Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

27 dead in elementary school shooting


Recommended Posts

. Shit like this would happen less often, gun crime would go down, and that's an undeniable fact.

 

perhaps we should also ban pot, crack, meth and heroine. i hear that prohibition works very well at keeping these things out of peoples hands. hell, they might stop getting the stuff in maximum security federal prisons.

 

maybe they should also make schools 'gun free safe zones' and prohibit firearms within 1000 feet of the school. we could also pass over 20,000 firearms laws to solve these sorts of problems. maybe we could pass carry bans and prohibit gun ownership in major cities like washington DC and chicago in order to rid those places of murders and crime. wait...

 

maybe we could also snap our fingers and remove dangerous 3000 lb death machines from america known as cars. over 40,000 people a year die on america's highways due to them.

 

we need to also get rid of the death traps that are bath tubs. you much more likely to be killed in your bath tub than by a gun. swimming pools also need to go. pools of death is what they are.

 

i'd take the gun control position seriously if there was an example of prohibiting activities and items and ridding the world bad things that happen while using said items. however, since its quite apparent prohibition on anything never works, i dont see why people think a bunch of knee jerk bed wetting is going to actually solve a problem. people think if you put a 'no gun' sticker on a door, that an active shooter will not enter. or if you pass a law that requires gun owners to jump to hoops, x, y, and z, that this is going to some how limit guns in the hands of people who do nothing but ignore said hoops to begin with.

 

in 1925 a psycho got peeved off. instead of using the 'most efficient killing device' (guns) he used home made explosives he put together on his farm and blew up a school and killed 125 people.

 

since they cant keep drugs out of the hands of maximum security prisons, there is absolutely no way you can keep 200 million guns out of the hands of psycho's.

 

I do agree that if guns didnt exist, no one would be shot with them. that is also like saying if humans didnt exist, they wouldnt harm the environment. the prospects of getting rid of either are a bit unfathomable.

 

if the rhetoric makes you feel good and makes you feel like you are 'doing something!' thats cool.

but remember one thing...pretty much the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. direct your anger at the criminal, not the tool.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

if the rhetoric makes you feel good and makes you feel like you are 'doing something!' thats cool.

but remember one thing...pretty much the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. direct your anger at the criminal, not the tool.

 

/closethread

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol west germany. :rolleyes:

 

And Japan... where there is a complete gun ban, more deaths than Switzerland which is one of most armed country in the world

 

Rip for the dead people.

 

380305_550733364954217_8175408_n.png

 

bump this.

 

Interesting no one is talking about the cities and states in the US with the most restrictive gun laws are the highest on the crime ladder. DC, chicago, california, NJ, NY, etc

 

You dont hear to much about the mass shooting sprees in MT where there are approximately 29 guns per household and where gun laws are very lax.

 

Anyone with half a brain could easily see its not how easy guns are to obtain, its psycho's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not that I expect young pussy to come with anything it is that as a man, I want a relationship with a woman, not a child. I would also like to argue with at least some semblance of a adult conversation.

 

There are all kinds of ways to prevent crazy people from acting out, I do not think that the argument needs to be framed in absolutes but rather in the best possible outcome.

 

I do not buy the criminal argument, it separates "criminals" from everyone else in a way that does not jive with reality. Many people who commit murder with a gun are not criminals before the fact.

 

Also, it totally negates the "armed people to resist government" argument because if there is any group that will always be able to arm themselves it is those involved in legitimate armed struggle.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The good guy with a gun line is bullshit especially when discussing public shootings. These things always end with either suicide or law enforcement. Even though all the dudes at the range get a softy thinking about blowing away some nut at the mall the fact remains that they are more likely to be the nut than anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not that I expect young pussy to come with anything it is that as a man, I want a relationship with a woman, not a child. I would also like to argue with at least some semblance of a adult conversation.

 

There are all kinds of ways to prevent crazy people from acting out, I do not think that the argument needs to be framed in absolutes but rather in the best possible outcome.

 

I do not buy the criminal argument, it separates "criminals" from everyone else in a way that does not jive with reality. Many people who commit murder with a gun are not criminals before the fact.

 

Also, it totally negates the "armed people to resist government" argument because if there is any group that will always be able to arm themselves it is those involved in legitimate armed struggle.

 

how about the "GUN CONTROL IS THE LOGICAL STARTING POINT FOR GENOCIDE" argument?

 

 

this whole conversation is stupid. i'm gonna go play call of duty (zing!)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Many people who commit murder with a gun are not criminals before the fact.

 

 

I do not know if this is true, but i do know this:

 

Will a gun law with a much less severe penalty prevent someone hell bent on mass murdering people? (carrying the most severe penalty in the american legal system)

Do you really think if someone 'isnt a criminal' that is someone really wants to use a gun to shoot a bunch of people, they will sort of stop and have a Q+A with themselves and ask whether it is worth breaking a very minor law to break a law that carries a punishment that is much more severe?

 

Are they going to say:

 

"gee, im going to go shoot up this building with people in it, but, shit, wait, i cant do that because its illegal to possess a firearm on school property. DARN!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact is with the amount of guns already out there it would be extremely hard to convince people who already own guns, ostensibly for protection, to hand theirs in. a buy back scheme would only do so much. The entrenched criminality in the US is going to counteract any attempt to control gun violence. It might stop people who aren't stable getting their hands on them but that will only prevent tragedies like this, not the everyday tragedies of shooting deaths.

 

I am for gun control, my country went through several high profile shootings that saw a change to gun laws and for the better I think. On the other hand, the cultural differences between Australia and the USA are vast so what worked here isn't necessarily going to do the trick across the pond.

 

Gun control still needs to be implemented at some point to save future generations from going through the same thing. Eventually all those guns in the hands of criminals will be come unusable but without gun control laws they will be able to simply get another.

 

Basically, the fact that the 2nd amendment was placed in the constitution pretty much created this problem. good luck finding a viable solution that pleases anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are going to confine the argument to simply being about these mass shootings I think that gun control would probably work well.

 

This case for example, dude stole the guns from his mom, not exactly some sort of hell bent master mind at work, just a super sick person enabled to commit a horrific crime by the easy access to firearms.

 

The drug line is bullshit too, no one ever kills another person by smoking them out with crack.

 

The graffiti line is beyond the fucking pale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The good guy with a gun line is bullshit especially when discussing public shootings. These things always end with either suicide or law enforcement. Even though all the dudes at the range get a softy thinking about blowing away some nut at the mall the fact remains that they are more likely to be the nut than anything else.

 

I believe you are mistaken.

are law enforcement shooting bad guys not good guys?

 

the facts are this:

50% of the time, some good guy intervened. of this 50% 2/3 were civilians. 1/3 were uniformed and on duty LE.

 

the other 50% of the time they generally shot themselves or bailed and gave up without any resistance after the fact.

 

interestingly enough, of the police interventions, 7 out of 10 times it was a LONE officer that was able to handle the situation.

 

 

If these 'nuts' at the 'range' were in fact the psycho's are you idiotically suggest, i can say one thing. a lot more people would be dead. if an actual trained person went psycho, there would be more carnage. the people that do this are bat shit crazy and loony. they get the idea in their head and run with it.

 

for instance, if the batman shooter would not of been using a 'dangerous 100 round beta high capacity whatever the fuck name the anti rights people want to come up with' and would of been using quality USGI or pmags, there probably wouldnt of been a malfunction ending the spree.

 

I do know one thing. it is impossible to keep guns out of bad peoples hands by writing words on paper. i know another thing, the only people who abide by those rules are the people who dont break the law in the first place. who would never murder someone to begin with. so what you create are these neat little victim disarmament zones. where you have disarmed victims. look at the numbers. most of these sprees are in schools, close to 60%. schools have gun bans and stiff penalties. gun free zones. why dont the criminals pay attention to this? nearly all of the rest of the sprees are in areas where guns are either not allowed, where they are locked up, or places like church where people dont generally feel the 'need' to protect themselves in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If we are going to confine the argument to simply being about these mass shootings I think that gun control would probably work well.

 

This case for example, dude stole the guns from his mom, not exactly some sort of hell bent master mind at work, just a super sick person enabled to commit a horrific crime by the easy access to firearms.

 

ok, so which gun law will prevent a loony from stealing a firearm from an assumably sane and legal gun owner?

 

i'd love to hear what you come up with.

 

wait, you mean the laws against theft, didnt stop the guy from stealing the gun? and the law against murder didnt stop him from shooting people?

hmmm.

wait.

we just need to re criminalize these things. problem solved!

 

The drug line is bullshit too, no one ever kills another person by smoking them out with crack.

 

The graffiti line is beyond the fucking pale.

 

its not bullshit.

your point is some scribbling on a peice of paper by some people in washington dc, a prohibition law, will achieve its intended goal. ie. keeping an object out of someones possession.

 

if it does work, how do you have access to drugs? why are they in max security prisons, the most controlled environment in the country? and how can 200 million guns be kept in the right place?

 

what about all the 'legal' ways of obtaining stuff, when you can just go down to a street corner somewhere and get what you want or hell...order it on the silk road?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I was not clear, while there are good guys intervening here they are not doing so with guns.

 

Yes, I make a separation between law enforcement and the general population.

 

The gun being fired at the range is far more likely to kill a innocent person than a criminal. Most likely the user.

 

Perhaps I misspoke about the guys down at the range but I can not think of a single instance of one of these shootings being stopped by a hero with a concealed carry. Is there one?

 

We live in a society of laws, of course they can make a difference. I do not think that gun control is the entirety of the answer but I do think it is part of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I was not clear, while there are good guys intervening here they are not doing so with guns.

 

Yes, I make a separation between law enforcement and the general population.

 

The gun being fired at the range is far more likely to kill a innocent person than a criminal. Most likely the user.

 

Perhaps I misspoke about the guys down at the range but I can not think of a single instance of one of these shootings being stopped by a hero with a concealed carry. Is there one?

 

We live in a society of laws, of course they can make a difference. I do not think that gun control is the entirety of the answer but I do think it is part of it.

 

your first line proves the most important point.

most active shooters cease or kill themselves at the VERY FIRST SIGN OF RESISTANCE. given that CCW permits are generally held by under 5% of a given population of a given state, and active shooter events are more rare in the grand scheme of things that rattle snake bite deaths, its not surprising unarmed people are able to subdue someone.

 

i take it you care not to comment on the fact that 2/3 of the time civilians subdue the attacker...

do you think you can carry around a cop in your pocket?

if you had to be in a gun fight, would you rather be able to shoot back or would you rather be a sitting duck?

 

so i cannot use 'good guys' to mean someone with a gun in general? i meant it specifically people killing crazy motherfuckers murdering other people are GOOD GUYS. it doesnt matter if they have a badge or not.

 

i believe congresswoman giffords attacker was subdued by a CCW holder without using his firearm.

he claims that being armed gave him the courage to engage. guns are not always the answer. there are 4 safety rules. for instance, if you cannot get a clear shot or if you engage an active shooter but risk killing innocents because they are in your line of fire, its best not to engage or you will be responsible for murdering innocents.

 

your line about guns at 'guns ranges being more likely to kill their users than criminals' is the most hysterical thing ive ever heard.

 

this sounds like your position:

 

24464581.jpg

 

 

and why do yall always speak in these silly abstract ideas?

i have yet to hear one solid plan that would solve your problem other than...'we just need more gun control'

 

give me something specific that needs to be put into law that already isnt, that will create utopia.

go

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if there was a higher threshold to gun ownership it would have a positive effect. That is why I am arguing for it.

 

Perhaps if owning a gun carried more liability and training it would have some benefit? Is it your assertion that the only answer is more guns? Some cops 3 year old kid here in Washington just blasted his brains out and there is no law holding the owner responsible for it.

 

They don't have guns in prison because the people bringing in the drugs do not have to worry about being shot with them. These absolutist arguments are childish. Tons of people are deterred from graffiti because of the legal ramifications.

 

There is also of course a real difference between violent death and accidental death. Like the swimming pool argument, we do have life guards for a reason. By that line of thought should we have gun control or should we get rid of the lifeguards and just let things work themselves out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you be shocked to hear that a guy from the range took his own life? Would it really be the most hysterical thing you have heard?

 

How about a hunting accident, which I consider to be much more along the lines of a car accident but certainly not beyond the realm of possibility for a trained gun owner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
These absolutist arguments are childish.

 

aod is physically incapable of making anything other than ridiculously contrived absolutist arguments (I believe he once told me I was in favor of owning and beating slaves because I don't consider our current government an abject tyranny and don't mind paying taxes)

 

He's also an expert at flaunting how he demolished his opponent's argument when they throw up their hands and realize there's no reasoning with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At any rate angelofdeath, I think we both know that neither of us are going to win the other over on this one. I have other affairs to attend to so I am going to give it a rest for a while.

 

I do think that there is a big difference between law enforcement being armed as opposed to joe public being armed.

 

I never said that the public does not act, I said that they do not do so with guns.

 

I do not take the example of Giffords case to be all that strong, no weapon was used, the courage pill line I think does not hold up either, should we all carry guns to make us have courage?

 

Have a good day maynard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

reason for ownership restricted, no high powered semi auto rifles, minimum barrel length on handguns to make concealment harder, training courses in handling of firearms before being issued gun license and/or firearm. that's just off the top of my head

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that if there was a higher threshold to gun ownership it would have a positive effect. That is why I am arguing for it.

 

Perhaps if owning a gun carried more liability and training it would have some benefit? Is it your assertion that the only answer is more guns? Some cops 3 year old kid here in Washington just blasted his brains out and there is no law holding the owner responsible for it.

 

what is this higher threshold. i want specifics.

i have a feeling that you probably do not have the first clue as to what the gun laws in the country are. but i might be wrong.

 

training?

i've personally been to govt sponsored firearms training. it was more or less the biggest joke i've ever seen. what if the wacko's just started going to this government training and learned how to more effectively kill people? that is largely what you suggested about the 'idiots' at the shooting range.

 

you guys talk out of both sides of your mouth.

you ridicule people who train with firearms as being serial killers, then you say we should mandate training.

makes perfect sense!

 

i believe that is called negligence.

interesting, it was a COP's kid....supposedly, under your view, the only people 'qualified' to own and possess firearms.

 

this indicates that even the most well trained in the view of the public are not so infallible.

 

They don't have guns in prison because the people bringing in the drugs do not have to worry about being shot with them. These absolutist arguments are childish. Tons of people are deterred from graffiti because of the legal ramifications.

 

you are refusing to acknowledge the analogy on drugs.

you are talking about passing a law, prohibitions, and that this will keep said objects out of peoples hands when in fact they wont.

 

you have the perfect case. it doesnt matter what laws you pass, what the consequences are, people are still going to get what they want. and if you did magically zap away 200 million guns out of america, i'd suspect the pyscho's would resort to much more easier to access methods of destruction that are totally legal and do not carry the connotations people get from guns.

 

if the most controlled environment in the world, a prison, cannot keep something that people want out of it, how are you going to keep guns out of peoples hands in the real world?

 

 

There is also of course a real difference between violent death and accidental death. Like the swimming pool argument, we do have life guards for a reason. By that line of thought should we have gun control or should we get rid of the lifeguards and just let things work themselves out?

 

are you suggesting all the kids that drown in back yard pools would of been prevented if you passed a law requiring all pools in america to have a life guard, 24/7 instead of just promoting good parenting and actually watching kids?

 

you operate on one false assumption. that if a law is passed, the results will be what are intended in the law.

this is a very bad assumption to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites
reason for ownership restricted, no high powered semi auto rifles, minimum barrel length on handguns to make concealment harder, training courses in handling of firearms before being issued gun license and/or firearm. that's just off the top of my head

 

you should need to establish a 'reason' to possess a tool that is used to defend yourself?

they have this in NYC. i believe they have eliminated murder in this jurisdiction.

phewww. thank good ness.

 

a few other states have 'carry permits' that require 'good and substantial' reasons for possessing and carrying said firearms. these states generally house the murder capitals of the country.

 

high power semi auto rifles are currently illegal in parts of the US. Handguns are also illegal in parts of the US or restricted to the point of any person who isnt politically connected not being able to own one. Some states already require training and licenses before being able to possess a firearm. carry permits in most states require training.

 

there is one common thread. in ALL locations where those conditions exist in the US, gun crime is THROUGH THE FUCKING ROOF. in all places where you can carry without a license and engage in private sale firearms transfers, hardly anything happens. for decades.

 

do you think that just MAYBE, it has something to do with people and not with inanimate objects being the main problem? if it is simply presence of guns and easy access, why dont mass murder shooting sprees happen in states where 29 guns per house hold exist or where carrying without a license is legal?

if 'easy access' is the problem, what about back when full auto firearms could be ordered through mail or brought home as war trophy's? or when you could order 20mm cannons through the mail? mass shootings back then?

if you want to simply look at correlation and point to causation, we can play that game as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, you should. i don't believe your defense tool is going to stop someone intent on doing you harm from carrying it out. it's not a deterrent til after the fact. you think that because criminals know that people are armed it stops them carrying out crime? that's what I'm getting when you say that places with gun control laws have gun crime THROUGH THE FUCKING ROOF

 

and it's nice that some places restrict things that have no place in the hands of a civilian (in my opinion) but if it's not national ban then it's about effective as pissing in to the wind.

 

so in your eyes the ease of access is not at all a problem that contributes to the levels of violence in your country? that's, quite frankly, retarded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't stop stupid from doing stupid things. Can't stop crazy from doing crazy things.

 

Terrible this kid was missing some part of his conscience that tells humans: mass murder is bad. It doesn't have to be a gun. It could be a home made bomb. Or poison. Or simply driving over people at random.

 

Weapons will always be around no matter how much you control them. So will crazy people.

 

It's interesting though this person advocating for 2nd amendment gun rights is called 'angelofdeath'. You may want to think about that one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me why ANYONE would need an AK or any automatic weapon "big gun" etc?

Do you need 29 guns in your house to "protect yourself"? As someone mentioned if you are trying to protect yourself from the big bad government by owning some guns it won't help you.

Sure you should be able to have a handgun in your house in case someone comes to kill you so you can protect yourself but why would you need an M4 in your closet AND a handgun on your night table and w.e else. I'm pretty certain all the people with 30 guns don't have armies chasing them down.

 

There is no reasoning with people like you though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...