Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
27 dead at primary school
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
I'd ask how many f*cking massacres does it take before right-wing fantasists will wake up to their inhuman beliefs but the answer is these gibbering, evil idiots never will. I'm done talking. Just give me a steamroller and I'll run them all over, guns and all.

You'll never do shit about anything like that, ever, because you're in that half of your countrymen who are pussified submissives going through life thinking what they're told to think, doing what they're told to do, like a good little socialist drones, subservient to the authitorian Collective.
This is big dave's flag.
This is mcgruff's flag.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1375
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
I need to unsubscribe from this thread before I shoot someone.


It's OK mcgruff no one expects you to be civil, you set that boundary a while ago.
_________________
mcgruff wrote:
I can't promise to be civil.


pjp wrote:
The greater evil is voting for the "lesser evil."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's not get too excited over this incident. The USA has about 10000 homicides by guns per year. That is 27 per day. In other words, this has been a totally normal day in the USA. We should also keep in mind that the USA is not the worst country in the world. For example, Mexico is much worse. Maybe the NRA could use those warm words for the parents of the angles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1227
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been doing some thinking about this whole thing and have started pricing gun safes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
I've been doing some thinking about this whole thing and have started pricing gun safes.

A trigger lock is the minimum you should have, but they don't necessarily prevent theft.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1227
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A trigger lock is useless to me. If I want to prevent kids from blowing themselves up, I'll pull out the bolt carrier group and keep it in my pocket.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 120
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Um... do you have kids we don't know of?
_________________
The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand? --Capt Jack Sparrow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tylerwylie
Guru
Guru


Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 456
Location: /US/Illinois

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

notageek wrote:
Um... do you have kids we don't know of?
If he has procreated we are all doomed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1227
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have any kids, but sometimes I've had visitors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eeyrjmr
n00b
n00b


Joined: 17 Nov 2003
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-thbscClxF9Y/UM4T1sRo13I/AAAAAAAAf64/KGdxBqORsjQ/s400/303848_392000434218253_814939851_n.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
My impression is that if you think really hard about a gun in the US, it just materializes out of thin air. It's that easy to get a gun there. Yes, the system is flooded with guns. Some people use them to do bad things. Not rocket science.

And there is the answer to Dmitchel's question. Prevent the woman from having a gun.

My question was based on the assumption that she already has a gun, so that doesn't actually answer my question. Now there was no reason to think that she posed a danger with a gun, so preventing her from having one implies some kind of blanket prohibition. Clearly removing all guns from the country would stop the use of guns in crime. Is something like that even remotely feasible if the system is as inundated as you say it is? It would also stop the legitimate use of guns in self defense, which occurs many tens of thousands of times each year (100,000 times per year according to gov't statistics). Would the country be an overall safer place without guns? It's possible. But it's also extremely likely that many people would be victimized who otherwise wouldn't have been. So you have to look them in the eye and say, "Yes, we took away your ability to defend yourself because some people misuse their guns. Now you've been robbed or raped or maimed or whatever, and we're sorry, but it was for the greater good." Personally I would have a very hard time saying that to someone.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
A trigger lock is useless to me. If I want to prevent kids from blowing themselves up, I'll pull out the bolt carrier group and keep it in my pocket.

Just take the firing pin out, then. It will fit in your "pocket" much better, and your bolt carrier won't get all funked up.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1227
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:
A trigger lock is useless to me. If I want to prevent kids from blowing themselves up, I'll pull out the bolt carrier group and keep it in my pocket.

Just take the firing pin out, then. It will fit in your "pocket" much better, and your bolt carrier won't get all funked up.

I thought of that, too. What are the chances of the bolt itself setting off the round?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bolt carrier is easier to pull out quicker. my AR10 takes all of what, a half second to remove it all?

of course, if this was 50 years ago, the federal government would have labeled me a terrorist because that's what they did with all black men with guns.

shit, the FBI labeled MLK a terrorist. and you want to trust these guys to take away our guns?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ichbinsisyphos
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 547

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I feel that most of these events are the result of misunderstanding. If we all just made an effort to understand and love each other, this wouldn't happen. I love you guys. [Mod edit for clarity. — JRG]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1102
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eeyrjmr wrote:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-thbscClxF9Y/UM4T1sRo13I/AAAAAAAAf64/KGdxBqORsjQ/s400/303848_392000434218253_814939851_n.jpg

That's moronic, knives can open veins and arteries even more effectively than guns if that's what the knife user intends. Guns are great at incapacitating from a distance, if you want to really make sure the job is done, opening up their neck and letting them bleed out is the only way to be certain they're going to die.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1102
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
Clearly removing all guns from the country would stop the use of guns in crime.

Not even then. Northern Ireland had a blanket ban on firearm ownership (with a few exceptions) for decades, it didn't stop any of the paramilitary organisations from acquiring handguns, assault rifles and other serious military equipment. The black market always picks up from where governments inhibit, always.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:

My question was based on the assumption that she already has a gun, so that doesn't actually answer my question. Now there was no reason to think that she posed a danger with a gun, so preventing her from having one implies some kind of blanket prohibition. Clearly removing all guns from the country would stop the use of guns in crime. Is something like that even remotely feasible if the system is as inundated as you say it is? It would also stop the legitimate use of guns in self defense, which occurs many tens of thousands of times each year (100,000 times per year according to gov't statistics). Would the country be an overall safer place without guns? It's possible. But it's also extremely likely that many people would be victimized who otherwise wouldn't have been. So you have to look them in the eye and say, "Yes, we took away your ability to defend yourself because some people misuse their guns. Now you've been robbed or raped or maimed or whatever, and we're sorry, but it was for the greater good." Personally I would have a very hard time saying that to someone.


Well, she did pose a danger, didn't she? She didn't prevent this nut from getting her gun.

Two things. You are right. What do you do about the bajillion guns already in circulation? That's a problem. Another problem is of course you don't want to disarm the populace while criminals keep their guns.

As per BK comment that there is no proof that guns affect the murder rate, I am not sure about this. Various articles claim to make a link, and there are various counter articles. I think "proof" is hard. We aren't talking about sets not large enough to do proper stats, the age old problem with social science statistics.

I actually don't think things like this should affect gun laws in the sense that these events are too infrequent. Granted, 2012 has seen a rash of these things. In the same way, you are falling into the same trap with your anecdotal stories. That is, talking about some granny who held off 3 monstrous black men because she had a gun isn't a good reason to be pro gun either. Infrequent events emotive events shouldn't affect policy. Although, frankly, I would understand if it did in this case. If my child was at that school, I would be more anti gun than I am now. however, what if one could SHOW that having less guns, while being a bad idea in specific circumstances (i.e. I am currently being robbed), makes everyone overall statistically more safe? I am not saying that evidence exists, I am asking what if. If such evidence exists, then in your story of the maimed/raped/murdered, you tell such victims that while we took your ability to defend yourself, you are actually statistically safer. Sorry that bad luck struck you, you were in fact more likely to get shot in the parallel universe where everyone had guns. you don't go out and buy a lottery ticket just because your neighbour wins.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
what if one could SHOW that having less guns, while being a bad idea in specific circumstances (i.e. I am currently being robbed), makes everyone overall statistically more safe?

let's say you had absolutely incontrovertible evidence that said that. i still would not support it.

for starters, the numbers across the board might be safer, but the distribution will not be fair across races and income levels. by doing this, you remove every individual's right to self defense. you remove personal accountability, and you put our safety in the hands of those who have little incentive to guard it equally.

you shift our protection onto the same government that labeled MLK a terrorist and tried to blackmail him into committing suicide. these are the same guys who end up on youtube senselessly beating people. they have a proven track record of lying, cheating, stealing, discrimination, fraud, and corruption.

but that's not enough... what happens when they fail and it's not because they're being dicks? there's NO law that says the police actually have a duty to protect. courts have overwhelmingly concluded that there is no such legal duty. if there was such a duty, when the police fail to perform that duty, you could sue them. there are so many cases of blatant incompetence... a domestic victim keeps calling the cops and they do nothing, and she eventually gets killed by her boyfriend/husband; home invasion victims report an invasion in progress, but cops don't show up for 2+ hours if at all. lawyers keep taking these cases, and they never succeed. so if you remove my right to defend myself, how are you going to make them accountable when they fail to protect me? ultimately, i am the one who has the strongest incentive to protect myself... how does it make sense to prohibit me from doing so, and instead, put that obligation in the hands of someone who has little incentive to protect me?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
our
LOL USA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
juniper wrote:
what if one could SHOW that having less guns, while being a bad idea in specific circumstances (i.e. I am currently being robbed), makes everyone overall statistically more safe?

let's say you had absolutely incontrovertible evidence that said that. i still would not support it.

for starters, the numbers across the board might be safer, but the distribution will not be fair across races and income levels. by doing this, you remove every individual's right to self defense. you remove personal accountability, and you put our safety in the hands of those who have little incentive to guard it equally.

you shift our protection onto the same government that labeled MLK a terrorist and tried to blackmail him into committing suicide. these are the same guys who end up on youtube senselessly beating people. they have a proven track record of lying, cheating, stealing, discrimination, fraud, and corruption.

but that's not enough... what happens when they fail and it's not because they're being dicks? there's NO law that says the police actually have a duty to protect. courts have overwhelmingly concluded that there is no such legal duty. if there was such a duty, when the police fail to perform that duty, you could sue them. there are so many cases of blatant incompetence... a domestic victim keeps calling the cops and they do nothing, and she eventually gets killed by her boyfriend/husband; home invasion victims report an invasion in progress, but cops don't show up for 2+ hours if at all. lawyers keep taking these cases, and they never succeed. so if you remove my right to defend myself, how are you going to make them accountable when they fail to protect me? ultimately, i am the one who has the strongest incentive to protect myself... how does it make sense to prohibit me from doing so, and instead, put that obligation in the hands of someone who has little incentive to protect me?


right, bad stories. I am saying, if people are on the whole safer, wouldn't that be better? yes, someone will get brutally murdered who could have defended themselves otherwise. But if that means 1/3 of the people get murdered, is that a bad trade?

The interesting point you made is that it won't be the same across society. Some places might be worse off. That would need to be dealt with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 120
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread is as good as any to tell you all that I just bought a knife.
_________________
The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand? --Capt Jack Sparrow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
juniper wrote:
My impression is that if you think really hard about a gun in the US, it just materializes out of thin air. It's that easy to get a gun there. Yes, the system is flooded with guns. Some people use them to do bad things. Not rocket science.

And there is the answer to Dmitchel's question. Prevent the woman from having a gun.

My question was based on the assumption that she already has a gun, so that doesn't actually answer my question. Now there was no reason to think that she posed a danger with a gun, so preventing her from having one implies some kind of blanket prohibition. Clearly removing all guns from the country would stop the use of guns in crime. Is something like that even remotely feasible if the system is as inundated as you say it is? It would also stop the legitimate use of guns in self defense, which occurs many tens of thousands of times each year (100,000 times per year according to gov't statistics). Would the country be an overall safer place without guns? It's possible. But it's also extremely likely that many people would be victimized who otherwise wouldn't have been. So you have to look them in the eye and say, "Yes, we took away your ability to defend yourself because some people misuse their guns. Now you've been robbed or raped or maimed or whatever, and we're sorry, but it was for the greater good." Personally I would have a very hard time saying that to someone.
But one more question. What do you propose is done about these tragedies? we both have children. I can't imagine this happening. Poor parents.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

notageek wrote:
This thread is as good as any to tell you all that I just bought a knife.
Yeah, one of these
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000GL1EB2
is all they gave you. :P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 120
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

:lol:
_________________
The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand? --Capt Jack Sparrow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum