Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, Shoot (Connecticut)Follow

#202 Dec 18 2012 at 2:31 PM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
Edit - and my most sincere apologies for responding to a question that was for Smash - I'd suggest a pm in the future to avoid such misunderstandings. Smiley: rolleyes


Er... "I was asking Smash about" = "I was asking about Smash's comment" = really, anyone could answer the question.

I may not be the most articulate, but are you really so bereft of basic communication skills that everything must be interpreted so literally?


Edited, Dec 18th 2012 2:31pm by BrownDuck
#203 Dec 18 2012 at 2:43 PM Rating: Good
*****
13,251 posts
YOUR FACE
#204 Dec 18 2012 at 2:51 PM Rating: Decent
Spoonless wrote:
YOUR FACE

MY ***
#205 Dec 18 2012 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
BOOBS!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#206 Dec 18 2012 at 3:11 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

The Cambodian genocide.
#207 Dec 18 2012 at 3:11 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Hitler
#208 Dec 18 2012 at 3:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
13,251 posts
Shitler
#209 Dec 18 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TITLER!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#210 Dec 18 2012 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
ZITLER!


End of the alphabet, I win.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#211 Dec 18 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Ωitler


EDIT: Alternate post - NEGA HITLER.

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 4:42pm by Eske
#212 Dec 18 2012 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Mecha Hitler
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#213 Dec 18 2012 at 3:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
#214 Dec 18 2012 at 3:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
If I buy Cerberus do I get the Normandy?
#215 Dec 18 2012 at 4:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Elinda wrote:
But in the big picture adding armed guards to a community simply puts more guns on the streets.
If this is supposed to be a deterrent, you need to consider who you're talking to. gbaji doesn't believe more guns in the community is a bad thing at all.


Correct. More to the point, simply saying "that puts more guns on the streets" doesn't have any meaning if you can't show that "more guns on the streets" is actually a bad thing. More guns in the hands of criminals? Bad. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens? Good. The problem is that right now our laws are structured such that it ensures that the folks who don't care about the gun laws themselves will be armed, while those who do wont be. A guy who's planning on shooting up a school isn't going to care about the gun charge added onto the multiple murder charges. The guy who might want to be armed just in case something like that happens, will care about the gun charge, so he wont be armed. Advantage: Mass shooter.


And since several people brought it up: Yes, a teacher could snap and decide to take his gun to school and kill a bunch of kids. But he could do that right now. There's nothing preventing this in our current law. The imaginary legal boundary that says "you can't have guns in here" isn't going to stop the person who's decided to commit murder. It will only ensure that no one in that area will ever be sufficiently armed to stop that person. Until the police arrive, of course, which is historically always been too late.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#216 Dec 18 2012 at 4:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I'm getting a gun for my cat.
#217 Dec 18 2012 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I'm getting a gun for my cat.


There's an app for that.

Screenshot
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#218 Dec 18 2012 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I can't find an English article for it at the moment but the news here reported that since Belgium started enforcing a law that means you have to prove that you need a gun to be able to buy any sort of gun or rifle in 2006 deaths from gun shootings (murders and suicides) have halved from 134 in 2005 to 68 in 2010.


Which just shows how easily statistics can be manipulated to whatever argument you want to make. In 2006, the murder rate in Belgium was already going down from a high point in 2002 of 3.1 per 100k to 2.12 per 100k. It kinda bounced up and down, so there's no real support for the idea that 2006 was some banner year in which murder rates as a whole changed significantly.


A more interesting bit to take away from those two facts though, is that this somewhat supports the argument that when guns become harder to obtain, people simply switch to using different methods to kill people. While gun shootings went down by half between 2006 and 2010, the homicide rate as a whole only decreased marginally over that time frame. Which either means that homicides by guns were only a tiny portion of total homicides *or* that folks simply changed the method they used to kill other people. I suppose another possibility is that the reduction mostly occurred in the area of suicides and not homicides.

Point being that the stats you provided don't really say what you probably thought they did. Obviously, if you make it harder to actually posses a gun, fewer people will commit crimes using guns. But does that actually result in a reduction of crime, or even types of crimes that we're most concerned about? Typically it doesn't. Certainly, the statistics are varied enough that one can't make a definitive conclusion at all. But that doesn't stop people from assuming that less guns does mean less crime though. It's a cart before the horse kind of thinking, but it's pretty prevalent on the anti-gun side of the debate.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#219 Dec 18 2012 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
More guns in the hands of criminals? Bad. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens? Good.


People who were law abiding citizens until they snapped and went on a murder spree:

- Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech, 2007
- Jacob Tyler Roberts (Oregon, 2012)
- James Holmes (Colorado 2012)
- Adam Lanza (Last Friday)

The list goes on, but is it really necessary or do you get the fallcy of your statement yet?
#220 Dec 18 2012 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/12/18/national-rifle-association-vows-meaningful-contributions-aftermath-newtown-massacre/eabtksqNyVv0yjMdzQ4g9M/story.html wrote:
In a statement sent to reporters Tuesday afternoon, the nation’s largest gun-rights lobbying organization said it was “prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.”

The group said it would hold a news conference Friday in the nation’s capital, but said details would be released later.

The NRA said it was “shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.”

But the NRA said it had refrained from commenting “out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency.”


Well that's a first. I wonder what their opinion will be on Friday.

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 5:55pm by BrownDuck
#221gbaji, Posted: Dec 18 2012 at 6:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Do you get the fallacy of yours? They cease to be law abiding once they snap and go on a murder spree. You know what else changes? They cease to care if they're violating concealed carry laws and gun free zones once they do snap. I'm making the point that gun free zones and the absence of legal concealed carry do not prevent the criminal from killing people. All they do is prevent law abiding citizens from stopping them because they are abiding by the laws which prevent them from having a firearm at the time/place of the attack.
#222 Dec 18 2012 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Elinda wrote:
There was also the Japanese, the commies, the blacks and the gays.

While many of the US groups with goals of ethnic/racial/political/religious elimination were not sanctified by the government they were tolerated.

Our government, of course, did attempt to eliminate the Native Americans. The act didn't call for death as a means of elimination. None-the-less tens of thousands died in a forced exile march.



No government-led genocidal policy against the Japanese or blacks. Indians, of course, are another story entirely. When you have cavalry officers ordering the deaths of women and children specifically because "nits make lice", and that cavalry officer is subsequently decorated, there's a definite whiff of genocide in the air.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#223 Dec 18 2012 at 6:44 PM Rating: Good
**
297 posts
Quote:
They cease to be law abiding once they snap and go on a murder spree.


So as soon as they snap, their legal right is taken away as well as any fire arms. Is that what you are hinting at. They magickly are no longer armed and so therefore less of a danger?

If so how are you proposing the govt know when someone popped the last of the bubble wrap in their mind?
#224 Dec 18 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


Do you get the fallacy of yours? They cease to be law abiding once they snap and go on a murder spree.


Oh, you. You're like an adorable 6 year old with Down's Syndrome explaining why god exists. Don't ever change.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#225 Dec 18 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
They cease to be law abiding once they snap and go on a murder spree.


So as soon as they snap, their legal right is taken away as well as any fire arms. Is that what you are hinting at. They magickly are no longer armed and so therefore less of a danger?


Huh? How the hell did you arrive at that response? Of course not. I'm saying that once they snap and decide to kill a bunch of people, their ability to do so is in no way impaired by laws which prohibit concealed carry or which prohibit firearms entirely in specific areas (like near schools). They will not abide by the laws that say "you can't carry a firearm in this area", but the law abiding gun owners will. Get it?

Remember that my assumption is that the 2nd amendment is not going to be removed anytime soon (a reasonable assumption). Thus we have to assume that both people who will use firearms to commit crimes and those who wont will be able to obtain them (cause we can't tell them apart until after they start committing crimes, right?). A concealed carry permit and removal of gun free zones doesn't help the mass shooter kill a bunch of people. But it does make it possible for someone else to stop him.

Do people really have such strong mental blocks about gun control that they can't see this? Those laws do absolutely nothing to protect people. If someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, he's already accepted a potential legal penalty that is far greater than that committed by illegally carrying the weapon, or taking it into a gun free zone. Those laws present zero deterrent to his actions. However, they do create an effective deterrent to anyone else who isn't planning on committing a crime, so those people will not carry them or bring them into those areas.


Quote:
If so how are you proposing the govt know when someone popped the last of the bubble wrap in their mind?


I'm not. Nothing at all in my post suggests much less requires that the government do anything at all, or know anything more about the people involved than it currently does. I'm kinda puzzled why you think so. Whether a person is "law abiding" isn't some status the government maintains for them. It's a simple question of whether that person is abiding the law. So the guy who marches into a school with a firearm and starts shooting kids is *not* abiding by the law. The guy who does not have his firearm with him because the law says he can't carry it near a school *is* abiding with the law.

Was that really so hard to grasp? Those laws only serve to ensure that the folks who aren't trying to kill you don't have guns, while those who are do. Set your knee jerk reactions aside and actually think the issue through and you'll see that this is true.

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 5:23pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#226 Dec 18 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Yodabunny wrote:
If I buy Cerberus do I get the Normandy?


I get it, Yoda. I chuckled.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 349 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (349)