Shooting in Conn. School

[quote name='usickenme']They only time guns were used to "defend" people from the government was to keep slavery going....not exactly a stellar record.[/QUOTE]
Just to name a few others off the top of my head:
Deacons of Defense
The McMinn County war
Whiskey Rebellion

-but, hey, keep on making people dumber and race-baiting in the process. It's impressive.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Please come up with a new argument that hasn't been debunked countless times and a few in this thread already.[/QUOTE]
He thinks we've done nothing about vehicle safety, he's obviously an idiot.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Just to name a few others off the top of my head:
Deacons of Defense
The McMinn County war
Whiskey Rebellion

-but, hey, keep on making people dumber and race-baiting in the process. It's impressive.[/QUOTE]
Umm, you really think the Whiskey Rebellion is the best example you could use there? You're talking about people who simply thought they wouldn't have to pay taxes. They weren't exactly "protecting" themselves from the government. Unless you think Washington was some tyrannical despot.
 
On NPR yesterday they were talking about the power of the NRA, and how it either never existed, or no longer does at least. They based that on the fact that in the last election, very few NRA supported candidates actually won their race. The NRA basically blew a lot of money and had no effect.

On the same show they also had a couple of crazies call in. One was some old woman who was convinced there were Russians in the mountains of North Carolina waiting to attack (I assume she means the immigrant population in that area, good number of Russians in the Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg areas as well).
 
[quote name='Clak']Umm, you really think the Whiskey Rebellion is the best example you could use there? You're talking about people who simply thought they wouldn't have to pay taxes. They weren't exactly "protecting" themselves from the government. Unless you think Washington was some tyrannical despot.[/QUOTE]
Nope, it was third on the list first ones that come to mind for a reason.

Would you not agree that it's a better example than the South, slavery, and Civil War- which Usickenme seems to think is the ONLY time it's ever been done- where my comment was directed?

Never said any thing of sort about Washington, but they were fighting for something they believed was a liberty and a tax that targeted them more than others, maybe a preceding major historical event lead them to believe that rebelling against such a thing was acceptable? Can't think of one immediately, maybe I'll buy some stamps and sip some tea then it'll come to me.
 
[quote name='Clak']On NPR yesterday they were talking about the power of the NRA, and how it either never existed, or no longer does at least. They based that on the fact that in the last election, very few NRA supported candidates actually won their race. The NRA basically blew a lot of money and had no effect.

On the same show they also had a couple of crazies call in. One was some old woman who was convinced there were Russians in the mountains of North Carolina waiting to attack (I assume she means the immigrant population in that area, good number of Russians in the Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg areas as well).[/QUOTE]

1:Chuck Schumer was saying the exact same thing on Meet the Press Sunday: The 'power' of the NRA has been greatly exaggerated.

2: Yup sounds right to me. This is the reasons I always hear. "We're going to need those guns when its Red Dawn" Or "You're going to need your gun when Rodan / Cloverfield attacks". Or "You'll need that gun when the Obamas come to take away your children and indoctrinate them into thinking Broccoli is a viable alternative to Pringles"
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Just to name a few others off the top of my head:
Deacons of Defense
The McMinn County war
Whiskey Rebellion

-but, hey, keep on making people dumber and race-baiting in the process. It's impressive.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh...that's not race-baiting dude. What's impressive is that you think it is considering how a lot of the rhetoric and sentiment of gun fetishists mirror that of those in his example.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Uhhh...that's not race-baiting dude. What's impressive is that you think it is considering how a lot of the rhetoric and sentiment of gun fetishists mirror that of those in his example.[/QUOTE]
Oh so the Civil War was the only example, and not a tinge a racial divisiveness in his post?

Brilliant thanks, I appreciate the edification.
 
[quote name='usickenme']idiotic. Guns are more than "objects" they are specific, tools made for one purpose- killing and killing efficiently.[/QUOTE]

That's odd. I own plenty of guns and not a single one has every killed a living thing. They must be broken.

[quote name='usickenme']
In the hands of trained people, the risk can be minimized (but never removed- ever hear of friendly fire) but let's not be dense or glib. They are uniquely dangerous. Guns make the actions of stupid people worse- never better.[/QUOTE]

And yet, the worst school massacre to date didn't even involve a gun. But yes, lets ban guns, that'll keep us safe!

[quote name='usickenme']
Also, don't care about Osama getting shot. I care about the 32,000 Americans a year.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/[/QUOTE]

So it's all about death toll then? How about the millions of other things that people engage in that kill more per year than guns (and on top of that, aren't a constitutionally protected right)? Do people who are anti-abortion have a legitimate gripe? I'm sure more than 32000 people a year get abortions. After all, they're tools made for one purpose- killing and killing efficiently. :roll:

532464_10151188557365197_1281240595_n.jpg
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Oh so the Civil War was the only example, and not a tinge a racial divisiveness in his post?

Brilliant thanks, I appreciate the edification.[/QUOTE]
You're welcome. Btw, only racists tend use the term race-baiting when seeing the mere mention of anything tenuously race related. HTH
 
[quote name='dohdough']You're welcome. Btw, only racists tend use the term race-baiting when seeing the mere mention of anything tenuously race related. HTH[/QUOTE]

Drink!!! Lol, boy, I could set my watch to you.
 
[quote name='dohdough'] Btw, only racists tend use the term race-baiting when seeing the mere mention of anything tenuously race related. HTH[/QUOTE]

HOLY SHIT! :lol: Sorry I guess I need to tune my dog whistle!
LMFAO!
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']That's odd. I own plenty of guns and not a single one has every killed a living thing. They must be broken. [/quote]
This is horseshit. The only reason for this is the lack of opportunity. You don't keep a shotgun by your bed for late night target practice. Man is the deadliest game afterall, amirite?

And yet, the worst school massacre to date didn't even involve a gun. But yes, lets ban guns, that'll keep us safe!
Wtf are you talking about here? I'd say this one ranks pretty fucking high on the worst list.

So it's all about death toll then? How about the millions of other things that people engage in that kill more per year than guns (and on top of that, aren't a constitutionally protected right)? Do people who are anti-abortion have a legitimate gripe? I'm sure more than 32000 people a year get abortions. After all, they're tools made for one purpose- killing and killing efficiently. :roll:
Abortions = guns. Gotcha.

*sigh* How many times have you posted that dumb pic? Does it get you off or something?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']


So it's all about death toll then? How about the millions of other things that people engage in that kill more per year than guns (and on top of that, aren't a constitutionally protected right)? Do people who are anti-abortion have a legitimate gripe? I'm sure more than 32000 people a year get abortions. After all, they're tools made for one purpose- killing and killing efficiently. :roll:
[/QUOTE]


Lets break it down: I'm being led to believe that had this man not mowed down children with an AR-15 he would've ran him over with his car , and that doesnt mean that the death toll would've been diminished? Dont get me wrong Children are fragile little people. Have you ever seen what an AR-15 can do to grown adults? It was .223 rounds right? It'll blow your limbs clean off your grown ass body.

None of the children who were shot , survived. That should be the end of that argument. (Although I know it wont be)
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Wtf are you talking about here? I'd say this one ranks pretty fucking high on the worst list.
[/QUOTE]

I think he is referring to the Bath school massacre- I could be mistaken.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This is horseshit. The only reason for this is the lack of opportunity. You don't keep a shotgun by your bed for late night target practice. Man is the deadliest game afterall, amirite?[/QUOTE]

"Can be used for" and "only used for" are two different things. Typically you to not figure that out.

[quote name='dohdough']
Wtf are you talking about here? I'd say this one ranks pretty fucking high on the worst list.
[/QUOTE]

What? Man, I thought you were a master of HISTORY!

http://qz.com/37069/the-deadliest-s...ry-was-in-1927-why-its-aftermath-matters-now/

[quote name='dohdough']
Abortions = guns. Gotcha.
[/QUOTE]

Death = death

The method by which it happens is irreverent.


[quote name='dohdough']
*sigh* How many times have you posted that dumb pic? Does it get you off or something?[/QUOTE]

A little.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Drink!!! Lol, boy, I could set my watch to you.[/QUOTE]
Well I could set my watch by how often you shitpost and run.
 
[quote name='EdRyder'] It was .223 rounds right? It'll blow your limbs clean off your grown ass body.

[/QUOTE]

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh no, don't worry, it can be the end of the argument.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Well I could set my watch by how often you shitpost and run.[/QUOTE]

These claims are hilarious. Where have you been for the last 24 hours? Does that mean you shitpost and run? How much of my life do I need to spend in a forum for it to not count as shitposting and running? Also, should I keep commenting when the conversation has gone circular or when people stop responding? I'm just trying to gauge how much of a loser I have to become in order to be considered a legitimate commenter much like yourself.

Grasping at straws my man.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh no, don't worry, it can be the end of the argument.[/QUOTE]
Am I wrong on the round? What am I missing that caused the laughter?

I'm simple suggesting that getting run over by a car when you're seven , isnt the same level of butt fucking that being shot with a machinegun is. You can survive one of those
 
I will say though that you can no longer just go to the hardware store and buy dynamite like that farmer did so I guess that would be progress right?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']These claims are hilarious. Where have you been for the last 24 hours? Does that mean you shitpost and run? How much of my life do I need to spend in a forum for it to not count as shitposting and running? Also, should I keep commenting when the conversation has gone circular or when people stop responding? I'm just trying to gauge how much of a loser I have to become in order to be considered a legitimate commenter much like yourself.[/quote]
I've actually been gone for more than 24 hours, but since you really seem that interested in my life outside of CAG, I've been trying to diagnose the problems with my laptop and playing FF-XIII.

There are actually a couple other CAG's that post in the same frequency and volume that you do except they tend to drop some actual content and knowledge instead of throwing up strawmen and libertarian tropes like you tend to. I might agree with less than half of the stuff that berzirk says, but at least he isn't a one-trick pony like you are. I guess you'd rather troll instead.

Grasping at straws my man.
Are they the same straws you grasp for everytime you talk about me even mentioning race as if I'm making an argument for it?
 
[quote name='dohdough']

Are they the same straws you grasp for everytime you talk about me even mentioning race as if I'm making an argument for it?[/QUOTE]

Were it just I who said it, you might have a point. You're kind of known for being the master of white-guilt outside of the vs.

Besides, you already admitted that you had me confused with somebody else when it came to the shitbombing or posting or whatever you said.

Hope you figure out what's up with your laptop.
 
It should also be pointed out that the Bath massacre killed 45 people and the guy used 1 ton of pyrotol and 2 boxes of dynamite. The CT shooter used basically 1 gun to kill 27 people. It would seem to me that guns and explosives are both pretty deadly yet the average citizen is not allowed to go to the gun range and toss out a few hand grenades for sport.

Small sample of unused explosives found at the school.

Bath_School_dynamite2.jpg
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']It should also be pointed out that the Bath massacre killed 45 people and the guy used 1 ton of pyrotol and 2 boxes of dynamite. The CT shooter used basically 1 gun to kill 27 people. It would seem to me that guns and explosives are both pretty deadly yet the average citizen is not allowed to go to the gun range and toss out a few hand grenades for sport.

Small sample of unused explosives found at the school.

Bath_School_dynamite2.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Your stats would depend largely on how many people were there at the time. Dollars to donuts says that there were more students and people at the CT location than the Bath location. Are you really tying to claim that getting shot is more deadly than being blown up?
 
[quote name='EdRyder']Am I wrong on the round? What am I missing that caused the laughter?
[/QUOTE]

.223/5.56 is on the smallest end of the center fire rifle caliber spectrum.

It's actually known for opposite of limbing people, instead notorious for punching clean holes, even when the bullets torque and tumble. So much so that for decades people speculated that the round was actually designed to wound and not kill, which has never been substantiated.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Your stats would depend largely on how many people were there at the time. Dollars to donuts says that there were more students and people at the CT location than the Bath location. Are you really tying to claim that getting shot is more deadly than being blown up?[/QUOTE]

260 students were in the building at the time. So yes the explosives were more "effective" but he spent a long time hiding them over weeks to carry out that attack. I never said being shot was more deadly than being blowing up but being shot at point blank range in the head is at least on par I would guess. Dynamite and other explosives used to be loosely regulated but now they are tightly regulated yet guns seem to still enjoy pretty free reign. Why is that? Why should one deadly weapon be more "acceptable" over the other?
 
Have people wondered WHEN will Americans express the same outrage over the deaths of innocent children abroad (via Obama's murderous drone program) as they do with the shooting of children in Connecticut. This is violence they can actually exercise more control over compared to controlling the actions of a lone person.

And before any knee-jerk responses on this comparison, let me put forward the futurist George Orwell's quote: "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." And if you are racist (such as CAG Allahbomber) then please do make your true opinion know on the lesser lives that brown people (and others) hold to Americans. By "American" you mean the white ones. Definitely not the black shooting victims we leave to violent circumstances in our great nation.

Here's a good article reflecting my point making the rounds:
Is America Like Adam Lanza? U.S. Drone Strikes Have Killed 176 Children in Pakistan Alone

"Yet, something about this seems entirely hypocritical; we as Americans largely ignore when our own government, in countries around the world, murders innocent children but when an American child dies, our media and our nation can focus on nothing else."

The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting that took place in Newtown, Connecticut, is going to affect the loved ones of the victims for years to come and this is something that should not be ignored.

Although most of us do not know the victims or their families, the news reports each and every detail of the event, and our hearts and thoughts go out to those who are suffering.

Yet, something about this seems entirely hypocritical; we as Americans largely ignore when our own government, in countries around the world, murders innocent children but when an American child dies, our media and our nation can focus on nothing else.

Meanwhile, U.S. drones are killing children and terrorizing families abroad. Earlier this year, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that 176 children have been murdered in Pakistan alone. And along with drone attacks, an average of 4.8 children are killed per day in Afghanistan where earlier this year, a U.S. sergeant is reported to have killed 9 children. Will these murders be deemed worthy of our thoughts and prayers, or even our news headlines?

These deaths abroad are tragic too. These deaths will also affect the loved ones of victims for years to come and their lives are no less-worthy of thoughts, prayers and government (or civilian) action.

Some will disagree with me and say that we should care about the deaths of children in the U.S. to a greater extent than the deaths of those abroad, because children living here are part of our nation. But most of us don't know the loved ones of the deceased in Connecticut any better than we know deceased in other countries. With all men (and children) created equal, we as Americans should care when any child is killed, not just the ones who happen to be born in a certain geographical region called the United States.

Here, we worry that our children might be afraid to go to school because there is now a 1 in 67,140 chance that their elementary school might be attacked. But we cause that same fear when we allow our government to fire missiles at schools abroad. Sadaullah Khan, a 15-year old boy who lost both legs in a drone strike says, "I used to go to school … I thought I would become a doctor. After the drone strikes, I stopped going to school."

Here in the U.S., parents worry that they might have to attend the funeral of their own child. But our government strikes fear into the hearts of parents abroad when it kills their children during funerals. When we worry about the safety of our children, we forget that it is our drone strikes, our money and our democratically-elected government that cause the same fear in select countries around the world.

And yet, Americans are going to spend thousands of hours supporting or protesting various gun laws to "save the children," here at home. But in reality, Americans could save many more children if they protested our own government's killing of hundreds of children abroad. But Americans won't spend their time this way, even if it would save more children's lives. It seems that Americans should care when any child is murdered, not just when American ones are.
 
[quote name='dohdough']*sigh* How many times have you posted that dumb pic? Does it get you off or something?[/QUOTE]

She does have a nice mouth...

Things I'd like to know:
1.) How does more guns solve the problem? I hear talk of arming teachers. They very same teachers who are evil scum for being in a union. And of course no teacher has ever made the wrong choice (see teacher sex scandal threads) and they are all perfect people.

2.) When it has been shown that nearly 2 in 5 highly trained US soldiers freeze or panic and don't shoot back, how are we to assume that non-combat people will act any better?

3.) If more security is the answer, how do right wingers quantify that whilst also complaining that the education budget is too large?

4.) How many more times does this need to happen before we address the real causes (vidyer games of course) and stop putting band aids on the symptoms?

5.) Instead of banning guns, let's just make automatic and semi automatic weapons illegal. Bolt action will be the law of the land. You get to keep your penis substitute and we can all feel safer knowing that you actually have to work at firing it.
 
[quote name='nasum']

5.) Instead of banning guns, let's just make automatic and semi automatic weapons illegal. Bolt action will be the law of the land. You get to keep your penis substitute and we can all feel safer knowing that you actually have to work at firing it.[/QUOTE]

I like this. Does that mean the military and police will also only have access to bolt actions?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I like this. Does that mean the military and police will also only have access to bolt actions?[/QUOTE]
Of course. I mean fuck, season 2 of Firefly isn't going to make itself.
 
Nope. For the same reason that I don't need a rocket launcher or a tank or a B-52 bomber as a citizen.
 
3.) If more security is the answer, how do right wingers quantify that whilst also complaining that the education budget is too large?
Treat school districts the same way you want companies to run. Stop paying administrators salaries that are equivalent of 5-6 teachers and cut down on the waste. Most schools have security as it is, they aren't armed but they are there. Cut them out and add a paid armed officer.
 
[quote name='nasum']Nope. For the same reason that I don't need a rocket launcher or a tank or a B-52 bomber as a citizen.[/QUOTE]
You'll be wishing you had them when Red Dawn happens...
 
[quote name='nasum']5.) Instead of banning guns, let's just make automatic and semi automatic weapons illegal[/QUOTE]
ok, so mass murderers will start using revolvers instead

wow we're so much safer now, thank you! :applause:
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Most schools have security as it is, they aren't armed but they are there.[/QUOTE]
Wait, do most American schools (elementary, even) seriously have security staff?
 
[quote name='TripJack']ok, so mass murderers will start using revolvers instead

wow we're so much safer now, thank you! :applause:[/QUOTE]
Unless you're talking single action, they're still semi-auto.

[quote name='The Crotch']Wait, do most American schools (elementary, even) seriously have security staff?[/QUOTE]
There weren't when I was in 1-8, but I know Boston has them in all the high schools.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Wait, do most American schools (elementary, even) seriously have security staff?[/QUOTE]

It burns me that most people say "My school had security.. where were they at Sandy Hook?"

and then they forget that Sandy Hook was what... K-3?

I can't think of a single elementary school (not consolidated K-8 or K-12) that has metal detectors and paid security.

Comparatively speaking it would be a giant waste of money to have armed security at elementary schools. If you find that practical you might as well have them at all daycare centers, laundry mats, McDonalds, or other business that might be subject to random acts of violence
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Wait, do most American schools (elementary, even) seriously have security staff?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure the stats, but I doubt it. In urban and suburban areas its probably pretty common.

But not in rural areas and small towns (which is the majority of the country).

I grew up in rural WV, never any security staff in any of my schools. Just no need for it. Other than the typical fights, fake bomb threats etc. there were never any incidents that would require security vs. just calling the cops when something happened that warranted legal action.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not sure the stats, but I doubt it. In urban and suburban areas its probably pretty common.

But not in rural areas and small towns (which is the majority of the country).

I grew up in rural WV, never any security staff in any of my schools. Just no need for it. Other than the typical fights, fake bomb threats etc. there were never any incidents that would require security vs. just calling the cops when something happened that warranted legal action.[/QUOTE]

I grew up rural too.... at best we had a police officer "liason" that would come into the highschool on Friday's and talk with a few of the loose lips students to try and find out where the parties were going to be that weekend.

We never had anyone in the school full time. The only advancements that have put in regarding security in the past 10 years are cameras on the entrances and exits.
 
Obama says he's going to back a new AWB. Which is great, because:

A) CT already had one in place, so they obviously work. And
B) The last AWB did a fantastic job to keeping these shootings to a minimum.

Oh wait...

11/15/95 - Lynville, Tn School shooting
2/2/96 - Moses Lake, Wa School shooting
2/19/97 - Bethel, Ak School shooting
10/1/97 - Pearl, Ms School shooting
12/1/97 - West Paducah, Ky School shooting
4/24/98 - Edinboro, Pa School shooting
5/21/98 - Springfield, Or School shooting
4/20/99 - Columbine, Co School shooting
5/20/99 - Conyers, Ga School shooting
11/2/99 - Honolulu, Hi Office Shooting
12/26/00 - Wakefield, Ma Office Shooting
3/5/01 - Santee, Ca School Shooting
3/22/01 El Cajon, Ca School Shooting
1/16/02 Grundy, Va College Shooting
4/14/03 New Orleans, La School Shooting
 
I find it hilarious that a lot of people are thinking the solution is to force teachers to arm themselves. You know your argument has run out of steam if that's a solution.
 
bread's done
Back
Top