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.

(WIVB)   Local community organizer who advocated passage of the NY SAFE act that forbids firearms on school grounds arrested for...wait for it   (wivb.com) divider line 61
    More: Obvious, NY SAFE, community organizer, passage, firearms, elementary schools  
•       •       •

6159 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2014 at 3:04 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-02-10 03:08:12 PM
6 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.


Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.
2014-02-10 03:57:37 PM
4 votes:
HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.
2014-02-10 03:51:46 PM
4 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: We've tried to work with them.


No you haven't. You've tried to pass any and all anti-gun laws that anyone has even hinted at being able to curb firearms-related violence (with, or more generally without evidence that it can help, usually justifying it with the idea that "anything is better than nothing!"), and when your BS is called out for what it is you throw up you hands and loudly proclaim "See? We tried, but these gun nuts just won't compromise!".

/Holy run-on sentence Batman!
2014-02-10 03:19:12 PM
4 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


They make voters with no critical thinking skills feel like their children are safer?
2014-02-10 03:51:01 PM
3 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.


Unreasonable bans based upon arbitrary characteristics is not "working with" firearm owners. Classifying all firearm owners as future murderers is irrational and dishonest.
2014-02-10 03:40:25 PM
3 votes:
Every single gun owner I know of (and myself included) are hoping that this guy gets the book thrown at him.


What we are expecting is that he won't, he'll get off with a wrist slap, be a free man and STILL carrying his gun with no consequences.  I so hope that happens, because then it gives us a chance to go after these laws to get them struck down.
2014-02-10 03:39:43 PM
3 votes:
Remeber this one fact, and all the world will become clearer to you.

Anyone, of any political stripe, who pushes for a ban on anything, always means for it to apply to others, and not to themselves.

I personally think you should be handed a card stating this before walking in to the voting booth, and it should be placed on the currency as a constant reminder to all.
2014-02-10 03:14:47 PM
3 votes:
So the armed SWAT team that entered the school was likewise charged?  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, right?
2014-02-10 03:14:24 PM
3 votes:

LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school. that the media is swinging us back and forth like a cat strapped to a tether ball.


The world is getting safer.  You just hear more about bad things, because if it bleeds then it leads.
2014-02-10 03:09:10 PM
3 votes:
Same level of hypocrisy as Diane Feinstein, who presses to strip all gun rights from the citizens while she has her own concealed carry permit.
2014-02-10 04:29:53 PM
2 votes:

ikanreed: 1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.


ikanreed: Callous: You say that like you haven't already.

And yet, no one in the thread has pointed out whatever these blatant lies are.  It's almost like you think things without any sort of justification.

Have you ever considered that possibility?  That you could believe things for no reason?  I'm serious for now.  Have ya?



Oh look there's one.  You accused the pro-gun side of advocating the arming of minors.
2014-02-10 04:27:43 PM
2 votes:

AngryDragon: "Veteran FBI, ATF and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. "

Except the article itself points out that this case has NEVER HAPPENED. Not once.


18 people were just shot and 6 people were just murdered in front of a Safeway (supermarket), you're only a few dozen yards away and you are carrying a gun.  You get to the scene and there is a guy with a gun standing over a guy on the ground.  You pull your gun, he sees you and starts to move.  What do you do?  You better answer fast, you wanted more information but you don't get it, that's all you know and decision time is RIGHT NOW.

I'm sure you'd do the right thing.  The guy who actually went through that scenario did the right thing.  But do you want all adult Americans, all those people you see in WalMart, to also possibly be making that decision?  What if it's you holding the gun, standing over the guy laying on the ground, after 18 people got shot and it's a goddamn bloody mess all around you.  Some redneck just rounded the corner.  I'm sure the last thing you'll think is "eh, freedom has its price."

Turned out you had tackled the shooter and taken his gun away.
2014-02-10 04:21:29 PM
2 votes:

lennavan: dittybopper: For even more perspective: People bent on committing massacres generally pick "gun free zones" largely because there aren't likely to be people who can return fire.

This is completely false.  But other than that, good post.  Can I make stuff up too, or are only you allowed to do that?


You say that like you haven't already.
2014-02-10 04:01:21 PM
2 votes:

lennavan: Mell of a Hess: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund

Mell of a Hess: Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.

Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/24/nras-gun-free-zone- my th--column/2015657/

Shame what just happened to your unsubstantiated assertion.  This is awkward.


I can't figure out why you liberals insist on calling people names.  It does nothing for the conversation.

Here, I stole this from someone, to refute your "awkward" post:

"There's a GAPING problem with your article. You simply dismiss the idea that mass shooters happened to target an area that was gun free out of "coincidence." That's a nice little way of dismissing what is more-than-likely a secondary motivation for the location of their rampage. Just because there's a bigger, more personal motivator for attacking, say, an elementary school, does NOT mean that the fact that its a gun free zone by law is irrelevant. There's no such thing as coincidence.
Take Sandy Hook, for example. The Connecticut State Police Colonel said in New Orleans this year at the IACP annual conference that they believe Adam Lanza's motive for attacking Sandy Hook Elementary was because it was the path of least resistance wherein he could rack up the most kills, as in a video game. One of the primary reasons it was a path of least resistance is BECAUSE it was a gun free zone." Here's the source:
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1291408
2014-02-10 03:57:13 PM
2 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

WHYCOME DEY SENDIN LAW 'BIDIN PEOPLE TO JAIL


Did somebody mention "Shotgun Joe" Biden, the guy who recommends blatantly illegal self-defense by shooting through doors with a shotgun?
2014-02-10 03:54:38 PM
2 votes:

LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.


How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years?  Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses.  Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

I count 42 in the last 10 years, according to the Wikipedia page on US school shootings.  That's 4.2 kids per year.

The US Census says that in 2012 there were a total of 58,496,000 kids enrolled in daycare/kindergarten, elementary school, and high school (or just 49,730,000 if you exclude daycare/kindergarten).

So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.
2014-02-10 03:49:47 PM
2 votes:

Mell of a Hess: lennavan: DanInKansas: This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation. Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with

Okay, but you're going to apply this same standard to the guy who posted the Weeners that he replied to, right?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

You're going to make him prove or substantiate that assertion, right?

Otherwise, this would be pretty classic "hypocrisy" style of argumentation.  Demand the people who disagree with you provide evidence, while allowing unsubstantiated assertions from people who agree with you.

See three or four posts up.  I showed my work.


Look three or four posts up.  I debunked your stupid "work."
2014-02-10 03:17:42 PM
2 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.


Ahh, the classic Farklib line of argumentation.  Cast the magical incantation "Herp Derp" and you've "won" the argument without having to substantiate anything.
2014-02-10 03:15:44 PM
2 votes:
"Local community organizer" -- stopped caring right there.
2014-02-10 03:03:58 PM
2 votes:
Firearms were not permitted in schools before the SAFE Act.  SAFE just bumped it up to a felony status.
2014-02-11 07:20:28 PM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Boojum2k: demaL-demaL-yeH: It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military service

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And they're farking wrong, look at the farking debate and first proposed versions of Amendment II.
But Congress can fix it, and the Supremes can't do squat about it, since Militia Powers are enumerated in Article I Section 8.


God you're an idiot.

It is entertaining to imagine the spittle collecting in the corners of your mouth as you post increasingly tangential thoughts.

The current second amendment is what passed ratification
That is now clarified by SCOTUS decision as law of the land.
Congress would only be able to change that with a Constitutional Convention
Which SCOTUS could still interpret to mean exactly what they started with.

SCOTUS is the ultimate umpire on what is and isn't law, not Congress.  Sorry.  Anyone with a 10th grade education knows this.
2014-02-10 10:45:31 PM
1 votes:
If only all gun grabbers would get a firearm felony, our rights would be much safer for 20 years.
Rat
2014-02-10 10:17:45 PM
1 votes:
I'm a bit conflicted.  Part of me that knows that this SAFE act was kneejerked into legislation, and at least in my mind unconstitutional.  The other part of me says hey, you wanted this law and even championed it, so you need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Then, on my other hand (I do indeed have three) I'd hope that this upstanding member of society could back away from all this and go on leading the productive life it seems he's been leading, as I'd hope I could if something like this ever happened to me.

™ but my feet are chiming in to say fark him, send him to PMITA club sing sing
2014-02-10 08:46:30 PM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.


Really, if you need to get the largest number of people killed in the shortest possible time in order to create a crisis and push your agenda then Gun Free Zones are indispensable.
2014-02-10 08:35:45 PM
1 votes:

Doom MD: Pichu0102: rkiller1: So the armed SWAT team that entered the school was likewise charged?  Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, right?

Uh, actually, I'm pretty sure that only police legally having guns in a gun-free zone is the actual point. Lot lower chance of friendly fire incidents when there are two types of gun carriers in a gun-free zone: Uniformed police, and those who shouldn't be having guns there at all. Keep farking that chicken though.

Please cite for me how common these "friendly fire" incidents are at mass shootings.


Ooooo!  I'll help!  Is the answer zero?
2014-02-10 07:50:10 PM
1 votes:

EatenTheSun: ikanreed: Okay, so, just to keep tabs, it's 4 gun nuts so far who've never gone through puberty.  Good to know.

When did puberty involve wanting to kill people?


ikanreed and lennavan are pretty much self-identified sociopaths, and think everyone else is the same.
2014-02-10 06:07:54 PM
1 votes:

Turbo Cojones: I bet that if she had gotten what she wanted when she started her efforts most of the guns used in mass-murders across the country would not have even been manufactured.


What would you bet? How about your right to vote? If her assault weapon ban would not have stopped mass shootings, would you give up your right to vote?

Turbo Cojones: See law-maker status for one thing.


Lawmaker is not an aristocrat.
2014-02-10 05:44:49 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: If he was arrested for it, sounds like the law worked as advertised


Yes, a man that harmed absolutely no one will now spend time in jail so that others can maintain their mythical feelings of safety.

Makes complete sense.

At least he will have time to think about the idiocy of the law that he supported.
2014-02-10 05:31:02 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: Nutsac_Jim: If you are banning guns and don't see a drop in gun crimes at schools, then you are the one who looks like an idiot.

You do.  The end.  The rest of this babble of yours is dumb.


You guys are just retards.  Seriously.  One of you came up and said that we cant have any teacher with a gun in a safe, because what is going to happen when the teacher is frustrated that johnny isnt doing what they say and gave the finger shoot.

Seriously?  Yes, i am so sure teachers, who want to instruct and work with children, will just whip out a gun and shoot them.

Why don't they?  Because it is INSANE.

Guess what, it is insane behavior to go into a school and shoot someone.
A sign isn't going to prevent them.

Now.. Be a good boy and back up your assertion that putting up gun free zones caused a drop in school shootings.
2014-02-10 05:23:55 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: We could refute his point but honestly we can't so we'll fling poo and hope no one notices the difference.


FTFY
2014-02-10 05:19:27 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:
 

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.



If you are banning guns and don't see a drop in gun crimes at schools, then you are the one who looks like an idiot.

All you have succeeded in doing is feeling better about yourself.   You won a participation ribbon!
2014-02-10 05:17:43 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: Teenagers are well known for being sane, indeed even logical.


Yeah, every teenager comes out of high school an alcoholic drug addict with a violent crime record and a kid.

Look, at least you know you're a sociopath who'd shoot someone as soon as you held a gun, and kudos to you for restraining yourself. But the vast majority of people aren't like you.
2014-02-10 05:14:00 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: EatenTheSun: The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.

You never thought it, therefore no one ever does.  Seems legit.


You're the one that suggested that everyone has.
2014-02-10 05:12:33 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: EatenTheSun: The thought of using one to kill someone I had a disagreement with never occurred to me.

You never thought it, therefore no one ever does.  Seems legit.


No one sane does.
2014-02-10 05:11:23 PM
1 votes:
Typical liberal.... he doesn't want YOU to have something..... but it's ok for HIM and his ilk to.
2014-02-10 05:00:28 PM
1 votes:

mdeesnuts: I don't think it was students SAFE was aimed at. Did someone say students should be able to carry guns on campus?

/because that would be dumb


Happened every day during hunting season when I was in high school (1980s).  Nearly every boy who hunted had a hunting rifle in his vehicle so he could hunt for an hour or two before school and then go back into the woods after school.

I knew several who had to go see the principal for tardiness because they had to drop a deer off at the meat processor on the way to school.

Gun related body count for my high school career: 0
2014-02-10 04:59:09 PM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.

Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.


It is estimated that in the United States, there are about 43 million to 55 million gun owners.  31,672 people were killed by guns in the US in 2010 (19,392 of those were suicides).  Even including suicides, that makes the percentage of gun owners who take a life (not including self defense) at .073% (less than 1 tenth of 1 percent), assuming only 43 million gun owners.  So, tell me again how "gun owners so often turn out to be irresponsible".

Herpaderp, indeed.
2014-02-10 04:33:28 PM
1 votes:

Draskuul: Same level of hypocrisy as Diane Feinstein, who presses to strip all gun rights from the citizens while she has her own concealed carry permit.


Feinstein also supports insider trading...for Congress. She is the typical rich liberal overlord.
2014-02-10 04:33:11 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: Callous: lennavan: dittybopper: For even more perspective: People bent on committing massacres generally pick "gun free zones" largely because there aren't likely to be people who can return fire.

This is completely false.  But other than that, good post.  Can I make stuff up too, or are only you allowed to do that?

You say that like you haven't already.

Wait, you didn't know child soccer leagues cancel games because of lightning?  You think I made that up?

el oh el


I was referring to that crap about us advocating the arming of minors because we didn't proactively deny it.  I know you are trying to sweep that under the rug but it's there for everyone to see.
2014-02-10 04:27:55 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed:  the 2nd amendment ... it's completely outdated, and its advocates don't understand it.


It's in place so that the citizens can rise up against a tyrannical government.
2014-02-10 04:12:10 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: Mell of a Hess: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund

Mell of a Hess: Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.

Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/24/nras-gun-free-zone- my th--column/2015657/

Shame what just happened to your unsubstantiated assertion.  This is awkward.


Except every premise is flawed in your opinion article.

"No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way"

Yeah, because the vast majority of those were gun free zones and law abiding citizens pay attention to that law.

"Veteran FBI, ATF and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. "

Except the article itself points out that this case has NEVER HAPPENED.  Not once.  So we're afraid of something that might happen

Try again.
2014-02-10 04:10:50 PM
1 votes:

Mell of a Hess: Here, I stole this from someone, to refute your "awkward" post:


I'm really curious, I cited a study with numbers and data and actual facts and evidence.  Where did you get your source that refuted it from?  Well the cool part about the internet and Google is I can just copy/paste your post into Google and find it myself.

Google Search - "There's a GAPING problem with your article. You simply dismiss the idea that mass shooters happened to target an area "

http://www.armedwithreason.com/the-gun-free-zone-myth-no-relationshi p- between-gun-free-zones-and-mass-shootings/

"ArmedWithReason.com?"  Seems legit, lets read more.

About - Evan and Devin write about guns.
This is a blog dedicated to academically refuting pro-gun myths, and providing a scholarly defense of gun control. The site is authored by Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes.


You "refuted" a study with a goddamn BLOG?  Are you serious?  Let me get this straight.

Mell of a Hess: Dude, you're getting hammered. Do you want to go do some research and get back with us?


You want HotWingConspiracy to do some research and get back to us.  And you're going to counter with BLOGS?
2014-02-10 04:09:02 PM
1 votes:
At its heart liberalism is about imposing stuff on the other guy, taxes and gun control beign classic examples.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller supported an assault weapons ban but owns one.

Rose O'Donnell supports gun control but has her own armed body guards

anti-gun idiot Michael Moore has armed body guards, one of whom was arrested for gun law violations.
2014-02-10 04:06:57 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.


Where's number 2?

And on who's looking stupid front, who ever advocated allowing children to carry?  The conversation has always been about licensed adults.
2014-02-10 04:03:46 PM
1 votes:

rkiller1: dittybopper: LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.

How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years?  Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses.  Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

I count 42 in the last 10 years, according to the Wikipedia page on US school shootings.  That's 4.2 kids per year.

The US Census says that in 2012 there were a total of 58,496,000 kids enrolled in daycare/kindergarten, elementary school, and high school (or just 49,730,000 if you exclude daycare/kindergarten).

So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.

And every day in the US, two children die from drowning.  That's over 700 children under 14 annually.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjur ie s-factsheet.html


Clearly we need bathtub and swimming pool control.  You don't need a bath tub you can have a shower, you don't need a swimming pool you can use a sprinkler.
2014-02-10 03:59:55 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.

How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years?  Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses.  Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

I count 42 in the last 10 years, according to the Wikipedia page on US school shootings.  That's 4.2 kids per year.

The US Census says that in 2012 there were a total of 58,496,000 kids enrolled in daycare/kindergarten, elementary school, and high school (or just 49,730,000 if you exclude daycare/kindergarten).

So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.


And every day in the US, two children die from drowning.  That's over 700 children under 14 annually.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjur ie s-factsheet.html
2014-02-10 03:57:58 PM
1 votes:
There really are irrational gun-grabbers out there.  My favorite was a person--in favor of these "gun-free" zones--who was shown a map of local schools with the radii of gun-free zones plotted on it.  One freeway went through a zone.  Someone asked her if it would be OK to set up a checkpoint on the freeway to stop everyone and check for guns, as they were technically felons (never mind there'd be no way to know you were anywhere near a school when going by at 70 mph).

She thought it was an AWESOME idea.

Not a rational person worth listening to, but that's exactly the sort that will push for more laws.
2014-02-10 03:57:33 PM
1 votes:

GanjSmokr: "School officials say police will be increasing their presence at the school for the remainder of the week..."


Why would they find this necessary?


Blogger moms.

nathantimmel.com
2014-02-10 03:51:27 PM
1 votes:
Dumbass tag is more appropriate. One would think that someone who helped pass the NY SAFE act would not be a big fan of firearms in general and have intelligence not to break his own law.
2014-02-10 03:49:05 PM
1 votes:

Mell of a Hess: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund


Mell of a Hess: Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.


Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...


With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data.

 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/24/nras-gun-free-zone- my th--column/2015657/

Shame what just happened to your unsubstantiated assertion.  This is awkward.
2014-02-10 03:46:35 PM
1 votes:

DanInKansas: This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation. Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with


Okay, but you're going to apply this same standard to the guy who posted the Weeners that he replied to, right?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?


You're going to make him prove or substantiate that assertion, right?

Otherwise, this would be pretty classic "hypocrisy" style of argumentation.  Demand the people who disagree with you provide evidence, while allowing unsubstantiated assertions from people who agree with you.
2014-02-10 03:44:03 PM
1 votes:
♪ Community organizers♫ ...what are they good for?.. ♫ absolutely nothing...SayitAgain.♫ .
2014-02-10 03:42:47 PM
1 votes:
Of course, I never know which publications you FARKers will decry as blatantly conservative, but this is an interesting 3rd-party article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund

A few things you won't hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:
Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.
Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K-12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.
Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects - the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that "gun-free" zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don't work.

Advertisement
First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades "displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings." New York Timescolumnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. "Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?" asks Professor Jacobson. "I doubt it."

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. "Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a 'helpless-victim zone,'" says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. "Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage," Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances - from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. - where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
2014-02-10 03:38:59 PM
1 votes:
This is funny... While I can imagine the occasional Joe Sixpack forgetting about his gun and wandering into a school, or even the airport, I can NOT understand how a guy who specifically endorsed a change in the laws regarding bringing a gun onto school grounds would bring a gun onto school grounds.
2014-02-10 03:33:48 PM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: You can read the laws as easily as I can. I'll give you a hint though, it was never argued that they would create magical force fields that guns cannot pass through.


This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation.  Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with

a) "it's not my job to fix your racism/classism/homophobia/sizism/looksism/your character flaw.

b) "you can use Google just as well as I can"

c) "everyone knows this, the facts are out there"
2014-02-10 03:31:20 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime.


Nonsense, I'm fully in favor of neutering those that traffic and trade in weapons used in violent crime.

 The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.

As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.
2014-02-10 03:28:03 PM
1 votes:

YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?


You are correct. HotWindConspiracy is unconcerned with reducing violent crime. The only worthwhile firearm laws are those that cause inconvenience to lawful firearm owners; whether violence is affected is immaterial. If, somehow, a firearm regulation caused an increase in violent incidents yet still substantially inconvenienced firearm owners, HotWingConspiracy would consider the regulation to be worthwhile.
2014-02-10 03:20:40 PM
1 votes:

Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mell of a Hess: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?

Herpa dee derpa dee do, friend.

Is that the 'splainin I was asking for?


It's the one you're getting.

 Please tell me why you think they work as intended, and while you're at it, tell me what the intention is.

You can read the laws as easily as I can. I'll give you a hint though, it was never argued that they would create magical force fields that guns cannot pass through.
2014-02-10 03:19:30 PM
1 votes:
Another "Do as I say" jackass...  Gotta love people who think laws they supported don't apply to them.
2014-02-10 03:12:16 PM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

What do I win?
2014-02-10 01:54:47 PM
1 votes:
Whoda thunk it?
 
Displayed 61 of 61 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report