Gun Safes Easily Opened by Three Year Olds.

detectiveconan16

detectiveconan16

CAGiversary!
Feedback
46 (100%)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcweb...-gun-safes-can-be-opened-by-a-three-year-old/
A few years ago, there was an incident involving a three year old who tragically lost his life due to a gun accident. The police department already had a precaution for all of its employees who owned a gun, a $36 safe commonly sold at Wal-Mart and such. They didn't test the units and after the story came out, the company and the department didn't bother recalling the units.

As the story is passed around on other sites, the same old argument of responsible citizens know how to control their guns is brought up again. Some even scoff that their own guns are stored in a safe bolted to the ground. Maybe some keep them in their bed bunkers? But who really expects people to shell out over $1000 for a safe to hold guns they paid up to a few hundred for, when can do it cheaper for a fraction of the cost?
 
But who really expects people to shell out over $1000 for a safe to hold guns they paid up to a few hundred for, when can do it cheaper for a fraction of the cost?
Click to expand...
But you can't do it cheaper for a fraction of the cost. Why would you shell out $36 for a safe that doesn't work? You might as well buy a plastic tub to store your guns in. Than again, I do not have nor plan to have children, so I have no need to lock them up.

One random question, do the cognitive abilities that enable a three-year-old to crack these crappy safes also allow the child to learn right from wrong, about dangerous objects, etc.? Does the three year old know not to touch the stove or run into the street without looking? If not, then the child should not be left alone, am I correct? This page on child development suggests they should not be left alone: http://www.pbs.org/parents/childdevelopmenttracker/three/index.html

And my last random thought. The number one cause of death for 3-5-year-olds is accidents, with motor vehicle accidents the largest proportion. The other top accidental causes of death for preschoolers are drowning, fire, falling and poisoning. I searched "cause of death preschoolers" on Google and none of the results on the first page say anything about firearms or guns. Child gun death statistics that the gun control lobby uses are deceiving. http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

In 2007 there were 1520 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group (out of 74,340,127 children) and 3067 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1547 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group. In other words, in 2007 most "child gun death victims" were actually adults.
Click to expand...
With the prevalence of guns in the United States, I'm surprised how few child deaths related to firearms there are, the crappy safe notwithstanding. Teenage suicide using firearms can be a problem in places where gun ownership is high. Where gun ownership is low, they tend to throw themselves in front of trains.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']But you can't do it cheaper for a fraction of the cost. Why would you shell out $36 for a safe that doesn't work? You might as well buy a plastic tub to store your guns in. Than again, I do not have nor plan to have children, so I have no need to lock them up.

One random question, do the cognitive abilities that enable a three-year-old to crack these crappy safes also allow the child to learn right from wrong, about dangerous objects, etc.? Does the three year old know not to touch the stove or run into the street without looking? If not, then the child should not be left alone, am I correct? This page on child development suggests they should not be left alone: http://www.pbs.org/parents/childdevelopmenttracker/three/index.html

And my last random thought. The number one cause of death for 3-5-year-olds is accidents, with motor vehicle accidents the largest proportion. The other top accidental causes of death for preschoolers are drowning, fire, falling and poisoning. I searched "cause of death preschoolers" on Google and none of the results on the first page say anything about firearms or guns. Child gun death statistics that the gun control lobby uses are deceiving. http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm


With the prevalence of guns in the United States, I'm surprised how few child deaths related to firearms there are, the crappy safe notwithstanding.[/QUOTE]


To be fair, you can touch a hot stove and live to learn from that mistake. You or your accidental target might not live from a gunshot, and it will certainly be more traumatic. One point of regulation and laws is to reign in the stupidity and ignorance. Of course it isn't good to leave a three year old alone, just like it's bad to drive while heavily intoxicated. What things can be done to prevent a few hundred child deaths, then? Maybe something involving gun control or hopefully education is one of them.

Personally, I didn't expect such incidents to be exceptionally common, but less senseless death is better, right?

I'd be most concerned with intentional gun violence by deranged individuals who should have been weeded out rather than given legal gun ownership; I don't just mean people who go ballistic and massacre innocents, but also those who are angry and decide it's okay to shoot someone.

Edit: So many claim guns for self-defense, but less lethal weapons (pepper spray, tasers, or something) should be just fine for the type of situation they're expecting.
 
Hot stove? Perhaps some permanent scaring but probably not death. You are correct there. Not looking both ways before you cross the street? Death is likely, or perhaps permanent disfigurement. Can three-year-olds learn to open doors and run outside when a parent is not looking?

But don't get me wrong, the safe sounds like an incredibly crappy safe. They would not get my safe-related business. I'm against safes in general, a belief that has been influence by Ben Stern, Howard Stern's father. It makes you a target. Some of the boys in the neighborhood see you hauling a safe into your house, they might become a bit curious about what you're going to put in there. So I have no respect for consumer-level safes.

[quote name='ID2006']
I'd be most concerned with intentional gun violence by deranged individuals who should have been weeded out rather than given legal gun ownership[/QUOTE]
Like gang members? Last I checked, they do not use legally obtained weapons. The gun control lobby counts the 18 or 19-year-old gang member who pissed off the wrong thug and got shot as child gun death victims. http://jpfo.net/filegen-a-m/gcstatpad.htm

[quote name='ID2006']
Edit: So many claim guns for self-defense, but less lethal weapons (pepper spray, tasers, or something) should be just fine for the type of situation they're expecting.[/QUOTE]
Your aggressor likely has something a bit more powerful and effective than pepper spray.

Also, self-defense is one reason cited to own a gun. Another is specific fascination with the weapon itself, like a toy train hobby. The other big reason is probably based on principles. This is something I believe I have every right to own. You say I can't, therefore I want it even more. I get this way about photography. In all honesty I probably don't want to take as many photographs as I do, but I will take them simply because I have a right to, and some try to stop me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']...But don't get me wrong, the safe sounds like an incredibly crappy safe. They would not get my safe-related business. I'm against safes in general, a belief that has been influence by Ben Stern, Howard Stern's father. It makes you a target. Some of the boys in the neighborhood see you hauling a safe into your house, they might become a bit curious about what you're going to put in there.


Like gang members? Last I checked, they do not use legally obtained weapons. The gun control lobby counts the 18 or 19-year-old gang member who pissed off the wrong thug and got shot as child gun death victims. http://jpfo.net/filegen-a-m/gcstatpad.htm[/QUOTE]


Unless the gang violence cases involved a legally obtained gun, they're irrelevant. I'm only talking about legally obtained weapons that go to people who should not have been allowed gun ownership. I realize that there are those who would just acquire illegally, but there are also those who wouldn't be bothered or wouldn't know how.

As for the safe thing, that's almost irony. Surely there is a more discrete way to bring a safe into your house.

Edit: I looked for some legal gun statistics, but I didn't find anything. Guess I'm not sure how to go about it.
 
But again, a lot of the gun deaths we see do not happen simply because a gun exists. The gun is the instrument used. Many commit suicide with a firearm, but when a firearm is not present they will overdose, jump off a bridge or throw themselves in front of a train. The underlying cause of the problem is mental illness, not the availability of weapons. I wish people would kill themselves with guns instead of throwing their ass in front of my train, delaying my commute for three hours minimum each time, if they are going to do it. I'd rather they seek mental help first, of course. I think that's what you are supposed to say.

Similarly, accidental child gun deaths, including the ones where they fudge the numbers to include 19-year-old gangbangers, are a symptom of bad parenting. In absence of a weapon, the child could easily jump off an air conditioning unit and hurt themselves that way.

But no way do I intend to take away from the crappiness of that safe. They should write a negative review on Amazon about it.

[quote name='ID2006']
Edit: I looked for some legal gun statistics, but I didn't find anything. Guess I'm not sure how to go about it.[/QUOTE]
Well, I really liked these Jews for Guns guys, myself. For non-polarizing crap I tend to go to the DOJ or the FBI. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

But yeah, nothing about legal vs. illegal guns. I think a good proxy for what you might be thinking about is removing all the gang-related crimes, as those crimes are usually committed with an illegally obtained weapon in regions with a high level of gun control. Then we'd see what's left over, presumably homicides involving legally obtained firearms but it would not be exact. Another big but is that homicide does not necessarily mean murder. A proportion of firearm-related deaths will be justified uses of self-defense.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Hot stove? Perhaps some permanent scaring but probably not death. You are correct there. Not looking both ways before you cross the street? Death is likely, or perhaps permanent disfigurement. Can three-year-olds learn to open doors and run outside when a parent is not looking?

But don't get me wrong, the safe sounds like an incredibly crappy safe. They would not get my safe-related business. I'm against safes in general, a belief that has been influence by Ben Stern, Howard Stern's father. It makes you a target. Some of the boys in the neighborhood see you hauling a safe into your house, they might become a bit curious about what you're going to put in there. So I have no respect for consumer-level safes.[/QUOTE]
Judging from your statements, it seems unlikely that you would leave your guns secured from accidental discharge even from using a trigger lock. Combined with your other comments on firearms in general, it's even more unlikely that you've ever even fired a gun.


Like gang members? Last I checked, they do not use legally obtained weapons. The gun control lobby counts the 18 or 19-year-old gang member who pissed off the wrong thug and got shot as child gun death victims. http://jpfo.net/filegen-a-m/gcstatpad.htm
Click to expand...
Those guns come from somewhere. Just because the end up in the hands of someone that shoots someone doesn't mean that there is no legitimate chain of ownership. Maybe if gun owners secured their guns better or were more scrupulous with who they sold to, there wouldn't be so many illegally obtained guns on the street.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']Judging from your statements, it seems unlikely that you would leave your guns secured from accidental discharge even from using a trigger lock. Combined with your other comments on firearms in general, it's even more unlikely that you've ever even fired a gun.[/QUOTE]I've never owned or fired a gun. I've been successfully disarmed. If I do obtain a weapon, it would be a social faux pas and I would lose friends and family because they have been similarly disarmed and put off of guns.

Those guns come from somewhere.
Click to expand...
Like the ATF.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']I've never owned or fired a gun. I've been successfully disarmed. If I do obtain a weapon, it would be a social faux pas and I would lose friends and family because they have been similarly disarmed and put off of guns.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...what the fuck does "disarmed" mean and why do you even give a fuck what they think when having someone tell you not to do something makes you want to do it more?

Like the ATF.
Click to expand...
If by that, you mean the ATF was powerless to prosecute straw purchasers and confiscate weapons because local prosecutors couldn't make a case due to lax gun laws, then you'd be right. Be we both know you don't mean that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...what the fuck does "disarmed" mean and why do you even give a fuck what they think when having someone tell you not to do something makes you want to do it more?[/QUOTE]Where I live it is socially unacceptable to have a weapon. The "someone" you are talking about is government, law enforcement, etc. For others, this is a reason to own guns, not for me. For me, this applies to photography in public places.

If by that, you mean the ATF was powerless to prosecute straw purchasers and confiscate weapons because local prosecutors couldn't make a case due to lax gun laws, then you'd be right. Be we both know you don't mean that.
Click to expand...
Or just end the war on drugs and the cartels won't have such power and you won't need to concoct crazy gun tracking schemes or worry about lax gun laws ruining said crazy scheme.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']Where I live it is socially unacceptable to have a weapon. The "someone" you are talking about is government, law enforcement, etc. For others, this is a reason to own guns, not for me. For me, this applies to photography in public places.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...that "someone" I'm talking about are your friends and family. And you don't strike me as the type of person that cares too much about what's "socially acceptable." As for your photography, I hope you're not the type to be at the playground snapping shots of kids like a creep because you like being a contrarian.

Or just end the war on drugs and the cartels won't have such power and you won't need to concoct crazy gun tracking schemes or worry about lax gun laws ruining said crazy scheme.
Click to expand...
Ummm...yeah, that crazy scheme that you're talking about didn't seem to happen they way you're implying it did according to those fine folks at Fortune Magazine. Either way, ending the Drug War doesn't mean legalization or commuting the sentences of non-violent offenders. What you're describing is a red herring because it's less about the "war" and more about the federal appropriation of power and authority to engage in that war. State's rights, right?

It's really fucked up that those kids can figure out how to open those safes regardless of cheapness and any gun owner that purchases them cannot purport to be a responsible one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lock and key safe sounds like it would solve the problem here. Who buys an electronic safe at $35 and expects it to be the real thing?

And from Walmart? Damn.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...that "someone" I'm talking about are your friends and family. And you don't strike me as the type of person that cares too much about what's "socially acceptable." [/quote]I care about my significant other's opinion on the matter. Gun ownership is not a deal breaker for me but it is for her. On the other hand, there are some deal breakers for me that are not deal breakers for her. If you want to be in a relationship, there is a give and take.

As for your photography, I hope you're not the type to be at the playground snapping shots of kids like a creep because you like being a contrarian.
Click to expand...
I photograph at rail stations, but photographing children in public is not illegal. People have been investigated for photographing their own children at the beach or public pools, for example. That's how crazy the crackdown on photography has gotten.

What makes me mad is the prohibition of photography in taxpayer-supported places like train stations. Eleanor Holmes Norton has been a strong ally for photographers in this arena. There used to be a great speech by her about this on YouTube but I can't find it now.

Either way, ending the Drug War doesn't mean legalization or commuting the sentences of non-violent offenders. What you're describing is a red herring because it's less about the "war" and more about the federal appropriation of power and authority to engage in that war. State's rights, right?
Click to expand...
Ideally, states would decide for themselves the kind of drug laws the want through the democratic process. I would be attracted to a state with full legalization of at least marijuana and decriminalization of everything else, at a minimum. And if federal drug laws were struck down, wouldn't the president have the power to pardon non-violent offenders charged under federal law?

And if the federal government told states they cannot criminalize drug sales, possession and use, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I can compromise there.

Actually, I'm not, but it's doubly amusing to see you off your game tonight by pulling a bob with this. If you had Asperger's, I'd actually leave you be, but since you said you don't, then I don't need to hold back.
Click to expand...
Can't backpedal now. All your posts will now be required to display a disclaimer talking about how we need to be more tolerant of mental illness. The Gawker article is being written about it now. I hope you don't work for Aflac.

[quote name='dohdough']
edit: Enough about you and back on topic. It's really fucked up that those kids can figure out how to open those safes regardless of cheapness and any gun owner that purchases them cannot purport to be a responsible one.[/QUOTE]
No argument that the safe is of poor quality and construction.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Asperger's Syndrome is interchangeable with Crazy and both are equally acceptable as insults.

Check.[/QUOTE]
You're so adorable when you feign umbrage.

I guess aspies and crazies are a protected class to you and shouldn't be used as insults, but calling someone a retard is a-ok in your book and doesn't need to be addressed. Or maybe it's just ok when someone calls me a retard.

You can take that sanctimonious bullshit, make a large phallus out of it, and shove it up your ass to match the one that's hitting the back of your throat.
 
Double Down, DD.

"It's okay for me to make light of Asperger's Syndrome because someone on the internet called me retarded and you didn't care when they did it."

I guess I should be glad that you care so much about my opinion.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Double Down, DD.

"It's okay for me to make light of Asperger's Syndrome because someone on the internet called me retarded and you didn't care when they did it."

I guess I should be glad that you care so much about my opinion.[/QUOTE]
LULZ...that would be true if I said that lots of gun owners are aspies, but too bad I didn't. Maybe you should look a few posts up and chide the person that actually did. Nice of you to distort my argument into something it isn't though. I'll wait for your apology...but you're probably busy with that bullshit phallus.
 
With the amount of bull**** you leave lying around these forums, I could build a phallic tower that would make the Washington Monument limp with shame. Both because of the size of the tower overshadowing the monument and because it was shamed for having to read your posts.

But back to the point, saying "Gun owners are probably aspies" isn't an insult. Making snide remarks about Asperger's is a whole different ballgame. I know you're not too unintelligent to know the difference, but you can fake it all you want. Doesn't matter to me. Double Down, DD.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']With the amount of bull**** you leave lying around these forums, I could build a phallic tower that would make the Washington Monument limp with shame. Both because of the size of the tower overshadowing the monument and because it was shamed for having to read your posts.[/QUOTE]
:rofl:Nice of you to plagiarize. I guess it's beyond your abilities to be more original.

But back to the point, saying "Gun owners are probably aspies" isn't an insult. Making snide remarks about Asperger's is a whole different ballgame. I know you're not too unintelligent to know the difference, but you can fake it all you want. Doesn't matter to me. Double Down, DD.
Click to expand...
Using "aspies" in a derogatory manner to describe gun owners isn't insulting while me saying that I would be more tolerant of someone's comments if they had Asperger's IS derogatory? HAHAHAHA...yeah ok. It's not like there are any other posts that are consistent with my statements.:roll:

I guess it's just ok for Spokker to say "aspies," but not me. Gotcha!

edit: Thanks for keeping me distracted while I wait for a software diagnostic to finish though. See! You ARE good for something!:applause:
 
You may not know this, but "Aspies" is an accepted term for individuals with Asperger's.

[quote name='DD']
So you have asperger's then? That makes more sense. [/quote]

Are you really trying to defend that statement as not being a backhanded comment about Asperger's?

I mean, please do. Double Down, DD.
 
If I could come in as an unbiased judge, so far I think each of you is guilty of being insensitive with the term.

I do like aspie jokes, though, and I don't see why you guys are blowing up about it. It's okay to be crude, and I doubt any of you actually think mental illness isn't serious. You all just hate each other and love to exaggerate.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You may not know this, but "Aspies" is an accepted term for individuals with Asperger's.[/QUOTE]
This is good to know and you seem to know a lot about it. Personal experience?

Are you really trying to defend that statement as not being a backhanded comment about Asperger's?
Click to expand...
Only as much as you're willing to defend and/or ignore Spokker's.

I mean, please do. Double Down, DD.
Click to expand...
I know you're going for alliteration, but it gets old with the frequency of your usage. Maybe you should put that college education to use for once a be a little more creative. We all know how hard that is for you to do day-to-day. Going with Triple, Quadruple, or even posting a pic would be more entertaining. Even your argument isn't original and copied from someone else. It's quite pitiful. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
No...it's hilarious too:rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']This is good to know and you seem to know a lot about it. Personal experience?[/quote]

More than you know. Except that you don't care - you're simply making yet another backhanded comment.

Only as much as you're willing to defend and/or ignore Spokker's.
Click to expand...

Is owning a gun something that is meant to be insulting or something?
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']If I could come in as an unbiased judge, so far I think each of you is guilty of being insensitive with the term.

I do like aspie jokes, though, and I don't see why you guys are blowing up about it. It's okay to be crude, and I doubt any of you actually think mental illness isn't serious. You all just hate each other and love to exaggerate.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Mr. Truth-is-in-the-middle!:lol:

Seriously though, this has absolutely nothing to do with using the word. bob thinks he's got me with a Gotcha! moment using criteria that could be used against Spokker as well, but again, likes to ignore it and just point at me. It's one of the very few ways bob can engage and "participate" in any kind of debate. I, on the other hand, just happen to enjoy pointing that out.;)
 
DD - multiple times, you've jumped into a conversation to do nothing but attack me based on some bull**** reason, adding nothing to the topic at hand.

Don't get all ****hurt when I do the same.

And, again, is owning a gun a negative thing?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']More than you know. Except that you don't care - you're simply making yet another backhanded comment.[/QUOTE]
And neither do you. That's why you're acting all indignant about me using it while giving Spokker a pass.

Is owning a gun something that is meant to be insulting or something?
Click to expand...
No, but by saying that a lot of them have Asperger's is. Making that connection and using that term in this environment is what makes it offensive. You might as well make the argument that calling someone a f*ggot is the same thing as calling them a meatball.

[quote name='UncleBob']DD - multiple times, you've jumped into a conversation to do nothing but attack me based on some bull**** reason, adding nothing to the topic at hand.

Don't get all ****hurt when I do the same.[/QUOTE]
Yup...and I was done, but you felt the need to "discuss" it, so I did. I'll take this as your admittance that you're attacking me on this for a bullshit reason. Finally, some honesty!

And, again, is owning a gun a negative thing?
Click to expand...
It depends. Feel free to twist that anyway you like. At least that would be more related to the topic.

edit: Btw, that's a strawman because no one was making that argument.

LOLZ@Again! I didn't realize I had a time limit to reply!:roll:
 
[quote name='dohdough']And neither do you. That's why you're acting all indignant about me using it while giving Spokker a pass.[/quote]

Spokker didn't make a backhanded comment implying negative things about those with Asperger's. You did.

No, but by saying that a lot of them have Asperger's is. Making that connection and using that term in this environment is what makes it offensive. You might as well make the argument that calling someone a f*ggot is the same thing as calling them a meatball.
Click to expand...
[DD-mode}Oh noez, you used an astrick! You're stupid and your argument is invalid.[/DD-mode]

What, exactly, is "this environment"?

I'll take this as your admittance that you're attacking me on this for a bullshit reason.
Click to expand...
So, you're likewise admitting that you often pull the same bull****?
And yes, it was a bull**** comment in that it had nothing to do with the thread at hand. I was just highly amused at the fact that someone who often tries to portray himself as the bringer of justice for those who are oppressed would make such a negative comment. I guess you'd only care if it was a black person with Asperger's.

edit: Btw, that's a strawman because no one was making that argument.
Click to expand...
You are, apparently. If you take away the gun-ownership part of Spokker's statement, then there's nothing there. The fact that he tied gun owners to those with Asperger's is, apparently, somehow negative. If someone said "Most meat-eaters are probably individuals with Asperger's", no one would think twice about it. But if someone tried to come in and say "Oh, that's insulting!", then either the meat-eating half is negative or the Asperger's half is negative. I'll let you pick which half you're trying to say is bad.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']More than you know. Except that you don't care - you're simply making yet another backhanded comment.[/QUOTE]

For the record I was the first one who pegged UB as having Asperger's
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Spokker didn't make a backhanded comment implying negative things about those with Asperger's. You did.[/QUOTE]
Lemme help you with this since you're only concerned with (my) usage and not context.

Part of gun ownership is that you don't have a mental illness or disability. Last time I checked, Asperger's is one. With that reasoning, he's saying that a lot of gun owners probably have mental illnesses. By defending him, you're saying that Asperger's isn't a bad thing to have especially as a gun owner, while at the same time, you're giving me shit for using it at all. You want to have it both ways like you always do. Now if you truly believe that Asperger's is a good or neutral thing to have as a gun owner, then I hope you never own a gun because that isn't a responsible stance.

[DD-mode}Oh noez, you used an astrick! You're stupid and your argument is invalid.[/DD-mode]
Click to expand...
Actually, I used an asterisk to get around the filters and that's another strawman because that's not the argument I'm making when you use them.

What, exactly, is "this environment"?
Click to expand...
I was going to use "context," but I figured you wouldn't understand it. I guess you don't understand "environment" either. I take it by now that you've already read my explanation above.

So, you're likewise admitting that you often pull the same bull****?
And yes, it was a bull**** comment in that it had nothing to do with the thread at hand. I was just highly amused at the fact that someone who often tries to portray himself as the bringer of justice for those who are oppressed would make such a negative comment. I guess you'd only care if it was a black person with Asperger's.
Click to expand...
There's a difference. All you have is fluff and Gotcha! moments, which is why you're hung up on usage and not context. It's not like you're in another thread bitching out bigdaddywhatever about welfare and food stamps as if those are Bad Things or not intended as insults.

Nice of you to race bait though.

You are, apparently. If you take away the gun-ownership part of Spokker's statement, then there's nothing there. The fact that he tied gun owners to those with Asperger's is, apparently, somehow negative. If someone said "Most meat-eaters are probably individuals with Asperger's", no one would think twice about it. But if someone tried to come in and say "Oh, that's insulting!", then either the meat-eating half is negative or the Asperger's half is negative. I'll let you pick which half you're trying to say is bad.
Click to expand...
LOLZ...what a shallow interpretation. Either way, feel free to have the last word. Let's see how good your impulse control is.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Part of gun ownership is that you don't have a mental illness or disability.[/QUOTE]

Oh, DD - you're so... I'm not even sure what to call you.

Your entire argument is based on this?

...and it's not even true.

Wonderful.

As someone who deals with 4473's on a regular basis, the question is ""Have you ever been declared incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution?"

The first half of that (declared incompetent) does vary by state. Some states require this to be done by a judge. Here in the fine state of Illinois, state law requires health care providers to report to the state individuals with a mental condition that may pose a danger to themselves or others.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Asperger's Syndrome is interchangeable with Crazy and both are equally acceptable as insults.
[/QUOTE]It's the tolerance buffet!
 
The good thing is that there is absolutely no reason to make fun of any disabilities bob may have when his opinions make much better targets.
 
[quote name='Clak']The good thing is that there is absolutely no reason to make fun of any disabilities bob may have when his opinions make much better targets.[/QUOTE]

You are correct - someone's opinions make better targets than disabilities. Wow... and Clak figured this out all on his own.
 
[quote name='Clak']The good thing is that there is absolutely no reason to make fun of any disabilities bob may have when his opinions make much better targets.[/QUOTE]

I don't think we should make fun of his disabilities. However it does provide some insight - I mean the guy seems genuinely confused about why almost everyone else on the board can't stand him. UB I hope you are getting professional help.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't think we should make fun of his disabilities. However it does provide some insight - I mean the guy seems genuinely confused about why almost everyone else on the board can't stand him. UB I hope you are getting professional help.[/QUOTE]

A) Oh noes, people on the internets don't like me
B) When "Everyone" consists of folks like you, I'm rather glad that you "can't stand me" (yet, for some reason often find yourself going out of your way to read my posts and respond to me... which is odd. Personally, if I can't stand someone, I try to avoid interacting with them. Guess some folks just crave that human interaction wherever they can get it.)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A) Oh noes, people on the internets don't like me
B) When "Everyone" consists of folks like you, I'm rather glad that you "can't stand me" (yet, for some reason often find yourself going out of your way to read my posts and respond to me... which is odd. Personally, if I can't stand someone, I try to avoid interacting with them. Guess some folks just crave that human interaction wherever they can get it.)[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to get into a flame war with you. I am sincere when I say I hope you are getting professional help. I'll leave it at that.
 
"I'm not going to get into a flame war with you... I'm just going to try to start one by insulting you multiple times, then moving on."

FSM, be honest about it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top