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.

(CBS Boston)   Teacher in Boston area robbed at gunpoint while in school. Wait, that's not possible -- it's a gun-free zone   (boston.cbslocal.com) divider line 112
    More: Obvious, Boston area, Boston, Jamaica Plain, robberies, teachers  
•       •       •

4684 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2013 at 8:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-02 05:55:14 PM  
Wait, that's not possible. The Democrats control 87% of the state legislature in Massachusetts. It should be the greatest state in the history of the union for that reason.
 
2013-03-02 06:43:19 PM  
The entire country is a murder-free zone, but they keep happening.

Clearly, we shouldn't bother to have laws against murder.
 
2013-03-02 07:46:53 PM  

kmmontandon: The entire country is a murder-free zone, but they keep happening.

Clearly, we shouldn't bother to have laws against murder.


They can't hear you, too busy masturbating to Red Dawn on VHS.
 
2013-03-02 08:44:05 PM  

kmmontandon: The entire country is a murder-free zone, but they keep happening.

Clearly, we shouldn't bother to have laws against murder.


Apples, meet oranges.
 
2013-03-02 08:44:29 PM  

mikemoto: Wait, that's not possible. The Democrats control 87% of the state legislature in Massachusetts. It should be the greatest state in the history of the union for that reason.


It's education system is pretty good... And by pretty good I mean it's the best in the country.

Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?
 
2013-03-02 08:46:46 PM  
FTA: On Wednesday night, a suspect described as a black man in his 20′s, about 5-feet-8 inches to 6-feet-1 inches tall, medium build and wearing a hoodie made his way to the second floor of the Eliot School of Fine and Applied Arts.

a.abcnews.com
"This wouldn't have happened if I had been there to help"
 
2013-03-02 08:47:13 PM  
Has there ever been a graph to determine how many of the homicides every year are not involved with gangs/drugs? Legislating semi-automatic rifles and magazines in terms of gun violence is like legislating against only silver tequila to combat drunk driving. It's all a show and Obama went as far as he knows he'll get with the EO's he put in, take that as a victory and go be morally superior on some other topic.
 
2013-03-02 08:49:46 PM  

tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?


The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!
 
2013-03-02 08:50:49 PM  

tylerdurden217: t's education system is pretty good... And by pretty good I mean it's the best in the country.


Source? A cursory Google search yielded this as a top result and I'm not seeing it... Then again, I took Boston-area as something that would be considered in Massachusetts.
 
2013-03-02 08:56:06 PM  
It's a shame that criminals don't follow laws.
 
2013-03-02 08:57:21 PM  

MisterTweak: kmmontandon: The entire country is a murder-free zone, but they keep happening.

Clearly, we shouldn't bother to have laws against murder.

They can't hear you, too busy masturbating to Red Dawn on VHS.


VHS? Did they grow tired of flipping the laserdisc?
 
2013-03-02 08:58:52 PM  

bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!


The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.
 
2013-03-02 08:59:11 PM  
At least he wasn't robbed and shot.
 
2013-03-02 09:03:24 PM  

kmmontandon: The entire country is a murder-free zone, but they keep happening.

Clearly, we shouldn't bother to have laws against murder.


You do realize the difference between an intimate object and taken action to kill someone.... right?
 
2013-03-02 09:05:29 PM  

Publikwerks: The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.


Ummm... Cinemark theater chain has an express 'gun-free zone' policy.

I'm pretty sure banks are a gun-free zone in Cali...
 
2013-03-02 09:07:47 PM  

Publikwerks: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.


Supermarket parking lot where Gabby Giffords was shot. And of course, some mass shootings like Columbine occurred in places where there were armed guards.

Critical thinking is hard when your facts are wrong, see.
 
2013-03-02 09:08:26 PM  

Publikwerks: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.


The movie theater shooting in Aurora actually was in a "gun free zone".
 
2013-03-02 09:08:42 PM  

MichiganFTL: Publikwerks: The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.

Ummm... Cinemark theater chain has an express 'gun-free zone' policy.

I'm pretty sure banks are a gun-free zone in Cali...


The LA shootout wasn't a mass shooting.
 
2013-03-02 09:09:38 PM  
Yes, "gun free" zones are stupid and useless.  Is that Subby's point or is it something else?  Something more derptastic?
 
2013-03-02 09:09:49 PM  
He used a gun? THE OUTRAGE! IT BURNS LIKE FIRE!
 
2013-03-02 09:11:07 PM  
the sirens go doo doo
doo dooooooooo!

media.npr.org
 
2013-03-02 09:14:22 PM  

mikemoto: Wait, that's not possible. The Democrats control 87% of the state legislature in Massachusetts. It should be the greatest state in the history of the union for that reason.


It is, thank you!
 
2013-03-02 09:15:24 PM  

ghare: Publikwerks: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.

Supermarket parking lot where Gabby Giffords was shot. And of course, some mass shootings like Columbine occurred in places where there were armed guards.

Critical thinking is hard when your facts are wrong, see.


As has already been pointed out, the theater that the Aurora shooter chose prohibited guns.  In the case of Columbine, that happened there simply because the kids went to school there.  I don't think gun-free or not gun-free was a factor.
 
2013-03-02 09:19:44 PM  
And Mumbles Menino will still, in his infinite lack of wisdom, assume that a situation like this can only be solved by enacting more laws.

Has there even been a more ignorant and illogical person than an anti-gunner? No, there really hasn't.
 
2013-03-02 09:20:30 PM  

Wise_Guy: ghare: Publikwerks: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.

Supermarket parking lot where Gabby Giffords was shot. And of course, some mass shootings like Columbine occurred in places where there were armed guards.

Critical thinking is hard when your facts are wrong, see.

As has already been pointed out, the theater that the Aurora shooter chose prohibited guns.  In the case of Columbine, that happened there simply because the kids went to school there.  I don't think gun-free or not gun-free was a factor.


A mass shooting happened where there were armed guards. Obviously everyone should have been armed.

But whatever, I know, I know, gun worshippers will have their way, Americans will sacrifice children for the right to protect ourselves from zombie king george III, and reasonable restrictions on firearms means the end of the Republic (zombie king george again i guess).
 
2013-03-02 09:21:09 PM  

bmihura: For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!


For a shooting to be declared a mass shooting, it must first be determined that the shooting occurred in a gun-free zone.  Otherwise it's just a shooting.
 
2013-03-02 09:22:09 PM  

enik: And Mumbles Menino will still, in his infinite lack of wisdom, assume that a situation like this can only be solved by enacting more laws.

Has there even been a more ignorant and illogical person than an anti-gunner? No, there really hasn't.


Yes, sweetie, we all need guns, all the time, lots of guns, nothing else will make us safe. From all the guns.

/You must be really scared about mental health checks for gun ownership.
 
2013-03-02 09:23:48 PM  
www.angelfire.lycos.com

Illegally possessed a gun, but never used it.  Still killed 168 people, including 19 kids under the age of 6.
Number of people clamoring to ban fertilizer and diesel fuel from school grounds (or anywhere else):  0

Tell me again how guns are the problem so I can laugh harder.

What I would really like to do is to put those whiny parents from Newtown that Obama pimped to the country the other day in a room with the parents of the kids who died in Oklahoma City and see if the Newtown parents can convince the OKC parents that gun laws will save lives.
 
2013-03-02 09:24:43 PM  
Farked.  It is a pic of Timothy McVeigh...not going to be assed to rehost it.  Here is a link though.
 
2013-03-02 09:25:24 PM  
New Year's Eve 1972 to 7 January 1973 - Mark James Robert Essex killed 9 (including 5 police officers) and wounded 13 more (including 5 more officers), starting his spree by attacking a New Orleans Police Department jail facility.

So we have several mass (4 or more at once) and/or spree (2 or more in 2 or more locations) shootings that turned out to be a lot more than I expected. Mass shootings in the homes were often in homes where gun ownership was known. 

Plenty of mass and/or spree shootings occur in non-gun-free zones. Don't be fooled into believing that gun-free zones are the primary targets of the shooters. This does not seem to be the case. More often than not, the location of the shooting, gun-free or not, is where the shooter has had problems or is a location of a person or people where the shooter has had problems. Most notable exceptions would be robbery-type events where the robber(s) and victim(s) don't necessarily even known one another. Plus, there are some additional truly random events in the sense that the shooter has no association with the victims at all. Obviously, these types of situations can happen to virtually anyone and seemingly in very random places.

1975 - Easter Sunday Massacre - James Urban Ruppert murdered 11 family members in his mother's house at 635 Minor Avenue in Hamilton, Ohio.

1982 - George Emil Banks, a former Camp Hill prison guard, shot 13 people to death in Wilkes-Barre City and Jenkins Township, Pennsylvania, including five of his own children. 

1985 - Springfield Mall, PA, Sylvia Seegrist killed 3, injured 7, was stopped by unarmed mall store employee who thought her gun wasn't real.

1987 - Ronald Gene Simmons, Sr., (July 15, 1940 - June 25, 1990) was a retired United States Air Force master sergeant who killed 16 people over a weeklong period in 1987. Fourteen of the victims were members of his family, including a daughter he had sexually abused and the child he had fathered with her. He also wounded four others, Arkansas.

1993 - Branch Davidians mass murder of numerous members in compound by firearm to prevent flight when building caught on fire. Autopsy records indicate that at least 20 Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14.

2000 - Whicita Horror/Massacre, spree perpetrated by brothers Reginald and Jonathan Carr, killing 5 and wounding a 5th over a period several days including committing assault, rape, and robbery.

2004 Chai Soua Vang, a 35-year-old Hmong immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen, shot eight people while deer hunting east of Birchwood in northern Wisconsin.

2004 - McKinney, Texas, three robbers (Eddie Williams, Javier Cortez, and Raul Cortez) killed a check cashing store employee, her nephew, and his two friends in the home of the employee, Rosa Barbosa.

2005 - Seven people were killed and four wounded when Terry Michael Ratzmann opened fire at a Living Church of God service at the Sheraton Hotel in Brookfield. Ratzmann, a 44-year-old computer technician, then committed suicide (Wisconsin) (hotel not posted).

2005 - Tacoma Mall, Dominick Maldonado injured 6, then kidnapped 4. CCW responded by yelling at Maldonado, but with no gun deployed. The CCW was subsequently shot multiple times.

2005 - Courthouse Square, Tyler, Texas, David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. killing 2 and wounding 4. Mark Wilson responded from his residence above the square and was killed after wounding Arroyo and being credited with saving lives. As this happened outside of the courthouse, Arroyo expected law enforcement and wore a fragmentation vest and ballistic vest.

2006 - The Hamilton Avenue Murders is the colloquial name for the mass murder of seven people in a house at 560 North Hamilton Avenue in Indianapolis, Indiana by James Stewart and Desmond Turner during a murder-robbery.

2007 - Six were killed in Delavan when Ambrosio Analco entered an upper flat and shot his twin infant boys, his estranged wife, her sister and a friend. Analco, 23, then shot and killed himself (Wisconsin).

2007 - a woman and her boyfriend shot dead six members of her family on Christmas Eve in Carnation, Washington. 

2007 - Youth with a Mission Center and New Life Church shootings by Matthew J. Murray (Colorado), killing 2 and injuring 2 at YWAM and later that day killing 3 (including self) and injuring 3 at New Life. Before the suicide, was shot by former police officer and volunteer security for the church). 

2008 - Dallas' LBJ Freeway Shooting Spree happened 3 days before Christmas. Jorge Lopez and William Scott Miller were killed by former Utah highway patrolman Brian Smith. Smith attempted to shoot people in several vehicles, injuring at least two others. He later shot himself and died the next day.

2008 - Skagit County Shooting Spree, Isaac Zamora killed 6 including a deputy and injured two more during a shooting spree near his home and during a high speed chase on I-5.

2008 - Santa Claus (Jeffrey Pardo) opened fire at a party of his exwife and ex-inlaws in Covina, CA, set the house on fire, committed suicide (8+1).

2009 - Lakewood, WA, four cops killed in coffee shop by Maurice Clemmons.

2009 - Pittsburgh, PA 3 cops killed and 2 wounded by Richard Poplawski who ambushed officers arriving on scene for a domestic dispute. Cops fired more than 600 rounds at Poplawski who was wearing a ballistic vest.

2009 - Michael Kenneth McLendon went on a shooting spree spanning 2 counties in southern Alabama, killing 10 other than himself. Along the way, he shot at various people and vehicles and even stories such as Wal-mart and Piggly Wiggly.

2009 - Cathouse Murders where 4 people were shot and killed including 2 pregnant women (making 6 murders), purportedly by Denny Edward Phillips and 3 accomplices, Oklahoma City, OK.

2009 - Six killed in apartment building in Santa Clara, CA.

2009 - Carthage, NC, Robert Stewart killed 8 in nursing home shooting (where his wife worked) and 3 officers were injured as well. 

2009 - Six people, including one student, were shot in a drive-by shooting at a community rally on the campus of Texas Southern University, Houston. (outside areas, streets, etc. not gun-free zones).

2010 - Christopher Speight killed 8 in Virginia home.

2011 - Giffords shooting, Tucson, AZ. Jared Loughner opened fire, killing 6, wounding 13, plus there was 1 additional non-gunfire injury that resulted. CCW person responded to late to be of any use with a gun.

2011 - Mass shooting of family in Wheatland, WY by Everett Conant, killing his 3 sons, brother, and wounding his wife.

2011 - Eduardo Sencion killed 5 (including self), wounded 7 at a Carson City, NV IHOP.

2011 - Copley Community, Ohio, Michael E. Hance, killed 7 in two houses. All were shot in the head.

2011 - Detroit Police Station, Lamar Moore opened fire from in front of the counter, then hopped the counter, shooting 4 officers (none died).

2012 - Binh Thai Luc killed 5 in a home robbery in San Francisco.

2012 - Café Racer, Ian Stawicki killed 4 and wounded the chef before leaving and later attempting to carjack a woman, killing her.

Sure, there are mass/spree shootings in gun-free zones and some have definitely been horrific and of very large scale such as UT and VT school shootings and the media loves these events, but lesser known mass/spree shootings also happen quite a bit too.If you enjoyed reading about "Gun-Free Zone Pseudo Myths" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join
 
2013-03-02 09:25:53 PM  

bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!


Pretty much true. Most gun deaths involve just a single person, and by far the most likely person to be killed is the person who owns the gun. But how the heck can you sell a middle-aged suburbanite a gun if you dwell on things like this:

Fact: If you own a gun, it is more likely to cause your own death than any other individual.

Fact: Your spouse is the second most likely person to be killed with your firearm.

Fact: Your child(ren) are the next most likely person(s) to be killed by your own weapon. But lest you think I would overlook your contribution to your community,

Fact: Your friends/neighbors and their children are right behind your own family when it comes to "most likely to be killed by your weapon".

The second amendment isn't supposed to be pretty, or beneficial, any more than the right to free speech, religion, or soiling yourself, Ted Nugent-esque, in a crowded elevator. I don't need to pretend porn is good in order to own it, it's my right to and anyone who doesn't like it can eat shiat and bark at the moon. I don't need to show that I'm improving society by calling (insert politician/public figure/anyone at all here) a jackass; I don't need to, it is my right. Man up, and stop putting lipstick on the pig.
 
2013-03-02 09:27:22 PM  

mikemoto: Wait, that's not possible. The Democrats control 87% of the state legislature in Massachusetts. It should be the greatest state in the history of the union for that reason.


Wait...Mississippi has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country.  But that can't be right, it also has the highest abstinence-only educational system!
 
2013-03-02 09:27:33 PM  
Question: can anyone give an example of an acknowledged non-'gun free' zone that actually served to prevent, heck, even just reduce, the fatalities in mass shooting?
 
2013-03-02 09:30:16 PM  
So I guess the point that is being made is that gun free or not gun free, it doesn't matter? Why have gun free zones?
 
2013-03-02 09:36:26 PM  
Of course I assume, firearms are prohibited, I can't seem to find the gun policy of Eliot School of Fine and Applied Arts.  It seems to be a private non-profit school for adults which also offers classes after hours and on weekends to children.
 
2013-03-02 09:48:30 PM  

MikeSass: Illegally possessed a gun, but never used it.  Still killed 168 people, including 19 kids under the age of 6.
Number of people clamoring to ban fertilizer and diesel fuel from school grounds (or anywhere else):  0

Tell me again how guns are the problem so I can laugh harder.

What I would really like to do is to put those whiny parents from Newtown that Obama pimped to the country the other day in a room with the parents of the kids who died in Oklahoma City and see if the Newtown parents can convince the OKC parents that gun laws will save lives.


Try buying a large quantity of ammonium nitrite (something that was considered completely innocuous before McVeigh) without a license and see who comes knocking on your door.
So yeah, regulations change after atrocities. Unless it involves guns. Because of pants wetting putzes like you.
This is why the TSA has to dump nail clippers and Purell bottles by the dumptruck load. Also because of pants wetting putzes like you seeing bad guys behind every bush.
 
2013-03-02 09:54:45 PM  

kmmontandon: The entire country is a murder-free zone, but they keep happening.

Clearly, we shouldn't bother to have laws against murder.


Okay, I'll bite.

Let's make causing injury to someone a super-crime in certain areas, with it so illegal to hurt someone that you're not even allowed to do it in self-defense. We'll then wonder why people keep getting attacked in these areas, since it means that if they report the crime the 

dstrick44: MikeSass: Illegally possessed a gun, but never used it.  Still killed 168 people, including 19 kids under the age of 6.
Number of people clamoring to ban fertilizer and diesel fuel from school grounds (or anywhere else):  0

Tell me again how guns are the problem so I can laugh harder.

What I would really like to do is to put those whiny parents from Newtown that Obama pimped to the country the other day in a room with the parents of the kids who died in Oklahoma City and see if the Newtown parents can convince the OKC parents that gun laws will save lives.

Try buying a large quantity of ammonium nitrite (something that was considered completely innocuous before McVeigh) without a license and see who comes knocking on your door.
So yeah, regulations change after atrocities. Unless it involves guns. Because of pants wetting putzes like you.
This is why the TSA has to dump nail clippers and Purell bottles by the dumptruck load. Also because of pants wetting putzes like you seeing bad guys behind every bush.


"The only way we can beat terrorists is by being afraid of everything!"
 
2013-03-02 09:55:54 PM  

Publikwerks: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.


Movie theater: Only movie theater out of 7 within 20 minutes of his home that had a sign telling people not to bring their concealed carry weapons into the theater.
Your move.
 
2013-03-02 09:57:00 PM  

ghare: Wise_Guy: ghare: Publikwerks: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.

Supermarket parking lot where Gabby Giffords was shot. And of course, some mass shootings like Columbine occurred in places where there were armed guards.

Critical thinking is hard when your facts are wrong, see.

As has already been pointed out, the theater that the Aurora shooter chose prohibited guns.  In the case of Columbine, that happened there simply because the kids went to school there.  I don't think gun-free or not gun-free was a factor.

A mass shooting happened where there were armed guards. Obviously everyone should have been armed.

But whatever, I know, I know, gun worshippers will have their way, Americans will sacrifice children for the right to protect ourselves from zombie king george III, and reasonable restrictions on firearms means the end of the Republic (zombie king george again i guess).


I don't pretend to speak for every gun owner, but it all depends on what one considers reasonable.  I live in NY where a new assault rifle ban is in the works.  I have an old M1 carbine that I inherited that falls under the new ban simply because it has a bayonet lug.

I can understand high-capacity magazine bans and background checks and all that.
 
2013-03-02 09:58:47 PM  
"On Wednesday night, a suspect described as a black man in his 20′s, about 5-feet-8 inches to 6-feet-1 inches tall, medium build and wearing a hoodie A GUN made his way to the second floor of the Eliot School of Fine and Applied Arts."


Teacher was robbed by A GUN!!!


/It's all the farkers see!
 
2013-03-02 10:00:29 PM  
ghare: Wise_Guy: ghare: Publikwerks: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.

Supermarket parking lot where Gabby Giffords was shot. And of course, some mass shootings like Columbine occurred in places where there were armed guards.

Critical thinking is hard when your facts are wrong, see.

As has already been pointed out, the theater that the Aurora shooter chose prohibited guns.  In the case of Columbine, that happened there simply because the kids went to school there.  I don't think gun-free or not gun-free was a factor.

A mass shooting happened where there were armed guards. Obviously everyone should have been armed.

But whatever, I know, I know, gun worshippers will have their way, Americans will sacrifice children for the right to protect ourselves from zombie king george III, and reasonable restrictions on firearms means the end of the Republic (zombie king george again i guess).


So, there needs to be a reasonable restriction on firearm ownership. However, the two vocal sides of the argument are "nobody but cops and criminals get to have guns" and "I want a rocket launcher!" So tell me, what do you think of the following compromise.

"No application of restriction upon the ability to keep and bear arms shall exceed the application of restrictions placed upon those engaged in law enforcement within the state."

There you go. If the police are allowed to have concealed carry wherever they go, so are the law abiding citizens. If the citizenry are restricted to 7 round magazines, so are the police. The police can't have rocket launchers, so you can't have rocket launchers.
This standard has a few key selling points
1. It allows gun laws to vary by state.
2. It adapts over time to new technologies.
3. There has yet to be an argument in favor of the police having superior force to law abiding citizens that does not place the police outside the group labeled 'law abiding citizens.'
 
2013-03-02 10:02:28 PM  

Securitywyrm: Movie theater: Only movie theater out of 7 within 20 minutes of his home that had a sign telling people not to bring their concealed carry weapons into the theater.
Your move.



LOL!

Link??

Thanks.
 
2013-03-02 10:02:49 PM  
"We're now announcing that schools are murder free zones." "But... murder is already illegal." "Yes but now it's super-illegal in school zones. You get triple death penalty!"
 
2013-03-02 10:14:52 PM  
The National Self-Defense Survey-one of the most comprehensive studies of U.S. firearms and violence ever done-conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994 found the following:• The rate of defensive gun use can be projected nationwide to be approximately 2.5M per year-one defensive gun use for every 13 seconds.

• Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during the National Self Defense Survey the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have diedhad the gun not been used for protection-a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. In another 14.2% ofcases the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.

• In 83.5% of these successful gun defensesthe attacker either threatened or used force first-disproving the longstanding myth that legal gun owners are more likely to initiateviolence.

• In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker. In 64.2% of these gun defensecases the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

• In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare-well under 10%. This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

• In over half of these gun-defense incidents the defender was facing two or more attackers-and three or more attackers in over 25% of these cases. No means of defenseother than a firearm-martial arts, pepper spray or stun guns-gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured whenfacing multiple attackers.

• In 79.7% of these gun defenses the defender used a concealable handgun. 25% of gun defenses occurred away from the defender's home.
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=7816#sthash.IYCWfHGO.dpuf
 
2013-03-02 10:18:32 PM  

eggrolls: Question: can anyone give an example of an acknowledged non-'gun free' zone that actually served to prevent, heck, even just reduce, the fatalities in mass shooting?


There was a story about a shooting that was stopped in san antonio by a bystander who was armed.  I'm too lazy to look up the actual story.
 
2013-03-02 10:20:07 PM  

kmmontandon: The entire country is a murder-free zone, but they keep happening.

Clearly, we shouldn't bother to have laws against murder.


The better analogy is that since murder is illegal but it keeps happening we need to know every where you are during every minute of the day so we can more easily place you at the scene of the murder.

Or we need to make people illegal, since the lowest common denominator of all murders is at a minimum, two people.
 
2013-03-02 10:22:30 PM  

potterydove: eggrolls: Question: can anyone give an example of an acknowledged non-'gun free' zone that actually served to prevent, heck, even just reduce, the fatalities in mass shooting?

There was a story about a shooting that was stopped in san antonio by a bystander who was armed.  I'm too lazy to look up the actual story.


And the church security guard who shot the perp before he made it inside,

And the MP who stopped the fort hood terrorist.

And pretty much every gun show ever.....because to the best of my knowledge no one ever tried to rob a room full of armed gun dealers.

And there was that gun store in Texas where three guys smashed a truck through the wall, and the owner grabbed an AR-15 and killed a couple of them before the last one ran off. ....
 
2013-03-02 10:28:24 PM  

Securitywyrm: Publikwerks: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.

Movie theater: Only movie theater out of 7 within 20 minutes of his home that had a sign telling people not to bring their concealed carry weapons into the theater.
Your move.


Attacks characterized as mass shootings happen more often than reported, because the only qualifying statistic is the number of victims. It may be true that all the FAMOUS mass shootings happened at gun free zones, but it is more likely that most of them happen as a part of drug violence and gang activity in Chicago and Detroit and LA.
 
2013-03-02 10:35:36 PM  
There have been less than 400 deaths attributed to mass shootings in the last 20 years, lightning kills over 3 times that amount. It's a statistical improbability to be killed by either, and to punish the vast majority or legal gun owners for such a rare event is asinine. The fact of the matter is that mass shooting are over reported.

Disenfranchised young men now know that a very easy way to have their voice be heard, to be noticed, to be famous is to get a gun and start shooting. The media is only to eager to plaster their name all over the news with 24 hour coverage, talking about their motivations, their life, every single facet. But yes, blame guns and the millions of gun owners that don't commit a single violent crime each year... that's much more reasonable.
 
2013-03-02 10:36:39 PM  

kmmontandon: The entire country is a murder-free zone, but they keep happening.

Clearly, we shouldn't bother to have laws against murder.


So you mean laws are already in place to PROHIBIT all violence gun or not, and they don't work?

Clearly we need to make up another law, stat! one more ought to do it, then the criminals will all go "OHH, I GET IT! Crime is bad!" and stop being criminals...

Laws do not prohibit crime, they exist so that the state can punish individuals who break our social codes, and legally call it justice.

Self defense exists to prohibit crime. Its the way you keep a crime from happening in the first place.
 
2013-03-02 10:43:26 PM  
MikeSass:

What I would really like to do is to put those whiny parents from Newtown that Obama pimped to the country the other day in a room with the parents of the kids who died in Oklahoma City and see if the Newtown parents can convince the OKC parents that gun laws will save lives.

What I would really like is to put you in a room with two of my closest friends, whose 6 year old daughter Avielle Richman, their only child, was killed on December 14th at Sandy Hook Elementary, and have you explain why you think they're "whiny" and how Obama is shamelessly "pimping" them.  Incidentally, the parents of kids from OKC, Columbine, Aurora, and other mass killings in the U.S. have been extremely supportive of the Newtown parents.  I guess when you experience arguably the most painful tragedy possible in life you tend to feel a bond of empathy.

Shiat just got real.  I wish I were making this up.  I'm helping get a professionally-designed website together for their non-profit, The Avielle Foundation.
 
2013-03-02 10:48:54 PM  

Stinger: MikeSass:

What I would really like to do is to put those whiny parents from Newtown that Obama pimped to the country the other day in a room with the parents of the kids who died in Oklahoma City and see if the Newtown parents can convince the OKC parents that gun laws will save lives.

What I would really like is to put you in a room with two of my closest friends, whose 6 year old daughter Avielle Richman, their only child, was killed on December 14th at Sandy Hook Elementary, and have you explain why you think they're "whiny" and how Obama is shamelessly "pimping" them.  Incidentally, the parents of kids from OKC, Columbine, Aurora, and other mass killings in the U.S. have been extremely supportive of the Newtown parents.  I guess when you experience arguably the most painful tragedy possible in life you tend to feel a bond of empathy.

Shiat just got real.  I wish I were making this up.  I'm helping get a professionally-designed website together for their non-profit, The Avielle Foundation.


Laws shouldn't be dictated by emotion. Several hundred kids die each year in drunk driving accidents, you don't see people clamoring to ban alcohol.
 
2013-03-02 10:50:06 PM  

MikeSass: Illegally possessed a gun, but never used it.  Still killed 168 people, including 19 kids under the age of 6.Number of people clamoring to ban fertilizer and diesel fuel from school grounds (or anywhere else):  0


Greed + hubris + ignorance = user application error.  The downfall of mankind.
 
2013-03-02 10:56:01 PM  

archichris: Securitywyrm: Publikwerks: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.

Movie theater: Only movie theater out of 7 within 20 minutes of his home that had a sign telling people not to bring their concealed carry weapons into the theater.
Your move.

Attacks characterized as mass shootings happen more often than reported, because the only qualifying statistic is the number of victims. It may be true that all the FAMOUS mass shootings happened at gun free zones, but it is more likely that most of them happen as a part of drug violence and gang activity in Chicago and Detroit and LA.


Okay, so let's say that there are a hundred times more mass shootings than are publicly reported, but they're drug violence and gang related. Will even flat-out banning guns significantly affect those shootings?
 
2013-03-02 10:59:58 PM  

Publikwerks: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.



The movie theatre was a gun free zone, and the LA shoot out isn't classified as a mass shooting. It was a bank robbery with the use of deadly weapons.Keep trying!
 
2013-03-02 11:00:33 PM  
Again proving my theory of the higher # of links approved = the more farking stupid you are.
 
2013-03-02 11:15:18 PM  
archichris: potterydove: eggrolls: Question: can anyone give an example of an acknowledged non-'gun free' zone that actually served to prevent, heck, even just reduce, the fatalities in mass shooting?

There was a story about a shooting that was stopped in san antonio by a bystander who was armed.  I'm too lazy to look up the actual story.


I wasn't. Based on the details, not sure you can claim this one.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp 

And the church security guard who shot the perp before he made it inside,

After he'd killed two people. In a church shelter.

And the MP who stopped the fort hood terrorist.

I'd question calling 13 fatalities a ringing endorsement of your argument how being heavily armed solves the problem.

And pretty much every gun show ever.....because to the best of my knowledge no one ever tried to rob a room full of armed gun dealers.

No, they're too busy shooting themselves. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting . Again, not the best argument you could use to prove gun fetishists are the exemplars of responsibility they should be.

And there was that gun store in Texas where three guys smashed a truck through the wall, and the owner grabbed an AR-15 and killed a couple of them before the last one ran off. ....

Couldn't find this one. But the fact that you seem to conflate a robbery with a mass shooting (unless you're referring to the store owner as the mass shooter..?) is worrisome to say the least.

To sum up, I'm really not seeing a record of success with armed guards, armed parishioners, armed ANYBODY being any more successful at keeping the body count down.
 
2013-03-02 11:18:35 PM  

tylerdurden217: mikemoto: Wait, that's not possible. The Democrats control 87% of the state legislature in Massachusetts. It should be the greatest state in the history of the union for that reason.

It's education system is pretty good... And by pretty good I mean it's the best in the country.

Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?


When two guys tried to kick my door in and rob me at about 1 am several years ago it worked out pretty well. Showing the gun was a sufficient deterrent and I didn't have to shoot anyone or get killed myself. How would you fare?
 
2013-03-02 11:21:59 PM  
GUTSU:

Laws shouldn't be dictated by emotion. Several hundred kids die each year in drunk driving accidents, you don't see people clamoring to ban alcohol.

Isn't that pretty much what MADD is doing these days?
 
2013-03-02 11:26:14 PM  

kmmontandon: The entire country is a murder-free zone, but they keep happening.



Actually, that's not entirely accurate.:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-02 11:29:39 PM  

Stinger: MikeSass:

What I would really like to do is to put those whiny parents from Newtown that Obama pimped to the country the other day in a room with the parents of the kids who died in Oklahoma City and see if the Newtown parents can convince the OKC parents that gun laws will save lives.

What I would really like is to put you in a room with two of my closest friends, whose 6 year old daughter Avielle Richman, their only child, was killed on December 14th at Sandy Hook Elementary, and have you explain why you think they're "whiny" and how Obama is shamelessly "pimping" them.  Incidentally, the parents of kids from OKC, Columbine, Aurora, and other mass killings in the U.S. have been extremely supportive of the Newtown parents.  I guess when you experience arguably the most painful tragedy possible in life you tend to feel a bond of empathy.

Shiat just got real.  I wish I were making this up.  I'm helping get a professionally-designed website together for their non-profit, The Avielle Foundation.


So would you say that you are rather emotional about passing a law?
 
2013-03-02 11:29:55 PM  

eggrolls: archichris: potterydove: eggrolls: Question: can anyone give an example of an acknowledged non-'gun free' zone that actually served to prevent, heck, even just reduce, the fatalities in mass shooting?

There was a story about a shooting that was stopped in san antonio by a bystander who was armed.  I'm too lazy to look up the actual story.

I wasn't. Based on the details, not sure you can claim this one.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp 

And the church security guard who shot the perp before he made it inside,

After he'd killed two people. In a church shelter.

And the MP who stopped the fort hood terrorist.

I'd question calling 13 fatalities a ringing endorsement of your argument how being heavily armed solves the problem.

And pretty much every gun show ever.....because to the best of my knowledge no one ever tried to rob a room full of armed gun dealers.

No, they're too busy shooting themselves. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting . Again, not the best argument you could use to prove gun fetishists are the exemplars of responsibility they should be.

And there was that gun store in Texas where three guys smashed a truck through the wall, and the owner grabbed an AR-15 and killed a couple of them before the last one ran off. ....

Couldn't find this one. But the fact that you seem to conflate a robbery with a mass shooting (unless you're referring to the store owner as the mass shooter..?) is worrisome to say the least.

To sum up, I'm really not seeing a record of success with armed guards, armed parishioners, armed ANYBODY being any more successful at keeping the body count down.


Only every single incident where the shooter was stopped by someone else's bullet. In other words...most of them.
 
2013-03-02 11:35:36 PM  

lamecomedian: GUTSU:

Laws shouldn't be dictated by emotion. Several hundred kids die each year in drunk driving accidents, you don't see people clamoring to ban alcohol.

Isn't that pretty much what MADD is doing these days?


And there is a reason why the majority of people don't give two shiats.
 
2013-03-02 11:38:30 PM  

mikemoto: Wait, that's not possible. The Democrats control 87% of the state legislature in Massachusetts. It should be the greatest state in the history of the union for that reason.


Having a gun control state in the US is kinda like having a non-peeing section of the pool
 
2013-03-02 11:42:31 PM  

GUTSU: Stinger: MikeSass:

What I would really like to do is to put those whiny parents from Newtown that Obama pimped to the country the other day in a room with the parents of the kids who died in Oklahoma City and see if the Newtown parents can convince the OKC parents that gun laws will save lives.

What I would really like is to put you in a room with two of my closest friends, whose 6 year old daughter Avielle Richman, their only child, was killed on December 14th at Sandy Hook Elementary, and have you explain why you think they're "whiny" and how Obama is shamelessly "pimping" them.  Incidentally, the parents of kids from OKC, Columbine, Aurora, and other mass killings in the U.S. have been extremely supportive of the Newtown parents.  I guess when you experience arguably the most painful tragedy possible in life you tend to feel a bond of empathy.

Shiat just got real.  I wish I were making this up.  I'm helping get a professionally-designed website together for their non-profit, The Avielle Foundation.

Laws shouldn't be dictated by emotion. Several hundred kids die each year in drunk driving accidents, you don't see people clamoring to ban alcohol.


No, but nobody's suggested that the answer to drunk driving is more liquor.
 
2013-03-02 11:46:30 PM  

pueblonative: GUTSU: Stinger: MikeSass:

What I would really like to do is to put those whiny parents from Newtown that Obama pimped to the country the other day in a room with the parents of the kids who died in Oklahoma City and see if the Newtown parents can convince the OKC parents that gun laws will save lives.

What I would really like is to put you in a room with two of my closest friends, whose 6 year old daughter Avielle Richman, their only child, was killed on December 14th at Sandy Hook Elementary, and have you explain why you think they're "whiny" and how Obama is shamelessly "pimping" them.  Incidentally, the parents of kids from OKC, Columbine, Aurora, and other mass killings in the U.S. have been extremely supportive of the Newtown parents.  I guess when you experience arguably the most painful tragedy possible in life you tend to feel a bond of empathy.

Shiat just got real.  I wish I were making this up.  I'm helping get a professionally-designed website together for their non-profit, The Avielle Foundation.

Laws shouldn't be dictated by emotion. Several hundred kids die each year in drunk driving accidents, you don't see people clamoring to ban alcohol.

No, but nobody's suggested that the answer to drunk driving is more liquor.


Well, you can't stop a drunk driver by getting drunk yourself, but you CAN stop a shooter by shooting him yourself.
 
2013-03-02 11:56:51 PM  
Has anyone tried to run the costs on arming every citizen in the US?

Would handguns be subsidized? Bullets?

Would safety training be mandatory? How often would you have to undergo retraining?

If there was no safety training, what would the costs be to hospitalize those who injured themselves or others in accidents?

How would the laws handle people who shot other people who they thought were reaching for their gun, when really they were getting their wallets or cell phones out?

Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?
 
2013-03-03 12:08:06 AM  

lostcat: Has anyone tried to run the costs on arming every citizen in the US?

Would handguns be subsidized? Bullets?

Would safety training be mandatory? How often would you have to undergo retraining?

If there was no safety training, what would the costs be to hospitalize those who injured themselves or others in accidents?

How would the laws handle people who shot other people who they thought were reaching for their gun, when really they were getting their wallets or cell phones out?

Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?


You do realize there are several million people that carry around firearms on a daily basis and there haven't been any protracted gun fights? New Hampshire has the least strict firearm laws in the north east, getting a CCW is incredibly easy yet the state doesn't look syria.

Could it be that *gasp* most people have common sense?
 
2013-03-03 12:33:19 AM  
This nit-witted trope makes about as much sense as, "A man had his car stolen in Los Angeles. Wait, that's not possible, stealing cars is illegal in Los Angeles."
 
2013-03-03 12:38:16 AM  

lostcat: Has anyone tried to run the costs on arming every citizen in the US?

Would handguns be subsidized? Bullets?

Would safety training be mandatory? How often would you have to undergo retraining?

If there was no safety training, what would the costs be to hospitalize those who injured themselves or others in accidents?

How would the laws handle people who shot other people who they thought were reaching for their gun, when really they were getting their wallets or cell phones out?

Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?


There are parts of the world where just about every man is armed: Iraq, Tribal areas of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. come to mind. Perhaps proponents of arming everyone could conduct studies of those areas to see how guns have contributed to public safety?
 
2013-03-03 12:41:10 AM  

qualtrough: lostcat: Has anyone tried to run the costs on arming every citizen in the US?

Would handguns be subsidized? Bullets?

Would safety training be mandatory? How often would you have to undergo retraining?

If there was no safety training, what would the costs be to hospitalize those who injured themselves or others in accidents?

How would the laws handle people who shot other people who they thought were reaching for their gun, when really they were getting their wallets or cell phones out?

Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?

There are parts of the world where just about every man is armed: Iraq, Tribal areas of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. come to mind. Perhaps proponents of arming everyone could conduct studies of those areas to see how guns have contributed to public safety?


Because as we all know Pakistan, yemen, and somalia are great analogs to america. Utterly similar in every respect.
 
2013-03-03 12:46:15 AM  

GUTSU: qualtrough: lostcat: Has anyone tried to run the costs on arming every citizen in the US?

Would handguns be subsidized? Bullets?

Would safety training be mandatory? How often would you have to undergo retraining?

If there was no safety training, what would the costs be to hospitalize those who injured themselves or others in accidents?

How would the laws handle people who shot other people who they thought were reaching for their gun, when really they were getting their wallets or cell phones out?

Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?

There are parts of the world where just about every man is armed: Iraq, Tribal areas of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. come to mind. Perhaps proponents of arming everyone could conduct studies of those areas to see how guns have contributed to public safety?

Because as we all know Pakistan, yemen, and somalia are great analogs to america. Utterly similar in every respect.


Religious fanatics with a hardon for guns running things and whipping any minorities who get a little too "uppity" back into shape.  Yeah, that's sounds pretty familiar.
 
2013-03-03 12:48:04 AM  
GUTSU:

Laws shouldn't be dictated by emotion. Several hundred kids die each year in drunk driving accidents, you don't see people clamoring to ban alcohol.

I agree that emotional reactions should not serve as a primary motive for forming policy.  My comment was a reaction to disparagement of people mourning the murder of their daughter as "whiny".
 
2013-03-03 12:57:45 AM  
sethen320:

So would you say that you are rather emotional about passing a law?

I can't really answer without knowing what kind of law you're referring to.

Too little is known about why a small percentage of mentally ill people "progress" from moderate mental illness to extreme psychopathy, and in some cases have committed horrible atrocities.  This is a deficit of knowledge.   I have talked to mental health professionals that are frustrated with having to "label" a child with stigmatizing diagnoses in order to get them access to certain treatment.  This is a failure of insurance policy.  I believe that both of these issues might be constructively addressed by changes in existing policies.
 
2013-03-03 01:24:48 AM  

GUTSU: lostcat: Has anyone tried to run the costs on arming every citizen in the US?

Would handguns be subsidized? Bullets?

Would safety training be mandatory? How often would you have to undergo retraining?

If there was no safety training, what would the costs be to hospitalize those who injured themselves or others in accidents?

How would the laws handle people who shot other people who they thought were reaching for their gun, when really they were getting their wallets or cell phones out?

Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?

You do realize there are several million people that carry around firearms on a daily basis and there haven't been any protracted gun fights? New Hampshire has the least strict firearm laws in the north east, getting a CCW is incredibly easy yet the state doesn't look syria.

Could it be that *gasp* most people have common sense?


The point is not to ARM EVERYBODY. Even the NRA thinks that's silly. The point is for everyone to have the CAPACITY to be armed. It boils down to this statement
"The behavior of an armed criminal is more violent when he is confident his victim is unarmed."
 
2013-03-03 01:42:15 AM  

Publikwerks: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.


Better check your facts.
 
2013-03-03 01:43:05 AM  
I'm wondering if every time a gun-related crime happens in a so-called gun-free zone, then the staus of gun-free zone is automatically removed.  Meaning that in the future you are allowed to carry a gun in order to protect yourself.  Seems like that might be a solution.  If more people were in a position to put a cap in the ass of a young ganbanger, crime would almost certainly go down, because some, perhaps many, of those shootings would be fatal.  Then we wouldn't have that whole problem of recedivism.

What say you, fellow Farkers?

/what I'm suggesting is if society as a whole wants to seriously find a solution to all criminal activity
//less repeat offends means less of a prison system which we are taxed in order to feed and house all those within
 
2013-03-03 02:03:17 AM  
rape free zone
iowntheworld.com
 
2013-03-03 02:43:48 AM  

MisterTweak: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

Pretty much true. Most gun deaths involve just a single person, and by far the most likely person to be killed is the person who owns the gun. But how the heck can you sell a middle-aged suburbanite a gun if you dwell on things like this:

Fact: If you own a gun, it is more likely to cause your own death than any other individual.

Fact: Your spouse is the second most likely person to be killed with your firearm.

Fact: Your child(ren) are the next most likely person(s) to be killed by your own weapon. But lest you think I would overlook your contribution to your community,

Fact: Your friends/neighbors and their children are right behind your own family when it comes to "most likely to be killed by your weapon".

The second amendment isn't supposed to be pretty, or beneficial, any more than the right to free speech, religion, or soiling yourself, Ted Nugent-esque, in a crowded elevator. I don't need to pretend porn is good in order to own it, it's my right to and anyone who doesn't like it can eat shiat and bark at the moon. I don't need to show that I'm improving society by calling (insert politician/public figure/anyone at all here) a jackass; I don't need to, it is my right. Man up, and stop putting lipstick on the pig.


Are you aware that your factoids came from Josh Sugarman and were disproven shortly after he made them?  He's well-known for telling all sorts of lies and half-truths.
 
2013-03-03 02:47:49 AM  

tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?


Yeah, the constitution is just an outdated piece of paper.  It even has that archaic first amendment allowing you to make such stupid statements.
 
2013-03-03 02:49:29 AM  
I still don't understand how me giving up my right to defend myself could have prevented this.
 
2013-03-03 02:58:59 AM  
The gun control debate has devolved into a team based sport, where both sides are more interested in tallying the score rather than giving it any intelligent thought. Bumper stickers are quoted, clips from websites cut and pasted, and each side mocks the other for what they themselves do... and we have the gall to call it a debate.

I swear you farks must be chomping at the bit to hear of the next event that you can use to buttress your side.
 
2013-03-03 03:17:12 AM  

Yogimus: The gun control debate has devolved into a team based sport, where both sides are more interested in tallying the score rather than giving it any intelligent thought. Bumper stickers are quoted, clips from websites cut and pasted, and each side mocks the other for what they themselves do... and we have the gall to call it a debate.

I swear you farks must be chomping at the bit to hear of the next event that you can use to buttress your side.


I have a proposed compromise, but neither side wants to hear it.
New 2nd amendment: No application of restriction upon the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed the application of restrictions on the arms of those engaged in law enforcement."

Translation: Your right to firearms is capped at what the police are allowed to have. Are the police allowed to have semi-auto rifles? Then you're allowed to have one. Police don't get rocket launchers? You can't have one.

Key benefits to this
 1. It allows states to keep their own gun laws.
 2. The standard moves forward with time. What happens when we have plasma pistols and laser rifles? There's already a standard in place.
 3. Arguments that the police need to be 'better armed' than 'law abiding citizens' circle the drain of 'well the police are above law-abiding citizens.'
 
2013-03-03 03:23:22 AM  
My only amendment to your compromise is that whatever you have in your home is your own business.
 
2013-03-03 04:06:50 AM  

lostcat:

Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?

I would say it's just you -- that is, just you who has the idea that everyone should be armed.  Simply following the Constitution, and ALLOWING people to be armed means that some will -- but most won't.  And, if some moron opens fire in a crowded place, some of the people will be armed, and take his ass out.

But the whole concept is misleading, after all; mass shootings are exceedingly rare.  The way it works MOST often is that criminals can't operate "safely" (for THEM, that is) in a place where a percentage of people they would like to rob are armed.  You stop a couple, and you never know when one of them will blow you away.  Any criminal stupid enough to set up shop among armed "victims" will have a short career, and one which ends badly.  The presence of armed citizens reduces violence.  Denial of this fact is sheer stupidity.  And, much of the violence is prevented by simply SHOWING the gun, and letting the intended perpetrator know that he needs to think his cunning plan out just a bit further.  That's the best use of a gun -- preventing violence without firing a shot, and it happens a lot.
 
2013-03-03 04:09:45 AM  

qualtrough:

This nit-witted trope makes about as much sense as, "A man had his car stolen in Los Angeles. Wait, that's not possible, stealing cars is illegal in Los Angeles."

Yes, and finish working it out...   "A man had his car stolen in LA, so we need MORE laws against stealing cars in LA -- that would have stopped him."

 
2013-03-03 04:11:27 AM  

qualtrough:

There are parts of the world where just about every man is armed: Iraq, Tribal areas of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. come to mind. Perhaps proponents of arming everyone could conduct studies of those areas to see how guns have contributed to public safety?

Or, you could pick someplace not actually at war...  Like Switzerland.  Lots of demented shooters there?
 
2013-03-03 05:07:01 AM  

GeneralJim: lostcat: Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?
I would say it's just you -- that is, just you who has the idea that everyone should be armed.  Simply following the Constitution, and ALLOWING people to be armed means that some will -- but most won't.  And, if some moron opens fire in a crowded place, some of the people will be armed, and take his ass out.

But the whole concept is misleading, after all; mass shootings are exceedingly rare.  The way it works MOST often is that criminals can't operate "safely" (for THEM, that is) in a place where a percentage of people they would like to rob are armed.  You stop a couple, and you never know when one of them will blow you away.  Any criminal stupid enough to set up shop among armed "victims" will have a short career, and one which ends badly.  The presence of armed citizens reduces violence.  Denial of this fact is sheer stupidity.  And, much of the violence is prevented by simply SHOWING the gun, and letting the intended perpetrator know that he needs to think his cunning plan out just a bit further.  That's the best use of a gun -- preventing violence without firing a shot, and it happens a lot.


It goes like this
Assuming no consequences after the act, would you rather try to rob a bank or a drug dealer?
 
2013-03-03 07:01:08 AM  

Securitywyrm: It goes like this
Assuming no consequences after the act, would you rather try to rob a bank or a drug dealer?


It depends on if the Drug dealer happened to be in a gun free zone.

dl.dropbox.com

/Crime happens where its easiest for people to get away with it.
 
2013-03-03 07:33:35 AM  
Stinger:What I would really like is to put you in a room with two of my closest friends, whose 6 year old daughter Avielle Richman, their only child, was killed on December 14th at Sandy Hook Elementary, and have you explain why you think they're "whiny" and how Obama is shamelessly "pimping" them.


I'd merely explain to them that I want the best protection possible for my children, so that if there was ANOTHER "active shooter" anywhere near my kids, the teachers would have a more viable option than throwing books at the perpetrator.  I trust my kid's teachers with firearms.  If I didn't trust them with firearms, you can bet your ass that I wouldn't trust them with my children in the first place.
 
2013-03-03 08:02:49 AM  
Subby is too stupid to realize guns can be carried from one place to another.
 
2013-03-03 08:28:13 AM  

MikeSass: [www.angelfire.lycos.com image 127x73]

Illegally possessed a gun, but never used it.  Still killed 168 people, including 19 kids under the age of 6.
Number of people clamoring to ban fertilizer and diesel fuel from school grounds (or anywhere else):  0

Tell me again how guns are the problem so I can laugh harder.

What I would really like to do is to put those whiny parents from Newtown that Obama pimped to the country the other day in a room with the parents of the kids who died in Oklahoma City and see if the Newtown parents can convince the OKC parents that gun laws will save lives.


Those "whiny parents" who just lost their six year old kids to gun violence.  What the fark is wrong with you?
 
2013-03-03 08:36:13 AM  
If only teachers and janitors and principals and visitors could all have guns int he gun-free zone, then guns would be deterred from entering the the gun-free zone.
 
2013-03-03 09:05:30 AM  

sethen320: Stinger: MikeSass:

What I would really like to do is to put those whiny parents from Newtown that Obama pimped to the country the other day in a room with the parents of the kids who died in Oklahoma City and see if the Newtown parents can convince the OKC parents that gun laws will save lives.

What I would really like is to put you in a room with two of my closest friends, whose 6 year old daughter Avielle Richman, their only child, was killed on December 14th at Sandy Hook Elementary, and have you explain why you think they're "whiny" and how Obama is shamelessly "pimping" them.  Incidentally, the parents of kids from OKC, Columbine, Aurora, and other mass killings in the U.S. have been extremely supportive of the Newtown parents.  I guess when you experience arguably the most painful tragedy possible in life you tend to feel a bond of empathy.

Shiat just got real.  I wish I were making this up.  I'm helping get a professionally-designed website together for their non-profit, The Avielle Foundation.

So would you say that you are rather emotional about passing a law?


I would say he's emotional about an arsepick being a tool directly towards people he knows personally.

Shheeeesh
 
2013-03-03 09:23:34 AM  

Securitywyrm: Yogimus: The gun control debate has devolved into a team based sport, where both sides are more interested in tallying the score rather than giving it any intelligent thought. Bumper stickers are quoted, clips from websites cut and pasted, and each side mocks the other for what they themselves do... and we have the gall to call it a debate.

I swear you farks must be chomping at the bit to hear of the next event that you can use to buttress your side.

I have a proposed compromise, but neither side wants to hear it.
New 2nd amendment: No application of restriction upon the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed the application of restrictions on the arms of those engaged in law enforcement."

Translation: Your right to firearms is capped at what the police are allowed to have. Are the police allowed to have semi-auto rifles? Then you're allowed to have one. Police don't get rocket launchers? You can't have one.

Key benefits to this
 1. It allows states to keep their own gun laws.
 2. The standard moves forward with time. What happens when we have plasma pistols and laser rifles? There's already a standard in place.
 3. Arguments that the police need to be 'better armed' than 'law abiding citizens' circle the drain of 'well the police are above law-abiding citizens.'


I'm good with this plan.  It's a simple, fair, elegant, extensible standard, and if there's a significant flaw, I can't see it.

That said, it would seem to either invalidate the NFA or require any LEAs that have SBRs, suppressors, and/or select-fire weapons to register them, pay a $200 tax per item, and submit any officers they'd be issued to/used by to federal background checks and fingerprinting, which is a somewhat amusing consequence.
 
2013-03-03 09:38:10 AM  
nice try, subturd
 
2013-03-03 09:51:12 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-03 10:15:41 AM  

Wrencher: eggrolls: archichris: potterydove: eggrolls: Question: can anyone give an example of an acknowledged non-'gun free' zone that actually served to prevent, heck, even just reduce, the fatalities in mass shooting?

There was a story about a shooting that was stopped in san antonio by a bystander who was armed.  I'm too lazy to look up the actual story.

I wasn't. Based on the details, not sure you can claim this one.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp 

And the church security guard who shot the perp before he made it inside,

After he'd killed two people. In a church shelter.

And the MP who stopped the fort hood terrorist.

I'd question calling 13 fatalities a ringing endorsement of your argument how being heavily armed solves the problem.

And pretty much every gun show ever.....because to the best of my knowledge no one ever tried to rob a room full of armed gun dealers.

No, they're too busy shooting themselves. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting . Again, not the best argument you could use to prove gun fetishists are the exemplars of responsibility they should be.

And there was that gun store in Texas where three guys smashed a truck through the wall, and the owner grabbed an AR-15 and killed a couple of them before the last one ran off. ....

Couldn't find this one. But the fact that you seem to conflate a robbery with a mass shooting (unless you're referring to the store owner as the mass shooter..?) is worrisome to say the least.

To sum up, I'm really not seeing a record of success with armed guards, armed parishioners, armed ANYBODY being any more successful at keeping the body count down.

Only every single incident where the shooter was stopped by someone else's bullet. In other words...most of them.


Way to skip over the point. I'm surprised you didn't trip on a body in your rush to get past it.
 
2013-03-03 10:31:23 AM  

Snarfangel: kmmontandon: The entire country is a murder-free zone, but they keep happening.


Actually, that's not entirely accurate.:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 430x393]


Actually, murder is still a crime in loophole land. The loophole is that a jury has to be drawn from the district and state and since nobody lives in that portion, the acused gets the charges dismissed because no trial can take place. BUT since there is no statute of limitation on murder, the minute 12 people are living in that area, the charges are re-entered and a trial moves forward.
 
2013-03-03 11:38:00 AM  

Stinger: sethen320:

So would you say that you are rather emotional about passing a law?

I can't really answer without knowing what kind of law you're referring to.

Too little is known about why a small percentage of mentally ill people "progress" from moderate mental illness to extreme psychopathy, and in some cases have committed horrible atrocities.  This is a deficit of knowledge.   I have talked to mental health professionals that are frustrated with having to "label" a child with stigmatizing diagnoses in order to get them access to certain treatment.  This is a failure of insurance policy.  I believe that both of these issues might be constructively addressed by changes in existing policies.


Wow. That was one of.the most thought-out, well written posts I've seen. What are you doing here?
 
2013-03-03 11:40:32 AM  

qualtrough: lostcat: Has anyone tried to run the costs on arming every citizen in the US?

Would handguns be subsidized? Bullets?

Would safety training be mandatory? How often would you have to undergo retraining?

If there was no safety training, what would the costs be to hospitalize those who injured themselves or others in accidents?

How would the laws handle people who shot other people who they thought were reaching for their gun, when really they were getting their wallets or cell phones out?

Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?

There are parts of the world where just about every man is armed: Iraq, Tribal areas of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. come to mind. Perhaps proponents of arming everyone could conduct studies of those areas to see how guns have contributed to public safety?


It also helps if killing anyone for any little offense isn't a major part of your religion.
 
drp
2013-03-03 11:40:50 AM  

tylerdurden217: It's education system is pretty good...


It appears you weren't educated in Massachusetts.
 
2013-03-03 01:25:44 PM  

Publikwerks: The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.


The movie theater was posted no guns, and the only people in LA allowed to possess loaded firearms in public are police and the select few concealed carry holders the sheriff approves of.
 
2013-03-03 01:33:05 PM  

lostcat: Has anyone tried to run the costs on arming every citizen in the US?

Would handguns be subsidized? Bullets?

Would safety training be mandatory? How often would you have to undergo retraining?

If there was no safety training, what would the costs be to hospitalize those who injured themselves or others in accidents?

How would the laws handle people who shot other people who they thought were reaching for their gun, when really they were getting their wallets or cell phones out?

Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?


Is anyone actually suggesting arming everyone or that everyone should be armed?

Put the strawman down and step away slowly.
 
2013-03-03 01:34:01 PM  

pueblonative: No, but nobody's suggested that the answer to drunk driving is more liquor.


Could drunk driving be stopped by other people having more liquor?
 
2013-03-03 02:46:53 PM  

olstyn: Securitywyrm: Yogimus: The gun control debate has devolved into a team based sport, where both sides are more interested in tallying the score rather than giving it any intelligent thought. Bumper stickers are quoted, clips from websites cut and pasted, and each side mocks the other for what they themselves do... and we have the gall to call it a debate.

I swear you farks must be chomping at the bit to hear of the next event that you can use to buttress your side.

I have a proposed compromise, but neither side wants to hear it.
New 2nd amendment: No application of restriction upon the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed the application of restrictions on the arms of those engaged in law enforcement."

Translation: Your right to firearms is capped at what the police are allowed to have. Are the police allowed to have semi-auto rifles? Then you're allowed to have one. Police don't get rocket launchers? You can't have one.

Key benefits to this
 1. It allows states to keep their own gun laws.
 2. The standard moves forward with time. What happens when we have plasma pistols and laser rifles? There's already a standard in place.
 3. Arguments that the police need to be 'better armed' than 'law abiding citizens' circle the drain of 'well the police are above law-abiding citizens.'

I'm good with this plan.  It's a simple, fair, elegant, extensible standard, and if there's a significant flaw, I can't see it.

That said, it would seem to either invalidate the NFA or require any LEAs that have SBRs, suppressors, and/or select-fire weapons to register them, pay a $200 tax per item, and submit any officers they'd be issued to/used by to federal background checks and fingerprinting, which is a somewhat amusing consequence.


I don't see how it's 'amusing' at all. Why would the standard for law enforcement to have these weapons be lower than the standard for law-abiding citizens? And a key term in this proposal is 'application of restriction.' Thus you can't require a 'special class' unless the class is available to all. You can't have 'just one class a year' that the police department pays to send the officers too because that's not an even application of the restriction.
 
2013-03-03 07:03:08 PM  

eggrolls: Wrencher: eggrolls: archichris: potterydove: eggrolls: Question: can anyone give an example of an acknowledged non-'gun free' zone that actually served to prevent, heck, even just reduce, the fatalities in mass shooting?

There was a story about a shooting that was stopped in san antonio by a bystander who was armed.  I'm too lazy to look up the actual story.

I wasn't. Based on the details, not sure you can claim this one.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp 

And the church security guard who shot the perp before he made it inside,

After he'd killed two people. In a church shelter.

And the MP who stopped the fort hood terrorist.

I'd question calling 13 fatalities a ringing endorsement of your argument how being heavily armed solves the problem.

And pretty much every gun show ever.....because to the best of my knowledge no one ever tried to rob a room full of armed gun dealers.

No, they're too busy shooting themselves. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting . Again, not the best argument you could use to prove gun fetishists are the exemplars of responsibility they should be.

And there was that gun store in Texas where three guys smashed a truck through the wall, and the owner grabbed an AR-15 and killed a couple of them before the last one ran off. ....

Couldn't find this one. But the fact that you seem to conflate a robbery with a mass shooting (unless you're referring to the store owner as the mass shooter..?) is worrisome to say the least.

To sum up, I'm really not seeing a record of success with armed guards, armed parishioners, armed ANYBODY being any more successful at keeping the body count down.

Only every single incident where the shooter was stopped by someone else's bullet. In other words...most of them.

Way to skip over the point. I'm surprised you didn't trip on a body in your rush to get past it.


You had a point? If your point is that everywhere should be a "gun free zone" so that there is no one who is able to stop a crazy shooter, it should be skipped. I fail to see how that would keep the body count down. Crazy people will not obey some law. And removing all guns from America simply is not an option that any sane person would attempt.

/when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
 
2013-03-03 08:19:46 PM  

Securitywyrm: olstyn: Securitywyrm: Yogimus: The gun control debate has devolved into a team based sport, where both sides are more interested in tallying the score rather than giving it any intelligent thought. Bumper stickers are quoted, clips from websites cut and pasted, and each side mocks the other for what they themselves do... and we have the gall to call it a debate.

I swear you farks must be chomping at the bit to hear of the next event that you can use to buttress your side.

I have a proposed compromise, but neither side wants to hear it.
New 2nd amendment: No application of restriction upon the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed the application of restrictions on the arms of those engaged in law enforcement."

Translation: Your right to firearms is capped at what the police are allowed to have. Are the police allowed to have semi-auto rifles? Then you're allowed to have one. Police don't get rocket launchers? You can't have one.

Key benefits to this
 1. It allows states to keep their own gun laws.
 2. The standard moves forward with time. What happens when we have plasma pistols and laser rifles? There's already a standard in place.
 3. Arguments that the police need to be 'better armed' than 'law abiding citizens' circle the drain of 'well the police are above law-abiding citizens.'

I'm good with this plan.  It's a simple, fair, elegant, extensible standard, and if there's a significant flaw, I can't see it.

That said, it would seem to either invalidate the NFA or require any LEAs that have SBRs, suppressors, and/or select-fire weapons to register them, pay a $200 tax per item, and submit any officers they'd be issued to/used by to federal background checks and fingerprinting, which is a somewhat amusing consequence.

I don't see how it's 'amusing' at all. Why would the standard for law enforcement to have these weapons be lower than the standard for law-abiding citizens? And a key term in this proposal is 'application of restrictio ...


Amusing as in "ha-ha, the police have to obey the rules too!"
 
2013-03-03 11:07:05 PM  
Wrencher:

Way to skip over the point. I'm surprised you didn't trip on a body in your rush to get past it.

You had a point? If your point is that everywhere should be a "gun free zone" so that there ...


Actually that *WASN'T* my point, but hey, don't let that stop you from filling in my side of the debate so you make sense to yourself.

Although you're sure as hell making a better point about the echo chamber that is a gun pervert's imagination than I could have hoped for.
 
Never mind. There's no discussion to be had here.
 
2013-03-04 12:12:28 AM  

eggrolls: Wrencher:

Way to skip over the point. I'm surprised you didn't trip on a body in your rush to get past it.

You had a point? If your point is that everywhere should be a "gun free zone" so that there ...

Actually that *WASN'T* my point, but hey, don't let that stop you from filling in my side of the debate so you make sense to yourself.

Although you're sure as hell making a better point about the echo chamber that is a gun pervert's imagination than I could have hoped for.
 
Never mind. There's no discussion to be had here.


If that was not your point, then I indeed missed it. If you have a point beyond " non-'gun free' zones don't help." I just don't see it in what you posted. Maybe it didn't make it out of your echo chamber. Crazy people are crazy. More gun free zones will not stop them.

For the record, I don't even own a gun currently. I do not have a gun fetish. But as soon as I can afford it, I will be getting a concealed carry permit and a handgun( .38 or 9mm not sure which yet). I work alone outside at night in some pretty shady areas of town driving a sweeper. We have had a driver mugged, and another witnessed a drug deal murder just across the street from him(luckily they did not see him). But apparently you would prefer that I not have the ability to protect myself with a gun?
 
2013-03-04 01:09:16 AM  

LaughingRadish: MisterTweak: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

Pretty much true. Most gun deaths involve just a single person, and by far the most likely person to be killed is the person who owns the gun. But how the heck can you sell a middle-aged suburbanite a gun if you dwell on things like this:

Fact: If you own a gun, it is more likely to cause your own death than any other individual.

Fact: Your spouse is the second most likely person to be killed with your firearm.

Fact: Your child(ren) are the next most likely person(s) to be killed by your own weapon. But lest you think I would overlook your contribution to your community,

Fact: Your friends/neighbors and their children are right behind your own family when it comes to "most likely to be killed by your weapon".

The second amendment isn't supposed to be pretty, or beneficial, any more than the right to free speech, religion, or soiling yourself, Ted Nugent-esque, in a crowded elevator. I don't need to pretend porn is good in order to own it, it's my right to and anyone who doesn't like it can eat shiat and bark at the moon. I don't need to show that I'm improving society by calling (insert politician/public figure/anyone at all here) a jackass; I don't need to, it is my right. Man up, and stop putting lipstick on the pig.

Are you aware that your factoids came from Josh Sugarman and were disproven shortly after he made them?  He's well-known for telling all sorts of lies and half-truths.


Eh? Never heard of him. No, they're simply self-obvious artifacts of statistics. Again, I'm not advocating that you buy a gun, don't buy a gun, arm everyone in your house, or move to a locale which forbids/requires gun ownership. Whatever floats your boat. But think about it for a moment: Of all the people on this earth, all the billions of them, the one person who is most likely to die from any given firearm, is the owner of that firearm (by suicide - though there's a strong correlation between death by homicide and gun ownership).

The rest are simple by-products of a mix of death by intentional homicide (spousal abuse, delusional behavior, self-righteous moral justification, etc) and accidental homicide (gun-cleaning accidents, drunken dares, children finding home-defense weapons, and mistaken identity). The child who finds your handgun isn't going to be some kid 12 time zones away; it's going to be your own kid, or one of their peers - a neighbor or classmate.

Hell, when the zimmerman guy got a gun, the people who were endangered weren't farmers an hour north of Beijing, they were the people who lived within walking distance of his house. Whether you think he was justified or not is irrelevant to the odds.

Again, if you want a gun, knock yourself out. If you want to surf porn, same thing. It's a free country!
 
2013-03-06 01:48:08 AM  

MisterTweak: LaughingRadish: MisterTweak: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

Pretty much true. Most gun deaths involve just a single person, and by far the most likely person to be killed is the person who owns the gun. But how the heck can you sell a middle-aged suburbanite a gun if you dwell on things like this:

Fact: If you own a gun, it is more likely to cause your own death than any other individual.

Fact: Your spouse is the second most likely person to be killed with your firearm.

Fact: Your child(ren) are the next most likely person(s) to be killed by your own weapon. But lest you think I would overlook your contribution to your community,

Fact: Your friends/neighbors and their children are right behind your own family when it comes to "most likely to be killed by your weapon".

The second amendment isn't supposed to be pretty, or beneficial, any more than the right to free speech, religion, or soiling yourself, Ted Nugent-esque, in a crowded elevator. I don't need to pretend porn is good in order to own it, it's my right to and anyone who doesn't like it can eat shiat and bark at the moon. I don't need to show that I'm improving society by calling (insert politician/public figure/anyone at all here) a jackass; I don't need to, it is my right. Man up, and stop putting lipstick on the pig.

Are you aware that your factoids came from Josh Sugarman and were disproven shortly after he made them?  He's well-known for telling all sorts of lies and half-truths.

Eh? Never heard of him. No, they're simply self-obvious artifacts of statistics. Again, I'm not advocating that you buy a gun, don't buy a gun, arm everyone in your house, or move to a locale ...


Most of Sugarman's proclaimations get filtered through multiple layers of talking heads who either believe his lies or want people to believe them until they become "common sense".  This is a proof-by-assertion fallacy or "repeat a lie often enough that it becomes truth" that is often misattributed to Joseph Goebbels. If you're so keen about statistics, you should be able to clearly see the half-truths and distortions present in those so-called facts.
 
Displayed 112 of 112 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report