Shooting in Conn. School

[quote name='detectiveconan16']Just saw that Steven Seagal is training a bunch of armed volunteers to protect Arizona school children. I'm not sure if it's a wise choice to let a guy who got his ass kicked by a 70 year old man to be in charge of these "defenders of freedom."[/QUOTE]
Would you be more qualified to train them than Steven Seagal? He's only doing the hand to hand combat portion. I think he's more than appropriate considering he helped train Anderson Silva, the UFC fighter.
 
[quote name='Mad39er']Would you be more qualified to train them than Steven Seagal? He's only doing the hand to hand combat portion. I think he's more than appropriate considering he helped train Anderson Silva, the UFC fighter.[/QUOTE]

Oh not this bullshit again. "Sensi Seagull" has never trained Anderson Silva. He talks a big game about training UFC fighters and all that shit but he does NOTHING. He's riding on Silva's coattails. No MMA fan takes Fatty Segal serious, not should anyone else.
 
[quote name='Calipso']Oh not this bullshit again. "Sensi Seagull" has never trained Anderson Silva. He talks a big game about training UFC fighters and all that shit but he does NOTHING. He's riding on Silva's coattails. No MMA fan takes Fatty Segal serious, not should anyone else.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say he trained Silva. He helped train. Yay for Kneejerk reactions and he's still more than qualified to teach the hand to hand to the Sheriff's posse.
 
So what? It still saves money from hiring more police officers, since they require background checks and standards amongst many things. Armed volunteers make government smaller don't it?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Doesn't Arpaio's posse include people who've committed crimes against children?[/QUOTE]
The Salon named two, I'd say remove them and start vetting the volunteers. It's definitely a legitimate issue but the article also goes on to skip right over problem solving and constructive criticism, straight to bashing Arpaio and Seagal. Would be nice if they had provided more insight into how to enhance the efforts rather than just sermonize but given their target audience... they clearly see no need to actually be helpful.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']And yet, we continue to throw millions of dollars into awareness and advertising campaigns with minimal interference from special interest groups or uproar from citizens just in the hope of possibly maybe lowering abuse by another percentage point.

It's pretty sweet, I'll admit.[/QUOTE]

There is certainly a difference between alcohal awareness campaigns and what is being proposed on gun control.

How would you like to take a test every time you have a beer?

Or more likely everytime you go to drive a car, take a breathalyzer to turn on the car. Why shouldn't we do this? You must want people to get drunk and kill someone driving!!!!1!!!111 you horrible person.

You know it is interesting. At the beginning of this thread there were arguments from the pro gun side saying "you are punishing law abiding citizens with gun control laws, and the criminals will still ignore them." The gun control advocates were saying "there aren't good and bad guys, and there isn't a clear way to identify them besides criminal record".

Then we come across the topic of gun registration where we have the gun control advocates saying "registration will help to make sure the bad guys aren't getting the guns!"

Contradict much?

So let me ask again, which one the shootings you guys have posted, would have been stopped by gun registration?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']There is certainly a difference between alcohal awareness campaigns and what is being proposed on gun control.

How would you like to take a test every time you have a beer?

Or more likely everytime you go to drive a car, take a breathalyzer to turn on the car. Why shouldn't we do this? You must want people to get drunk and kill someone driving!!!!1!!!111 you horrible person.[/QUOTE]
Shit man, next you're gonna tell me that you don't have to wear a seatbelt while shooting a gun.
 
Let's stop comparing cars and knives to guns. How stupid do you have to be to even think those kinds of things are remotely comparable.
 
When I was growing up, I was taught to actually consider the fucking shit I had to say. That's why we had to write bibliographies, why I had to do research projects by checking books out in the library. It's why I had to learn to examine the words I use both on a literal level and their metaphorical connotations. It's why I think there's a huge problem in communication these days, which is worsened by our technology encouraging people to use abbreviations in an attempt to save time.

And it's only hammered into my fucking skull if I take a three second jaunt onto Facebook, and look at idiots talking about robotic implants mandated by Obamacare, which will in turn invalidate your ability to go to heaven.

Jesus Christ. I don't even have the energy to get mad any more. It's just ten fucking tons of somber disappointment being showered on me by dumbasses who have never even had a fucking original thought in their entire goddamn lives.
 
I don't even use Facebook anymore. Frankly, people share too much of themselves on the internet. I've got friends who, politics aside, I actually like. However, when they go ranting on Facebook about Obama taking der gurns, it just makes me wonder why I'm their friend. And I mean actual friend, not "internet friend".

There are things that we're just better off not knowing about some people.
 
[quote name='Clak']There are things that we're just better off not knowing about some people.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I wish I had realized that earlier in life.
 
Hey guys, You need guns to defend your home from intruders: As evident by this
That story took a dark turn this morning in Pretoria, South Africa, when police found the body of Pistorius's girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, and charged the 26-year old athlete with murder. USA Today reports that Steenkamp was shot in the arm and leg. Reports that Pistorius mistook his girlfriend for an intruder while she was surprising him for Valentine's Day (spawning from a tweet she left the day before reading 'What do you have up your sleeve for your love tomorrow??? #getexcited #ValentinesDay') have not been confirmed by police. The South African Olympic Committee won't release an official statement but in the meantime this terribly ironic photo from Pistorius's website has already been removed. Pistorius now joins our rogues gallery for criminal Olympic athletes.
Click to expand...

 
[quote name='Clak']I don't even use Facebook anymore. Frankly, people share too much of themselves on the internet. I've got friends who, politics aside, I actually like. However, when they go ranting on Facebook about Obama taking der gurns, it just makes me wonder why I'm their friend. And I mean actual friend, not "internet friend".

There are things that we're just better off not knowing about some people.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly why I don't want and will never have a facebook account. I know that some of my friends and family have some pretty abhorrently racist views that peep out once in a while, so I'd rather not have it all up in my face(book).
 
It just seems like people use it as their personal diary, forgetting that other people are actually reading this shit.
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']Hey guys, You need guns to defend your home from intruders: As evident by this

[/QUOTE]



Did you read the article? Their is evidence that their have been "domestic" disturbances in his home before and it is not out of the realm that it was NOT an accident. You do know his father has a lot of wealth and influence right?


This is my story of the day:

Editor’s Note: BDN’s request for information on concealed weapons permits


It always had been the BDN’s intent to request this information to support our reporting projects. However, the introduction of legislation to remove these permits from public records accelerated our timeline in doing so.

The BDN has never had any intention to release identifying information about permit holders, and said so in our request. We recognize how sensitive this information is, and made sure police agencies knew of this intent.


Wanna bet this information is published in the near future?
 
[quote name='Strell']Gun owners: Happy to flail their guns around until some scary newspaper wants to know about it.[/QUOTE]

So you think it is okay for their to be public lists (i.e. names, D.O.B., social security numbers, addresses) for those that applied and were approved to have a concealed weapon permit?

What if I wanted to do research on the quality of healthcare provided to those that are on welfare?

Would you be okay with me collecting and publicizing that information?
 
Oh I get it, it's because healthcare is the exact same thing as a gun permit.

The answer is of course no - that shouldn't happen, and I wouldn't be for it. However, sounds like this newspaper hasn't done anything yet. Further, no one can prove they WILL do anything, and instead is just getting mad over - effectively - nothing.

If this is such a hot button issue with gun owners who - again - are usually so quick to show off their pieces, then why the hell aren't they talking to the NRA to lobby against this kind of thing? Seems like a better use of time than having some idiots talking about armed guards at elementary schools.
 
[quote name='Strell']Oh I get it, it's because healthcare is the exact same thing as a gun permit.[/QUOTE]

So you're not okay with it?

Even if I say that I'm just using it for research? And I'll protect the information?

What's the problem with collecting data? Data isn't good nor is it evil
 
[quote name='GBAstar']So you're not okay with it?

Even if I say that I'm just using it for research? And I'll protect the information?

What's the problem with collecting data? Data isn't good nor is it evil[/QUOTE]
What do you do for a living again? Have you ever heard of the Institutional Review Board? I thought you were in bio-engineering or something and if you are, I'd imagine you'd be aware of an organization such as that.

edit: Seriously, what the fuck are you arguing here considering you're doing the same thing on 2 separate threads?

Regardless, medical studies would be covered by HIPAA for identifying information as well as being fully voluntary(depending on the study as not all studies would require patient id information) and CCW permits are public record(edit2: which depends on the state and Maine happens to be one of those in which it is).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He could at least do the world a favor and limit weaponry to his legs during killing sprees. Guns are so casual.

You know you'd be scared as shit if you saw him running you down in a dark alley.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Shit man, next you're gonna tell me that you don't have to wear a seatbelt while shooting a gun.[/QUOTE]

Tell me why you aren't in favor of breathalyzers for all cars? Is your right not to have to take a breathalyzer more important than saving (unknown) number of lives? You are just an evil car toting son of a bitch....Damn this car obsessed culture. Will somebody think of the children!?!

PS more people die as a result of drunk driving than murder with guns

[quote name='strell']When I was growing up, I was taught to actually consider the fucking shit I had to say. That's why we had to write bibliographies, why I had to do research projects by checking books out in the library. It's why I had to learn to examine the words I use both on a literal level and their metaphorical connotations. It's why I think there's a huge problem in communication these days, which is worsened by our technology encouraging people to use abbreviations in an attempt to save time.

And it's only hammered into my fucking skull if I take a three second jaunt onto Facebook, and look at idiots talking about robotic implants mandated by Obamacare, which will in turn invalidate your ability to go to heaven.

Jesus Christ. I don't even have the energy to get mad any more. It's just ten fucking tons of somber disappointment being showered on me by dumbasses who have never even had a fucking original thought in their entire goddamn lives. [/QUOTE]

:rofl:

If any of this were true, you would actually set out to proving your point, that your particular choice in legislating guns will work, and here is the data, and reasoning to support it.

Instead we get "haah you are all a bunch of dummies, if i really wanted to I would so prove you wrong! haha idiots! I am so smart! RACISM!"
 
[quote name='Knoell']Tell me why you aren't in favor of breathalyzers for all cars? Is your right not to have to take a breathalyzer more important than saving (unknown) number of lives? You are just an evil car toting son of a bitch....Damn this car obsessed culture. Will somebody think of the children!?!

PS more people die as a result of drunk driving than murder with guns



:rofl:

If any of this were true, you would actually set out to proving your point, that your particular choice in legislating guns will work, and here is the data, and reasoning to support it.

Instead we get "haah you are all a bunch of dummies, if i really wanted to I would so prove you wrong! haha idiots! I am so smart! RACISM!"[/QUOTE]

Do you think an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Tell me why you aren't in favor of breathalyzers for all cars? Is your right not to have to take a breathalyzer more important than saving (unknown) number of lives? You are just an evil car toting son of a bitch....Damn this car obsessed culture. Will somebody think of the children!?!

PS more people die as a result of drunk driving than murder with guns.[/QUOTE]

The car breathalyzer analogy is a poor one on two levels. First, The government already regulates who can obtain a driver's license. An individual must be of a certain age, pass a written and a road test prior to obtaining a license. This would be the equivalent of a thorough background check and a mandatory course on gun use and safety. Second, a drivers license is a privilege meanwhile the right to bear guns is a constitutional right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I remember correctly, I believe I once read about a sensor which, if placed in a car, could detect the alcohol just from a person sitting and breathing in the car. So basically if you got in and tried to start the car drunk, it just wouldn't start.

Seems like a good idea to me.

edit- Oh and nice try Knoell.
 
[quote name='Clak']If I remember correctly, I believe I once read about a sensor which, if placed in a car, could detect the alcohol just from a person sitting and breathing in the car. So basically if you got in and tried to start the car drunk, it just wouldn't start.

Seems like a good idea to me.

edit- Oh and nice try Knoell.[/QUOTE]

It sounds like a good idea assuming the sensor can distinguish between the DD and passengers.
 
[quote name='Clak']If I remember correctly, I believe I once read about a sensor which, if placed in a car, could detect the alcohol just from a person sitting and breathing in the car. So basically if you got in and tried to start the car drunk, it just wouldn't start.

Seems like a good idea to me.

edit- Oh and nice try Knoell.[/QUOTE]

Can we get sensors in cars that detect bad drivers and won't start if they're behind the wheel?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Can we get sensors in cars that detect bad drivers and won't start if they're behind the wheel?[/QUOTE]

No, because then it'll be sexism and racism when Asian females suddenly find themselves unable to drive.
 
[quote name='Clak']If I remember correctly, I believe I once read about a sensor which, if placed in a car, could detect the alcohol just from a person sitting and breathing in the car. So basically if you got in and tried to start the car drunk, it just wouldn't start.

Seems like a good idea to me.

edit- Oh and nice try Knoell.[/QUOTE]

Hahahahahahahhahahaahha!!!!! Holy crap, man! Why don't we just pay a gov't worker to babysit every US citizen 24 hours a day? Who needs to assume self responsibility and independence when the gov't is so incorruptible and can make all the best decisions for you? 1984 has got to be your handbook for gov't SOP. Dang, bro, please tell me that most of your posts are meant to be sarcastic, like many of mine.;)
 
[quote name='kill3r7']The car breathalyzer analogy is a poor one on two levels. First, The government already regulates who can obtain a driver's license. An individual must be of a certain age, pass a written and a road test prior to obtaining a license. This would be the equivalent of a thorough background check and a mandatory course on gun use and safety. Second, a drivers license is a privilege meanwhile the right to bear guns is a constitutional right.[/QUOTE]

The drivers license being a priviledge is even more reason to do so.

Also should the government be allowed to regulate a constitutional right for "the good of the people"?

[quote name='The Crotch'] But... I am? [/QUOTE]

[quote name='clak']If I remember correctly, I believe I once read about a sensor which, if placed in a car, could detect the alcohol just from a person sitting and breathing in the car. So basically if you got in and tried to start the car drunk, it just wouldn't start.

Seems like a good idea to me.

edit- Oh and nice try Knoell. [/QUOTE]

And now we know the lengths people are willing to go to remove any sort of personal responsibility from a persons life with the justification of "their personal choices will impact others, so to combat human error, we will remove the human element from their choices."

[quote name='IRHari']Do you think an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional? [/QUOTE]

What is your point here? I notice you ask this question repeatedly throughout the thread.

What impact do you think an assault weapons ban will have on the gun violence?


[quote name='Finger_Shocker']I do not find that cars can cause so much devastation as someone with a GUN[/QUOTE]

Yet they do:

2009

31,000+ Guns
36,000+ Motor Vehicles
 
[quote name='Knoell']




Yet they do:

2009

31,000+ Guns
36,000+ Motor Vehicles[/QUOTE]

WOW considering car ownership is alot higher then gun ownership

By the way how many of those 36,000 accidents were death?
 
[quote name='Knoell']The drivers license being a priviledge is even more reason to do so.

Also should the government be allowed to regulate a constitutional right for "the good of the people"?





And now we know the lengths people are willing to go to remove any sort of personal responsibility from a persons life with the justification of "their personal choices will impact others, so to combat human error, we will remove the human element from their choices."



What is your point here? I notice you ask this question repeatedly throughout the thread.

What impact do you think an assault weapons ban will have on the gun violence?




Yet they do:

2009

31,000+ Guns
36,000+ Motor Vehicles[/QUOTE]

Do you think an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional?
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']WOW considering car ownership is alot higher then gun ownership

By the way how many of those 36,000 accidents were death?[/QUOTE]

65 million guns have been sold since Obama took office. How many cars have been?
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']WOW considering car ownership is alot higher then gun ownership

By the way how many of those 36,000 accidents were death?[/QUOTE]

That's 36,000 deaths not accidents. In the US alone there are roughly half million accidents a year.
 
[quote name='Knoell'] Also should the government be allowed to regulate a constitutional right for "the good of the people"? [/QUOTE]

Should they? No. Can they? Sure. Congress can pass any regulation/law it sees fit as long as it is acting within its power. It's up to the people to challenge its constitutionality.

I'm not opposed to an individual being required to pass a thorough background check and at least take a mandatory gun use and safety class.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Should they? No. Can they? Sure. Congress can pass any regulation/law it sees fit as long as it is acting within its power. It's up to the people to challenge its constitutionality.

I'm not opposed to an individual being required to pass a thorough background check and at least take a mandatory gun use and safety class.[/QUOTE]

And people are challenging the constitutionality of the things the government is doing.

I have more of a problem with the idiots that rather than making a rational argument that partiular legislation will work to reduce the bodycount, they demonize these people who own guns as "gun toting hillbillies, that would trade their first born for a gun, and shoot everyone/anyone on sight, because they love their guns so much. Yee Haw"

Of course where would politics be without demonization? How can you win an argument if you aren't saying the opposing side is the worst kind of humanity? So tired of it.

That or they go after the constitutionality of it as if the government being able to or not able to do it has anything to do with if they should do it.

Most people can accept background checks, and maybe even a safety course. However how are these things combating gun violence in the country? One may prevent accidents. The other will keep guns out of the hands of only people who have already committed a crime, or known to be mentally ill. Neither of these things will stop any of the massacres, and it won't stop the gang violence that takes up a huge chunk of gun deaths each year. I am fairly certain Chicago has background checks, and it is being torn apart by gangs with guns.

Most gun deaths are related to suicide. Why aren't we talking more about helping those people? Awareness campaigns for them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Also should the government be allowed to regulate a constitutional right for "the good of the people"?[/QUOTE]

My bad, I missed this when you first posted it. I think I have your answer to my question now.

Curious to see if you think a citizen should be able to own a rocket launcher.
 
[quote name='Knoell']
I have more of a problem with the idiots that rather than making a rational argument that partiular legislation will work to reduce the bodycount, they demonize these people who own guns as "gun toting hillbillies, that would trade their first born for a gun, and shoot everyone/anyone on sight, because they love their guns so much. Yee Haw" [/QUOTE]
As an idiot who has tried to make rational arguments that particular legislation might work to reduce the bodycount, I find it odd that I was so quickly demonized as someone who demonizes people who own guns as "gun toting hillbillies" damn near every time I spoke up in this thread.

It's almost like it's a convenient way to shut down a discussion.
 
[quote name='IRHari']My bad, I missed this when you first posted it. I think I have your answer to my question now.

Curious to see if you think a citizen should be able to own a rocket launcher.[/QUOTE]

I see what you did there.

Lose-Lose situation.

If I agree then I am an insane extremist who wants people running around with rocket launchers.

If I disagree, then I am a hypocrite, who will allow one but not the other super scary weapon.

I will take the third option, that says assault weapons arent scary black weapons navy seals use, and assault weapons do not account for a tenth of the gun murders each year.

It is entertaining that you are turning assault weapons into rocket launchers in your head though. True, guns are scary, but so are a lot of things.

Extreme situations are always fun to get that "gotcha" moment.

Nice try though.

[quote name='The Crotch']As an idiot who has tried to make rational arguments that particular legislation might work to reduce the bodycount, I find it odd that I was so quickly demonized as someone who demonizes people who own guns as "gun toting hillbillies" damn near every time I spoke up in this thread.

It's almost like it's a convenient way to shut down a discussion. [/QUOTE]

You mean the one post where you (self admittedly) googled a bunch of graphs, threw them on the thread and said "see I am right!" and ignored the rest of the conversation and went back to the snarky comments? Sorry I must have missed it.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']I googled the source of your own statement who admitted he was wrong.[/QUOTE]

Where in that is talking about legislation you think will work and why?
 
Alright, you got me. That was just a friendly reminder that you should check your sources to make sure they don't say something totally different. And also gun-havers are all inbred Christofascist schizophrenics.

Mostly the second one, now that I think about it. Shit!
 
[quote name='Knoell']I see what you did there.

Lose-Lose situation.

If I agree then I am an insane extremist who wants people running around with rocket launchers.

If I disagree, then I am a hypocrite, who will allow one but not the other super scary weapon.

I will take the third option, that says assault weapons arent scary black weapons navy seals use, and assault weapons do not account for a tenth of the gun murders each year.

It is entertaining that you are turning assault weapons into rocket launchers in your head though. True, guns are scary, but so are a lot of things.

Extreme situations are always fun to get that "gotcha" moment.

Nice try though.[/QUOTE]

So banning rocket launchers is constitutional but banning assault rifles is unconstitutional?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top