oblivious.
 
2013-02-28 03:23:34 PM  

Yogimus: MFAWG: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

It's the price we pay for Freedumb.


Here is the thing: Kids have already been shot in schools when we tried it your way.


A system that involves the gun show loophole, no license-required training, and disparate laws from state to state is not "trying it my way."
 
2013-02-28 03:25:35 PM  
It is a simple concept.  Treat adults as adults, and children as children. Adults will be trusted with firearms, until they self identify themselves as morons, in which case they get to deal with the legal consequences of their actions.  There are no accidents.  I don't take YOUR things away because the guy down the street can't handle his responsibilities.

Children get toys taken away if the toys are dangerous.
 
2013-02-28 03:25:40 PM  
This headline is a desperate stretch if I've ever seen one.

Teacher hurt by malfunction at a concealed course =/= teacher shooting herself during a class.
 
2013-02-28 03:25:48 PM  
Yep, the main reason I'm anti-gun is because that most people are idiots. The only civilian I would trust to carry in public would be myself.
Also, I'm Canadian and that's just how we roll.
 
2013-02-28 03:27:00 PM  

duenor: Raoul Eaton: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

More likely is someone using bad judgment or simply spacing out (if those aren't the same thing) and leaving a gun where it is accessible to students.  Cops do that sometimes.  Parents seem to do it often.  If teachers can bring guns to school, it's just a matter of time.

People who are not properly trained, and required to maintain that training, often do.
Those who have been, and are religiously maintaining it, rarely do.


Hilarious footage of an Atlanta police instructor  shooting himself while teaching a safety class.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0
 
2013-02-28 03:27:54 PM  

Paul Baumer: Yogimus: MFAWG: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

It's the price we pay for Freedumb.


Here is the thing: Kids have already been shot in schools when we tried it your way.

A system that involves the gun show loophole, no license-required training, and disparate laws from state to state is not "trying it my way."


Describe this gun show loophole please.
 
2013-02-28 03:29:27 PM  
Yep.  More liberal fear mongering bad reporting here.
 
2013-02-28 03:29:29 PM  
This is what went through my mind when reading this:

I have never seen a teacher in a classroom who has been able to get the vcr to work with a television at the same time.

So this isn't terribly shocking to me.
 
2013-02-28 03:30:00 PM  

Paul Baumer: Yogimus: MFAWG: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

It's the price we pay for Freedumb.


Here is the thing: Kids have already been shot in schools when we tried it your way.

A system that involves the gun show loophole, no license-required training, and disparate laws from state to state is not "trying it my way."


There is no gun show loophole.  It doesn't exist.  It's made up fiction. Private citizens are allowed to sell normally legal firearms to anyone they believe is legally able to own a firearm.  If they know that person to be unable to legally own the firearm, they are prohibited from selling it. All dealers must do a background check, regardless of whether or not they're in their store or at a gun show.

No license depends on the state and how one plans on using it.  Most states that allow for concealed carry require training and licensing.  Just owning?  Generally no training nor licensing.  Disparate laws from state to state.  Well, too bad.  That's the beauty of states' rights.  There are disparate laws for the speed limits, too.  Deal with it.

Also, this is basically a non-story.  The person was at the class getting training.  May have even been on the range (hence the reason the weapon was loaded).  I'm not sure on the mechanical malfunction, but it does seem to indicate that proper handling techniques may have been in use.  The weapon was pointed in what might've seemed like a safe direction, but ricocheted into the shooter.  It could be a mechanical malfunction, it could be a training issue (maybe squeezed a trigger they shouldn't have).  That's the biggest part of unsureness here.
 
2013-02-28 03:31:57 PM  

Yogimus: Paul Baumer: Yogimus: MFAWG: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

It's the price we pay for Freedumb.


Here is the thing: Kids have already been shot in schools when we tried it your way.

A system that involves the gun show loophole, no license-required training, and disparate laws from state to state is not "trying it my way."

Describe this gun show loophole please.


http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/gun_show.shtml
 
2013-02-28 03:32:14 PM  
Just think about how dumb the average person is and realize that 50% of the population is dumber still. And we want them carrying in schools?
 
2013-02-28 03:33:19 PM  

Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.


Yeah, definitely more likely.  I worked out the probabilities on this napkin.  Also it sounds better, manufactures more drama
 
2013-02-28 03:34:14 PM  
Wow - when did "There is no gun show loophole!" become the latest "you said clip not magazine!"

Do you guys all subscribe to Modern Intellectual Dishonesty Monthly or something?
 
2013-02-28 03:35:18 PM  
failuretalks.files.wordpress.com
boobies, seriously?
 
2013-02-28 03:35:37 PM  
Here is my problem with the "gun show loophole" theory. It seeks to legislate private sales between private individuals.

  (i believe in making the background check available to anyone, not just firearms dealers. I just can't see a way to enforce mandating it)
 
2013-02-28 03:36:00 PM  

Yogimus: Paul Baumer: Yogimus: MFAWG: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

It's the price we pay for Freedumb.


Here is the thing: Kids have already been shot in schools when we tried it your way.

A system that involves the gun show loophole, no license-required training, and disparate laws from state to state is not "trying it my way."

Describe this gun show loophole please.


Disparate laws from state to state? It's almost as if our country is some kind of United States of something or something. Why even have separate states, right? That is so old fashioned and ignorant. shiat, why even have countries. Talk about inefficiency.
 
2013-02-28 03:36:26 PM  

FatherChaos: Is there a "we saw this coming a mile away" category?


I knew we should have had a pool on who would get shot first: kid or teacher.
 
2013-02-28 03:36:40 PM  
I'm a Texan, I'm pro gun.  But guns on teachers... Stupid.  So incredibly stupid.

Want guns in schools?  Hire more police for on campus.  That is all.
 
2013-02-28 03:36:41 PM  
When will they close the 2nd amendment loophole?
 
2013-02-28 03:36:41 PM  
 
2013-02-28 03:37:59 PM  

trappedspirit: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.

Yeah, definitely more likely.  I worked out the probabilities on this napkin.  Also it sounds better, manufactures more drama


Close range wounds from firearms tend to be quite serious.  On children even more so, which would lead to an increase in potential mortality.  But whatever dude, they are just somebody else's crotchfruit, amirite?

.
 
2013-02-28 03:38:01 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.


2.bp.blogspot.com

Uh, we had a slight mechanical malfunction, but uh...
,,,everything's perfectly all right now.
We're fine.

We're all fine here now, thank you.


How are you?
 
2013-02-28 03:38:25 PM  

master_dman: Yep.  More liberal fear mongering bad reporting here.


Yes, because facts = "liberal fear mongering".
 
2013-02-28 03:38:55 PM  

Paul Baumer: Wow - when did "There is no gun show loophole!" become the latest "you said clip not magazine!"


Since Merriam-Webster got cited in every gun thread.
 
2013-02-28 03:40:12 PM  

PumpkinCake: This is what went through my mind when reading this:

I have never seen a teacher in a classroom who has been able to get the vcr to work with a television at the same time.

So this isn't terribly shocking to me.


When I was a kid we had kids from AV club come in and run the AV stuff.  They don't do this anymore?
 
2013-02-28 03:41:04 PM  

here to help: And THIS is exactly why the "ARM THE TEACHING/MAINTENANCE STAFF!!!" is so freaking retarded!

These people are not cops. They are not soldiers. [...]


They are, however, Texans, so in their own minds they honestly believe they're all naturally born expert firearms handlers.  Trying to convince them otherwise is a waste of time.
 
2013-02-28 03:41:59 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.


The mechanical malfunction was that the human component wasn't operating at an acceptable performance level. An initiative to recall all these faulty parts has met with some public backlash
recently so resolving these issues may take some time.
 
2013-02-28 03:43:01 PM  

evilmrsock: So what you're telling me that someone paid good money to be taught how to not completely fark this up, and it STILL went wrong?


Since I instruct the TX CHL course, I can almost 100% guarantee you the reason this person was staying after class for extra instruction is because he wasn't up to passing the class and the instructor held him over as a last ditch attempt to improve his skills before saying "fark it" and giving him his money back.
 
2013-02-28 03:43:16 PM  
When I got my chl, the class i took was almost entirely populated with teachers (this is in TX also).  It...creeped me out.  All of about 5 of them had their minds in the right place, they others were a little too...excited.

/On lady kept asking the instructor if she could shoot anybody that came onto her property.
//The instructor explained 4 times that just because it's technically legal*, doesn't mean it's right, or you'll be found innocent.  My favorite response of his was "Close your front door."
///"So I can shoot 'em, right?"  Instructor--*facepalm*
 
2013-02-28 03:44:10 PM  

jigger: [failuretalks.files.wordpress.com image 452x330]
boobies, seriously?



Actually I think he took it in the thigh.
 
2013-02-28 03:44:13 PM  
That article is so badly written, I barely got through it.  But what I did get from it is that the subby didn't read it correctly at all.
Class was not in session, and he didn't shoot himself.  He shot the janitor.
 
2013-02-28 03:45:32 PM  

Adalius: Subby is a bit misleading. Sure makes it sound like it happened in a school but then it says "it was unclear whether it was held on school grounds."



It is only 'unclear' because it probably was on school grounds...they are just too embarrassed to say it just yet.
 
2013-02-28 03:47:48 PM  

Click Click D'oh: evilmrsock: So what you're telling me that someone paid good money to be taught how to not completely fark this up, and it STILL went wrong?

Since I instruct the TX CHL course, I can almost 100% guarantee you the reason this person was staying after class for extra instruction is because he wasn't up to passing the class and the instructor held him over as a last ditch attempt to improve his skills before saying "fark it" and giving him his money back.


Are you getting a kick outta these replies?!?
 
2013-02-28 03:48:23 PM  

Yogimus: It is a simple concept.  Treat adults as adults, and children as children. Adults will be trusted with firearms, until they self identify themselves as morons, in which case they get to deal with the legal consequences of their actions.  There are no accidents.  I don't take YOUR things away because the guy down the street can't handle his responsibilities.

Children get toys taken away if the toys are dangerous.


This bridge is TOTALLY safe to cross. I checked it myself, yesterday. Look, just cross it, and if it collapses and you die, your surviving family members can sue the everloving shiat out of me - where's the problem?

// we genrally don't give toys to children unless/until we determine they meet a baseline of "safety" - no exposed sharp edges, no small parts, no long cords, etc
// and we don't let people run nuclear reactors in their homes, even if they're respected nuclear physicists who have time and again displayed civic awareness and responsible home ownership
// tl;dr - we assess risk and act accordingly. pretending there is no risk or that remedies exist in all cases is very short-sighted and silly
 
2013-02-28 03:48:48 PM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.

The mechanical malfunction was that the human component wasn't operating at an acceptable performance level. An initiative to recall all these faulty parts has met with some public backlash
recently so resolving these issues may take some time.


Is there a "PEBKAC" for firearms?
 
2013-02-28 03:49:21 PM  
talkingpointsmemo.com
 
TWX
2013-02-28 03:49:34 PM  

Amos Quito: jigger: [failuretalks.files.wordpress.com image 452x330]
boobies, seriously?


Actually I think he took it in the thigh.


lol
 
2013-02-28 03:49:45 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.

So... guns DO kill people?


Only when provided to drug cartels by the Obama administration.
 
2013-02-28 03:50:19 PM  
Having worked with teachers AND security guards (armed & unarmed) AND cops and kids and crazy people...I think I can say schools are way a lot safer if we just leave things like they are, than try to put gunz in the hands of teachers or let a bunch of rentacops loose on campuses with grade schoolers.
 
2013-02-28 03:53:32 PM  
Meh, as long as the teachers are popping whiny leftist twats, it'll be fine.
 
2013-02-28 03:54:56 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Yogimus: It is a simple concept.  Treat adults as adults, and children as children. Adults will be trusted with firearms, until they self identify themselves as morons, in which case they get to deal with the legal consequences of their actions.  There are no accidents.  I don't take YOUR things away because the guy down the street can't handle his responsibilities.

Children get toys taken away if the toys are dangerous.

This bridge is TOTALLY safe to cross. I checked it myself, yesterday. Look, just cross it, and if it collapses and you die, your surviving family members can sue the everloving shiat out of me - where's the problem?

// we genrally don't give toys to children unless/until we determine they meet a baseline of "safety" - no exposed sharp edges, no small parts, no long cords, etc
// and we don't let people run nuclear reactors in their homes, even if they're respected nuclear physicists who have time and again displayed civic awareness and responsible home ownership
// tl;dr - we assess risk and act accordingly. pretending there is no risk or that remedies exist in all cases is very short-sighted and silly


Which brings us around to the whole "You don't NEED an SUV, you don't NEED to be able to sit in the front of the bus, etc... Adults should be allowed to do things that endanger themselves, and often ARE allowed. Before you say "guns can hurt other", well, that's the point of them. To hurt others. Because sometimes, people need killing. You misuse that ability, and you fry.

You can't make the world a better place by being "pre-emptive".
 
2013-02-28 03:55:40 PM  

vrax: Giltric: rural areas have alot of people who hunt where if you don't hit your target with your first shot you don't eat.

Umm, what century are you talking about?


This one.

Remember the drought this last summer?  There were towns where the only source of water was the local mayor driving his pickup for half an hour to a nearby friendly town, filling up barrels from their wells, then hauling it all back.

Think Ozarks or the Appalachians.  Actual rural, not fake kitschy "homestyle restaurant 10 minutes outside of major city" rural.

And it's not that there's no food in the grocery stores in these places, it's that the people don't have the money to buy enough.  If you can shoot (or, far more realistic but less flameworthy for this thread, trap) your food, you get to eat more than government cheese.
 
2013-02-28 03:55:46 PM  
It's funny how so many NRA supporters go on and on about how "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." and "It's the gun owner's responsibility to safely use it," however, as soon as something like this happns, the tune changes to "The gun malfunctioned,""It just went off," and "Accidents happen."

Kind of inconsistent, don't ya think?
 
2013-02-28 03:56:31 PM  

kombat_unit: Meh, as long as the teachers are popping whiny leftist twats, it'll be fine.



i45.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-28 03:57:42 PM  
Thanks NRA! Great idea. This should fix everything right up.
 
2013-02-28 03:57:48 PM  

stoli n coke: It's funny how so many NRA supporters go on and on about how "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." and "It's the gun owner's responsibility to safely use it," however, as soon as something like this happns, the tune changes to "The gun malfunctioned,""It just went off," and "Accidents happen."

Kind of inconsistent, don't ya think?


Kind of didn't happen.  At all.
 
2013-02-28 03:59:38 PM  

Witty_Retort: fknra: I'm all for arming teachers.

/after they receive the equivalant of a law enforcement firearm certification

//you wanna arm up like a cop? you gotta certify at cop level.

///not that that is really saying much...

Not that that would even help.

Newly hired security officer leaves gun unattended in school bathroom

"The armed security guard at The Chatfield School in Lapeer, Michigan, was hired in response to the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School."

Well, what do you expect from some rent-a-cop who took a 'safety course'

"WNEM has identified the officer as Clark Arnold, a 32-year-veteran of the Lapeer County Sheriff's office. "

ohhh...


That's just sad.
 
2013-02-28 03:59:46 PM  

stoli n coke: It's funny how so many NRA supporters go on and on about how "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." and "It's the gun owner's responsibility to safely use it," however, as soon as something like this happns, the tune changes to "The gun malfunctioned,""It just went off," and "Accidents happen."

Kind of inconsistent, don't ya think?


Hi there, NRA supporter here.  Guns don't "just go off" and accidents don't just "happen".  There was negligence at some level of this.  Someone did something stupid,  and now they have a bullet in their leg... and the instructor is going to be in serious hot water unless he has a damn good explanation for how one of his students ended up with a bullet in them.

If they followed the rules, there wouldn't be a bullet in this guys leg.
 
2013-02-28 04:00:23 PM  
The instructor was just teaching gun safety by showing them what not to do. What better way to remember the importance of gun safety than getting shot.
 
2013-02-28 04:01:16 PM  
Yes, subby is a douche.  And I'm gldad to see Fark is still home to so many Anti-gun douches who spew even more douchbagery.
 
2013-02-28 04:01:43 PM  
But gun sales are still up, right?  All is well, then.
 
2013-02-28 04:01:57 PM  
I don't want to live in this state anymore.

pic of Professor Farnsworth
 
2013-02-28 04:02:58 PM  

Yogimus: It is a simple concept.  Treat adults as adults, and children as children. Adults will be trusted with firearms, until they self identify themselves as morons, in which case they get to deal with the legal consequences of their actions.  There are no accidents.  I don't take YOUR things away because the guy down the street can't handle his responsibilities.

Children get toys taken away if the toys are dangerous.



Well there's the problem. Injuring or killing someone as a means of moron identification is in itself an accident.
 
2013-02-28 04:03:14 PM  

over_and_done: vrax: Giltric: rural areas have alot of people who hunt where if you don't hit your target with your first shot you don't eat.

Umm, what century are you talking about?

This one.

Remember the drought this last summer?  There were towns where the only source of water was the local mayor driving his pickup for half an hour to a nearby friendly town, filling up barrels from their wells, then hauling it all back.

Think Ozarks or the Appalachians.  Actual rural, not fake kitschy "homestyle restaurant 10 minutes outside of major city" rural.

And it's not that there's no food in the grocery stores in these places, it's that the people don't have the money to buy enough.  If you can shoot (or, far more realistic but less flameworthy for this thread, trap) your food, you get to eat more than government cheese.


Ah, "the sticks".  Middle of nowhere.  Lots of school shootings in The Ozarks?
 
2013-02-28 04:05:02 PM  
Most of the guys I went to school with had a gun in their truck. Heck, a lot of them had gun racks with guns openly displayed on them. And as much as I personally enjoy shooting a gun and the security feeling that goes along with it, we absolutely do NOT needs guns in schools.
 
2013-02-28 04:07:29 PM  

Giltric: I should be in the kitchen: Raoul Eaton: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

More likely is someone using bad judgment or simply spacing out (if those aren't the same thing) and leaving a gun where it is accessible to students.  Cops do that sometimes.  Parents seem to do it often.  If teachers can bring guns to school, it's just a matter of time.

That's my biggest concern with allowing guns in schools. Or, that a kid could forcibly take it from a teacher. I'm 5'6", and when I worked in an elementary school, there were 4th graders already taller than me. A 6-foot-something teenager with a chip on his shoulder? I'd be dead.


A majority (over 50%) of schools already have armed security officers in the school. It is the rural areas that do not have them where as the urban areas (NY, Balt., Det., Phil. etc) have their own police forces specifically for their school system.

Cops in NY have a 7% hit rate on their intended target in shootouts and a 17% hit rate on other cops and innocent bystanders.....rural areas have alot of people who hunt where if you don't hit your target with your first shot you don't eat.

I'd wager rural civillians carrying firearms in schools will be much safer than having cops carry guns.


Way to totally miss the point. Or did you just reply to the wrong poster?
 
2013-02-28 04:08:28 PM  
As long as our kids are safe. We can continue bombing other people's children around the world for democracy. I mean, we already have it, right?
 
2013-02-28 04:09:04 PM  
i204.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-28 04:10:41 PM  

Click to enlarge: It's only a matter of time before a disgruntled teacher offs a challenging student, or vice versa, with one of these safety devices.


My retarded liberal friend said this same argument.   'what what what, what if a teacher gets irritated at a student and shoots him?"

Really?  thats all you got?

I mean, if the teachers were that unstable, they would just be taking a pencil and stabbing students in the neck or something.

But no... apparently, to him, having a gun on you, concealed in a holster, or in the safe in the teacher's office, causes teachers to shoot their students.
 
2013-02-28 04:12:27 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: anti-Bill of Rights assholes


Oh... is that the new right wing phrase to try and shut down anyone who DARES to try and come up with solutions to the rampant gun problems? Nice word twisting.

Just like people aren't Pro Choice. They're PRO ABORTION!

Lame, dude. Lame.
 
2013-02-28 04:14:35 PM  

Click Click D'oh: stoli n coke: It's funny how so many NRA supporters go on and on about how "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." and "It's the gun owner's responsibility to safely use it," however, as soon as something like this happns, the tune changes to "The gun malfunctioned,""It just went off," and "Accidents happen."

Kind of inconsistent, don't ya think?

Hi there, NRA supporter here.  Guns don't "just go off" and accidents don't just "happen".  There was negligence at some level of this.  Someone did something stupid,  and now they have a bullet in their leg... and the instructor is going to be in serious hot water unless he has a damn good explanation for how one of his students ended up with a bullet in them.

If they followed the rules, there wouldn't be a bullet in this guys leg.


Well, the important thing to remember is that since this was a "school-sponsored weapons class," all of the local tax payers will be covering the cost of either the injured person's medical bills or suing the CC instructor.
 
2013-02-28 04:15:37 PM  
It's obvious what the solution is: We need armed teachers to protect the armed teachers.
 
2013-02-28 04:17:05 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Click to enlarge: It's only a matter of time before a disgruntled teacher offs a challenging student, or vice versa, with one of these safety devices.

My retarded liberal friend said this same argument.   'what what what, what if a teacher gets irritated at a student and shoots him?"

Really?  thats all you got?

I mean, if the teachers were that unstable, they would just be taking a pencil and stabbing students in the neck or something.

But no... apparently, to him, having a gun on you, concealed in a holster, or in the safe in the teacher's office, causes teachers to shoot their students.


I hope I never get the chance to say "told you so". You, however, seem to be okay with the possibility. Or blissfully ignorant to the possibility, no matter how slight you might believe it to be.
 
2013-02-28 04:18:23 PM  

here to help: Big_Fat_Liar: anti-Bill of Rights assholes

Oh... is that the new right wing phrase to try and shut down anyone who DARES to try and come up with solutions to the rampant gun problems? Nice word twisting.

Just like people aren't Pro Choice. They're PRO ABORTION!

Lame, dude. Lame.


You mean like the people that label others as "anti-choice" ?
 
2013-02-28 04:19:54 PM  

Yogimus: Dr Dreidel: Yogimus: It is a simple concept.  Treat adults as adults, and children as children. Adults will be trusted with firearms, until they self identify themselves as morons, in which case they get to deal with the legal consequences of their actions.  There are no accidents.  I don't take YOUR things away because the guy down the street can't handle his responsibilities.

Children get toys taken away if the toys are dangerous.

This bridge is TOTALLY safe to cross. I checked it myself, yesterday. Look, just cross it, and if it collapses and you die, your surviving family members can sue the everloving shiat out of me - where's the problem?

// we genrally don't give toys to children unless/until we determine they meet a baseline of "safety" - no exposed sharp edges, no small parts, no long cords, etc
// and we don't let people run nuclear reactors in their homes, even if they're respected nuclear physicists who have time and again displayed civic awareness and responsible home ownership
// tl;dr - we assess risk and act accordingly. pretending there is no risk or that remedies exist in all cases is very short-sighted and silly

Which brings us around to the whole "You don't NEED an SUV, you don't NEED to be able to sit in the front of the bus, etc... Adults should be allowed to do things that endanger themselves, and often ARE allowed. Before you say "guns can hurt other", well, that's the point of them. To hurt others. Because sometimes, people need killing. You misuse that ability, and you fry.

You can't make the world a better place by being "pre-emptive".


Yogimus, you do realize that your argument is what got us where we are in the first place, right?

In the Gaby Gifford shooter, Sandy Hook shooter, Colorado Theater, Christmas Mall shooting, all the way back to Charles Whitman adults were "trusted with firearms until they self identified" as batshiat crazy.

/didn't really work out well.
 
2013-02-28 04:21:03 PM  
What I admire most about the Republican party is its consistency.

"Teachers are overpaid babysitters! Most of them are too stupid to teach kids anything! Thanks to public schools, we have some of the dumbest kids in the world!"

"OMG, attacks on schools! Give teachers guns to protect the children!"

Amusing.
 
2013-02-28 04:21:25 PM  
Technical issue PEBOAF

/Problem exists between owner and firearm
 
2013-02-28 04:23:01 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Click to enlarge: It's only a matter of time before a disgruntled teacher offs a challenging student, or vice versa, with one of these safety devices.

My retarded liberal friend said this same argument.   'what what what, what if a teacher gets irritated at a student and shoots him?"

Really?  thats all you got?

I mean, if the teachers were that unstable, they would just be taking a pencil and stabbing students in the neck or something.

But no... apparently, to him, having a gun on you, concealed in a holster, or in the safe in the teacher's office, causes teachers to shoot their students.


That's a bit of a reach. A better argument would be that teachers get paid so little and put up with so much bullshiat from students and parents that, by and large, they won't be willing to take a bullet for your kids.
 
2013-02-28 04:24:07 PM  
Something is terribly wrong with a society that has movie logic as public policy.
 
2013-02-28 04:24:08 PM  
RedT:


In the Gaby Gifford shooter, Sandy Hook shooter, Colorado Theater, Christmas Mall shooting, all the way back to Charles Whitman adults were "trusted with firearms until they self identified" as batshiat crazy.

/didn't really work out well.


Statistically speaking, that is an acceptable loss rate for the benefits firearm ownership gives to this country. My point is that just because ONE person does something stupid, doesn't mean everyone else should give up their right to self defense.
 
2013-02-28 04:24:16 PM  
My state just passed one of these stupid laws making it okay for school employees to be armed. I've yet to meet a teacher or administrator who thinks that it is a good idea, and I work in education. It was just a way for the legislature to give the appearance of doing something while passing the buck to the schools. If a shooting does ever happen, they'll say "Well, you should have armed your teachers! We gave you the option!", and when an accident inevitably happens they can say "Hey, it was your choice to arm your staff. It's not our fault!".
 
2013-02-28 04:26:09 PM  

Yogimus: Which brings us around to the whole "You don't NEED an SUV, you don't NEED to be able to sit in the front of the bus, etc... Adults should be allowed to do things that endanger themselves, and often ARE allowed. Before you say "guns can hurt other", well, that's the point of them. To hurt others. Because sometimes, people need killing. You misuse that ability, and you fry.

You can't make the world a better place by being "pre-emptive".


You don't specifically need an SUV, you "need" a safer car - and there is at least some evidence to support the "I buy a big car so I can feel more free to drive like a douche" theory. Plus the whole "don't take a turn in an SUV at the same speed you would in car, unless you like rolling over" thing. SUVs may APPEAR safer, but start probing the numbers, and they're...not.

You don't specifically need a gun (after all, if you really want to kill, you could use a baseball bat or a board with a nail in it - it's not the weapon that kills, it's the person, right?), you "need" an increased sense of safety/protection. Learn Krav Maga.

If you specifically want "a gun", fine - it's your Constitutional right to own one, after all, and that's all the argument you'll ever need. However, don't sell me a line of post-hoc justification bullshiat that goes along with it. And don't pretend that just because I retain the right to sue if something "goes wrong with" your gun that all will be well once my case is won - death is still a one-way street, as are many serious injuries, and no jury award will ever raise the dead or magically repair a damaged brain.
 
2013-02-28 04:28:32 PM  

Dr Dreidel: You don't specifically need a gun (after all, if you really want to kill, you could use a baseball bat or a board with a nail in it - it's not the weapon that kills, it's the person, right?)


I agree. A gun levels the playing field so everyone is >equally< lethal. Killers will kill regardless.
 
2013-02-28 04:29:44 PM  
DID THE SUBTARD EVEN READ THE ARTICLE?


Maintenance person for school was attending concealed pistol licensing class.  Teacher was not shot, maintenance man was, I think BY the firearms instructor...

This was not even on the school grounds you IDIOT.

People who are this misleading really are JACKASSES.  Seriously.

ZZZZOMG!!!!   TEACHERS FIRING THEIR GUNS DURING CLASS!!?!?!     

Yeah, not even close to how it went down.
 
2013-02-28 04:32:12 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: You mean like the people that label others as "anti-choice" ?


Not that I use that term but it's a hell of a lot more accurate than Pro Abortion is.

The pro lifers are against women having a choice. That means they are by definition anti choice.

Pro choice people aren't all "YEAH!! ABORTION IS AWESOME!! EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION!!!" They just think it should be the woman's choice. Thus pro choice is FAR more accurate than pro abortion.

Nice try though.
 
2013-02-28 04:32:36 PM  
This is going to go great, guys. There is no way this will blow up in the NRA's face.
 
2013-02-28 04:32:40 PM  

stoli n coke: That's a bit of a reach. A better argument would be that teachers get paid so little and put up with so much bullshiat from students and parents that, by and large, they won't be willing to take a bullet for your kids.


Um, that's the way it went down at Sandy Hook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Leigh_Soto
 
2013-02-28 04:33:39 PM  

here to help: Nutsac_Jim: You mean like the people that label others as "anti-choice" ?

Not that I use that term but it's a hell of a lot more accurate than Pro Abortion is.

The pro lifers are against women having a choice. That means they are by definition anti choice.

Pro choice people aren't all "YEAH!! ABORTION IS AWESOME!! EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION!!!" They just think it should be the woman's choice. Thus pro choice is FAR more accurate than pro abortion.

Nice try though.


The two terms are interchangeable.
/pro babymurderin
 
2013-02-28 04:34:57 PM  

Yogimus: evilmrsock: Yogimus: a concealed handgun class

Ah, so they were being TRAINED on firearms use, in a class full of adults.

So what you're telling me that someone paid good money to be taught how to not completely fark this up, and it STILL went wrong?

Some jackass brought a loaded gun to school, the teacher said "We can't have loaded guns in here", jackass says "Its not loaded, see?" and pulls trigger.   - This is why MOST safety courses don't actually allow guns to be brought to class.


And yet there are still mouth-breathers who will say that more firearms in schools is some kind of solution to the problem of people getting shot in schools.  They can't even pull off a safety course without someone getting shot.  A-farking-mazing.
 
2013-02-28 04:35:53 PM  

vrax: GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.

The mechanical malfunction was that the human component wasn't operating at an acceptable performance level. An initiative to recall all these faulty parts has met with some public backlash
recently so resolving these issues may take some time.

Is there a "PEBKAC" for firearms?


I was working on something to do with "safety" or "trigger" and holster but I really get the feeling this was just a careless usage situation. Your standard ID10-T error, if you will.
 
2013-02-28 04:36:42 PM  

GnomePaladin: And yet there are still mouth-breathers who will say that more firearms in schools is some kind of solution to the problem of people getting shot in schools. They can't even pull off a safety course without someone getting shot. A-farking-mazing.


Disarming cops should significantly reduce shootings as well.
 
2013-02-28 04:40:51 PM  

Gifted Many Few: I can see this happening in one of the more pansy states, but Texans should know better. Ship this guy off to somewhere like Iowa or Ohio where he can think about what he did.


Pansy states? I've never encountered a more pants-shiatting bunch of pussies than the folks of Texas. Seems like every one there lives in a constant state of fear that the government is coming to get them and if not the government, than surely the non-whites. You can't throw a rock in Dallas without hitting a car where someone has a handgun hidden underneath the front seat "in case of car-jackers." It doesn't even matter if it is in the lilly white suburbs either.
 
2013-02-28 04:41:19 PM  

Yogimus: GnomePaladin: And yet there are still mouth-breathers who will say that more firearms in schools is some kind of solution to the problem of people getting shot in schools. They can't even pull off a safety course without someone getting shot. A-farking-mazing.

Disarming cops should significantly reduce shootings as well.


It would in L.A.
 
2013-02-28 04:43:59 PM  
"Mechanical malfunction", my ass.  More like a cerebral malfunction.

That being said, since the only person who got hurt is the idiot carrying the gun, all I have to say is:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-02-28 04:45:01 PM  
"... one certified person stayed for private instruction with the instructor and had a mechanical malfunction with his weapon.
With the assistance of the instructor, the malfunction was addressed, but the gun misfired and the bullet ricocheted coming back to strike the VISD employee in the left leg."


Sounds like he had a FTF and while clearing it, obviously not point the weapon down-range, it fired into a wall and hit the guy.
 
2013-02-28 04:49:18 PM  

mod3072: My state just passed one of these stupid laws making it okay for school employees to be armed. I've yet to meet a teacher or administrator who thinks that it is a good idea, and I work in education. It was just a way for the legislature to give the appearance of doing something while passing the buck to the schools. If a shooting does ever happen, they'll say "Well, you should have armed your teachers! We gave you the option!", and when an accident inevitably happens they can say "Hey, it was your choice to arm your staff. It's not our fault!".


It's a catch 22: The  folks who think that guns mixed in with a bunch of stressed-overworked teachers, stressed emotional/hormonal students, bullying, petty fights, and constant crowds is bad idea will not be the armed folks.  But the folks who think this is a scenario that needs a loaded gun will be the folks packing.

Question: Who would you actually trust more with a gun in that scenario?
 
2013-02-28 04:57:16 PM  

Yogimus: GnomePaladin: And yet there are still mouth-breathers who will say that more firearms in schools is some kind of solution to the problem of people getting shot in schools. They can't even pull off a safety course without someone getting shot. A-farking-mazing.

Disarming cops should significantly reduce shootings as well.


It just might, but way to compare apples to oranges there sparky.
 
2013-02-28 05:00:42 PM  

Yogimus: Killers will kill regardless.


Well, yeah.  If you are a killer you have already killed someone.

But [citiation needed] on the "once someone decides (or thinks they have decided - because until it's done, it ain't done) to kill will do so with a stapler/coffee cup/scissor/candlestick/home made bomb if they don't have access to a gun" argument.

There is a big difference between gutting someone (or an innocent bystander, accidentally) with a filet knife, than popping off 12-15 rounds at 25 feet from the inside of your car.

In fact, there is a big difference between strangling someone for five minutes or smacking them with a bat in the head 3-4 times and shooting them from across the room.

Murder is dirty business.  If one method is easier and more impersonal than another I'm gonna need to see some stats on the incidents of gun murders where "they would have found another way to kill them anyway."  Specifically in the "crime of passion" scenarios.
 
2013-02-28 05:01:00 PM  

GnomePaladin: Yogimus: GnomePaladin: And yet there are still mouth-breathers who will say that more firearms in schools is some kind of solution to the problem of people getting shot in schools. They can't even pull off a safety course without someone getting shot. A-farking-mazing.

Disarming cops should significantly reduce shootings as well.

It just might, but way to compare apples to oranges there sparky.


guns in the hands of "good" guys vs guns in the hands of "bad" guys.

/And I told you not to use that name in public.
 
2013-02-28 05:02:48 PM  

Yogimus: here to help: Nutsac_Jim: You mean like the people that label others as "anti-choice" ?

Not that I use that term but it's a hell of a lot more accurate than Pro Abortion is.

The pro lifers are against women having a choice. That means they are by definition anti choice.

Pro choice people aren't all "YEAH!! ABORTION IS AWESOME!! EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION!!!" They just think it should be the woman's choice. Thus pro choice is FAR more accurate than pro abortion.

Nice try though.

The two terms are interchangeable.
/pro babymurderin


Aww, crap!  I've been responding to a troll?!?

[Leaves thread with head hanging]
 
2013-02-28 05:02:54 PM  
The answer is obvious, we need to ban schools.
 
2013-02-28 05:03:55 PM  

Yogimus: RedT:


In the Gaby Gifford shooter, Sandy Hook shooter, Colorado Theater, Christmas Mall shooting, all the way back to Charles Whitman adults were "trusted with firearms until they self identified" as batshiat crazy.

/didn't really work out well.

Statistically speaking, that is an acceptable loss rate for the benefits firearm ownership gives to this country. My point is that just because ONE person does something stupid, doesn't mean everyone else should give up their right to self defense.


Thank you!!!

I've been trying to tell these a-holes that 20 dead kids is a small price to pay for the hot piece of metal that throbs when I tickle that trigger.
 
2013-02-28 05:08:43 PM  

Yogimus: Here is my problem with the "gun show loophole" theory. It seeks to legislate private sales between private individuals.

  (i believe in making the background check available to anyone, not just firearms dealers. I just can't see a way to enforce mandating it)


How do you enforce a mandate that requires people to check ID's before selling someone a gun?
Probably the same way you enforce a mandate that requires people to check ID's before selling someone a beer.
 
2013-02-28 05:09:35 PM  

Karac: How do you enforce a mandate that requires people to check ID's before selling someone a gun?
Probably the same way you enforce a mandate that requires people to check ID's before selling someone a beer.


and yet underage drinking exists.
 
2013-02-28 05:10:33 PM  
I used to be opposed to it, but reading this thread is causing me to change my position on universal compulsory military service.  Then at least people lecturing me about guns might actually have some real life experience with them.
 
2013-02-28 05:15:21 PM  

Witty_Retort: Yogimus: RedT:


In the Gaby Gifford shooter, Sandy Hook shooter, Colorado Theater, Christmas Mall shooting, all the way back to Charles Whitman adults were "trusted with firearms until they self identified" as batshiat crazy.

/didn't really work out well.

Statistically speaking, that is an acceptable loss rate for the benefits firearm ownership gives to this country. My point is that just because ONE person does something stupid, doesn't mean everyone else should give up their right to self defense.

Thank you!!!

I've been trying to tell these a-holes that 20 dead kids is a small price to pay for the hot piece of metal that throbs when I tickle that trigger.


We got plenty of kids, if we need to sacrifice 20 of them once in a while, no biggie, although I do think it should be on national television with a national lottery, we can march 20 random kids onto a stage and shoot them, while dancing around singing "We Love the Second Amendment!"
 
2013-02-28 05:15:57 PM  

Yogimus: Karac: How do you enforce a mandate that requires people to check ID's before selling someone a gun?
Probably the same way you enforce a mandate that requires people to check ID's before selling someone a beer.

and yet underage drinking exists.


All laws are stupid. We should get rid of them all. Because people break laws.
 
2013-02-28 05:16:15 PM  

Yogimus: Karac: How do you enforce a mandate that requires people to check ID's before selling someone a gun?
Probably the same way you enforce a mandate that requires people to check ID's before selling someone a beer.

and yet underage drinking exists.


And here, people, is the conservative argument against gun control in a nutshell: we can never stop EVERY instance of gun violence, so therefore there is no point in doing anything - background checks, mental health funding, or even requiring that people who take firearms into a school can actually handle one well enough to not put themsleves in a hopsital - to stop even a SINGLE shooting.
 
2013-02-28 05:23:45 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Witty_Retort: Yogimus: RedT:


In the Gaby Gifford shooter, Sandy Hook shooter, Colorado Theater, Christmas Mall shooting, all the way back to Charles Whitman adults were "trusted with firearms until they self identified" as batshiat crazy.

/didn't really work out well.

Statistically speaking, that is an acceptable loss rate for the benefits firearm ownership gives to this country. My point is that just because ONE person does something stupid, doesn't mean everyone else should give up their right to self defense.

Thank you!!!

I've been trying to tell these a-holes that 20 dead kids is a small price to pay for the hot piece of metal that throbs when I tickle that trigger.

We got plenty of kids, if we need to sacrifice 20 of them once in a while, no biggie, although I do think it should be on national television with a national lottery, we can march 20 random kids onto a stage and shoot them, while dancing around singing "We Love the Second Amendment!"


We could have Olympic like spectacles where a random number of kids go and kill each other. The RATINGS!!!!
Get John Williams on the phone. We need a theme and march!
 
2013-02-28 05:27:38 PM  

Karac: And here, people, is the conservative argument against gun control in a nutshell: we can never stop EVERY instance of gun violence, so therefore there is no point in doing anything - background checks, mental health funding, or even requiring that people who take firearms into a school can actually handle one well enough to not put themsleves in a hopsital - to stop even a SINGLE shooting.


And the counterargument is what? It IS worth denying people the right to defend themselves and their homes so long as one child is saved?  Because there are more efficient ways to save the lives of kids.  Again: Punish those who break laws, don't take away everyone's ability to break the law.
 
2013-02-28 05:29:02 PM  

vrax: over_and_done: vrax: Giltric: rural areas have alot of people who hunt where if you don't hit your target with your first shot you don't eat.

Umm, what century are you talking about?

This one.

Remember the drought this last summer?  There were towns where the only source of water was the local mayor driving his pickup for half an hour to a nearby friendly town, filling up barrels from their wells, then hauling it all back.

Think Ozarks or the Appalachians.  Actual rural, not fake kitschy "homestyle restaurant 10 minutes outside of major city" rural.

And it's not that there's no food in the grocery stores in these places, it's that the people don't have the money to buy enough.  If you can shoot (or, far more realistic but less flameworthy for this thread, trap) your food, you get to eat more than government cheese.

Ah, "the sticks".  Middle of nowhere.  Lots of school shootings in The Ozarks?


Don't know, don't care any more than you do.  I was giving examples of "rural areas [that] have a lot of people who hunt where if you don't hit your target with your first shot you don't eat".  If you want to relate that to the original post, ask the original poster.
 
2013-02-28 05:37:13 PM  

jigger: boobies, seriously?


I expected that in the boobies for sure.
 
2013-02-28 05:40:12 PM  

over_and_done: vrax: over_and_done: vrax: Giltric: rural areas have alot of people who hunt where if you don't hit your target with your first shot you don't eat.

Umm, what century are you talking about?

This one.

Remember the drought this last summer?  There were towns where the only source of water was the local mayor driving his pickup for half an hour to a nearby friendly town, filling up barrels from their wells, then hauling it all back.

Think Ozarks or the Appalachians.  Actual rural, not fake kitschy "homestyle restaurant 10 minutes outside of major city" rural.

And it's not that there's no food in the grocery stores in these places, it's that the people don't have the money to buy enough.  If you can shoot (or, far more realistic but less flameworthy for this thread, trap) your food, you get to eat more than government cheese.

Ah, "the sticks".  Middle of nowhere.  Lots of school shootings in The Ozarks?

Don't know, don't care any more than you do.  I was giving examples of "rural areas [that] have a lot of people who hunt where if you don't hit your target with your first shot you don't eat".  If you want to relate that to the original post, ask the original poster.


That's OK.  I'll just file it under "Places That Are Irrelevant To The Conversation".
 
2013-02-28 05:41:56 PM  
That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/
 
2013-02-28 05:43:57 PM  

Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/


Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!
 
2013-02-28 05:44:34 PM  

Yogimus: GnomePaladin: And yet there are still mouth-breathers who will say that more firearms in schools is some kind of solution to the problem of people getting shot in schools. They can't even pull off a safety course without someone getting shot. A-farking-mazing.

Disarming cops should significantly reduce shootings as well.


Stop! Stop or I'll yell "Stop!" again!


Threadslayer: You know in those samurai movies how there's always one guy who can't even draw his sword without cutting himself?


To be fair the Bushido code requires you to draw blood once you draw your sword. So keep plenty of bandaids handy just in case.
 
2013-02-28 05:45:20 PM  

CJHardin: It's more likely that the malfunction was in the interface between the teacher and the weapon.


Id 10 t error

/PEBGAF?
 
2013-02-28 05:47:14 PM  

Yogimus: Karac: And here, people, is the conservative argument against gun control in a nutshell: we can never stop EVERY instance of gun violence, so therefore there is no point in doing anything - background checks, mental health funding, or even requiring that people who take firearms into a school can actually handle one well enough to not put themsleves in a hopsital - to stop even a SINGLE shooting.

And the counterargument is what? It IS worth denying people the right to defend themselves and their homes so long as one child is saved?  Because there are more efficient ways to save the lives of kids.  Again: Punish those who break laws, don't take away everyone's ability to break the law.


You question was how to enforce closing the gun show loophole.  It's illegal for someone who can't pass a background check to buy a gun - but those checks do not occur at gun shows.   You're all in favor of punishing people who break laws, but completely against trying to catch them.
 
2013-02-28 05:49:59 PM  
News Report: Someone shot at school:
Wayne LaPierre :"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. If someone had been armed at the school, this tragedy could have been prevented."

Update:  No, a school employee shot himself at school:
Wayne LaPierre :"We need mental health screening for school employees. Persons deemed to be suicidal should NOT be allowed to carry a gun at school."

Update 2: It was an accident.
Wayne LaPierre : "Proper firearms training would have prevented this shooting."

Update 3:  This was during weapons safety training that the administrator shot himself.
Wayne LaPierre : "We need more certified instructors at schools so that administrators at schools can receive more personalized instruction."

Update 4: It one on one instruction.
Wayne LaPierre : "Cold. Dead. Fingers."
 
2013-02-28 05:51:54 PM  

vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!


That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007.
 
2013-02-28 05:52:35 PM  
Mechanical malfunction?
Was a robot handling the pistol?
 
2013-02-28 05:54:21 PM  

Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.


You take that bet, and I'll bet that some Luvox addled nutcase will shoot up his school that is a gun free zone.  We'll see which happens first.
 
2013-02-28 05:54:57 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.


A poor workman blames his tool.
 
2013-02-28 05:55:37 PM  
I bet it was it one of those intermittent malfunctions that will be devilishly hard to recreate. Melt the gun down to be safe.
 
2013-02-28 05:56:43 PM  
So, he isn't a teacher. This wasn't during school. This is a small town where it takes a while for law enforcement to get anywhere. Yep, just like usual. Bunch of Asshat libs on the site that have no clue what they are talking about.
 
2013-02-28 05:59:12 PM  

Karac: those checks do not occur at gun shows


^ this is false, when dealing with vendors.  Gun shows are more like swap-meets, and this returns us to person-to-person sales.  Here is where it gets tricky, because how can gov't reasonably affect transactions between individuals, and what would the benefit be?
 
2013-02-28 06:01:38 PM  

Yogimus: Karac: those checks do not occur at gun shows

^ this is false, when dealing with vendors.  Gun shows are more like swap-meets, and this returns us to person-to-person sales.  Here is where it gets tricky, because how can gov't reasonably affect transactions between individuals, and what would the benefit be?


If you get caught with a gun that was acquired without a background check, you got to jail for one year and are barred for life from owning firearms.
 
2013-02-28 06:04:07 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Yogimus: Karac: those checks do not occur at gun shows

^ this is false, when dealing with vendors.  Gun shows are more like swap-meets, and this returns us to person-to-person sales.  Here is where it gets tricky, because how can gov't reasonably affect transactions between individuals, and what would the benefit be?

If you get caught with a gun that was acquired without a background check, you got to jail for one year and are barred for life from owning firearms.


Are you aware that background checks don't actually track what weapon is sold?
 
2013-02-28 06:05:55 PM  

Harry Freakstorm: Did he preface it by saying "I'm the only one professional enough to carry a Glock 40??"


Glocks. Pfft. Try an FN 5.7

Have an FNS 9mm myself. Stays locked in the case unless I'm at the range.

The magazines & cartridges are in a separate location and lockboxes.

FNS makes nice guns.
 
2013-02-28 06:06:53 PM  

Yogimus: Uranus Is Huge!: Yogimus: Karac: those checks do not occur at gun shows

^ this is false, when dealing with vendors.  Gun shows are more like swap-meets, and this returns us to person-to-person sales.  Here is where it gets tricky, because how can gov't reasonably affect transactions between individuals, and what would the benefit be?

If you get caught with a gun that was acquired without a background check, you got to jail for one year and are barred for life from owning firearms.

Are you aware that background checks don't actually track what weapon is sold?


Well there's another area for improvement!
 
2013-02-28 06:07:07 PM  

Click to enlarge: vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!

That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007.


See, not 100%.  We need to try harder!
 
2013-02-28 06:07:58 PM  

vudukungfu: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Mechanical malfunction"?
Sounds like someone's trying to blame the gun.

Exactly
It the weapon was being handled in a safe manner, I doubt it would have happened.
Safe = unloaded,not pointed anywhere it would cause harm at all, given any physics involved.


The thing is, it doesn't really matter whether it was an actual malfunction or not.  Classifying the injury as being caused by operator error instead of mechanical malfunction doesn't make the injury go away, or even make it less of a problem.  The fact of the matter is, people make careless mistakes sometimes.  Even people who aren't complete morons.  It is a statistical certainty.

The problem is, when guns are involved the consequences of those mistakes are greatly magnified. Considering the known statistics about rates of accidental injury vs. actual use in preventing crimes, I would estimate that arming teachers will quite simply cause far more injuries or deaths than they will prevent in any given time frame.

It also presents a new problem: now kids don't even have to try to try and buy guns illegally or have parents who own them.  They're already right there at the school, and they can just hatch some scheme to snag them from a teacher.  Even if guns did help stop shootings in progress, it also increases their availability -- immediate availability -- to any kid who gets angry at Bobby for picking on him or kissing his girlfriend.  And we all know how great kids are at emotional impulse control.
 
2013-02-28 06:10:48 PM  

Yogimus: Are you aware that background checks don't actually track what weapon is sold?


So have the vendor staple a background check result form  - signed by same, with FFL number or TIN, to the same day receipt for the sale.
 
2013-02-28 06:10:57 PM  
Well it wasn't a teacher or in class but yeah subbies headline is so much more outragrey!
 
2013-02-28 06:12:04 PM  

vrax: Click to enlarge: vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!

That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007.

See, not 100%.  We need to try harder!


Dammit fark!
/something about a tiny fist
 
2013-02-28 06:15:31 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Well there's another area for improvement!


what exactly did you think background checks accomplished?  All it does is run your social against a database of sale/no sale.  It is a no fly list for guns.
 
2013-02-28 06:15:58 PM  

unamused: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

You take that bet, and I'll bet that some Luvox addled nutcase will shoot up his school that is a gun free zone.  We'll see which happens first.


The problem with your side of the bet is that it runs under the assumption that an armed individual at said school would have significantly affected the outcome of the shooting.  That's far from a certainty.  And seeing which happens first is really a very poor test; you'd want to look at several incidents over a span of time.  So your proposal is really pretty useless from the perspective of finding out whether having guns at school is actually a good idea.  I suppose it makes a good money-wagering opportunity, though.

The "good" news is that, now that Texas has enacted this law, we can look at rates of incidents from here forward and compare them to the number of school shootings in any given area.  Personally, my guess is that there will be more gun-related injuries per capita at Texas schools than anywhere else.
 
2013-02-28 06:18:26 PM  

Yogimus: Uranus Is Huge!: Well there's another area for improvement!

what exactly did you think background checks accomplished?  All it does is run your social against a database of sale/no sale.  It is a no fly list for guns.


Paul Baumer: So have the vendor staple a background check result form  - signed by same, with FFL number or TIN, to the same day receipt for the sale.


Your grammar is terrible.
 
2013-02-28 06:19:53 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Yogimus: Uranus Is Huge!: Well there's another area for improvement!

what exactly did you think background checks accomplished?  All it does is run your social against a database of sale/no sale.  It is a no fly list for guns.

Paul Baumer: So have the vendor staple a background check result form  - signed by same, with FFL number or TIN, to the same day receipt for the sale.

Your grammar is terrible, Yogimus.


FTFM
 
2013-02-28 06:23:00 PM  
English is my 3rd language.
 
2013-02-28 06:23:59 PM  

Yogimus: Here is my problem with the "gun show loophole" theory. It seeks to legislate private sales between private individuals.

  (i believe in making the background check available to anyone, not just firearms dealers. I just can't see a way to enforce mandating it)


The only way to enforce it is with universal registration.  If the cops don't know who owns it, there is no way to determine a sale took place.

Universal background checks require registration which ultimately leads to confiscation.  This is why the Soviets have been pushing so hard to end the "gun show loophole."
 
2013-02-28 06:24:36 PM  

Yogimus: English is my 3rd language.


You should follow the advice that some idiot Farker gave me earlier and murder your English teacher.
 
2013-02-28 06:26:24 PM  

RedT: mod3072: My state just passed one of these stupid laws making it okay for school employees to be armed. I've yet to meet a teacher or administrator who thinks that it is a good idea, and I work in education. It was just a way for the legislature to give the appearance of doing something while passing the buck to the schools. If a shooting does ever happen, they'll say "Well, you should have armed your teachers! We gave you the option!", and when an accident inevitably happens they can say "Hey, it was your choice to arm your staff. It's not our fault!".

It's a catch 22: The  folks who think that guns mixed in with a bunch of stressed-overworked teachers, stressed emotional/hormonal students, bullying, petty fights, and constant crowds is bad idea will not be the armed folks.  But the folks who think this is a scenario that needs a loaded gun will be the folks packing.

Question: Who would you actually trust more with a gun in that scenario?


Unless the guns are in the hands of well trained and disciplined security officers, I don't want them in my schools at all. I'm not anti-gun - quite to contrary, I am strongly pro-second amendment and have been shooting since I was a child. I've been in education long enough to know 2 things, however: 1.) Most teachers/administrators/aides aren't people that you would want packing heat in a building full of children, and the vast majority of them would be horrified by the thought of having to do so, and 2.) The state never does ANYTHING related to education more than half-assed and quarter-funded at the very, very most. That means we could end up with a bunch of teachers who took a 4-hour training one time (if that - there's no requirement for training of any kind in the bill and no funds allocated to provide any) being asked to carry a loaded firearm in a school full time. I can't really thing of a situation that is more likely to end in tragedy and less likely to be of any benefit. It's almost like they took an incredibly unlikely situation (mass school shooting) and then tried to find the absolute worst, most dangerous and least effective way to address it. It's idiocy.
 
2013-02-28 06:26:33 PM  
 Click to enlarge:

 vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that... Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/ Quick answer: That's because not enough guns! Duh! That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007. See, not 100%. We need to try harder!


You reference a study from 25 years ago and I still don't get your point.

Are you saying 64,615 incidents are stopped a year that those are somehow irrelevant.

Many of the concealed carry laws are less than 25 years old and you reference guns per capita 20 years after the study period?  Most people who own guns don't carry.  Most people who own guns own more than one ( i have 7) so its not like 88% of population owns a gun.  Those violent crimes you refer to do not occur in the home.

So for your statement to have any relevance why don't you compute me a percentage where a violent crime was thwarted because the victim actually had access to a gun.  Probably a lot higher than .83%.
 
2013-02-28 06:29:15 PM  

Paul Baumer: Yogimus: Are you aware that background checks don't actually track what weapon is sold?

So have the vendor staple a background check result form  - signed by same, with FFL number or TIN, to the same day receipt for the sale.


Why bother when I can just say "This is my gun, I've owned it for years," and Mr. Cop can't prove otherwise unless the gun is registered to somebody.
 
2013-02-28 06:34:04 PM  

Yogimus: English is my 3rd language.


What kinda commie shiat is that?!
 
2013-02-28 06:39:41 PM  

unamused: Paul Baumer: Yogimus: Are you aware that background checks don't actually track what weapon is sold?

So have the vendor staple a background check result form  - signed by same, with FFL number or TIN, to the same day receipt for the sale.

Why bother when I can just say "This is my gun, I've owned it for years," and Mr. Cop can't prove otherwise unless the gun is registered to somebody.


"it won't work because I'll disobey the law to ensure it won't work," said a law-abiding gun owner.
 
2013-02-28 06:42:11 PM  

unamused: Yogimus: Here is my problem with the "gun show loophole" theory. It seeks to legislate private sales between private individuals.

  (i believe in making the background check available to anyone, not just firearms dealers. I just can't see a way to enforce mandating it)

The only way to enforce it is with universal registration.  If the cops don't know who owns it, there is no way to determine a sale took place.

Universal background checks require registration which ultimately leads to confiscation.  This is why the Soviets have been pushing so hard to end the "gun show loophole."


Soviets? Really? Do you know what year it is?

Now, lots of gun nuts have said before, "well, people die in car crashes, so why not ban cars," during reactionary fits. However, if your car causes a wreck, whether you're driving or not, the registration puts accountability on you. That's why you transfer the title and registration when you sell a car privately. So that if someone does something stupid, it's not on you.

Yet that's okay, but doing the exact same thing with a firearm is ZOMGCOMMIEFASCISOCIAMUSLINESPIALIDOCIOUS!

The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."
 
2013-02-28 06:42:13 PM  

mod3072: trained and disciplined security officers


^ this does not exist.
 
2013-02-28 06:43:07 PM  

Paul Baumer: unamused: Paul Baumer: Yogimus: Are you aware that background checks don't actually track what weapon is sold?

So have the vendor staple a background check result form  - signed by same, with FFL number or TIN, to the same day receipt for the sale.

Why bother when I can just say "This is my gun, I've owned it for years," and Mr. Cop can't prove otherwise unless the gun is registered to somebody.

"it won't work because I'll disobey the law to ensure it won't work," said a law-abiding gun owner.


Law abiding gun owners don't buy guns to kill children.  It is Adam Lanza or Dopey McSalesman who will lie to avoid the background check.
 
2013-02-28 06:45:02 PM  

Carn: Surprised it took this long.


It could be worse...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY
 
2013-02-28 06:45:46 PM  

Yogimus: mod3072: trained and disciplined security officers

^ this does not exist.


Sadly this is mostly true. I am what most people on here would consider a gun nut... Letting teachers and janitors carry guns in schools is just insane. More cops with better training might help in some cases but I am doubtful.
 
2013-02-28 06:48:16 PM  

stoli n coke: unamused: Yogimus: Here is my problem with the "gun show loophole" theory. It seeks to legislate private sales between private individuals.

  (i believe in making the background check available to anyone, not just firearms dealers. I just can't see a way to enforce mandating it)

The only way to enforce it is with universal registration.  If the cops don't know who owns it, there is no way to determine a sale took place.

Universal background checks require registration which ultimately leads to confiscation.  This is why the Soviets have been pushing so hard to end the "gun show loophole."

Soviets? Really? Do you know what year it is?

Now, lots of gun nuts have said before, "well, people die in car crashes, so why not ban cars," during reactionary fits. However, if your car causes a wreck, whether you're driving or not, the registration puts accountability on you. That's why you transfer the title and registration when you sell a car privately. So that if someone does something stupid, it's not on you.

Yet that's okay, but doing the exact same thing with a firearm is ZOMGCOMMIEFASCISOCIAMUSLINESPIALIDOCIOUS!

The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."


You will not find a right to a car in the Constitution.  That is why you can place restrictions on them with a 50%+1  vote whereas a vote of 67% +1 is required to infringe on gun rights.
 
2013-02-28 06:48:43 PM  

stoli n coke: The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."


No, the argument you hear is NOT that it can't be fixed, but that the tradeoff for the solution to be effective is unacceptable.  For example, I whole heartedly support opening up the background check service to any and every individual requesting it.  The onus to use it should fall on the seller.  I do NOT support mandating it, because that is just unenforceable without a significant government intrusion.

I also support having any and every firearm discharge be considered criminal in nature, unless otherwise proven. What I do NOT support is limiting your access to guns because I shoot my neighbor.

Uranus, I am flattered that you stalked me across multiple threads to chastise me. I will masturbate in your honor at a later date.
 
2013-02-28 06:50:35 PM  

vrax: Click to enlarge: vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!

That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007.

See, not 100%.  We need to try harder!


out of curiosity, how do we effect 100%  without arming felons and crazy assholes?
 
2013-02-28 06:54:14 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: vrax: Click to enlarge: vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!

That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007.

See, not 100%.  We need to try harder!

out of curiosity, how do we effect 100%  without arming felons and crazy assholes?


We kill the felons and crazy assholes.
 
2013-02-28 06:57:07 PM  
Is there anyone that doesn't want Americans to shoot themselves?

I think we all like these stories.
 
2013-02-28 06:58:23 PM  
Everyone walking around with assault rifles, no one pays taxes and no government telling you what to do, and the only book that anyone reads is the holy one.

Texas: its like Pakistan for white people
 
2013-02-28 06:59:43 PM  
What should happen to people who are dumb, confused and angry?
 
2013-02-28 07:02:45 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: vrax: Click to enlarge: vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!

That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007.

See, not 100%.  We need to try harder!

out of curiosity, how do we effect 100%  without arming felons and crazy assholes?


What do I look like, a rocket surgeon?!  Just do it!
 
2013-02-28 07:04:30 PM  
Registration leads to confiscation. Just Google "California SKS."
 
2013-02-28 07:09:21 PM  

hundreddollarman: Registration leads to confiscation. Just Google "California SKS."


Yes, this of course means that all registered firearms will be taken by Obama's stormtroopers.
 
2013-02-28 07:11:37 PM  

Yogimus: Uchiha_Cycliste: vrax: Click to enlarge: vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!

That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007.

See, not 100%.  We need to try harder!

out of curiosity, how do we effect 100%  without arming felons and crazy assholes?

We kill the felons and crazy assholes.


If we kill them with guns, is that a plus or a minus in the guns column?
 
2013-02-28 07:12:16 PM  

vrax: hundreddollarman: Registration leads to confiscation. Just Google "California SKS."

Yes, this of course means that all registered firearms will be taken by Obama's stormtroopers.


Not necessarily obama's. If I draw the line it will be before registration.
 
2013-02-28 07:12:17 PM  

vrax: Uchiha_Cycliste: vrax: Click to enlarge: vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!

That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007.

See, not 100%.  We need to try harder!

out of curiosity, how do we effect 100%  without arming felons and crazy assholes?

What do I look like, a rocket surgeon?!  Just do it!


We are working on it!

\if you cinsider how many felons and crazy assholes we have 88% is damned respectable.
 
2013-02-28 07:13:27 PM  
Uchiha_Cycliste:
If we kill them with guns, is that a plus or a minus in the guns column?

Only if we let the gov't do it. That way we keep our hands clean.
 
2013-02-28 07:14:42 PM  

Yogimus: stoli n coke: The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."

No, the argument you hear is NOT that it can't be fixed, but that the tradeoff for the solution to be effective is unacceptable.  For example, I whole heartedly support opening up the background check service to any and every individual requesting it.  The onus to use it should fall on the seller.  I do NOT support mandating it, because that is just unenforceable without a significant government intrusion.

I also support having any and every firearm discharge be considered criminal in nature, unless otherwise proven. What I do NOT support is limiting your access to guns because I shoot my neighbor.

Uranus, I am flattered that you stalked me across multiple threads to chastise me. I will masturbate in your honor at a later date.


What government intrusion?  You already asked how universal background checks could be enforced, and I already answered you - the same way the police enforce requiring ID checks to buy cigarettes or beer.

The cops find somone (or make up an identity) that can't pass the background check, and then go around and try to get somoene to sell them a gun - the same way they find bars that sell alcohol to minors.  When they find someone breaking that law, they yank their license to sell firearms (the same way they yank a liqour license) if it's a business.  If it's a private sale, then I suppose they would just have to be content to send the guy to jail, fine him, and probably confiscate whatever other guns they find that he owns.

There is no way that plan would violate anyone's right to own a firearm because it isn't criminalizing owning a firearm - it's finding the people who are illegally selling guns; they've already admitted that they DIDN'T want to bear that particular arm.  It isn't limiting your access to guns; unless of course, you're already can't pass a background check and no longer have that right to begin with.
 
2013-02-28 07:17:39 PM  

Yogimus: Uchiha_Cycliste:
If we kill them with guns, is that a plus or a minus in the guns column?

Only if we let the gov't do it. That way we keep our hands clean.


how do we avoid the fact we voted in the pricks killing the other pricks?
 
2013-02-28 07:19:30 PM  

Karac: they yank their license to sell firearms


^ this is already the case for FFL-s

Karac: If it's a private sale


^then the seller can't access the database as it stand right now.  Also, it is already illegal to sell a gun to someone who can't legally own one, or to give a gun to such person.
 
2013-02-28 07:27:13 PM  
Misfire? Are you freaking shiatting me? That wasn't a misfire, it was a FIRE.

A misfire is when bullet DOESN'T come out the muzzle.

farking idiots.
 
2013-02-28 07:40:04 PM  

Karac: Yogimus: stoli n coke: The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."

No, the argument you hear is NOT that it can't be fixed, but that the tradeoff for the solution to be effective is unacceptable.  For example, I whole heartedly support opening up the background check service to any and every individual requesting it.  The onus to use it should fall on the seller.  I do NOT support mandating it, because that is just unenforceable without a significant government intrusion.

I also support having any and every firearm discharge be considered criminal in nature, unless otherwise proven. What I do NOT support is limiting your access to guns because I shoot my neighbor.

Uranus, I am flattered that you stalked me across multiple threads to chastise me. I will masturbate in your honor at a later date.

What government intrusion?  You already asked how universal background checks could be enforced, and I already answered you - the same way the police enforce requiring ID checks to buy cigarettes or beer.

The cops find somone (or make up an identity) that can't pass the background check, and then go around and try to get somoene to sell them a gun - the same way they find bars that sell alcohol to minors.  When they find someone breaking that law, they yank their license to sell firearms (the same way they yank a liqour license) if it's a business.  If it's a private sale, then I suppose they would just have to be content to send the guy to jail, fine him, and probably confiscate whatever other guns they find that he owns.

There is no way that plan would violate anyone's right to own a firearm because it isn't criminalizing owning a firearm - it's finding the people who are illegally selling guns; they've already admitted that they DIDN'T want to bear that particular arm.  It isn't limiting your access to guns; unless of course, you're already can't pass a background check and no longer have that right ...


We'll have no logic in this discussion, sir.
 
2013-02-28 07:50:51 PM  
Karac:

What government intrusion?  You already asked how universal background checks could be enforced, and I already answered you - the same way the police enforce requiring ID checks to buy cigarettes or beer.

That works fine at the beer store.  Not worth a shiat when someone sells their 15 yo neighbor a 12 pack.
 
2013-02-28 07:56:11 PM  

Karac: Yogimus: stoli n coke: The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."

No, the argument you hear is NOT that it can't be fixed, but that the tradeoff for the solution to be effective is unacceptable.  For example, I whole heartedly support opening up the background check service to any and every individual requesting it.  The onus to use it should fall on the seller.  I do NOT support mandating it, because that is just unenforceable without a significant government intrusion.

I also support having any and every firearm discharge be considered criminal in nature, unless otherwise proven. What I do NOT support is limiting your access to guns because I shoot my neighbor.

Uranus, I am flattered that you stalked me across multiple threads to chastise me. I will masturbate in your honor at a later date.

What government intrusion?  You already asked how universal background checks could be enforced, and I already answered you - the same way the police enforce requiring ID checks to buy cigarettes or beer.

The cops find somone (or make up an identity) that can't pass the background check, and then go around and try to get somoene to sell them a gun - the same way they find bars that sell alcohol to minors.  When they find someone breaking that law, they yank their license to sell firearms (the same way they yank a liqour license) if it's a business.  If it's a private sale, then I suppose they would just have to be content to send the guy to jail, fine him, and probably confiscate whatever other guns they find that he owns.

There is no way that plan would violate anyone's right to own a firearm because it isn't criminalizing owning a firearm - it's finding the people who are illegally selling guns; they've already admitted that they DIDN'T want to bear that particular arm.  It isn't limiting your access to guns; unless of course, you're already can't pass a background check and no longer have that right ...


Excellent.  Then there's no problem with doing this for voting.  A right is a right.
Background checks and ID, plus undercover cops to bust poll workers who let people vote without ID.
 
2013-02-28 07:58:05 PM  

unamused: Karac:

What government intrusion?  You already asked how universal background checks could be enforced, and I already answered you - the same way the police enforce requiring ID checks to buy cigarettes or beer.

That works fine at the beer store.  Not worth a shiat when someone sells their 15 yo neighbor a 12 pack.


But, if that 15-year old gets behind the wheel of a car and wrecks after downing the 12-pack, the guy that gave the beer to the kid can face criminal charges.

I'd wager a good amount of people that don't want background checks on private sales either can't pass a check at a regular gun sellers or don't want anyone to know that they sell guns to people that they shouldn't sell to.
 
2013-02-28 07:58:11 PM  

vrax: hundreddollarman: Registration leads to confiscation. Just Google "California SKS."

Yes, this of course means that all registered firearms will be taken by Obama's stormtroopers.


You don't have to go house to house to confiscate weapons. You can legislate them to make them illegal to transfer, even to relatives as heirlooms or via private sales. Not as overt or heavy-handed as house-to-house sweeps with stormtroopers, but arguably more underhanded and effective. I'm just pointing out there is a precedent for "registration leads to confiscation."
 
2013-02-28 07:59:05 PM  
stoli n coke:
Now, lots of gun nuts have said before, "well, people die in car crashes, so why not ban cars," during reactionary fits. However, if your car causes a wreck, whether you're driving or not, the registration puts accountability on you. That's why you transfer the title and registration when you sell a car privately. So that if someone does something stupid, it's not on you.

And with cars, it's been proven that it doesn't work, so why do you think it would work with guns? (HINT: Red light cameras)

The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."

Funny, I recommended a few things, no answer.
 
2013-02-28 08:12:45 PM  

stoli n coke: unamused: Yogimus: Here is my problem with the "gun show loophole" theory. It seeks to legislate private sales between private individuals.

  (i believe in making the background check available to anyone, not just firearms dealers. I just can't see a way to enforce mandating it)

The only way to enforce it is with universal registration.  If the cops don't know who owns it, there is no way to determine a sale took place.

Universal background checks require registration which ultimately leads to confiscation.  This is why the Soviets have been pushing so hard to end the "gun show loophole."

Soviets? Really? Do you know what year it is?

Now, lots of gun nuts have said before, "well, people die in car crashes, so why not ban cars," during reactionary fits. However, if your car causes a wreck, whether you're driving or not, the registration puts accountability on you. That's why you transfer the title and registration when you sell a car privately. So that if someone does something stupid, it's not on you.

Yet that's okay, but doing the exact same thing with a firearm is ZOMGCOMMIEFASCISOCIAMUSLINESPIALIDOCIOUS!

The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."


Nice of you to admit that the ultimate goal is registration.
 
2013-02-28 08:13:40 PM  

People_are_Idiots: stoli n coke:
Now, lots of gun nuts have said before, "well, people die in car crashes, so why not ban cars," during reactionary fits. However, if your car causes a wreck, whether you're driving or not, the registration puts accountability on you. That's why you transfer the title and registration when you sell a car privately. So that if someone does something stupid, it's not on you.

And with cars, it's been proven that it doesn't work, so why do you think it would work with guns? (HINT: Red light cameras)

The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."

Funny, I recommended a few things, no answer.


Red light cameras do what they are designed to do. Give out tickets to red light runners. And if you get a ticket in the mail after loaning your car to someone, you're going to be more careful about who you decide to loan your car to in the future. That's being a responsible car owner.

I think if you own a gun, just like a car, you should be responsible for everything that happens with it until the day you don't own it, including every shot fired. No "I didn't know it was loaded." No "I didn't think the kid could get to it." No "I loaned it to a friend, I didn't know what he was going to do with it." Someone farks up with your gun, it's on you. Just like how that red light camera ticket is going to jack up your insurance.

I hear a lot of people talking about being responsible gun owners, so why not assume some responsibility?
 
2013-02-28 08:14:26 PM  

Gaylord Fister: Misfire? Are you freaking shiatting me? That wasn't a misfire, it was a FIRE.

A misfire is when bullet DOESN'T come out the muzzle.

farking idiots.


QFT
 
2013-02-28 08:15:48 PM  
Why could have ever predicted this would happen. My word!
 
2013-02-28 08:18:56 PM  

unamused: stoli n coke: unamused: Yogimus: Here is my problem with the "gun show loophole" theory. It seeks to legislate private sales between private individuals.

  (i believe in making the background check available to anyone, not just firearms dealers. I just can't see a way to enforce mandating it)

The only way to enforce it is with universal registration.  If the cops don't know who owns it, there is no way to determine a sale took place.

Universal background checks require registration which ultimately leads to confiscation.  This is why the Soviets have been pushing so hard to end the "gun show loophole."

Soviets? Really? Do you know what year it is?

Now, lots of gun nuts have said before, "well, people die in car crashes, so why not ban cars," during reactionary fits. However, if your car causes a wreck, whether you're driving or not, the registration puts accountability on you. That's why you transfer the title and registration when you sell a car privately. So that if someone does something stupid, it's not on you.

Yet that's okay, but doing the exact same thing with a firearm is ZOMGCOMMIEFASCISOCIAMUSLINESPIALIDOCIOUS!

The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."

Nice of you to admit that the ultimate goal is registration.


How is that a bad thing? What's wrong with a record of your gun's history on file. That way, if you buy a gun from a private seller, and it turns out, that gun was used in a crime, you're not in trouble because you can track it's history.

If you've done nothing wrong and are not planning on doing something wrong, what do you have to worry about?
 
2013-02-28 08:21:15 PM  

stoli n coke: If you've done nothing wrong and are not planning on doing something wrong, what do you have to worry about?


^This.  This is what I have to worry about.
 
2013-02-28 08:29:12 PM  
I wrote this comment for an earlier thread, but it seems relevant here. With this incident we've now accomplished one of four.

Honestly, which scenario does anyone think will happen first:

An armed teacher stops a school shooting, or we start hearing about teachers flashing their weapons at students during class?

An armed teacher stops a school shooting, or a distracted teacher gets their gun stolen by a student during class?

An armed teacher stops a school shooting, or a teacher unintentionally discharges their weapon in a classroom?
[check]

An armed teacher stops a school shooting, or a stressed-out teacher just loses it and takes a shot at one of their students or co-workers?

Only 3 more to go!
 
2013-02-28 08:29:57 PM  
Did he still pass the course. If it's anything like the testing for firearms licensing here in Canada he probably did pass.
 
2013-02-28 08:31:04 PM  

Yogimus: stoli n coke: If you've done nothing wrong and are not planning on doing something wrong, what do you have to worry about?

^This.  This is what I have to worry about.


Ah. You've done something wrong. Well, you should have thought about that before.
 
2013-02-28 08:34:03 PM  

sumida sublight: An armed teacher stops a school shooting, or a teacher unintentionally discharges their weapon in a classroom? [check]


When did this happen?  Not in the story this links to. Perhaps you could show me?
 
2013-02-28 08:37:12 PM  

Yogimus: stoli n coke: If you've done nothing wrong and are not planning on doing something wrong, what do you have to worry about?

^This.  This is what I have to worry about.


Man, you must be scared shiatless over Carfax.
 
2013-02-28 08:41:16 PM  

stoli n coke: Ah. You've done something wrong. Well, you should have thought about that before.


Laws change, once the foundation has been laid.
 
2013-02-28 08:46:36 PM  

Yogimus: stoli n coke: Ah. You've done something wrong. Well, you should have thought about that before.

Laws change, once the foundation has been laid.


Do you have to tell the whole neighborhood whenever you move in?
 
2013-02-28 08:49:22 PM  

stoli n coke: Yogimus: stoli n coke: Ah. You've done something wrong. Well, you should have thought about that before.

Laws change, once the foundation has been laid.

Do you have to tell the whole neighborhood whenever you move in?


No, but I DO leave your mom a forwarding address. She aint as good as she used to be, but what can I say.... I like em dry.
 
2013-02-28 09:01:35 PM  

Buffalo77: You reference a study from 25 years ago and I still don't get your point.

My point is this. Guns are not used to thwart crime to nearly the degree that the talking heads on t.v. would have you believe.

Are you saying 64,615 incidents are stopped a year that those are somehow irrelevant.
No, they are relevant in that it is not a significant degree of thwarted crime nationally. Now if I were one of the 64,615 victims who did thwart a crime with a gun it would be significant to me personally, but not on a national scale. It's only 0.2% of crimes committed nationally.

Many of the concealed carry laws are less than 25 years old and you reference guns per capita 20 years after the study period?   Most people who own guns don't carry. Most people who own guns own more than one ( i have 7) so its not like 88% of population owns a gun.  Those violent crimes you refer to do not occur in the home.

Now you are arguing my point for me. Thanks! If you're still confused about what my point is, please re-read my first statement in this reply.

So for your statement to have any relevance why don't you compute me a percentage where a violent crime was thwarted because the victim actually had access to a gun.  Probably a lot higher than .83%.
Why don't you compute me a percentage? I've already cited actual real numbers (I like to call them facts). You have responded with congecture only.
 
2013-02-28 09:09:01 PM  

Click to enlarge: Buffalo77: You reference a study from 25 years ago and I still don't get your point.
My point is this. Guns are not used to thwart crime to nearly the degree that the talking heads on t.v. would have you believe.

Are you saying 64,615 incidents are stopped a year that those are somehow irrelevant.
No, they are relevant in that it is not a significant degree of thwarted crime nationally. Now if I were one of the 64,615 victims who did thwart a crime with a gun it would be significant to me personally, but not on a national scale. It's only 0.2% of crimes committed nationally.

Many of the concealed carry laws are less than 25 years old and you reference guns per capita 20 years after the study period?   Most people who own guns don't carry. Most people who own guns own more than one ( i have 7) so its not like 88% of population owns a gun.  Those violent crimes you refer to do not occur in the home.

Now you are arguing my point for me. Thanks! If you're still confused about what my point is, please re-read my first statement in this reply.

So for your statement to have any relevance why don't you compute me a percentage where a violent crime was thwarted because the victim actually had access to a gun.  Probably a lot higher than .83%.
Why don't you compute me a percentage? I've already cited actual real numbers (I like to call them facts). You have responded with congecture only.


Click, for the record, I understand exactly what you are saying, and it is a valid point.
 
2013-02-28 09:40:01 PM  
I would like to see the probability of accidental casualties from arming all teachers across the nation (which should include crazy students accidentally getting a hold of a concealed-carry teacher's weapon that otherwise wouldn't have been there in the first place) versus actual perpetrator school shooting casualties.

I'm not even sure I could guess which is higher.  There's a major mass school shooting like Columbine or Sandy Hook about once a decade.  So that's what?  Two students killed in this fashion across the nation per year?  Then there are single student killings here and there...I'm guessing there would be about that many kids killed accidentally each year with a gun in every classroom.   This might be a good exercise for the Freakonomics people.

/arming teachers even assumes that they might effectively stop a lunatic at least part way through his massacre...
 
2013-02-28 09:42:31 PM  
<i>I'm guessing there would be about that many kids killed accidentally each year with a gun in every classroom. </i>

Heh...I should've worded that differently.  "...each year if a gun is in every classroom."
 
2013-02-28 09:47:37 PM  

Ow My Balls: Heh...I should've worded that differently. "...each year if a gun is in every classroom


I actually agree with you here.  Mandating arming of teachers is farking retarded.  Voluntary arming, WITH STRICT OVERSIGHT and veto power by administrators.
 
2013-02-28 10:04:06 PM  
MI is working on a bill that will allow anyone to carry a gun into schools.  They are leaving the option open for just the school employees.  I would feel better with just the later on that, especially when you consider the number of adults that show up to school sporting events and how tempers could fly.  The bill will also transfer the responsibility CCW permits from the counties to State Police, which sounds like a better practice.  I am waiting to see how this all goes.

I think one factor that will play into this bill passing, would be that incident with the coach who shot two thugs who was trying to rob two girls and himself.  Let us hope that the teachers don't use this as a new way to punish out-of-control kids.
 
2013-02-28 10:08:54 PM  

lack of warmth: MI is working on a bill that will allow anyone to carry a gun into schools.  They are leaving the option open for just the school employees.  I would feel better with just the later on that, especially when you consider the number of adults that show up to school sporting events and how tempers could fly.  The bill will also transfer the responsibility CCW permits from the counties to State Police, which sounds like a better practice.  I am waiting to see how this all goes.

I think one factor that will play into this bill passing, would be that incident with the coach who shot two thugs who was trying to rob two girls and himself.  Let us hope that the teachers don't use this as a new way to punish out-of-control kids.


Making a school a gun free zone doesn't work.  Kids possessing guns is already illegal. Adults can be controlled by being treated as adults.
 
2013-02-28 10:45:28 PM  

stoli n coke: People_are_Idiots: stoli n coke:
Now, lots of gun nuts have said before, "well, people die in car crashes, so why not ban cars," during reactionary fits. However, if your car causes a wreck, whether you're driving or not, the registration puts accountability on you. That's why you transfer the title and registration when you sell a car privately. So that if someone does something stupid, it's not on you.

And with cars, it's been proven that it doesn't work, so why do you think it would work with guns? (HINT: Red light cameras)

The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."

Funny, I recommended a few things, no answer.

Red light cameras do what they are designed to do. Give out tickets to red light runners. And if you get a ticket in the mail after loaning your car to someone, you're going to be more careful about who you decide to loan your car to in the future. That's being a responsible car owner.

I think if you own a gun, just like a car, you should be responsible for everything that happens with it until the day you don't own it, including every shot fired. No "I didn't know it was loaded." No "I didn't think the kid could get to it." No "I loaned it to a friend, I didn't know what he was going to do with it." Someone farks up with your gun, it's on you. Just like how that red light camera ticket is going to jack up your insurance.

I hear a lot of people talking about being responsible gun owners, so why not assume some responsibility?


There's the beef... I am responsible. I teach people to respect any weapon and tool, not use such to harm or kill, and use it the right way. Teaching someone about danger is always better. You teach your kids about the dangers of unprotected sex right?
 
2013-02-28 10:53:14 PM  

Click Click D'oh: stoli n coke: It's funny how so many NRA supporters go on and on about how "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." and "It's the gun owner's responsibility to safely use it," however, as soon as something like this happns, the tune changes to "The gun malfunctioned,""It just went off," and "Accidents happen."

Kind of inconsistent, don't ya think?

Hi there, NRA supporter here.  Guns don't "just go off" and accidents don't just "happen".  There was negligence at some level of this.  Someone did something stupid,  and now they have a bullet in their leg... and the instructor is going to be in serious hot water unless he has a damn good explanation for how one of his students ended up with a bullet in them.

If they followed the rules, there wouldn't be a bullet in this guys leg.


Firearms don't just go off huh? How can you be an NRA member and not know about the Remington 700 series rifles with issues with accidental firings?
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/remington/111096-remington-model-70 0- accidental-discharges.html
 
2013-02-28 11:11:51 PM  
"Mechanical malfunction?" So the gun just discharged and it wasn't the user's fault? If this was just some idiot who mishandled a gun I can understand people saying "well, don't let the idiots handle guns on school property" (assuming you can identify them in advance), but if it is possible for a gun to have a mechanical malfunction  and discharge and be of no fault to the gun handler, then this is all the more reason not to have a gun on school grounds.
 
2013-02-28 11:13:42 PM  

Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/


The problem with that study is it only identifies the times a gun was FIRED in self defense.   http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime references a study that says people use firearms (mostly without having to fire them) well over 900,000 times a YEAR.  Let's face it, if you're a burglar or rapist and you hear a pump action shotgun action you turn around and you run.  You don't wait to get shot at. Asking the people in the ER who got shot etc if they used a gun is not a particularly good sampling method.
 
2013-02-28 11:16:51 PM  

Sxooter: Click Click D'oh: stoli n coke: It's funny how so many NRA supporters go on and on about how "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." and "It's the gun owner's responsibility to safely use it," however, as soon as something like this happns, the tune changes to "The gun malfunctioned,""It just went off," and "Accidents happen."

Kind of inconsistent, don't ya think?

Hi there, NRA supporter here.  Guns don't "just go off" and accidents don't just "happen".  There was negligence at some level of this.  Someone did something stupid,  and now they have a bullet in their leg... and the instructor is going to be in serious hot water unless he has a damn good explanation for how one of his students ended up with a bullet in them.

If they followed the rules, there wouldn't be a bullet in this guys leg.

Firearms don't just go off huh? How can you be an NRA member and not know about the Remington 700 series rifles with issues with accidental firings?
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/remington/111096-remington-model-70 0- accidental-discharges.html


Since that is not the weapon in this case, what is the point you are trying to make?
 
2013-03-01 01:24:27 AM  

Raoul Eaton: PumpkinCake: This is what went through my mind when reading this:

I have never seen a teacher in a classroom who has been able to get the vcr to work with a television at the same time.

So this isn't terribly shocking to me.

When I was a kid we had kids from AV club come in and run the AV stuff.  They don't do this anymore?


Not in my school. Kids didn't really do anything.
 
2013-03-01 01:25:02 AM  
I thought Darwin had been banned from Texas.  Now Texans are going out of their way to win one of his awards.
 
2013-03-01 01:26:21 AM  

Gifted Many Few: I can see this happening in one of the more pansy states, but Texans should know better. Ship this guy off to somewhere like Iowa or Ohio where he can think about what he did.


Why do you hate Ohio and/or Iowa?
 
2013-03-01 02:21:14 AM  

Yogimus: Sxooter: Click Click D'oh: stoli n coke: It's funny how so many NRA supporters go on and on about how "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." and "It's the gun owner's responsibility to safely use it," however, as soon as something like this happns, the tune changes to "The gun malfunctioned,""It just went off," and "Accidents happen."

Kind of inconsistent, don't ya think?

Hi there, NRA supporter here.  Guns don't "just go off" and accidents don't just "happen".  There was negligence at some level of this.  Someone did something stupid,  and now they have a bullet in their leg... and the instructor is going to be in serious hot water unless he has a damn good explanation for how one of his students ended up with a bullet in them.

If they followed the rules, there wouldn't be a bullet in this guys leg.

Firearms don't just go off huh? How can you be an NRA member and not know about the Remington 700 series rifles with issues with accidental firings?
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/remington/111096-remington-model-70 0- accidental-discharges.html

Since that is not the weapon in this case, what is the point you are trying to make?


I'm refuting the statement "Guns don't just go off".  It's pretty simple really.  Someone says something, I QUOTE WHAT THEY SAID (Firearms don't just go off huh?) and then post a refutation.  It's the simplest of rhetorical methods really.
 
2013-03-01 04:24:23 AM  
http://dcc.vu/guns
 
2013-03-01 04:24:58 AM  

vrax: Click to enlarge: vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!

That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007.

See, not 100%.  We need to try harder!


5 days to go
 
2013-03-01 04:56:23 AM  
"The bullet ricocheted, striking the employee in the left leg; his injury was not life-threatening, the affiliate said."

imageshack.us
 
2013-03-01 05:55:52 AM  

ParaHandy: vrax: Click to enlarge: vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!

That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007.

See, not 100%.  We need to try harder!

5 days to go


Fiber will help that.
 
2013-03-01 06:18:53 AM  
And here I thought that it was only taser and pepper spray training classes where getting shot is part of the training.
 
2013-03-01 07:12:50 AM  
value('keyboard') to my PayPal account now!
 
2013-03-01 01:08:29 PM  

you have pee hands: As long as there's no collateral damage, I approve of people hurting themselves through incompetence.

/I guess that's hardly a radical position on Fark.


Once step further please. Make it mandatory for attendees to gun shows to arrive locked and loaded. Let the Darwin begin.
 
2013-03-01 02:21:58 PM  

Yogimus: here to help: Nutsac_Jim: You mean like the people that label others as "anti-choice" ?

Not that I use that term but it's a hell of a lot more accurate than Pro Abortion is.

The pro lifers are against women having a choice. That means they are by definition anti choice.

Pro choice people aren't all "YEAH!! ABORTION IS AWESOME!! EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION!!!" They just think it should be the woman's choice. Thus pro choice is FAR more accurate than pro abortion.

Nice try though.

The two terms are interchangeable.
/pro babymurderin


Of course they are.   Its just that it is intended as in insult.   It's like calling a muslim an islamist, or a mohammedian
 
2013-03-01 02:45:39 PM  

Unoriginal_Username: CJHardin: It's more likely that the malfunction was in the interface between the teacher and the weapon.

Id 10 t error

/PEBGAF?


Yep on both in my opinion.
 
2013-03-01 09:53:05 PM  

Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.


we talking about cops or teachers?
 
2013-03-02 01:32:57 AM  

JohnnyCanuck: Gun nuts are hilariously oblivious.


So are the ppl who don't RTFA...
 
2013-03-03 04:35:11 AM  
Thankfully, Oklahoma teachers don't want to carry guns, despite the fact the law now says they can if they're CLEET certified.  I can't find the link to it now, but I know Tulsa World ran a local editorial cartoon suggesting parents aren't comfortable with teachers carrying guns in school, either (the comic shows a student dropping a large tome on the floor creating a bang, followed by a half dozen teachers rushing the classroom and accidentally killing several random students, not exactly unfounded given that the Kamloops Indian Residential School massacre of 1890 is still on people's minds here in Oklahoma, despite being many hundreds of miles removed from British Columbia.
 
2013-03-03 05:25:40 AM  

stoli n coke: unamused: stoli n coke: unamused: Yogimus: Here is my problem with the "gun show loophole" theory. It seeks to legislate private sales between private individuals.

  (i believe in making the background check available to anyone, not just firearms dealers. I just can't see a way to enforce mandating it)

The only way to enforce it is with universal registration.  If the cops don't know who owns it, there is no way to determine a sale took place.

Universal background checks require registration which ultimately leads to confiscation.  This is why the Soviets have been pushing so hard to end the "gun show loophole."

Soviets? Really? Do you know what year it is?

Now, lots of gun nuts have said before, "well, people die in car crashes, so why not ban cars," during reactionary fits. However, if your car causes a wreck, whether you're driving or not, the registration puts accountability on you. That's why you transfer the title and registration when you sell a car privately. So that if someone does something stupid, it's not on you.

Yet that's okay, but doing the exact same thing with a firearm is ZOMGCOMMIEFASCISOCIAMUSLINESPIALIDOCIOUS!

The only argument I've heard from gun nuts is, "We can't fix everything, so it's best not to try to do anything."

Nice of you to admit that the ultimate goal is registration.

How is that a bad thing? What's wrong with a record of your gun's history on file. That way, if you buy a gun from a private seller, and it turns out, that gun was used in a crime, you're not in trouble because you can track it's history.

If you've done nothing wrong and are not planning on doing something wrong, what do you have to worry about?


So, are you okay with the government having a GPS in your car so that they know where your car is at all times? Oh and there will be a dashboard camera pointed inside so they can see who is driving it at all times. This is done to prevent the crime of 'hit and run' drivers. It's not like the government will misuse this information by profiling people based on where they go and using it for 'enforcement' purposes.
Are you okay with the government having access to a log of every communication you make? Every phone call, every email, every chat message, the government gets a log of it. This is done to catch terrorists. It's not like the government will use this information to come down on anyone speaking against the current administration.

Welcome to America. Innocent until proven guilty. Key term there is 'proven,' not 'suspected of being.'
 
2013-03-03 05:41:57 AM  

juddcc: I live in east Texas now. Van's school mascot is the" Vandals". It is a stereotypical redneck town.

/I can only callously say "Good"


I hadn't had the opportunity to fully comprehend the diversity of Texas given my only previous experience until last weekend was driving across the panhandle on Historic Route 66.  Thanks to last weekend, though, I discovered that if there's any place you want to go to a furry convention and have your car die at the same time without blowing your budget, Addison is it.  Got the car fixed and had a hell of a time at Furry Fiesta without breaking the bank.  Though what you describe Van as, well, even the most remote parts of rural Indian Country Oklahoma I serve sounds downright metropolitan...
 
2013-03-03 05:47:12 AM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: Gifted Many Few: I can see this happening in one of the more pansy states, but Texans should know better. Ship this guy off to somewhere like Iowa or Ohio where he can think about what he did.

Everything is Herp-a-derpier in Texas.


/Alaskan.
//Don't piss us off, or we'll split in half and make you the third largest state.


Of course, Alaska is a big reason why, despite the fact that the Pacific Northwest is only 4 states (4.5 if you count the mountainous section of Montana as that area), 60% of America lives below the poverty line.

/Glad to escape Oregon, part of that problem...
 
2013-03-03 05:48:55 AM  

BunkoSquad: Carn: You know that there would be people who would respond to this by saying that all the children should be armed too, in order to protect themselves in just such a situation. They will do so without a hint of irony in their voices.

Some of them seriously recommended that husky 12-year-olds throw themselves at gunmen to stop school massacres. I'm shocked these people are able to get out of the house without walking repeatedly into the doorframe.


Not so much throw themselves as counterattack by any means necessary.  There's an important difference.  It's hard to hit anything made of meat, even human-sized, if there's at least one person throwing books at you.
 
2013-03-03 05:51:51 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: I would not allow my child to attend a public school with armed teachers.

I've worked in a public school before. Half of the teachers there shouldn't be trusted with cleaning solvents, much less firearms. And that wasn't even in Texas.


To be fair, I think this says more about public school teachers than Texans.  Got a decent education out of my teachers, though on the subtle parts that weren't part of the curriculum, gotta say they were more of an example to be avoided...

/That said, it's too bad that an official highway sign, retroreflective "CAR BOMB" bumper sticker probably wouldn't fly in a post-9/11 world...
 
2013-03-03 06:02:46 AM  

fknra: I'm all for arming teachers.

/after they receive the equivalant of a law enforcement firearm certification

//you wanna arm up like a cop? you gotta certify at cop level.

///not that that is really saying much...


I'm not.  But then again, I remember history class.  Then again, I might be biased, being native american and all...I mean, only 200+ of us were killed in the worst school shooting ever, and that was by the people who were supposed to be "protecting" us back in the 1890s.
 
2013-03-03 06:05:29 AM  

Giltric: Cops in NY have a 7% hit rate on their intended target in shootouts and a 17% hit rate on other cops and innocent bystanders.....rural areas have alot of people who hunt where if you don't hit your target with your first shot you don't eat.

I'd wager rural civillians carrying firearms in schools will be much safer than having cops carry guns.


Depends...are we talking rural sustinence hunters, or rural NRA members who drive any distance to a grocery store?  The former can get the job done, one shot, one kill.  The latter thinks an AR-16 is what it takes to kill a deer...
 
2013-03-03 06:12:49 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: Yogimus: Paul Baumer: Yogimus: MFAWG: Paul Baumer: One day, soon, a child is going to get seriously wounded or more likely killed by a school employee carrying a gun and that will put an end to this foolishness.  It's a shame we have to wait for that.

It's the price we pay for Freedumb.


Here is the thing: Kids have already been shot in schools when we tried it your way.

A system that involves the gun show loophole, no license-required training, and disparate laws from state to state is not "trying it my way."

Describe this gun show loophole please.

Disparate laws from state to state? It's almost as if our country is some kind of United States of something or something. Why even have separate states, right? That is so old fashioned and ignorant. shiat, why even have countries. Talk about inefficiency.


Hell, the US is a bit more complex than that, even.  There's only 200+ indian nations sovereign from states and mostly or entirely sovereign from the US within the US borders.  Then again, I might be particularly sensitive to the issue since I can't go to the grocery store without crossing one national boundary, and it's a "slow" day at work as a field service engineer if I only cross 3 national boundaries in a given day...

/Welcome to Oklahoma
 
2013-03-03 06:16:36 AM  

kombat_unit: Meh, as long as the teachers are popping whiny leftist twats, it'll be fine.


What left?  Both major parties in the greater US area are well right of center.  Also, if you don't like the first amendment, get the fark out.
 
2013-03-03 06:37:21 AM  

vrax: That's OK.  I'll just file it under "Places That Are Irrelevant To The Conversation".


Way to write off the vast majority of the middle two timezones of your country, there, asshole.
 
2013-03-03 07:15:00 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: vrax: Click to enlarge: vrax: Click to enlarge: That whole "guns are used as self-defence" argument. Ya, about that...

Between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/

Quick answer:  That's because not enough guns!  Duh!

That would make a great argument if it were true but it's not. Guns per capita was at 88.8% in 2007.

See, not 100%.  We need to try harder!

out of curiosity, how do we effect 100%  without arming felons and crazy assholes?


We don't.  However, having more political options than the conservative Democrats or the just plain crazy conservative Republicans, would help in having a more broad spectrum of observers who can properly identify plain crazy from healthy paranoia.  If you think the Democrats are in any way, shape or form left of center in their present form, then you're in the "just plain crazy" column.
 
2013-03-03 07:26:51 AM  

unamused: plus undercover cops to bust poll workers who let people vote without ID.


Voting is a responsibility of every citizen.  However, requiring ID amounts to voter intimidation or a poll tax, given the cost of such an ID and the statistical makeup of who has such an ID versus those who don't.  Case in point, I could use my Cherokee Nation ID as acceptable ID in the United States, a place such as Oregon where I could conceivably have a legal right to vote might deny me that right based on my ID, despite the fact it is perfectly valid.  Fortunately, Oregon and Washington actually have acceptable voter laws that accept registration based on legal residency in that jurisdiction and only require a signature on a secrecy envelope that gets separated from the ballot itself to vote.  Sure, this requires forensic folks to compare signatures, but that's the price you pay to live in a proper democracy.  This "6-8 hours on one day of the year with photo ID scrutinized by people not properly qualified to determine validity" bullshiat might work for selling booze, but not for voting, the most basic part of our country.  This whole "show up to a specific polling place to vote" bullshiat is just plain outdated given the constitutional requirement to have a postal service, and the state of our technology.  So far, the only two states that I'm aware of that actually get this concept are Oregon and Washington.  And folks like davidphogan and other folks from Portland and Seattle that haven't quite realized life is economically better elsewhere (or are holding out because it's politically more true there) realize this is pretty high praise coming from me...
 
2013-03-03 07:56:04 AM  

Baloo Uriza: I'm not. But then again, I remember history class. Then again, I might be biased, being native american and all...I mean, only 200+ of us were killed in the worst school shooting ever, and that was by the people who were supposed to be "protecting" us back in the 1890s.


What school was this again?
 
2013-03-03 09:14:00 AM  

Baloo Uriza: If you think the Democrats are in any way, shape or form left of center in their present form, then you're in the "just plain crazy" column.


You are wrong.
)There is general consensus thatthe Left includes  progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-scialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians". I contend that the Democrat's (and Potus') policy on gays is definitely not conservative. It was and continues to be progressive and arguably it is left of center.
 
2013-03-03 04:29:11 PM  

Yogimus: Baloo Uriza: I'm not. But then again, I remember history class. Then again, I might be biased, being native american and all...I mean, only 200+ of us were killed in the worst school shooting ever, and that was by the people who were supposed to be "protecting" us back in the 1890s.

What school was this again?


Kamloops Indian Resident School.
 
2013-03-03 04:33:44 PM  
Maybe 

Uchiha_Cycliste: Baloo Uriza: If you think the Democrats are in any way, shape or form left of center in their present form, then you're in the "just plain crazy" column.

You are wrong.
)There is general consensus thatthe Left includes  progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-scialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians". I contend that the Democrat's (and Potus') policy on gays is definitely not conservative. It was and continues to be progressive and arguably it is left of center.


I suppose if you isolate yourself in an information vacuum measuring only relative to itself and what parties consider themselves, that's true, but entirely arbitrary. It's best to consider the whole range of political ideology instead.  And when looking at the whole scope, the Democrats were centrist around the time I was born (1982) and have drifted to center-right.  The Republicans started that same timeframe as far right and have since moved to slightly left of Mussolini.
 
2013-03-03 08:44:55 PM  

Baloo Uriza: Yogimus: Baloo Uriza: I'm not. But then again, I remember history class. Then again, I might be biased, being native american and all...I mean, only 200+ of us were killed in the worst school shooting ever, and that was by the people who were supposed to be "protecting" us back in the 1890s.

What school was this again?

Kamloops Indian Resident School.


Can you link me a story? Trying to educate myself (Not arguing) all the searches come back with non related stories.
 
Displayed 305 of 305 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report