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.

(WPXI.com)   Reports that 20 students have been hurt after multiple stabbings at Franklin Regional High School near Pittsburgh   (wpxi.com) divider line 742
    More: News, Franklin Regional High School, Pittsburgh, Westmoreland County  
•       •       •

8397 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 9:57 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-09 01:51:39 PM

tlars699: Frozboz: Kid with a knife = 20 kids with serious, but non-life threatening injuries- who may now be laced with a blood born disease that they didn't have previously and can now look forward to eventually succumbing to lifelong torture from said disease.
Kid with a gun = 20 dead kids


FTFY

Would you rather die right now, or waste away?


r u 4 real
 
2014-04-09 01:52:51 PM

Kit Fister: Weatherkiss: How about instead of going after tools used for attacking other human beings, we go after the motives human beings have to want to make them want to hurt other people to begin with?

No?

Okay, carry on.

That would be too hard! It's easier to just keep nerfing the world and hope people stop hurting people as badly!


Im sorry. I couldn't hear you guys over the sound of state mental health budgets being cut.

Im sure you guys will be protesting these cuts right?
 
2014-04-09 01:54:02 PM
www.andyworthington.co.uk
 
2014-04-09 01:54:52 PM

GnomePaladin: Ned Stark: GnomePaladin: Ned Stark: A knife, but not so strongly that multiplying it by the probability of such an attack results in a value larger than the desire for firearms to in general be accessible to the populace.

I hope you never have to find out, but I wonder if you would feel the same way should one of your kids be shot in school.

Probabilities are great things to calculate when considering whether or not to buy a lottery ticket, some other times not so much.

Errrm, and why not exactly? Decisions should be made with an as accurate picture of the world as possible.

Because sometimes the outcome of the infinitesimally small probability is too grave to not do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening.


If you did "whatever it takes" to prevent every threat to your kids life at least as likely as a mass shooting you would be an enormously creepy vaguely abusive helicopter parent at the very least.
 
2014-04-09 01:56:32 PM

Kit Fister: I think we've talked about this before, and we keep proposing means of minimally affecting gun owners while increasing restrictions on criminals. The problem is, they aren't politically splashy enough to be implemented.


Such as?
 
2014-04-09 01:58:08 PM
KEY FACTS: (as of 12 p.m.)


Attack lasted 20-30 minutes



What the fark?
 
2014-04-09 01:58:34 PM

Mrtraveler01: Kit Fister: Weatherkiss: How about instead of going after tools used for attacking other human beings, we go after the motives human beings have to want to make them want to hurt other people to begin with?

No?

Okay, carry on.

That would be too hard! It's easier to just keep nerfing the world and hope people stop hurting people as badly!

Im sorry. I couldn't hear you guys over the sound of state mental health budgets being cut.

Im sure you guys will be protesting these cuts right?


Did someone say cut?
 
2014-04-09 01:58:57 PM

Pitabred: That's not what that article says at all:

"A third of patients with gunshot wounds (33.0 percent) died compared with 7.7 percent of patients with stab wounds. "


He ignored me when I said the same thing earlier.  His reading skills are not very good.
 
2014-04-09 02:00:04 PM
True to his idiotic form, Wolf Blitzer is calling this a "school shooting".  Asshole.
 
2014-04-09 02:01:40 PM

Mrtraveler01: Kit Fister: Weatherkiss: How about instead of going after tools used for attacking other human beings, we go after the motives human beings have to want to make them want to hurt other people to begin with?

No?

Okay, carry on.

That would be too hard! It's easier to just keep nerfing the world and hope people stop hurting people as badly!

Im sorry. I couldn't hear you guys over the sound of state mental health budgets being cut.

Im sure you guys will be protesting these cuts right?



Universal healthcare, including mental health, would go a long way toward relieving the financial pressure many folks feel causing them to commit violent crimes for financial gain, as well as offer the opportunity for others to get the treatment they need before they kill someone.

I wonder how gun rights advocates in general feel about that?
 
2014-04-09 02:03:26 PM

thefatbasturd: You DO know those background checks are already in place, right?


And unless you've had a court ordered civil commitment for mental health problems, will be absolutely useless in preventing someone with a mental disorder from purchasing a gun.
 
2014-04-09 02:03:34 PM

Weatherkiss: How about instead of going after tools used for attacking other human beings, we go after the motives human beings have to want to make them want to hurt other people to begin with?

No?

Okay, carry on.


That should include pulling any and all medications off the market with side effects including "may result in homicidal tendencies.".  God damn.
 
2014-04-09 02:03:55 PM

Callous: iq_in_binary: thefatbasturd: Baz744: thefatbasturd: Gun, knife, it doesn't matter.

Gun, knife; it matters because guns have a much higher lethality rate than knives. Guns are objectively more dangerous than knives. To deny this conclusively proves you are stupid or evil.

thefatbasturd: Face it. If you are focusing all your fear and energy on whatever tool a school assailant is using, you are part of the problem.

No. People concerned about firearms safety are in no way part of the problem. Stupid or evil people who deny that guns are objectively more dangerous than nearly all other commonly used instruments of murder, however, are part of the problem.

This is doubly true because the people most likely to support compassionate, progressive mental health policy cross over heavily with the people concerned about firearms safety; while the people who support draconian or judgmental responses to assorted abnormal behaviors which may be predictive in these cases (thereby encouraging affected individuals to hide their abnormalities rather than seek support to address them) cross over heavily with the stupid and evil people who say guns are no more dangerous than pillows.

Moreover, those who support generous public funding of mental health support cross over heavily with the first group; those who believe public funding for anything other than the military and police constitutes tyranny cross over heavily with the second group.

Enhanced gun safety laws may or may not be part of the solution to the problem of mass violence in schools and public places. But those who favor them are far less likely to be part of the problem than are the stupid and evil people who maintain that guns are no more dangerous than pillows/knives/milk/a bag of walnuts.

Wall of anti-gun rhetoric, opinion about correlation between pro-mental health beliefs and pro-gun control beliefs stated as fact, and personal attacks. Yep. You are not part of the problem at ALL.

You act like there is absolute ...


The gangs didn't stop warring after Prohibition was repealed. They simply moved on to other activities. Do keep in mind that the families didn't really start getting dismantled and deported until 1946. Even then the fighting still continued, it just continued mostly in Italy and only direct hit attempts and various spats in major cities in the US.
 
2014-04-09 02:04:09 PM

GnomePaladin: Mrtraveler01: Kit Fister: Weatherkiss: How about instead of going after tools used for attacking other human beings, we go after the motives human beings have to want to make them want to hurt other people to begin with?

No?

Okay, carry on.

That would be too hard! It's easier to just keep nerfing the world and hope people stop hurting people as badly!

Im sorry. I couldn't hear you guys over the sound of state mental health budgets being cut.

Im sure you guys will be protesting these cuts right?


Universal healthcare, including mental health, would go a long way toward relieving the financial pressure many folks feel causing them to commit violent crimes for financial gain, as well as offer the opportunity for others to get the treatment they need before they kill someone.

I wonder how gun rights advocates in general feel about that?


Leaving aside quibbles about what "including mental health" might or might no mean, I'm all aboard.
 
2014-04-09 02:06:51 PM

GnomePaladin: Mrtraveler01: Kit Fister: Weatherkiss: How about instead of going after tools used for attacking other human beings, we go after the motives human beings have to want to make them want to hurt other people to begin with?

No?

Okay, carry on.

That would be too hard! It's easier to just keep nerfing the world and hope people stop hurting people as badly!

Im sorry. I couldn't hear you guys over the sound of state mental health budgets being cut.

Im sure you guys will be protesting these cuts right?


Universal healthcare, including mental health, would go a long way toward relieving the financial pressure many folks feel causing them to commit violent crimes for financial gain, as well as offer the opportunity for others to get the treatment they need before they kill someone.

I wonder how gun rights advocates in general feel about that?


I'm good with it, despite having a general thing about not liking the idea of the government being in charge of or bankrolling those sort of things.
 
2014-04-09 02:07:57 PM

The Bestest: Theaetetus: Let's be sure to focus the discussion on what type of weapon he had, rather than on his lack of psychiatric help.

I'm gonna be honest here.. yes, I agree we could use better/more comprehensive mental health initiatives, but to what end?

A national database coupled with restrictions so that the Joker isn't able to buy an M-16 the day after getting out of Arkham? Sure.
Mandatory Rorschach tests for everyone in the second grade? I have a problem with that.

It's easy to just -say- "better mental health" in response to events like this, but what exactly do you mean when you say so?


Well, true universal health care, not this stupid mandate, including regular mental health checkups would go a long way. And to that end, while I'm not saying mandatory Rorschach tests in the second grade, what's wrong with a free mandatory annual check up? Think of the money we'd save on preventable illness, for one.
 
2014-04-09 02:08:13 PM

clancifer: Cdr.Murdock: Magorn: TwoHead: kronicfeld: I wonder what a comparative study would reveal about the relative fatality rate of a knife-wielding assailant versus a gun-wielding assailant?

Oh, wait, I don't wonder that at all.

A crazed gunman has to stop to reload but that maniac with a knife never runs out of ammo.  Guns, as our nation's founders intended, are inherently safer by far.

Well, especially if we get all "Originalist" on the 2nd amendment and not the founding father's CLEARLY meant single shot muzzle-loading firearms since that was all they knew existed.  I for the record support the absolute right to keep and bear muzzle- loading Flintlocks by all Americans, as I believe most Citizen's attention spans are too damn short to successfully pull off a mass shooting with one of those babies

Yeah, and by your shiatty flawed logic, freedom of speech doesn't extend to such newfangled contraptions as radio, TV, and the Internet.

Go back to spreading your idiotic tripe this way, and MAYBE you would have an argument.

[img.fark.net image 281x300]

You mad?


Naa, I'm too busy to be mad.

BTW, is this officially a gun thread now?

Goodie

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-09 02:08:15 PM

Ned Stark: GnomePaladin: Mrtraveler01: Kit Fister: Weatherkiss: How about instead of going after tools used for attacking other human beings, we go after the motives human beings have to want to make them want to hurt other people to begin with?

No?

Okay, carry on.

That would be too hard! It's easier to just keep nerfing the world and hope people stop hurting people as badly!

Im sorry. I couldn't hear you guys over the sound of state mental health budgets being cut.

Im sure you guys will be protesting these cuts right?


Universal healthcare, including mental health, would go a long way toward relieving the financial pressure many folks feel causing them to commit violent crimes for financial gain, as well as offer the opportunity for others to get the treatment they need before they kill someone.

I wonder how gun rights advocates in general feel about that?

Leaving aside quibbles about what "including mental health" might or might no mean, I'm all aboard.


Excellent!  Now to convince the others...

Fair point about my "do whatever it takes" statement also.  I may not have expressed that exactly as I intended it.  Sometimes debating through a keyboard is difficult when time constraints are involved.
 
2014-04-09 02:09:26 PM

Bullseyed: brokendownyota: Frozboz: Kid with a knife = 20 kids with serious, but non-life threatening injuries.
Kid with a gun = 20 dead kids


Right, that's why people shot by cops, who are supposedly professionals and thus trained and proficient in firearms manipulation and shot placement, never, EVER survive.

Guns = killmachines.  No wounding shots, ever.  Especially when used by wigged out, untrained, pre-pubescents who's only exposure to pulling the trigger involved clicking a mouse while badmouthing others on the internet.

/pants-on-head retarded statement is retarded
//unless that was a troll
///in which case, well done.

Would have been with you in this, but there is zero correlation between video games and violence, so you can go fark yourself.


There would be millions of people farming and crushing candy.
 
2014-04-09 02:10:19 PM

hardinparamedic: thefatbasturd: You DO know those background checks are already in place, right?

And unless you've had a court ordered civil commitment for mental health problems, will be absolutely useless in preventing someone with a mental disorder from purchasing a gun.


It's worse. You have to be found "incompetent" by the same standard used to determine if defendant's in criminal proceedings are fit to stand trial. It's not so easy to take away gun rights. Voting rights? Hell yea!
 
2014-04-09 02:12:02 PM

Ned Stark: thefatbasturd: The Bestest: Theaetetus: Let's be sure to focus the discussion on what type of weapon he had, rather than on his lack of psychiatric help.

I'm gonna be honest here.. yes, I agree we could use better/more comprehensive mental health initiatives, but to what end?

A national database coupled with restrictions so that the Joker isn't able to buy an M-16 the day after getting out of Arkham? Sure.
Mandatory Rorschach tests for everyone in the second grade? I have a problem with that.

It's easy to just -say- "better mental health" in response to events like this, but what exactly do you mean when you say so?

You DO know those background checks are already in place, right?

Reporting of mental health issues to the relevant databases is rather slapdash, in fairness.


Plus, it requires that the person either (i) is seeking treatment  and the mental health professional has determined that they're an imminent threat to themselves or others that requires breaching confidentiality; or (ii) has already done something pretty violent and been arrested or committed.
It's certainly not proactive in any sense.
 
2014-04-09 02:14:30 PM
Wow, two decidedly non-liberal farkers on board with true universal healthcare.  I'm starting to think the Democrats are framing this issue all wrong.
 
2014-04-09 02:16:31 PM

FullMetalPanda: vpb: And I'll bet that most (if not all) survive.

It's almost as though you have a better chance of surviving if you aren't attacked with something that is designed specifically to kill people.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

Knife stab wounds tend to be lethal while shootings are survivable depending on the ammo, shot placement.


Tell that to Newton. So far no deaths.
 
2014-04-09 02:21:14 PM

iq_in_binary: thefatbasturd: Baz744: thefatbasturd: Gun, knife, it doesn't matter.

Gun, knife; it matters because guns have a much higher lethality rate than knives. Guns are objectively more dangerous than knives. To deny this conclusively proves you are stupid or evil.

thefatbasturd: Face it. If you are focusing all your fear and energy on whatever tool a school assailant is using, you are part of the problem.

No. People concerned about firearms safety are in no way part of the problem. Stupid or evil people who deny that guns are objectively more dangerous than nearly all other commonly used instruments of murder, however, are part of the problem.

This is doubly true because the people most likely to support compassionate, progressive mental health policy cross over heavily with the people concerned about firearms safety; while the people who support draconian or judgmental responses to assorted abnormal behaviors which may be predictive in these cases (thereby encouraging affected individuals to hide their abnormalities rather than seek support to address them) cross over heavily with the stupid and evil people who say guns are no more dangerous than pillows.

Moreover, those who support generous public funding of mental health support cross over heavily with the first group; those who believe public funding for anything other than the military and police constitutes tyranny cross over heavily with the second group.

Enhanced gun safety laws may or may not be part of the solution to the problem of mass violence in schools and public places. But those who favor them are far less likely to be part of the problem than are the stupid and evil people who maintain that guns are no more dangerous than pillows/knives/milk/a bag of walnuts.

Wall of anti-gun rhetoric, opinion about correlation between pro-mental health beliefs and pro-gun control beliefs stated as fact, and personal attacks. Yep. You are not part of the problem at ALL.

You act like there is absolutely no gun control already. T ...

Funny, you don't hear about people getting mowed down with Thompsons anymore in this country. Or blown up with grenades. Or about mortar attacks against churches (granted, you have to go back a ways to find that one, and that one was actually a militia). Remember the roaring 20's and the days of prohibition? Those days weren't a joke, nor were they misrepresented in the history books.

Funny how after the NFA was passed....you started seeing stories about Chicago typewriters being used to clear a speakeasy disappear. All of a sudden the tools of overwhelming force preferred by gangland thugs were a huge liability. They could still get them, they weren't banned. But now they could be tracked back to them.

Gun control DOES work. So long as it's control. Case in point? From the passage of the NFA to the passage of FOPA in 1986 (which effectively relegated select fire weapons to luxuries) you can find 2, count them, 2 instances of NFA controlled weapons being used in crimes. Both of those crimes don't really count because they were committed by LEOs and to this day LEOs still have access to weapons banned under FOPA.

So, to that end, you have no farking idea what you're talking about.


Boy. Bet all those people killed with handguns, shotguns, non-assault ries etc. are sure glad those laws were passed! Banning certain types of weapons DOES NOT WORK other than to cause a switch in what TYPE of weapon is used. Nothing more. Again the ONLY thing that might help is focusing on the PERSON not the tool.
 
2014-04-09 02:21:26 PM
Theaetetus: Plus, it requires that the person either (i) is seeking treatment  and the mental health professional has determined that they're an imminent threat to themselves or others that requires breaching confidentiality; or (ii) has already done something pretty violent and been arrested or committed.
It's certainly not proactive in any sense.


This is why you are farkied as "circle jerking moron." Doctors can't remove any constitutional right. That takes judicial review. We went through this whole thing during the Zimmerman debate, yet you are still spouting the same nonsense.
 
2014-04-09 02:22:34 PM

GnomePaladin: Wow, two decidedly non-liberal farkers on board with true universal healthcare.


You don't mean me, do you?

I'm starting to think the Democrats are framing this issue all wrong.

Or that perhaps the multimillionaire "Democratic" legislators in Congress who make tons of money off investments in, say, insurance companies, might have an ulterior motive in advancing a health care bill that requires every person in America to purchase a product from those insurance companies, and includes a profit cap that is actually  double what the annual profit of those companies had previously been?
 
2014-04-09 02:22:34 PM

GnomePaladin: Wow, two decidedly non-liberal farkers on board with true universal healthcare.  I'm starting to think the Democrats are framing this issue all wrong.


Pretty damn much.


Universal health care would end the middleman aspect of the insurance industry, and it would take a lot of the pure corruption out of the pharmaceutical industry--which would take a slice out of profits, but would take the market for medicine back to normal forces, as opposed to the skewed market forces we see with insurance and current model. It would cut out a lot of waste, it would likewise see a fair number of folks suddenly Galt themselves out of medicine, and all the better, because then they can slide themselves to a purely private practice, and get them away from patients.


It would save the country billions in the long run. Which is why folks are terrified of the concept.



lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-04-09 02:23:55 PM

Degenz: Theaetetus: Plus, it requires that the person either (i) is seeking treatment  and the mental health professional has determined that they're an imminent threat to themselves or others that requires breaching confidentiality; or (ii) has already done something pretty violent and been arrested or committed.
It's certainly not proactive in any sense.

This is why you are farkied as "circle jerking moron."


Because I stated the two current conditions under which background checks would prevent a mentally ill person from purchasing a gun?

What other recitation of facts causes you to flip out and start name calling? "The sky is blue"? "Water is wet"? "You're a jerk"?
 
2014-04-09 02:24:39 PM

brokendownyota: Frozboz: Kid with a knife = 20 kids with serious, but non-life threatening injuries.
Kid with a gun = 20 dead kids


Right, that's why people shot by cops, who are supposedly professionals and thus trained and proficient in firearms manipulation and shot placement, never, EVER survive.

Guns = killmachines.  No wounding shots, ever.  Especially when used by wigged out, untrained, pre-pubescents who's only exposure to pulling the trigger involved clicking a mouse while badmouthing others on the internet.

/pants-on-head retarded statement is retarded
//unless that was a troll
///in which case, well done.


I'm pretty sure he was referencing Adam Lanza rather than making a sweeping statement.
 
2014-04-09 02:26:02 PM

hubiestubert: When I was bouncing, the thing we were most worried about were knives. Guns in crowded spaces is bad news, no question, but knives turn my stomach to watery queasiness instantly. In the hands of even someone with no skills, they can do a fair amount of damage, fair quickly, and training for disarms is messy--no, really, the training leaves your hands, arms, legs, and chest with all sorts of ink marks, or welts from the dummy blades--and in the hands of someone who does have skill, they are absolutely terrifying.

Knives are quiet, they don't need to reload, and in the hands of someone with skill, a knife is deadly and fast. There's a reason that police are trained to NOT go for their guns when faced with an assailant with a blade if they're under 21 feet. Because in the time it takes to draw and fire, a person with a knife will be on you and cutting things, or putting sharp steel in places that just aren't designed to accommodate. A drawn gun, versus knife? That's a whole different question, but if you happen upon someone with a blade, and you are close, it's a bad situation. And knives are sneaky like that in that they can be hidden damn quickly.

We trained to deal with knives, and it's absolutely no fun.

That aside: this particular debate again comes down to addressing NOT the tools used, because any tool can be used as a weapon if you hold it right. The question is: why are folks turning to violence? And with frequency.

It's not about gun control. Gun control is a false debate. It's a bait and switch, because what BOTH sides really are talking about is safety. No gun control measure is going to do a damn bit of good, unless we talk about the reasons that folks turn to violence in the first place. Japan, the UK, they didn't cut out murder, they just changed the tools used in the commission of the crime--and in Japan, they skew their statistics a bit since they classify a LOT of their cases as "missing persons" as opposed to homicide investigations, which has pr...


Word.
 
2014-04-09 02:27:39 PM

Theaetetus: GnomePaladin: Wow, two decidedly non-liberal farkers on board with true universal healthcare.

You don't mean me, do you?

I'm starting to think the Democrats are framing this issue all wrong.

Or that perhaps the multimillionaire "Democratic" legislators in Congress who make tons of money off investments in, say, insurance companies, might have an ulterior motive in advancing a health care bill that requires every person in America to purchase a product from those insurance companies, and includes a profit cap that is actually  double what the annual profit of those companies had previously been?


Holy shiat theets stop sounding sensible you're giving me the jitters here.
 
2014-04-09 02:28:04 PM

Xcott: Naesen: My favorite quote from this whole scenario was "20 children were wounded with four flown out by helicopter, but none with life threatening injuries." This was from WTOP. How stupid do you think your readership is? You don't stick a kid on a helicopter because he broke a bone, got stabbed but not too bad, or given themselves a mild concussion. You stick em on a helicopter when a local hospital is incapable of proper treatment and that the kid will most likely die by the time a ground transport gets them to the hospital that can.


Where I live, we have three hospitals in a 10-minute drive, one just a few blocks from our house.  But the nearest pediatric ICU is in a hospital 90 minutes away.  If there's any reason a kid needs to go to the ICU, it's an automatic helicopter ride.


Which can mean life threatening if they cant make it timely.

The issue is probably just that the local ambulances were used, and/or someone decided it would be a good idea to use this event as a reason to use the helicopter and get practice in and be able to bill the fly time.
 
2014-04-09 02:30:45 PM

Publikwerks: thefatbasturd: Wall of anti-gun rhetoric, opinion about correlation between pro-mental health beliefs and pro-gun control beliefs stated as fact, and personal attacks. Yep. You are not part of the problem at ALL.

You act like there is absolutely no gun control already. There are. Background checks are already there. What makes you think that NEW legislation is going to be any more effective than what is already in place? It won't be. Because you CANNOT legislate this country to zero gun deaths. Someone planning to use a gun to break the law against killing people is not going to be stopped by breaking another law or two. Even if you outright banned all goes ns tomorrow because it will NOT make them disappear. Sucks but it is true. And when any NEW legislation proves to be ineffective the answer from the anti-gun side will be "Well we just need a little MORE control..." and the process will start all over. If closing the gun show loophole makes you somehow feel a little safer when you go to sleep at night, hey, go right a head. I have no problem with that. But after you find that it has done FARKALL to actually make anyone safer, you don't get to come back asking for more.

See, you have already determined that any new law will fail. You are what's wrong because what we need are people willing to find what will work, and if you are dead set that any new law will fail. We need people who are willing toward working towards ending these type of tragedies, not throw up their hands.


No. Again you focus on the tool and not the mind behind it and you are doomed to fail at your goal of preventing the violence. If your goal is to keep the guns out of these people's hands, focus on better identifying people with problems that should prevent them from owning guns and let the background checks already in place weed them out. That and REASONABLE laws holding parents or whomever who allows unauthorised access to their weapons is really all that might help.
 
2014-04-09 02:32:15 PM

Theaetetus: GnomePaladin: Wow, two decidedly non-liberal farkers on board with true universal healthcare.

You don't mean me, do you?


No, two others who responded in the affirmative to my post about universal healthcare a few posts above yours.  You (and I) are decidedly liberal.

I'm starting to think the Democrats are framing this issue all wrong.

Or that perhaps the multimillionaire "Democratic" legislators in Congress who make tons of money off investments in, say, insurance companies, might have an ulterior motive in advancing a health care bill that requires every person in America to purchase a product from those insurance companies, and includes a profit cap that is actually  double what the annual profit of those companies had previously been?


I guess that's possible, if you're into the whole "money is a motivator of people" line of logic.
 
2014-04-09 02:34:19 PM

NickelP: Publikwerks: Cyrusv10: Why are those anti-gun Farkers so silent all the sudden?

Because all the retards who think that any sort of gun registration/mental health check = gun grabbing have blown their saved up load of wharbagarble before anything remotely resembling an argument could form.

The bottom line is that this is a sad occurrence, but it would have been alot worse if he had a gun. And if we could get past all the BS, maybe we could figure out a way to keep guns out of the hand of people who would do these type of attacks. So that the headlines would stay 20 injured instead of 20 killed

is there a single school shooting a gun registration would have stopped?


Columbine.
 
2014-04-09 02:35:30 PM
God, somebody could probably 3D print a knife.
 
2014-04-09 02:36:04 PM

GnomePaladin: Wow, two decidedly non-liberal farkers on board with true universal healthcare.  I'm starting to think the Democrats are framing this issue all wrong.


that's entirely the problem. Healthcare in this country is, to many people, considered a service, like getting an oil change or having your house painted. It's neither a necessary service, nor essential to many people. "I only need a doctor if I have a problem, therefore I should only have to pay for the services I use for myself." I wouldn't pay for another man's oil change, and in this way, I take a dim view of demanding the state to pay for it.  Health Insurance, then, is merely a service provided optionally to offset the costs of paying for a doctor's services by paying a fixed monthly fee against the future need to draw against it.

It's like car insurance: many people view it as a nice-to-have policy that reimburses if you happen to fark up your car, and not a necessity. Thus, framing it and because it is viewed that way, people don't like being told they have to buy it, as well as being told to pay for it for other people.

Turn it around and reframe the issue such that you change the perception from a "pay-for-service" item to a "necessary component of life", and such make it into a public service that people see as a basic necessity like education and municipal roadwork, the attitude will change to see it as a civil function, and people will demand it be provided by the government.

The only problem with that is the accompanying perception of doctors and medical systems being akin to various mechanics shops: Some are better than others, and by virtue of having the choice of who to go to and being able to pay the person that does the best job for the work, you ensure better care than you get from the lowest-cost hack willing to do government work. I mean, look at public defenders. You get a basic attorney who is overworked, underpaid, unable to hire the necessary resources or provide more than barely-adequate legal protection. That's the perception you need to combat, and that perception is reinforced every time articles come out of countries who have socialized medical systems suffering budget shortages resulting in delinquent care. Doesn't matter if it's entirely representative or not, if that's what you see, that's what you're going to believe.

Long story short: You want universal healthcare to be accepted, get the public to accept it as a basic civil service like the police, army, fire, whatever and not as a pay-by-incident service like cable TV or the auto mechanic.
 
2014-04-09 02:36:32 PM
You know, given the pressure put on today's students I'm kind of surprised that this doesn't happen a bit more often.

Recall how your parents would say things like "High school was the best time of our lives." or otherwise tell you how much fun they had in high school? (Even if it wasn't the absolute best). I asked around one time what made them say that... answers I got were things like.

 -Not much homework
 -Classes were work, but not impossibly hard.
 -Had a part time job that afforded extra spending money
 -Extra spending money was enough to have a car and go out places.
 -Most who played sports did so for fun.
 -Going to college could be done for fun if you had a part time job.
 -Or you could just get a job out of high school and with a little effort be living in your own place.

 Sure! That does sound like a lot of fun. These days though...

 -You have almost a college load of homework (many kids stay up past midnight, especially those in sports)
 -If you aren't taking college prep or college courses in high school (running start) you are getting "behind".
 -You need to pull very very good grades to get into college.
 -You are *expected* to go to college or your life will be ruined.
 -Part time jobs do not pay as much relatively.
 -Having your own car usually means getting help from mom and dad to pay for it and insurance.
 -Kids who are good at "sports" are playing to get into college to help pay for their future schooling. They spend as much time at practice and games (even during summer) that it is very hard to hold a part time job. Sports *is* their job.
 -Getting a job out of high school means 3-4 roomates if you want your own place. That's assuming you can find a job that's full time.

 We are putting (right or wrong) seriously heavy pressure on students to go to college. You have to take the advanced classes, you have to be an allstar in your sport so you can get a scholarship, you work part time to save money for it. And even after that you're likely taking on a debt that will take you *decades* to pay off.

 Anyone who doesn't or can't do all of that is considered on the road to failure and the poorhouse.

 We are putting the pressure of the success of their *entire* lives, with a seriously high bar of success, on students who don't even have a fully developed frontal cortex.

 And there are students out there who know that they won't be able to make those grades, their parents could never afford college/aren't eligible for a loan, they can't even keep up with high school, how the hell will they keep up with college? They have so many problems in their lives now, they can't even think ahead to college realistically.

 Our society fails them at life before they even really have a chance to begin.

/surprised we don't have more of them snapping.
//if you find any spelling or grammar mistakes, keep them and consider them a gift.
///it's early yet.
 
2014-04-09 02:36:33 PM

Bullseyed: NightOwl2255: Kit Fister: some people will use any excuse to argue for banning guns, I guess.

Comparing all people that believe in sensible gun control to the few that actually want to ban guns is like comparing all Christians to members of the WBC.

Bolded is the official position of the Democrat party, CNN and MSNBC, so...


That's funny. Being a Democrat is the official position of the WBC...
 
2014-04-09 02:36:50 PM
And nobody died.
 
2014-04-09 02:38:43 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Columbine.


[citation needed]
 
2014-04-09 02:39:18 PM

Ned Stark: thefatbasturd: The Bestest: Theaetetus: Let's be sure to focus the discussion on what type of weapon he had, rather than on his lack of psychiatric help.

I'm gonna be honest here.. yes, I agree we could use better/more comprehensive mental health initiatives, but to what end?

A national database coupled with restrictions so that the Joker isn't able to buy an M-16 the day after getting out of Arkham? Sure.
Mandatory Rorschach tests for everyone in the second grade? I have a problem with that.

It's easy to just -say- "better mental health" in response to events like this, but what exactly do you mean when you say so?

You DO know those background checks are already in place, right?

Reporting of mental health issues to the relevant databases is rather slapdash, in fairness.


But that has been the point. THAT is the problem that needs to be adr not "ERMERGERD, GUNS!!!!!"
 
2014-04-09 02:41:48 PM

Lord_Baull: trappedspirit: So we should ban knives now?  Because we've learned how fantastically great prohibition works, right dip shiats?


I'm glad you agree that abortion and drug laws are stupid and unnecessary.


And I'm glad that you are glad.  Now we are all glad.
 
2014-04-09 02:42:09 PM

The Bestest: thefatbasturd: You DO know those background checks are already in place, right?

I do. I also know about loopholes, lack of enforcement and poorly pooled data.


Great! So you agree that is were our focus should be, fixing those holes, and not newer stricter gun laws. What I have said all along.
 
2014-04-09 02:46:29 PM

Callous: Damn Wolf Blitzer says some really stupid things.


Even sadder is that Wolf Blitzer is paid to say stupid things.
 
2014-04-09 02:47:18 PM
Hey, children were hurt! I'll take this opportunity to leave hate-filled comments about liberals!
 
2014-04-09 02:48:32 PM

The_Sponge: Kit Fister: I think we've talked about this before, and we keep proposing means of minimally affecting gun owners while increasing restrictions on criminals. The problem is, they aren't politically splashy enough to be implemented.

Such as?


It's a multifaceted issue IMO.  Background checks already exist, which  in theory stop the obvious people who "shouldn't" have access to firearms, from purchasing them through dealers.  Again, in theory this background check covers people with criminal backgrounds, as well as mental illness (amongst other things); however the (major) flaw is a lack of inter-departmental communication.

As a (similar) example; my wife still has a Hawaii drivers license.  When we were moving across the country she squeezed through a yellow light that turned red in order to stay behind me (I was in a truck leading).  When the cop pulled her over and ran her license (this was in NY state); Hawaii failed to respond with any information.  I don't entirely know the details on how the computer system works; but if something as simple as a driving record from another DMV can't be reliably accessed; how can we expect an actual criminal or mental health system to be reliable.

Then there is the issue with "mental health" denials (as in, denying a purchase, not someone who denies they have mental issues).  The brain is a  very complicated organ that we have only a weak understanding of. In order for the system to be fair; a strict set of qualifiers would need to be implimented and adheared to in terms of classifying someone "mentally fit" or not.  For example, a close friend of mine was denied a renewal of his security clearance because after its issue (and initial background investigation); he had been divorced; and  voluntarily went to a psychiatrist.  Not because he was depressed or suicidal; but to talk to someone who was a neutral party and gain understanding of why the marriage didn't work.  Because he did so; he was denied a security clearance which was required for his job; and subsequently had to be let go.  Should he also be required to relinquish the weapons he has and be banned from buying more?

I want to stress; I'm by no means against  reform of existing laws; and perhaps adding more as needed; but it seems like (in many peoples eyes) outright banishment is the only option; which in turn causes many on the pro-gun side to reject any possibility of reform leading to a stalemate.

Basically we need to  start with getting the laws and regulations already there working properly  first and  then look at adding more as needed.

A good start would be a national database which stores only 3 things; identifying information, criminal status; and mental status*.  When an FFL logs in and inputs a persons identity it should  only return an OK or DENIED status.  If denied; have it give a unique reference number that the customer can use to  privately find out why and correct it as needed (because lets face it; data entry monkeys make mistakes).  Forget the stupid NCIC form that we already fill out as it wont be needed.  It isn't now really since everything is called in (or done online) already.

By mental status; I'm meaning checking against the existing (dis)qualifiers.  As I said before the brain is a complicated beast and getting deeper than "has this person ever been diagnosed with XYZ" is a slippery slope that I'm not keen to start down if avoidable.  Any changes here would need to stay in the realm of black and white (that is, you ARE schizophrenic; or you ARE bi-polar); and avoid any kind of subjective classifications that could change depending on whose looking at your file or what day of the week it is.

If this part is taken care of properly; it would cover gun shows without any big uproar; since approval would be seconds away; opposed to the current system where depending on the luck of the draw you could be waiting a while for a response.  I have nothing negative about me; yet a few times I've had to stand around waiting for up to 45 minutes for the current system to give the ok.  Other times the check completes faster than I can put my ID away.

/ I'm sure a couple of 'tards are only going to skim this and immediately reply with "your rules already aren't enough we must have moar NAO"
// Not even going to get into the waiting period argument
/// Holy carp my "quick" reply turned into a WoT by accident.  My bad.
 
2014-04-09 02:50:53 PM
Don't come after my assault knives now.
 
2014-04-09 02:51:07 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: NickelP: Publikwerks: Cyrusv10: Why are those anti-gun Farkers so silent all the sudden?

Because all the retards who think that any sort of gun registration/mental health check = gun grabbing have blown their saved up load of wharbagarble before anything remotely resembling an argument could form.

The bottom line is that this is a sad occurrence, but it would have been alot worse if he had a gun. And if we could get past all the BS, maybe we could figure out a way to keep guns out of the hand of people who would do these type of attacks. So that the headlines would stay 20 injured instead of 20 killed

is there a single school shooting a gun registration would have stopped?

Columbine.


Do explain.

Gun registration isn't exactly a preventative control.
 
2014-04-09 02:53:34 PM
I went to that high school in the 70's.  We had scalpels in biology class, all sorts of razor sharp implements in wood & metal shop, yet there never any stabbing happening on a day-to-day basis.  Even the "meet me after school" fist fights were taken off campus, down in the pine trees.  Kids these days, sheesh.
 
Displayed 50 of 742 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report