Conn. school shooting

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:18 pm

Mikey wrote:I'm sure you're very adept at checking for hernias.

School kids seem to not have those type of issues. Now a fat bald fuck like you are more at risk.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:01 pm

Martyred wrote:This has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with the mental health crisis your country is facing.

Yeah, I've made that point several times already. It doesn't square with the Ninny State political agenda though.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:03 pm

Sudden Sam wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:These guys are first and foremost cowards. They wouldn't attack hand to hand. NONE of the dozen or so shooters in the past few years would have attacked anyone except for the fact of their being armed to the teeth with the easy point-and-click weaponry.
Dead on.

You're both idiots. Ever heard of gasoline? It's available in easy carry containers and is capable of creating mass casualty events with the flick of bic. It doesn't get much easier than that. No courage required.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:07 pm

mvscal wrote: You're both idiots. Ever heard of gasoline?

Which LTS wants to see banned, too.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:14 pm

OK. One last thought. There is NO LAW that could have prevented what happened last Friday. None, period. There are many things that we simply have no control over, like tornadoes and earthquakes. Why do we delude ourselves into thinking that government can do anything to prevent these events. We should face reality and move on.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:15 pm

mvscal wrote:
Martyred wrote:This has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with the mental health crisis your country is facing.
Yeah, I've made that point several times already. It doesn't square with the Ninny State political agenda though.

Just thought I'd remind everyone.

The topic seemed to have devolved into "stopping power" and "tight groupings".

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:19 pm

Wolfman wrote:We should face reality and move on.

Gunning down kindergartners isn't "reality". It's a sign of greater societal decay.

Arch Angel · Post by **Arch Angel** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:27 am

This could have been prevented if she had locked her weapons up and if she carried that much ammo around, sheesh, this not a Red Dawn moment.

Banning guns is not the issue, stupidity is.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:42 am

How you going to ban stupidity?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:52 am

Mikey wrote:How you going to ban stupidity?

You don't ban stupidity.

Just alter some of stupidity's posts in Scott's Money Forum...it'll have a tantrum and storm off on it's own.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:09 am

Papa Willie wrote:I wonder how many assault weapons with high capacity magazines are used to protect the President's children every day?

Is there a point to that inane question?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:21 am

Papa Willie wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:I wonder how many assault weapons with high capacity magazines are used to protect the President's children every day?
Is there a point to that inane question?
If guns are banned, then so should they be banned in this instance as well.

Did your mother ingest a lot of chemicals during her pregnancy with you, or did enter the world thinking you were joining a breath-holding contest?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:28 am

Papa Willie wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:I wonder how many assault weapons with high capacity magazines are used to protect the President's children every day?
Is there a point to that inane question?
If guns are banned, then so should they be banned in this instance as well.

You're equating the Secret Service with the general public.

I really thought you were a little smarter than this.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:31 am

I thought you were smart enough to know that Spray isn't smarter than that.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:36 am

Really, I'm not that smart. If you were smart you'd know that.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:39 am

When 'spray thinks of the Obama kids' protection this is what he sees.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:45 pm

Papa Willie wrote:I thought that would upset the lefties. :)

"Oh I was just trolling," the last refuge of a pussy. The main course taught at tards.net.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:35 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:I thought that would upset the lefties. :)
"Oh I was just trolling," the last refuge of a pussy. The main course taught at tards.net.

No, he's not trolling. He's just pointing out your hypocracy.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:09 pm

smackaholic wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:I thought that would upset the lefties. :)
"Oh I was just trolling," the last refuge of a pussy. The main course taught at tards.net.
No, he's not trolling. He's just pointing out your hypocracy.

What "hypocracy" are you talking about? I'm beginning to think you don't know what it means, much less how to spell it.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:45 pm

Seriously, Papa Wiily, that was a solid take. I'd only add to that comment that it is very telling Obama sends his kids to a private school as well-- screw the rest of the nation's children and their lousy public school education.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:15 pm

How far do you think the whackjob that rolls up on Barry's kids school would get?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:17 pm

[quote="Mikey]What "hypocracy" are you talking about? I'm beginning to think you don't know what it means, much less how to spell it.[/quote]

hypocrisy.

better?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:29 pm

smackaholic wrote:[quote="Mikey]What "hypocracy" are you talking about? I'm beginning to think you don't know what it means, much less how to spell it.

hypocrisy.

better?[/quote][/quote]

How about answering the question (assuming correct spelling).

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:40 pm

Jsc810 wrote:

Neither of them were wearing bullet proof vests. Interesting coincidence on the LIBOR bit, though.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:07 pm

Papa Willie wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:I thought that would upset the lefties. :)
"Oh I was just trolling," the last refuge of a pussy. The main course taught at tards.net.

No - I made the statement, because I knew it would upset you. Why? Because I know people like you are fart-smuggling hypocrites. See - if I would have said that about W, you wouldn't have said a word. It's truly bizarre how some of you liberals put your government on a fucking pedestal. Hitler had the Germans trained this way, and you people are essentially just as easily led.

Now you're super angry because I've established logic that will put you at odds with yourself. :grin:

Nice strawman. If that's all you've got then you really should STFU. You're only embarrassing yourself.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:25 pm

Papa Willie wrote: Now you're super angry because I've established logic......

What logic?

That we don't need guns to protect the president because would be attackers won't have access to guns because they are illegal, just like the substances you would have to be on for that to make an ounce of sense.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:32 pm

R-Jack wrote:
Papa Willie wrote: Now you're super angry because I've established logic......
What logic?

That we don't need guns to protect the president because would be attackers won't have access to guns because they are illegal, just like the substances you would have to be on for that to make an ounce of sense.

Just because it's not sound logic doesn't mean it's not logic.

Hypocrate.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:57 pm

Papa Willie wrote:
R-Jack wrote:
Papa Willie wrote: Now you're super angry because I've established logic......
What logic?

That we don't need guns to protect the president because would be attackers won't have access to guns because they are illegal, just like the substances you would have to be on for that to make an ounce of sense.

But if we have gun laws and nobody has guns, there wouldn't be a threat! Right?

Another strawman. You sure are adept at bullshit.

No wait, you're not.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:21 pm

Van wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:So Van - as you're saying that things would be worse - no they wouldn't be.
Things would be monumentally worse. Instead of the very occasional random killing we'd see daily killings. No one would even need to attack a school. The kids would be killing each other, the teachers would find themselves killing and being killed...it would become nearly a daily occurence in the news. Introduce guns to an inner city classroom and it'd be a fait accompli.

If people KNEW that there would be at least a good chance that at least a portion of the faculty is packing heat - they're not going to fuck with it.
You're missing the point. The violence would come from within, not from without. Stick that carrot right in everyone's face and someone's bound to bite.

You're a fucking moron. Texas has allowed teachers to carry since 2007. Ever heard about any disarmed teachers? No?

Then shut the fuck up.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:04 pm

I agree that having teachers walking around strapped in prolly a bad idea, particularly around bigger kids, but, they could have handguns in safes in their desk. Have a keypad on the front so that they could get them out with a 4 digit code. Make it so that 3 consecutive wrong keys locks it shut to keep the wanna be hackers away.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:48 pm

KC Scott wrote:There's also supposedly biometric trigger locks on the market - but the only one I've ever seen is this: http://www.ritech.com.hk/rt5300.html

And it's not the most convincing ad

Whoever get's this technology to market - working - will be looking at a pretty nice payday

just a keypad and a cypher lock would do the trick. I suspect something as fancy as biometrics might not be as reliable and is certainly way more expensive.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:31 am

Papa Willie wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Another strawman. You sure are adept at bullshit.

No wait, you're not.
So you're saying that gun laws wouldn't eliminate guns?

Is anybody saying that they would?

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:49 am

Did drug laws eliminate drugs?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:56 am

Mikey wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Another strawman. You sure are adept at bullshit.

No wait, you're not.
So you're saying that gun laws wouldn't eliminate guns?
Is anybody saying that they would?

What exactly would they do? Anything? Make you feel better about yourself maybe?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:13 pm

Papa Willie wrote:
mvscal wrote:

What exactly would they do? Anything? Make you feel better about yourself maybe?
Shhhhhh. I'm extracting the truth out.

No, you're not.

You throw out strawman questions thinking that you're setting some sore of clever rhetorical trap.

When nobody falls for it you claim bode and congratulate yourself on being really smart.

In reality you're completely transparent and can't, or won't, even answer a simple straightforward question yourself.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:04 pm

But that's the point. If a particular law doesn't serve the function that it is written for, then why have it? If the gun laws do not stop gun violence or drug laws don't stop drug abuse, then why legislate them? Free people to use as they will. That is precisely the argument pro-drug use citizens are arguing for for marijuana, etc. The logic applies equally to gun control.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:30 pm

Rooster wrote:But that's the point. If a particular law doesn't serve the function that it is written for, then why have it? If the gun laws do not stop gun violence or drug laws don't stop drug abuse, then why legislate them? Free people to use as they will. That is precisely the argument pro-drug use citizens are arguing for for marijuana, etc. The logic applies equally to gun control.

You can't expect any law to be 100% effective. Even if you banned all guns (and nobody is advocating that) there would still be a lot of guns out there. If you could regulate the sales of assault weapons and ban the use of large ammunition magazines they would still be out there too but there wouldn't be any additional ones hitting the street, and the numbers would decline over time. It wouldn't stop gun violence completely - that will never happen - but if this stuff were more difficult to obtain it might prevent some crazy fucking kid like Lanza from grabbing one out of his mother's house on impulse and going on a mass murder spree.

You want to deal in absolutes, but isn't there a value in decreasing gun violence? Speed limits and other traffic laws aren't 100% effective but they go a long way toward reducing fatalities on the roads. Would you be in favor of repealing all traffic laws so that people would be free to drive any way they want?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:49 pm

Mikey wrote:
Rooster wrote:But that's the point. If a particular law doesn't serve the function that it is written for, then why have it? If the gun laws do not stop gun violence or drug laws don't stop drug abuse, then why legislate them? Free people to use as they will. That is precisely the argument pro-drug use citizens are arguing for for marijuana, etc. The logic applies equally to gun control.
You can't expect any law to be 100% effective. Even if you banned all guns (and nobody is advocating that) there would still be a lot of guns out there. If you could regulate the sales of assault weapons and ban the use of large ammunition magazines they would still be out there too but there wouldn't be any additional ones hitting the street, and the numbers would decline over time. It wouldn't stop gun violence completely - that will never happen - but if this stuff were more difficult to obtain it might prevent some crazy fucking kid like Lanza from grabbing one out of his mother's house on impulse and going on a mass murder spree.

You want to deal in absolutes, but isn't there a value in decreasing gun violence? Speed limits and other traffic laws aren't 100% effective but they go a long way toward reducing fatalities on the roads. Would you be in favor of repealing all traffic laws so that people would be free to drive any way they want?

So which weapons would you ban, since you seem to think some are fine? Any semi-auto, which is the large majority of weapons shoots just like this one did? Should we bascially just go back to flintlock muzzleloaders as that is what the founding fathers were referencing? Clip size is only the slightest bit of a factor in a gun battle where one side can take advantage of the 3 seconds it takes the other to reload. In a room full of 6 year olds, it means jack shit. So, stop pretending that it is a gun type issue. It isn't.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:57 pm

smackaholic wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Rooster wrote:But that's the point. If a particular law doesn't serve the function that it is written for, then why have it? If the gun laws do not stop gun violence or drug laws don't stop drug abuse, then why legislate them? Free people to use as they will. That is precisely the argument pro-drug use citizens are arguing for for marijuana, etc. The logic applies equally to gun control.
You can't expect any law to be 100% effective. Even if you banned all guns (and nobody is advocating that) there would still be a lot of guns out there. If you could regulate the sales of assault weapons and ban the use of large ammunition magazines they would still be out there too but there wouldn't be any additional ones hitting the street, and the numbers would decline over time. It wouldn't stop gun violence completely - that will never happen - but if this stuff were more difficult to obtain it might prevent some crazy fucking kid like Lanza from grabbing one out of his mother's house on impulse and going on a mass murder spree.

You want to deal in absolutes, but isn't there a value in decreasing gun violence? Speed limits and other traffic laws aren't 100% effective but they go a long way toward reducing fatalities on the roads. Would you be in favor of repealing all traffic laws so that people would be free to drive any way they want?
So which weapons would you ban, since you seem to think some are fine? Any semi-auto, which is the large majority of weapons shoots just like this one did? Should we bascially just go back to flintlock muzzleloaders as that is what the founding fathers were referencing? Clip size is only the slightest bit of a factor in a gun battle where one side can take advantage of the 3 seconds it takes the other to reload. In a room full of 6 year olds, it means jack shit. So, stop pretending that it is a gun type issue. It isn't.

So there's nothing between an AR16 with a 100 shot barrel magazine and a flintlock muzzle loader?

You're a hysterical idiot. You really should go turn one of those on yourself.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:01 pm

Mikey wrote:So there's nothing between an AR16 with a 100 shot barrel magazine and a flintlock muzzle loader?

Maybe you should learn the name of the rifle before you spout your expertise.