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.

(Talking Points Memo)   "It was... a good thing that [the Aurora shooter] had a 100-round magazine... If he had instead had... 15-round magazines, no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up." This is what the GOP actually believes   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 453
    More: Dumbass, GOP, morning, Colorado, radiation damages  
•       •       •

3775 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-14 02:26:35 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: bk3k: 1.  You didn't link to the original source, now did you?  Not that I got stuck on it for more than a sentence.  It was a minor point.  When I make a major thing out of it, you get a WOT.  Anyone who has seen me here knows this all too well.
2.  Only if the discussion was about deaths by firearms.  We're talking about violent crime and murder.  Suicide is neither.
3.  I don't give a fark about "what proportion of homicides are committed with firearms."  Rather than net homicides.  I will save time by copying what I already wrote.

1. It opens a farking PDF of the article. The source is staring at you from the top of the page.  So you didn't read TFA. Let me guess, now you're going to continue to make empirically false claims.
2. Suicide is self-murder, and death by firearm is still death by firearm, but murder is discussed separately in TFA that you can't be bothered to read.
3. You can't be bothered with facts. Fark facts. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

bk3k: Would not the more rational explanation be that the increase in armed citizenry is a deterrent to criminals, but the ones who continue their crime are therefore relying more heavily on guns?  Because that is still a net benefit.

Again, reality points to a very different conclusion: The decline in the percentage of households with firearms. Most firearm violence is not stranger-on-stranger, after all.

bk3k: People who are that scared of anyone having guns, and those who don't feel safe leaving the house without them - both groups are pants pissing cowards to me.

Incompetent armed people - both mentally and in terms of skill - are a threat to themselves and the general public. One of the biggest problems is that the overwhelming majority of people walking around armed in public in Arizona are both unskilled and lack the mental competence to rationally assess threats.

bk3k: You might be surprised(unless you read what I already wrote) that I don't actually own any guns.  Not the highest thing on ...


Farking hell no one reads.  I already got accused of all the same shiat you just said and answered every bit of it.  It didn't really take that long to read the entire thread and you can't read up a few posts.  I don't know why I bother.

The only thing I will be retyping AGAIN is that I am a farking Liberal, so quit trying that shiat.  Being anti-firearm has NOTHING IN HELL TO DO WITH BEING LIBERAL.  The policy is not remotely rooted in Liberal thinking at all.  It just happens to be an opinion shared by many.  Not all Liberals are going to agree with you on this.

Fark this I am going to bed like I should have hours ago instead of answering the same farking questions over and over and over to be ignored and misquoted over and over and over.  Hell maybe you are doing it on purpose.  I find it hard to believe your are arguing in good faith.  Whatever I am out.  Have fun with your sense of self superiority.
 
2014-02-14 02:39:59 AM  

bk3k: demaL-demaL-yeH: bk3k: 1.  You didn't link to the original source, now did you?  Not that I got stuck on it for more than a sentence.  It was a minor point.  When I make a major thing out of it, you get a WOT.  Anyone who has seen me here knows this all too well.
2.  Only if the discussion was about deaths by firearms.  We're talking about violent crime and murder.  Suicide is neither.
3.  I don't give a fark about "what proportion of homicides are committed with firearms."  Rather than net homicides.  I will save time by copying what I already wrote.

1. It opens a farking PDF of the article. The source is staring at you from the top of the page.  So you didn't read TFA. Let me guess, now you're going to continue to make empirically false claims.
2. Suicide is self-murder, and death by firearm is still death by firearm, but murder is discussed separately in TFA that you can't be bothered to read.
3. You can't be bothered with facts. Fark facts. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

bk3k: Would not the more rational explanation be that the increase in armed citizenry is a deterrent to criminals, but the ones who continue their crime are therefore relying more heavily on guns?  Because that is still a net benefit.

Again, reality points to a very different conclusion: The decline in the percentage of households with firearms. Most firearm violence is not stranger-on-stranger, after all.

bk3k: People who are that scared of anyone having guns, and those who don't feel safe leaving the house without them - both groups are pants pissing cowards to me.

Incompetent armed people - both mentally and in terms of skill - are a threat to themselves and the general public. One of the biggest problems is that the overwhelming majority of people walking around armed in public in Arizona are both unskilled and lack the mental competence to rationally assess threats.

bk3k: You might be surprised(unless you read what I already wrote) that I don't actually own any guns.  Not the ...


Let me clue you in:
I am not anti-firearm. I go the range regularly.
I am not for confiscating firearms, except from felons and the mentally ill (and only while they are mentally incapacitated).
Also, as a percentage of the population, there has been a decrease in armed citizenry over the last twenty years. Your hypothesis is based on empirically false premises, which I've told you more than once.
I am very much in favor of having a population that is skilled, trained, and regularly qualified to use firearms, criminals and the mentally ill excepted.
You're the one who couldn't be bothered with facts - didn't even read "more than a sentence".
 
2014-02-14 03:37:21 AM  
I love it when people use the "good guy with a gun" nonsense line when it comes to the Aurora shooting, given that the theater it took place in is right across the street from the police station. The lack of blogger patriots creating deadly crossfire combined with the nearly instant police response just might explain why only 12 people died in that gallery of sitting ducks.

At least this particular scumbag politician has an appropriate name

/had it easy, a floor seat with plenty of room to get the hell out of eyesight and stay invisible
//Holmes went after the people who had to descend stairs after shooting the guy two seats to my right in the head
///Seriously, politicizing a smoke filled massacre in a darkened theater is farking stupid
 
2014-02-14 03:59:02 AM  
I just want to know who taught all these assholes that verbal tic where they need to cite a rising spread of numbers. That whole "what if he had four, five, six smaller mags?" Seen it done for timescales, too, such as "what about twenty, fifty, hundred years later?" Pisses me off. Pick a number, assholes...
 
2014-02-14 04:00:37 AM  
Cars have the ability to hurt others because of physics. So do bullets. Cars require a license, insurance, and registration. Why exempt bullets? I can't knife or hammer or circular saw my way into mass murder (unless said melee device slipped out of my hands).

Quit being scared little nancys about your rights and accept some regulation for the benefit of the team. Besides, none of you bad asses will ever shoot at an LEO or soldier in response to your perceived loss of second amendment rights so get over yourselves. You'll gladly buy a fishing license from walmart to land monster carp at you local river, creek, or pond. You'll even buy turkey and or deer tags. So why the push back? Most of you don't have the knowledge or wherewithal to fight perceived grievances against your rooftop voting rights to begin with.

Quit being a biatch about your guns and take some responsibility. It will never be an all or nothing proposition.
 
2014-02-14 04:42:36 AM  
I think both sides are missing the point on this one. Regulating magazine sizes and the appearance of weapons only accounts for a small part of the damage they can do.

If you've ever fired a semiautomatic pistol, you know that even a deranged person can swap magazines in less than 2 seconds with little practice.

These laws simply don't do a lot to address the problem. It's actually a very difficult problem.
 
2014-02-14 06:08:44 AM  

Animatronik: Regulating magazine sizes and the appearance of weapons is retarded and has failed multiple times in history.



I agree.
 
2014-02-14 06:53:32 AM  

Animatronik: These laws simply don't do a lot to address the problem. It's actually a very difficult problem.


That's actually the point; these laws don't address the problem, which is why I oppose them.  Just like I'd oppose any regulation that I see as failing at it's core purpose.

Fista-Phobia: Quit being a biatch about your guns and take some responsibility. It will never be an all or nothing proposition.


Are you familiar with the pie argument?  You're arguing for another slice of MY pie as compromise.  We've already been put under a lot of regulation, much of it nonsensical.

Cars don't need to be registered or insured and you don't need a license for driving them if you're not going to be driving one on public roads.  So you really need to come up with a better analogy.  Because the equivalent of driver's licenses would be concealed carry permits.  Fishing isn't a firearm issue, but it's the same deal with hunting - we recognize that we're harvesting a public resource(if renewable) and the tag system helps preserve said resource for future use.

All we really ask is that any regulations actually do what they're being proposed for - and those of us that know firearms see the vast majority of the proposals as not just violating the 2nd amendment and infringing on our rights, but also being ineffective at what they're arguing at.

AR-15 style rifles have indeed been used in a number of very public shootings.  But the common handgun still dwarfs those killings by over an order of magnitude.  More people are killed by knives than ALL rifles.  More people are killed without weapons(IE 'bare hands and feet') than with rifles, much less the 'assault weapon' subset.

Fix the violence issue and the gun violence issue will also be resolved.  Fix the gun violence issue and you still have a violence issue, which is why you see proposals over in England to ban kitchen knives.
 
2014-02-14 08:14:28 AM  

BayouOtter: soporific
If trained police officers can't avoid shooting innocent people, why would we expect an armed civilian to be better? These kinds of fantasies aren't helping.

You highly overestimate police training and motives while underestimating armed civilians. Unless they're on a serious Swat-type team, cops qualify once a year, maybe shoot 500 rounds annually. They generally don't have strong motivation to become expert marksman, and if they do shoot wildly (or "accidentally" execute someone through mishandling) they aren't going to suffer much for it, if at all.

Civilians that go through the hoops of getting a CCW are often shooting enthusiasts in the first place, and often expend 500 rounds per month in practice, or more. In addition, a civilian does not have the same immunity from civil and criminal charges like an officer does, and are thus driven to be more discriminating an careful in their shots.


Does "stand your ground" ring a bell?
 
2014-02-14 09:27:50 AM  

Firethorn: AR-15 style rifles have indeed been used in a number of very public shootings. But the common handgun still dwarfs those killings by over an order of magnitude. More people are killed by knives than ALL rifles. More people are killed without weapons(IE 'bare hands and feet') than with rifles, much less the 'assault weapon' subset.


The goal isn't to stop murder, the goal is to reduce murder and mass killings.

Firethorn: Fix the violence issue and the gun violence issue will also be resolved. Fix the gun violence issue and you still have a violence issue, which is why you see proposals over in England to ban kitchen knives.


Right, a common retort seems to be if you take away guns, then killers will just find another method.  For perspective, at the same time Sandy Hook elementary was being shot up and kids were being killed, a guy went on a knife rampage through a school in China.  22 in total were stabbed.  Guess how many died?
 
2014-02-14 09:28:41 AM  

Gilligann: Out of 100, how many rounds were left when it jammed?


According to the below article - over 70 rounds had been fired.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4781460
 
2014-02-14 10:33:23 AM  
lennavan:
Right, a common retort seems to be if you take away guns, then killers will just find another method.  For perspective, at the same time Sandy Hook elementary was being shot up and kids were being killed, a guy went on a knife rampage through a school in China.  22 in total were stabbed.  Guess how many died?

Since you're smugly boasting, I'll guess zero died in that particular school attack? I'll assume you mean the Chenpeng province school slashing, but knife-based school attacks aren't sunshine and rainbows.
The Nanping school massacre in 2010 had 8 children killed, and a month later in Fujian 16 students and one teacher were stabbed, days later at Zhongxin Kindergarten 28 students were stabbed (most under 4 years old), then a month later in Hanzhong Kindergarten 7 kids were killed and 2 adults.
In August  3 were slashed to death, and 20 more injured at a kindergarten in Shibo. Information is spotty around this time as the Chinese government began to censor news reports out of embarrassment and a desire to halt sensationalizing the events, which can incite copycat crimes.

Instead of blaming knives, box cutters, and cleavers, however, the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao had this to say: "China needed to handle social problems, resolve disputes and strengthen mediation at the grassroots level".

Lets talk more about China, though, since you're fixated on it.

Meanwhile, in 2013 in China,  47 were killed on a bus when a disgruntled and dissatisfied Chen Shuizong lit it on fire.   Its a pretty popular way to kill people, for example, back in 2009 somebody else in the same town killed 27 people the same way. In that same year, a steelworker further to the north set a shuttle bus on fire and that killed 24 people. Ignoring buses, in 2010 over there a drunken angry construction worker went on a rampage with his shovel loader and killed 17 people.

Go a bit East and you'll find Kim Dae-han, a 56-year old partially paralyzed retired cab driver, living in Daegu, South Korea. One fine day in February of 2003 he got up and walked to the subway carrying two milk jugs of gasoline or paint thinner, and a lighter. Angry and upset over his medical issues, frustrated and unhappy with the world, he took out his feelings through arson. By the end of the event, 198 people were killed, 147 were injured.

Compare and contrast with the Long Island Railroad Massacre of 93, where Colin Ferguson killed 6 and wounded 19.

How is your perspective now?
 
2014-02-14 10:41:42 AM  

Frank N Stein: Can we all at least agree that .40S&W is a terrible "compromise" round that has no real purpose?


Yes! I swapped out the 40 S&W barrel in my Glock 27 for a $99 Lone Wolf 9mm barrel.  Drop-in replacement, takes literally a few minutes with no tools.  Much more controllable for follow-up shots.  I used it for my CCW range qualification, and it's extremely accurate for a CCW piece.

I used to argue the merits of 9mm vs 40S&W vs 45ACP but the reality is if you need to fire in self-defense, you're likely going to need to fire more than once, and the 40 S&W in a pocket pistol is just too whippy.
 
2014-02-14 10:45:07 AM  
Harris and Klebold had a couple of propane bombs that didn't go off that the sheriff claimed could have killed more than their guns did. Maybe without guns, they would have put more care into the bombs.

Of course, bombs aren't perfect substitutes for guns either, but one of the cautions in all this is that gun control advocates make a shiatload of assumptions about the relative effectiveness of different platforms, and most of those assumptions lack empiricism and, in fact, are directly contradicted by it.
 
2014-02-14 10:47:35 AM  

syrynxx: Frank N Stein: Can we all at least agree that .40S&W is a terrible "compromise" round that has no real purpose?

Yes! I swapped out the 40 S&W barrel in my Glock 27 for a $99 Lone Wolf 9mm barrel.  Drop-in replacement, takes literally a few minutes with no tools.  Much more controllable for follow-up shots.  I used it for my CCW range qualification, and it's extremely accurate for a CCW piece.

I used to argue the merits of 9mm vs 40S&W vs 45ACP but the reality is if you need to fire in self-defense, you're likely going to need to fire more than once, and the 40 S&W in a pocket pistol is just too whippy.


The perfect is the enemy of the good enough. Time spent fretting over precisely which model, capacity, caliber, and weight of gun is far better spent on the range perfecting draw-and-shoot. I'd rather be perfect in my actions with a .22 or 10mm or .50 or any other suboptimal round than clumsy with whatever conventional wisdom holds is the best gun to have.
 
2014-02-14 10:51:22 AM  

BayouOtter: How is your perspective now?


I always feel like busting out that kind of list is detrimental to your argument. Showing that people want to kill each other everywhere is not an argument I'd use to increase availability of and access to guns.
If you're going to win, you have to convince the anti-gun crowd that gun owners are responsible with their firearms or that firearms are only available to responsible people, but the usual "Nuh uh, I totally am. Don't trample MY rights you pants wetter." isn't that convincing.
 
2014-02-14 10:52:09 AM  

syrynxx: Frank N Stein: Can we all at least agree that .40S&W is a terrible "compromise" round that has no real purpose?

Yes! I swapped out the 40 S&W barrel in my Glock 27 for a $99 Lone Wolf 9mm barrel.  Drop-in replacement, takes literally a few minutes with no tools.  Much more controllable for follow-up shots.  I used it for my CCW range qualification, and it's extremely accurate for a CCW piece.

I used to argue the merits of 9mm vs 40S&W vs 45ACP but the reality is if you need to fire in self-defense, you're likely going to need to fire more than once, and the 40 S&W in a pocket pistol is just too whippy.


In a pocket pistol, yes, .40 is probably too powerful. But in a full sized handgun, .40 isn't all that much more snappy than 9mm. Especially if you have the right handgun. My CZ has much less perceived recoil than many 9mm I have fired. Has a lot to do with the design. I compete with a .40 and the rest of the people in my "class" have 9mm. I am just as accurate on followup shots as they are.

Gun design, training and proper handling are the key, not calibre.
 
2014-02-14 11:01:48 AM  

BayouOtter: Since you're smugly boasting, I'll guess zero died in that particular school attack?


That'd be a correct.  Zero.  That guy killed 0 out of 22 stabbed.

BayouOtter: later at Zhongxin Kindergarten 28 students were stabbed (most under 4 years old)


How many of them died?  A violent guy goes on a rampage at an elementary school with a knife.  How many died?  Zero.  That guy killed 0 out of 28 stabbed.

BayouOtter: month later in Hanzhong Kindergarten 7 kids were killed and 2 adults.


27 kids were stabbed in that.  That guy killed 7 out of 27 stabbed.

BayouOtter: In August 3 were slashed to death, and 20 more injured at a kindergarten in Shibo


So he killed 3 out of 23?

Let's take a look at some gun related events:

With a gun, at Virginia Tech, 32 killed out of 49 shot.
With a gun, at Sandy Hook Elementary 26 killed out of 28 shot. 
With a gun, at a movie theater in Colorado, 12 killed out of 70 shot. 
With a gun, at the Navy Yard, 12 killed out of 15 shot.
With a gun, at Fort Hood, 13 killed out of 45 shot.

I'm not saying banning guns will reduce the number of attacks, crazy people might just switch to knives.  But those knife attacks have a lower death toll and a lower injury count, don't they?

This should not be a shocking development for you - guns make it easier to kill people.  I hope you were sitting down for that.
 
2014-02-14 11:06:34 AM  
Why do some assume the ONLY goal is killing people, and that these killers don't want to specifically SHOOT people?  If there are other, more efficient means of killing mass amounts of people, and they're just as easy, WHY AREN'T THEY DOING THAT?

Maybe because:

1) It's not as easy as just buying a gun, walking in an unlocked door and opening fire
2) The specific act of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger has its own appeal


This is the dirty little secret you all want to hide, even as you trumpet your own LOVE OF SHOOTING.
 
2014-02-14 11:22:44 AM  

lennavan: I'm not saying banning guns will reduce the number of attacks, crazy people might just switch to knives.  But those knife attacks have a lower death toll and a lower injury count, don't they?


I'd say it'd be better if nobody went on rampages in the first place, but I guess you don't care at all about children being mutilated, do you? There is this weird thing you have where you want to reduce harm, but just a little and only for guns - if they live through the attack you don't care that they may be blind or paralyzed, just that a gun didn't kill them. You are so focused on the tool used that you completely ignore the person at the center of it, even when addressing the problem of that person would eliminate the harm entirely- why are you so avoidant? Do you have some kind of anti-social personality disorder?

This should not be a shocking development for you - guns make it easier to kill people.  I hope you were sitting down for that.

Arson, bombs and crashes make it even easier - note how in my examples from that previous post that a trip to the gas station for gas and a lighter was all it took to kill far more people than your shooting examples. I know you'll ignore that though.

Oh, speaking of China again, poisoning.  Cheng Zhengping was pretty upset that his competitor's snack shop was doing better, so he slyly spiked their food with rat poison. At least 42 people were killed, though its possible the government suppressed a higher count, and over 300 people fell ill. A majority of the victims where schoolchildren.
 
2014-02-14 11:28:12 AM  

lordjupiter: Why do some assume the ONLY goal is killing people, and that these killers don't want to specifically SHOOT people?  If there are other, more efficient means of killing mass amounts of people, and they're just as easy, WHY AREN'T THEY DOING THAT?

Maybe because:

1) It's not as easy as just buying a gun, walking in an unlocked door and opening fire


Its easier, actually. All you need is a jug of gasoline and a lighter, and you could kill far more people pretty easily, as has been amply demonstrated.

2) The specific act of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger has its own appeal

This is probably it. There is a certain psychological appeal for those sorts which thankfully looses its shine pretty quickly. Haven't you noticed how most shooters sort of give up and go through the motions near the end, letting people go and finally taking their own lives? Execution is exhausting.

Unlike arson, which is more like a certain cooking product, just set it and forget it!

This is the dirty little secret you all want to hide, even as you trumpet your own LOVE OF SHOOTING.

Okay, so you want to get rid of guns, so we force these fruit-loops to use more efficient means to kill people? Is that your plan? Because frankly, that is retarded.

Can I propose a different plan, where we take all that gun-ban money and instead try to identify and help these people before they try to kill people? You know, prevent the harm from ever happening instead of making it worse?
 
2014-02-14 11:30:25 AM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: Why do some assume the ONLY goal is killing people, and that these killers don't want to specifically SHOOT people?  If there are other, more efficient means of killing mass amounts of people, and they're just as easy, WHY AREN'T THEY DOING THAT?

Maybe because:

1) It's not as easy as just buying a gun, walking in an unlocked door and opening fire

Its easier, actually. All you need is a jug of gasoline and a lighter, and you could kill far more people pretty easily, as has been amply demonstrated.

2) The specific act of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger has its own appeal

This is probably it. There is a certain psychological appeal for those sorts which thankfully looses its shine pretty quickly. Haven't you noticed how most shooters sort of give up and go through the motions near the end, letting people go and finally taking their own lives? Execution is exhausting.

Unlike arson, which is more like a certain cooking product, just set it and forget it!

This is the dirty little secret you all want to hide, even as you trumpet your own LOVE OF SHOOTING.

Okay, so you want to get rid of guns, so we force these fruit-loops to use more efficient means to kill people? Is that your plan? Because frankly, that is retarded.

Can I propose a different plan, where we take all that gun-ban money and instead try to identify and help these people before they try to kill people? You know, prevent the harm from ever happening instead of making it worse?



Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.
 
2014-02-14 11:34:53 AM  

lordjupiter: Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.


So despite your own evidence of how much death and mayhem is caused by guns, you're not in favor of a ban? What kind of monster ARE you?
 
2014-02-14 11:37:15 AM  
lordjupiter:
Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.

What changes would you make and how would they have prevented previous 'horrible shooting sprees' of the past? Whats your legislative schema for dealing with the 'mass shooter epidemic'? What are the cost projections you have in mind, and whats the ROI on that?

Lets talk.
 
2014-02-14 11:48:28 AM  
Trying to reduce homicides by focusing on scary AR-15 clones is like trying to reduce travel fatalities by focusing on airline crashes.
 
2014-02-14 11:50:32 AM  

syrynxx: Trying to reduce homicides by focusing on scary AR-15 clones is like trying to reduce travel fatalities by focusing on airline crashes.


We should ban 747s. The worst crash in aviation history involved 747s.
 
2014-02-14 11:59:01 AM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.

What changes would you make and how would they have prevented previous 'horrible shooting sprees' of the past? Whats your legislative schema for dealing with the 'mass shooter epidemic'? What are the cost projections you have in mind, and whats the ROI on that?

Lets talk.



The old "what's your plan" deflection.  It's enough for me in a thread on a troll site while talking to an NRA shill to point out that the shill is just obstructing the PROCESS of PROGRESS.

But since you asked, here are some of my thoughts on guns:

I've been saying all along that this "mental health" solution is never going to fly, and the gun fanatics will stonewall it before it goes far enough to make a difference, once they find out that THEY are not exempt from the scrutiny, restrictions and information gathering/sharing. That doesn't even mention the question of who controls all of this (government intrusion into their own mental health, and analysis of their behavior/medicine) and who pays for it. It was a distraction from the guns themselves all along.

There are just too many variables and too many paranoid people to allow the vagueries of medical diagnosis and the healthcare system to determine who can have guns (or even be AROUND them) and who can't. Crackpots will start suing, insurance premiums will go up, and so forth. As soon as PTSD veterans start getting denied guns, exemptions will be discussed and there will be no way to reconcile veteran favoritism with this "mental health" approach
.
Then there are the police. What happens if a cop is stressed out from work or is put on leave for some incident, like shooting someone? Is he stripped of all the guns he owns personally?

This has not been thought through at all by the gun lobby, or else they just never intended to go along in the first place and are kicking the can down the road again, waiting for the next election, knowing that they can use their influence to block anything meaningful and then mount constant challenges in the courts in the unlikely chance anything ever does get passed.

I'm "pro-gun" but anti-gun-nut. I believe we have a right to a reasonable type of arms, in reasonable quantities, with reasonable restrictions. If you don't like "who decides" what reasonable means, maybe look at that same Constitution that has the 2nd Amendment for the answer, because all the details about how we make and review laws and Amendments are there.

"Gun free zones" are often a response to an area being especially sensitive to gun violence, or especially prone to it. Increasing the amount of guns in such a zone, like a school, is only adding to the problem by sheer weight of numbers and, again, human nature. Even articles on cops in school cite a "prison environment" with children being tasered and even shot.

The "polite society" thing is a myth created by the gun lobby with biased statistical studies by gun advocates. I've even had people use similar products of "blog fog" to claim that the "wild west" was safer than society today. But when you look at actual numbers and not some misinterpretation of data published in Cracked magazine, you see that the exact opposite is true. These are the kinds of misconceptions that the gun nuts hold, but believe are proven facts.

There are dozens of reasons why arming teachers is asinine, so here's a few...

The first and most obvious is that if trained cops are still prone to shooting kids, what do you think is going to happen when educators (who many to the right of center despise anyway) are armed and expected to make snap decisions that even cops screw up? Peoples' Rambo fantasies are not reality. If you've studied the issue at all, beyond reading stories of people shooting unarmed or knife-wielding burglars on gunssavelives.com, you'd know that perception and cognition during such fast-moving events is shaky at best. The last thing we need is more Amadou Diallo style shootings--especially in a school--where someone who is unarmed is believed to have a gun because of the expectations or misperceptions of the shooter.

And who pays for the teacher training, and the guns? What happens to the insurance for teachers and the school system with the possibility of lawsuits resulting from wrongful death or injury cases? How easy would it be for an unarmed teenager to go through a metal detector at the front door, then sucker punch a 60 year old lady and take her gun away? Hell, a few teens could even ambush and overpower the strongest male teacher you want to put out there, and take his gun. With the volatility of teenagers, how is that making the situation any better??

And what happens if you totally lock down a school and, let's just say, everyone is armed and the place is a fortress. Then what? Then you have these types of attacks likely shifting to the SCHOOL BUS or the BUS STOP. Then what? Do you arm bus drivers, and post cops at every bus stop? Conscript parents and arm them, and put them at every stop, just in case some OTHER armed citizen shows up? How is that a better solution than working to get the guns OUT of the picture as much as possible??

You're damn right that's wingnuttery. It's practically the DEFINITION of it. Wingnuts exist on either end of the spectrum (there are lefty wingnuts of course) but I can't think of a more extreme position on guns than arming teachers, except maybe arming kids. So if that isn't wingnuttery, then what is?

I don't care if you don't like namecalling or emotion. Dead children are dead children regardless of YOUR feelings, unfortunately. This is not all about you. And you can go the usual route of complaining about "emotional responses" or "using the tragedy", but the NRA and people like them have systematically pushed back the discussion every time something like this happens, with the "this is not the time" defense mechanism. For them, there's NEVER a time.

The truth of the matter is that our brains are neurologically wired to process both logical and emotional data when forming our identities, preferences, and opinions even on the deepest level. When the mechanisms for regulating that balance are damaged (such as the orbitofrontal cortex) we can no longer make decisions because our emotional side that helps create our values is removed from our analytical side.  Some kind of emotion backs everything normal humans do, whether they realize it consciously or not. This is not just theory, it's how the brain works.

What the gun lobby REALLY wants is for nothing to get done about the problem, so they bullshiat everyone for a few weeks until the news cycle shifts to something else. That includes pretending that everyone who has an opinion apart from the gun extremists is somehow a hyperemotional dumbass...as if it's a brand new issue nobody has ever considered before, and as if there is no emotion in the fear of one's neighbor or the government that LEADS to arming oneself to the teeth and advocating that all of society be armed as well.

I wonder, as someone mentioned to me, would the same people like it if George Soros gave Bushmasters and Glocks to every liberal and minority in this country? What would they say and do then?

The 2nd says "State", singular, and does not specify what "arms" or exactly how many. So I say give them all one musket and one flintlock pistol and send them to Texas, where they can conceal carry all they want by the light of oil lamps and Franklin stoves.

Just because you can't fully stop ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE ABUSE with prohibition doesn't mean better gun regulation isn't needed.  Throwing one's hands in the air and saying nothing will ever work is defeatist sabotage of the issue.  Since we can never fully eradicate terrorism or WMDs, should we stop trying?

This conversation needs to start taking place among those who can change the laws, without b.s. excuses being made about guns being something other than what they are.

What if all the shootings in the country were liberals killing conservatives....would the historical murder rate still be considered low and acceptable?

Or, is it more sane to consider the details behind the numbers???

What if 1 person died per year from gunshots.  Only one.  Would that be ok, since the number is so low, even if it was the person you love the most?

Back to mental health...

Do you honestly think gun owners are going to go along with sanity checks run by the government or anyone else?  fark no.

That's just another scapegoat and bullshiat non-solution they never intend to implement.  They will fight it in the courts, and claim the 2nd requires no such provision.  They KNOW this will never work, and they will never go along with it at a nationally organized or individual level.  The only reason it even sounds good right now is because they just want to make the issue go away for now, and blaming crazy people is a better alternative to looking at the gun problem.

What's the cut-off for "too crazy to own guns"?  Does that mean the government accesses your medical records and tests your sanity?  That they can force mental health care on you if you already own a gun, or can take your gun away if you're on certain medications?  What are those medications?  Will they allow you to be around your own guns if, say, you're recovering from surgery and on some pills that make you loopy for a while?  And if guns are out there and the health care issues don't work, then what?  Institutionalization for all people who can't be trusted around guns, just so Gun Derper can fantasize about blasting hippies and minorities creeping through his window?

Who pays for all that shiat? You have nearly half the country going bananas over some imagined "death panels" in Obamacare, and you want to tie the 2nd Amendment to all of this healthcare crap on top of it? No farking way they will ever go along with it.

Total bullshiat.  The answer is not to wave a magic wand and make all the crazy and bad people go away, it's to remove some of their resources or at least make those resources harder to get.

 Let's extend the "bat/car/hammer=gun" type of reductionist logic to it's inevitable conclusion.  All killings are equally bad, and all items used in killings are equally bad.  Yet nearly everything in existence has been linked to death in some way.  Therefore, there is no difference in regulating any one thing vs another.  Our choices, then, are to regulate everything, or to regulate nothing.  Ban everything, or anarchy.   Right?
 
2014-02-14 12:06:51 PM  

BayouOtter: lennavan: I'm not saying banning guns will reduce the number of attacks, crazy people might just switch to knives. But those knife attacks have a lower death toll and a lower injury count, don't they?

I'd say it'd be better if nobody went on rampages in the first place, but I guess you don't care at all about children being mutilated


I don't understand why you'd prefer children to die.  WTF is wrong with you?

BayouOtter: if they live through the attack you don't care that they may be blind or paralyzed, just that a gun didn't kill them.


Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?  A kid being stabbed might be blind, so who cares if they die?  I mean, I've encountered some gun nuts but holy shiat do you ever love your guns.  It's farking sick dude, just farking sick.
 
2014-02-14 12:20:49 PM  

lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.

What changes would you make and how would they have prevented previous 'horrible shooting sprees' of the past? Whats your legislative schema for dealing with the 'mass shooter epidemic'? What are the cost projections you have in mind, and whats the ROI on that?

Lets talk.

The old "what's your plan" deflection.  It's enough for me in a thread on a troll site while talking to an NRA shill to point out that the shill is just obstructing the PROCESS of PROGRESS.


Alright, first I don't care much for the shrill cries of 'lying NRA shill!' you keep screaming just because I disagree with you. In addition, you've got this weird hypocritical thing where your only response is to dismiss everything by calling it deflection. Do you not see how weird this is?

"Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws. "
"Okay, lets discuss changes to gun laws. What ideas do you have? How would they work?"
"This is a bullshiat delaying tactic! The old 'lets talk about a plan' deflection!"

Then you go off on this long rambling screed where you erect big strawmen and then set them ablaze while doing the posting equivalent of foaming at the mouth about 'emotion' and 'evil NRA'. Not once do you actually propose any specific or general legislative change beyond (and I am being generous) an extremely vague 'ban murder-resources or make them harder to get' idea, for which you propose no method of accomplishing.

You come of as being very unhinged and unresponsive. One might even suspect that your entire post was formulated with the express intent of delaying a discussion of your proposed changes to our laws, or deflecting from the issue entirely.

I will ask again, what legislative changes do you propose? What is progress on this front, in your opinion?
 
2014-02-14 12:24:26 PM  

lennavan: BayouOtter: lennavan: I'm not saying banning guns will reduce the number of attacks, crazy people might just switch to knives. But those knife attacks have a lower death toll and a lower injury count, don't they?

I'd say it'd be better if nobody went on rampages in the first place, but I guess you don't care at all about children being mutilated

I don't understand why you'd prefer children to die.  WTF is wrong with you?


I know you have trouble reading, let me try quoting my post.

I'd say it'd be better if nobody went on rampages in the first place, (because I don't want children to be murdered or mutilated)
 
2014-02-14 12:25:12 PM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter:
Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws.  Nice try, shill.

What changes would you make and how would they have prevented previous 'horrible shooting sprees' of the past? Whats your legislative schema for dealing with the 'mass shooter epidemic'? What are the cost projections you have in mind, and whats the ROI on that?

Lets talk.

The old "what's your plan" deflection.  It's enough for me in a thread on a troll site while talking to an NRA shill to point out that the shill is just obstructing the PROCESS of PROGRESS.

Alright, first I don't care much for the shrill cries of 'lying NRA shill!' you keep screaming just because I disagree with you. In addition, you've got this weird hypocritical thing where your only response is to dismiss everything by calling it deflection. Do you not see how weird this is?

"Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws. "
"Okay, lets discuss changes to gun laws. What ideas do you have? How would they work?"
"This is a bullshiat delaying tactic! The old 'lets talk about a plan' deflection!"

Then you go off on this long rambling screed where you erect big strawmen and then set them ablaze while doing the posting equivalent of foaming at the mouth about 'emotion' and 'evil NRA'. Not once do you actually propose any specific or general legislative change beyond (and I am being generous) an extremely vague 'ban murder-resources or make them harder to get' idea, for which you propose no method of accomplishing.

You come of as being very unhinged and unresponsive. One might even suspect that your entire post was formulated with the express intent of delaying a discussion of your proposed changes to our laws, or deflecting from the issue entirely.

I will ask again, what legislative changes do you propose? What is progress on this front, in your opinion?



Step one is to remove people like you who just get in the way.  I answered your questions, and I don't care if you don't like being called an NRA shill, because that's what you clearly are.
 
2014-02-14 12:28:16 PM  

lordjupiter: BayouOtter:

I will ask again, what legislative changes do you propose? What is progress on this front, in your opinion?

Step one is to remove people like you who just get in the way.  I answered your questions, and I don't care if you don't like being called an NRA shill, because that's what you clearly are.


Well, this is a start. How will you remove 'people like me'? Remove voting rights from anyone that disagrees with you? Round them up into camps? Murder?

Alright, after you've eliminated all your political rivals, what is step two? What laws do you pass or alter?

What legislative proposals do you propose?
 
2014-02-14 01:00:43 PM  

give me doughnuts: sprawl15: Great_Milenko: If they always jam, why would anyone want to buy one?

because they're easier to get than mexican viagra


And they look "tacticool".

[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x480]

That way you think you're really a bad-ass, when all you really are is a dumdass with a .223 that has a flashlight on it.



That sissy gun ain't nothin'

Check out MY zombie gun

www.evike.com


nothing says tactical like a spork
 
2014-02-14 01:08:17 PM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: BayouOtter:

I will ask again, what legislative changes do you propose? What is progress on this front, in your opinion?

Step one is to remove people like you who just get in the way.  I answered your questions, and I don't care if you don't like being called an NRA shill, because that's what you clearly are.

Well, this is a start. How will you remove 'people like me'? Remove voting rights from anyone that disagrees with you? Round them up into camps? Murder?

Alright, after you've eliminated all your political rivals, what is step two? What laws do you pass or alter?

What legislative proposals do you propose?



I don't propose any because I'm not a legislator.  And if you'd read my response you'd already know that, along with a heck of a lot more useful information about what I think we can and can't do.  But you keep grandstanding on that specific legislation "what's your plan in full detail" angle as if we're negotiating, and as if it means something.  It's what you're paid to do, right?
 
2014-02-14 01:25:39 PM  
Boy I missed some fun in this thread overnight.

My new favorite derper boy-

bk3k: Pretty weak. I have a few people on ignore. But I don't use it to ignore people with different opinions than mine. I use it on those who are not willing to debate at all and their argument usually boils down to "I'm right because I'm right!" So I use the ignore function to avoid wasting my time. I welcome people who disagree with me(and those who will continue to do so). How mentally weak are you that you can only talk with people who agree with you on everything?


I love when they break this out. Since I ignore someone who literally doesn't understand logical fallacies and is an obvious shill, they immediately create the strawman that I only listen to people with similar opinion as myself. You know, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary in various topics on fark ranging from gun control, to self defense (GZ vs TM), and NSA spying.

But here's the most ironic part....

bk3k: That is why I say Fark you I am done after this post. You either cannot or will not debate in good faith. Probably you are a troll and I shall not waste my time on you again. If not a troll than an amazingly stubborn fool. Same either way. You can't even debate. You just ignore what was said and substitute your own reality. Forget it.


bk3k: The data shows less violent crime and less murders (despite the deadliness of guns) at the same time gun ownership has increased. So how the fark can you ignore that and just come to the opposite conclusion to what the data plainly shows?

This guy himself doesn't understand correlation and causation, and due to his own ignorance, simply determines himself to be correct, everyone else to be wrong, and projects his own mental limitations on his opponents.

It would be sad if it wasn't so hilarious. Again I repeat, please don't wear your ignorance like a badge of honor. When others are calling you stupid, you should probably just consider that maybe you are, and that maybe what seems like a really insightful observation might be fundamentally flawed, and that, in fact, you aren't nearly as smart as you pretend to be.

Your ignorance isn't as good as my knowledge, and it never will be. Go and find my post with multiple citations on gun crime, and when you have equal citations that refute those, I'll begin to treat you like an adult.
 
2014-02-14 02:11:06 PM  

lordjupiter: BayouOtter: lordjupiter: BayouOtter:

I will ask again, what legislative changes do you propose? What is progress on this front, in your opinion?

Step one is to remove people like you who just get in the way.  I answered your questions, and I don't care if you don't like being called an NRA shill, because that's what you clearly are.

Well, this is a start. How will you remove 'people like me'? Remove voting rights from anyone that disagrees with you? Round them up into camps? Murder?

Alright, after you've eliminated all your political rivals, what is step two? What laws do you pass or alter?

What legislative proposals do you propose?


I don't propose any because I'm not a legislator.


Sounds like you're trying to deflect and delay a discussion about what can be done to curtail mass shootings, bub.

But you keep grandstanding on that specific legislation "what's your plan in full detail" angle as if we're negotiating, and as if it means something.  It's what you're paid to do, right?

Well, I never asked for 'full detail' and I'd be satisfied with some pretty basic proposal ideas from you beyond the "first 'remove' all people that don't share my opinion'".

Here, I'll lead by example.

Some good legislative ideas of mine:
1. Additional funding and guidance should be provided to the states in order to bring their reporting systems in-line with the requirements of NICS. The states should be motivated, guided, and funded to ensure that those found ineligible to purchase firearms due to criminality or mental adjudication by state authorities be properly reported and prevented from purchasing firearms. (Such a gap in reporting allowed Cho, the VT shooter, to obtain his weapons.)
2. Efforts should be made to open access to the NICS for private citizens, so that those selling their guns can ensure that their prospective buyer is not a prohibited person. Privacy entanglements will complicate this, but in the modern age it should be possible for any private seller to call a 1-800 number and be confident he's not providing a criminal with arms.
3. Alternatively or in addition to (2) subsidize or encourage FFLs to perform transfers between private parties, so that background checks are not behind an economic barrier.  (The point, as in (2), is to encourage background checks.)

I could go on, but you'll just deflect and delay, I'm sure.
 
2014-02-14 02:39:49 PM  
Background check tweaks that'll never pass?  Wooo.  You rebel.  Go you.

Learn to read, bub.
 
2014-02-14 02:51:53 PM  

lordjupiter: Background check tweaks that'll never pass?  Wooo.  You rebel.  Go you.


Stop deflecting and delaying. How much does Bloomberg pay you, shill?
 
2014-02-14 03:34:37 PM  

lennavan: The goal isn't to stop murder, the goal is to reduce murder and mass killings.


Shouldn't we have a zero tolerance policy towards murder?  Note zero tolerance in this case means that we'll do our best to haul every murderer into court, investigate every murder, etc...  Nobody gets a free pass on murder.

Still, trying to imply that my realistic goal is to 'stop murder' is close to setting up a straw man.  'Fixing' violence doesn't necessarily mean that the fix is perfect, after all...

Right, a common retort seems to be if you take away guns, then killers will just find another method. For perspective, at the same time Sandy Hook elementary was being shot up and kids were being killed, a guy went on a knife rampage through a school in China. 22 in total were stabbed. Guess how many died?

I'm not worried about knives; I'm worried they'll switch to bombs and/or arson.

lordjupiter: The old "what's your plan" deflection.  It's enough for me in a thread on a troll site while talking to an NRA shill to point out that the shill is just obstructing the PROCESS of PROGRESS.


Lovely.  So a law doesn't have to actually have any benefits, so long as it's part of some 'process' that is part of 'progress'?  I'm not religious, but I'm reminded of the saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.'  For me, the "mental health solution" isn't actually a bad one, but it DOESN'T mean that you're scrutinizing gun owners and yanking their firearms the moment they show a stress reaction.  It's more along the lines of making it so that people can see professionals without serious financial concern(or discrimination).  Yes, I'm a pro-gun person in favor of universal healthcare.  Chew on that a bit.

I also support ending the war on (some) drugs, reforming how our welfare system operates, and numerous other changes that I believe will reduce violence.
"Reasonable" at this point is vague to the point of being useless.  What Ted Nugent thinks is reasonable is 180 degrees opposed to what Diane Feinstein thinks, but I think neither is reasonable.

Sort of like your perception of 'Gun Free Zones' - how adding guns would only increase the problem.  Meanwhile I consider that the vast majority of spree killings show that said killers deliberately target such areas, which is why some have renamed them 'Victim Disarmament Zones'.  Look, if we trust a citizen to carry concealed in places like banks after a background investigation, training, and competency test, why not schools?  Why do we allow cops to carry there if it's such an issue?  We probably have more kids shot by police than we do by CCW holders.

Oh, and one regulation I do support is that a person has to be at least 18 to carry outside of range/hunting with parents.  So it's not like the kids at the school would be legally carrying anyways, even if the school environment is a lot like a prison(which we need to fix).

As for the 'Wild West' - Well, not today, but the statistics I saw was that the 'wild west' was safer than the east coast cities of the day, and certainly safer than the cities of the '80s during the worst part of the crime wave.  Violent crime has dropped incredibly since then.  I'd like to see some citation that violent crime was worse in the wild west than today...  You shouldn't have any problems with that, now should you?

On arming teachers - you seem to concentrate on the worst aspects, deliberately constructing a straw man.
1.  We're not trying to arm every teacher, turn them into cops, etc...  It'd be a volunteer program, which leads to
2.  Not every teachers is a 60 year old lady.  Most are a lot younger, and there are military vets mixed in tehre.
3.  Teacher training/guns - My initial thought is that the teacher provides the gun(it's a personal choice), with the school picking up the cost of any specific certifications they require; but it's on the teacher to practice enough to actually pass.
4.  We're not talking Rambo here, we're talking about an armed teacher shooting a spree killer when he presents himself.
5.  No, that's not a guarantee he'll actually succeed.
6.  Cops have a more difficult job than an armed teacher would have, because he generally actually has to respond to the scene in question, while the teacher was always there.
7.  Insurance wise I wonder what would happen if we made schools at least somewhat responsible for inadequate security if there's a spree killing there.  I suppose they(or the armed teachers) would want to talk to the police insurance company; they should have experience.
8.  Why aren't these teams assaulting cops for their weapons?
There's no need to lock down schools more, all we're really after is making it so the potential spree killer can't be sure that there aren't guns there to stop him.  They target 'gun-free' areas overwhelmingly as is.
As for the '1 person per year', what about car accidents?  Should we ban those?  It's about a balance.  The closest I can think of that affects me personally is that I lost my grandmother to cigarette induced lung cancer.  I don't like smoking at all, I recommend everyone quit, but I don't advocate banning them.

 

lordjupiter: I don't propose any because I'm not a legislator. And if you'd read my response you'd already know that, along with a heck of a lot more useful information about what I think we can and can't do. But you keep grandstanding on that specific legislation "what's your plan in full detail" angle as if we're negotiating, and as if it means something. It's what you're paid to do, right?


You do realize that you don't need to be a legislator to propose laws and/or regulations?  Heck, it's a very unusual legislator that actually reads the bill he's sponsoring today.  He's not even asking for specifics, actual legal jargon, etc...  Just give him a course of action.

Mine:
1.  Legalize, tax, and regulated recreational drugs.  Require them to meet a 'best practical safety' standard which means that they're medically pure or at least cut with medically safe adulterants.  Packages will have safe dosage instructions, as well as a disclaimer amounting to 'Yo!  This shiat isn't safe for you!'  Tax revenues from the sale of drugs will go towards treatment programs
2.  Universal healthcare, *including* psychiatric help
3.  Reform schools/welfare so that both programs are more about education.
4.  Make prisons/jails actually have reform purposes, providing education and such.
5.  I have an idea for a 'firearm acquisition permit'.  A CCW would grant the same benefits, but the rules would be 'you can't transfer a firearm to somebody who doesn't have a permit; this includes renting, loaning, etc...'.  Said permit would be shall-issue short of disqualifiers, but wouldn't amount to a gun registry any more than driver's licenses amount to showing the license holder actually owns a car.

As is, you refuse to say, which makes me think that what policies you DO support are the same tired out stuff that I can refute/counter by copy-pasting posts from years ago.

Bayou's ideas are good as well.  Optimizing a system before trying to replace it is a great idea, especially if the replacement would suffer from the same problems.
 
2014-02-14 03:46:21 PM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: Background check tweaks that'll never pass?  Wooo.  You rebel.  Go you.

Stop deflecting and delaying. How much does Bloomberg pay you, shill?


I too am curious as to how much he's being paid by Bloomberg, the brady bunch, and such.  I might have to switch, I'm not even making minimum wage for my shilling!
 
2014-02-14 03:53:28 PM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: Background check tweaks that'll never pass?  Wooo.  You rebel.  Go you.

Stop deflecting and delaying. How much does Bloomberg pay you, shill?



HA!  Bloomberg?  That's your response?

Looks like I struck paydirt.  It's ok.  You can go back to your masters and tell them you did all you could.  I'll tell them you stuck to their script.

Firethorn: You do realize that you don't need to be a legislator to propose laws and/or regulations? Heck, it's a very unusual legislator that actually reads the bill he's sponsoring today. He's not even asking for specifics, actual legal jargon, etc... Just give him a course of action.


------------->  the point
you


1) Remove people like him from the discussion because they are not sincere in their efforts and 99% of the options available are non-starters to them
2) Allow people in better position than YOU or I to craft legislation based on the best available information that isn't corrupted by political influence
3) Try it out
4) Revise if necessary

Is that so hard to understand?  Is there a reason you can't read what I wrote and realize that more than this is useless without getting past step 1, and even more pointless on a trollboard with NRA hacks all over the place?

What do you farks want, specific statements like "ban clips over 20 rounds" so you can find some reason to dismiss the whole thing?  This isn't my first rodeo, champ.  There's a reason nothing ever gets done, and it STARTS WITH STEP 1 ABOVE.
 
2014-02-14 03:56:27 PM  

Firethorn: BayouOtter: lordjupiter: Background check tweaks that'll never pass?  Wooo.  You rebel.  Go you.

Stop deflecting and delaying. How much does Bloomberg pay you, shill?

I too am curious as to how much he's being paid by Bloomberg, the brady bunch, and such.  I might have to switch, I'm not even making minimum wage for my shilling!



I'm not paid nor am I affiliated with any group that has anything to do with gun control, but nice "nuh uh, YOU" redirection, RON PAUL.
 
2014-02-14 03:58:22 PM  

lordjupiter: Firethorn: BayouOtter: lordjupiter: Background check tweaks that'll never pass?  Wooo.  You rebel.  Go you.

Stop deflecting and delaying. How much does Bloomberg pay you, shill?

I too am curious as to how much he's being paid by Bloomberg, the brady bunch, and such.  I might have to switch, I'm not even making minimum wage for my shilling!


I'm not paid nor am I affiliated with any group that has anything to do with gun control, but nice "nuh uh, YOU" redirection, RON PAUL.



And I note that he has not specifically responded to my questions about his NRA affiliations.  Why is that?  I'm being 100% honest, why isn't he?
 
2014-02-14 04:06:14 PM  
Why on earth would someone want to hire a shill to handle their publicity on a fark thread that probably only gets visited by half a dozen people at this point?

And if someone is, my writing is of acceptable quality and I'm for hire.
 
2014-02-14 04:06:17 PM  

Firethorn: As for the 'Wild West' - Well, not today, but the statistics I saw was that the 'wild west' was safer than the east coast cities of the day, and certainly safer than the cities of the '80s during the worst part of the crime wave. Violent crime has dropped incredibly since then. I'd like to see some citation that violent crime was worse in the wild west than today... You shouldn't have any problems with that, now should you?


/facepalm

Gun problems were SO bad in the Wild West that towns had to confiscate guns and enforce strict gun bands to get it under control.  The modern twist on this has been to try and have it both ways, claiming the WW was safer than today BECAUSE guns were everywhere, which is the opposite of what happened.  You can research this at your convenience.
 
2014-02-14 04:27:46 PM  

Firethorn: I'm not worried about knives; I'm worried they'll switch to bombs and/or arson.


No doubt.  Mass murderers will just switch to building bombs, because you know, that's super easy and safe.

Right.
 
2014-02-14 04:38:40 PM  
Does anybody have any butter I can borrow? I'm trying to make cupcakes but I ran out yesterday..
 
2014-02-14 04:41:42 PM  

lennavan: Firethorn: I'm not worried about knives; I'm worried they'll switch to bombs and/or arson.

No doubt.  Mass murderers will just switch to building bombs, because you know, that's super easy and safe.

Right.


Umm... It is super easy, and I'm not sure the person that wants to go shoot a place up is incredibly concerned with safety..
 
2014-02-14 05:32:40 PM  

lordjupiter: lordjupiter: Firethorn: BayouOtter: lordjupiter: Background check tweaks that'll never pass?  Wooo.  You rebel.  Go you.

Stop deflecting and delaying. How much does Bloomberg pay you, shill?

I too am curious as to how much he's being paid by Bloomberg, the brady bunch, and such.  I might have to switch, I'm not even making minimum wage for my shilling!


I'm not paid nor am I affiliated with any group that has anything to do with gun control, but nice "nuh uh, YOU" redirection, RON PAUL.


And I note that he has not specifically responded to my questions about his NRA affiliations.  Why is that?


Because its a pretty ridiculous assertion to make, is why. (I'm not even a member, much less a paid shill.)

I'm being 100% honest, why isn't he?

You're being 100% unhinged, is what you are.
 
2014-02-14 06:34:37 PM  

BayouOtter: lordjupiter: lordjupiter: Firethorn: BayouOtter: lordjupiter: Background check tweaks that'll never pass?  Wooo.  You rebel.  Go you.

Stop deflecting and delaying. How much does Bloomberg pay you, shill?

I too am curious as to how much he's being paid by Bloomberg, the brady bunch, and such.  I might have to switch, I'm not even making minimum wage for my shilling!


I'm not paid nor am I affiliated with any group that has anything to do with gun control, but nice "nuh uh, YOU" redirection, RON PAUL.


And I note that he has not specifically responded to my questions about his NRA affiliations.  Why is that?

Because its a pretty ridiculous assertion to make, is why. (I'm not even a member, much less a paid shill.)

I'm being 100% honest, why isn't he?

You're being 100% unhinged, is what you are.


Cry moar.
 
Displayed 50 of 453 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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