Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Free GunsFollow

#1 Sep 29 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/free-shotguns-offer-attracts-hundreds-in-florida-1.1871173

Quote:
the project hopes to create "gun rich" zones in moderate to high crime areas in the United States to analyze what happens to the crime rate when a neighbourhood is saturated with guns.

Smiley: thumbsup Go Florida!

Edited, Sep 29th 2013 8:31am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#2 Sep 29 2013 at 7:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Only in America... Smiley: oyvey
#3 Sep 29 2013 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
the project hopes to create "gun rich" zones in moderate to high crime areas in the United States to analyze what happens to the crime rate when a neighbourhood is saturated with guns.

I'm absolutely positive that if crime or homicide rates go up, they'll be the first to accept responsibility.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Sep 29 2013 at 9:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
the project hopes to create "gun rich" zones in moderate to high crime areas in the United States to analyze what happens to the crime rate when a neighbourhood is saturated with guns.

I'm absolutely positive that if crime or homicide rates go up, they'll be the first to accept responsibility.
I'd be looking at emergency room visits for gun shot injuries (and fatalities) and domestic gun incidents.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 Sep 29 2013 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
It's a political winner, if enough low income and minorities get shot up, the GOP might delay their demographic losses.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#6 Sep 29 2013 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Only in America... Smiley: oyvey

Only in Florida... or Texas.
#7 Sep 29 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
Smiley: frown
#8 Sep 29 2013 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Yep, that's totally going to work. I'm sure it's the non-gun owners that are accepting the offer, I mean why would a previously armed person want a free shotgun?
#9 Sep 30 2013 at 4:48 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Relevant...

Quote:
A nine-year-old Orlando, Fla. boy—"so tiny ... he could barely see the judge over the podium"—was sentenced to home confinement by a state judge after he brought "multiple weapons to school." The video game being blamed? Minecraft. Mine-bleeping-craft.

The unnamed student had "an unloaded handgun, a magazine with six bullets inside, a steak knife and a small-handled sledge hammer," reports WFTV-TV of Orlando. The firearm came from his father's home.P

"The boy's father said he was playing a character he learned from the video game Minecraft," WFTV reports. P

"They use hammers to dig and knives and guns to protect themselves from zombies," he said, according to the station.

Smiley: glare

Edited, Sep 30th 2013 6:49am by LockeColeMA
#10 Sep 30 2013 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Only in America... Smiley: oyvey
Only in Florida... or Texas.
I was expecting Arizona, though Texas would have been my second guess.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Sep 30 2013 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I just shared this with my friend in Florida, since he's got a daughter who's now dating age.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#12 Sep 30 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
But all her (future) boyfriends will bring one of their own free shotguns so he'll have to get himself a tank to scare them now.
#13 Sep 30 2013 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
If they start offering free tanks, don't get in front of me on the way to the free tank line. I want an M1-A3! (I'll take an A1 or an A2 though, especially since the A3 modification doesn't exist yet, and I can 3D print the parts later!

Bystander "Why is your tank covered in cheap looking plastic parts?"
Me: "<KaboooM!!!!>"
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#14 Sep 30 2013 at 7:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
the project hopes to create "gun rich" zones in moderate to high crime areas in the United States to analyze what happens to the crime rate when a neighbourhood is saturated with guns.

I'm absolutely positive that if crime or homicide rates go up, they'll be the first to accept responsibility.


And if they go down, I'm sure that everyone will finally accept that "more guns = less crime", right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Sep 30 2013 at 7:43 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

And if they go down, I'm sure that everyone will finally accept that "more guns = less crime", right?


No, I think for someone to accept that, there would need to be boxes full of guns freely available on every corner. I assume that seems a reasonable and useful thing to do what with the deterrent factor of guns. Visibility of police forces has been concretely linked to a reduction in crime, having a police officer on every corner is an easy and viable test of that. Oddly, having secret hidden police offers crouching in closets ready to leap out and foil a crime should one occur is rarely used as a test case. Oh, right, because data exists.
____________________________
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.

#16 Sep 30 2013 at 7:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And if they go down, I'm sure that everyone will finally accept that "more guns = less crime", right?

I'll take that as tacit admission that, no, they won't accept any responsibility if homicide rates (or related crime rates) go up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Sep 30 2013 at 8:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

And if they go down, I'm sure that everyone will finally accept that "more guns = less crime", right?


No, I think for someone to accept that, there would need to be boxes full of guns freely available on every corner.


Or free shotguns being given out to anyone who wants them. "More" isn't synonymous with "100%". But it's nice that you went right to the "all or nothing" argument. Consistency!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Sep 30 2013 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And if they go down, I'm sure that everyone will finally accept that "more guns = less crime", right?

I'll take that as tacit admission that, no, they won't accept any responsibility if homicide rates (or related crime rates) go up.


Take it as an assumption that if homicide/crime rates go up, it'll be plastered on the front page of every newspaper, magazine, and blog in order to ensure that everyone knows that guns are bad, so whether anyone "admits" anything will be irrelevant. But if homicide/crime rates go down, it'll be quietly ignored and anyone who dares to mention the results of the data will be dismissed as "some gun nut spouting something he read on some gun nut site".

Cause that's been the pattern so far.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Sep 30 2013 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I don't know how this could be more relevant.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#20 Sep 30 2013 at 8:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And if they go down, I'm sure that everyone will finally accept that "more guns = less crime", right?

I'll take that as tacit admission that, no, they won't accept any responsibility if homicide rates (or related crime rates) go up.
Take it as an assumption that if homicide/crime rates go up, it'll be plastered on the front page of every newspaper, magazine, and blog in order to ensure that everyone knows that guns are bad, so whether anyone "admits" anything will be irrelevant. But if homicide/crime rates go down, it'll be quietly ignored and anyone who dares to mention the results of the data will be dismissed as "some gun nut spouting something he read on some gun nut site".

Cause that's been the pattern so far.

But, again, you refrain from saying whether the party handing out guns (or their allies) would ever take any responsibility. Not your long wailing cries about liberal media conspiracies and all that bullshit... would the people handing out guns take responsibility?

You and I both know the answer to that. Which is why you're crying about how unfair blogs are and it's "irrelevant" if anyone does so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Sep 30 2013 at 9:22 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

And if they go down, I'm sure that everyone will finally accept that "more guns = less crime", right?


No, I think for someone to accept that, there would need to be boxes full of guns freely available on every corner.


Or free shotguns being given out to anyone who wants them. "More" isn't synonymous with "100%". But it's nice that you went right to the "all or nothing" argument. Consistency!

I look at it more like the Cold War. With nuclear proliferation running rampant, it quickly gets to a point where the system doesn't work unless *everybody does* have weapons.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#22 Oct 01 2013 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
But, again, you refrain from saying whether the party handing out guns (or their allies) would ever take any responsibility.
That requires commitment.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#23 Oct 01 2013 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Quote:
The group flooded a quiet Orlando neighbourhood on Sunday with fliers about the "free shotguns" and ammunition to homeowners who pass a background check and take a firearms course.


Damned Communists. Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Smiley: mad
#24 Oct 01 2013 at 8:02 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Well, someone here did say that requiring a firearms course prior to ownership was unconstitutional.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#25 Oct 01 2013 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Well, someone here did say that requiring a firearms course prior to ownership was unconstitutional.


They're champions of gun owner rights but won't even give their guns away to children or blind people.
#26 Oct 01 2013 at 1:05 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Or free shotguns being given out to anyone who wants them. "More" isn't synonymous with "100%". But it's nice that you went right to the "all or nothing" argument. Consistency!

Hmm you're right, more isn't always the same as 100%. What do you think the percentage of armed people is where guns become more dangerous than useful? Somewhere before 100% is your beginning argument, could you be more specific? Also, is your percentage the number of people with guns, or the number of guns relative to the number of people. That is, is 6 guns per 2 people 300%? Because, obviously your arguing that 2 people owning 6 guns is clearly ineffective.
____________________________
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.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 416 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (416)