Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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  
•       •       •

4697 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2013 at 8:41 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report