Re: Conn. school shooting
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:18 pm
School kids seem to not have those type of issues. Now a fat bald fuck like you are more at risk.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.Mikey wrote:I'm sure you're very adept at checking for hernias.
Yeah, I've made that point several times already. It doesn't square with the Ninny State political agenda though.Martyred wrote:This has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with the mental health crisis your country is facing.
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.Sudden Sam wrote:Dead on.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.
Which LTS wants to see banned, too.mvscal wrote: You're both idiots. Ever heard of gasoline?
mvscal wrote:Yeah, I've made that point several times already. It doesn't square with the Ninny State political agenda though.Martyred wrote:This has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with the mental health crisis your country is facing.
Gunning down kindergartners isn't "reality". It's a sign of greater societal decay.Wolfman wrote:We should face reality and move on.
Mikey wrote:How you going to ban stupidity?
Is there a point to that inane question?Papa Willie wrote:I wonder how many assault weapons with high capacity magazines are used to protect the President's children every day?
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?Papa Willie wrote:If guns are banned, then so should they be banned in this instance as well.Diego in Seattle wrote:Is there a point to that inane question?Papa Willie wrote:I wonder how many assault weapons with high capacity magazines are used to protect the President's children every day?
You're equating the Secret Service with the general public.Papa Willie wrote:If guns are banned, then so should they be banned in this instance as well.Diego in Seattle wrote:Is there a point to that inane question?Papa Willie wrote:I wonder how many assault weapons with high capacity magazines are used to protect the President's children every day?
"Oh I was just trolling," the last refuge of a pussy. The main course taught at tards.net.Papa Willie wrote:I thought that would upset the lefties. :)
No, he's not trolling. He's just pointing out your hypocracy.Screw_Michigan wrote:"Oh I was just trolling," the last refuge of a pussy. The main course taught at tards.net.Papa Willie wrote:I thought that would upset the lefties. :)
What "hypocracy" are you talking about? I'm beginning to think you don't know what it means, much less how to spell it.smackaholic wrote:No, he's not trolling. He's just pointing out your hypocracy.Screw_Michigan wrote:"Oh I was just trolling," the last refuge of a pussy. The main course taught at tards.net.Papa Willie wrote:I thought that would upset the lefties. :)
hypocrisy.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.
Neither of them were wearing bullet proof vests. Interesting coincidence on the LIBOR bit, though.Jsc810 wrote:
Nice strawman. If that's all you've got then you really should STFU. You're only embarrassing yourself.Papa Willie wrote:Screw_Michigan wrote:"Oh I was just trolling," the last refuge of a pussy. The main course taught at tards.net.Papa Willie wrote:I thought that would upset the lefties. :)
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:
What logic?Papa Willie wrote: Now you're super angry because I've established logic......
Just because it's not sound logic doesn't mean it's not logic.R-Jack wrote:What logic?Papa Willie wrote: Now you're super angry because I've established 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.
Another strawman. You sure are adept at bullshit.Papa Willie wrote:R-Jack wrote:What logic?Papa Willie wrote: Now you're super angry because I've established 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?
You're a fucking moron. Texas has allowed teachers to carry since 2007. Ever heard about any disarmed teachers? No?Van wrote: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.Papa Willie wrote:So Van - as you're saying that things would be worse - no they wouldn't be.
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.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.
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.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
Is anybody saying that they would?Papa Willie wrote:So you're saying that gun laws wouldn't eliminate guns?Mikey wrote:
Another strawman. You sure are adept at bullshit.
No wait, you're not.
What exactly would they do? Anything? Make you feel better about yourself maybe?Mikey wrote:Is anybody saying that they would?Papa Willie wrote:So you're saying that gun laws wouldn't eliminate guns?Mikey wrote:
Another strawman. You sure are adept at bullshit.
No wait, you're not.
No, you're not.Papa Willie wrote:Shhhhhh. I'm extracting the truth out.mvscal wrote:
What exactly would they do? Anything? Make you feel better about yourself maybe?
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.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.
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 wrote: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.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 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 there's nothing between an AR16 with a 100 shot barrel magazine and a flintlock muzzle loader?smackaholic wrote: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 wrote: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.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 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?
Mikey wrote:So there's nothing between an AR16 with a 100 shot barrel magazine and a flintlock muzzle loader?