Throbbing Member
Well, it's not as many as that blast of secessionists earlier this year (I think it was this year), but it's still quite a lot. Also: I had no idea there was such an opportunity. I mean, isn't that shit? If 50.000 people sign a petition, the president has to take it under consideration. Even if it's something really bullshit like 'I want more eggs with my bacon'?Originally Posted by Corvus T. Cosmonaut
Active Member
I'd like him to take it under consideration with a chuckle, a weary shake of the head, and renewed determination to pry guns from the hands of the idiots, bigots, lunatics, and murderers-in-waiting among us.
Bite me
When the unicorns land.
tempus est umbra in mente
The fact that it is so easy to gather signatures via the internet should be taken into account, certainly. Maybe we can get 50,000 signatures on a petition to invalidate the legitimacy of internet petitions.
Throbbing Member
Well, yes, why not? I'm sure that's a worth while proposal, no?
Bored
About the seriousness of online petitions: here's one asking the US government to build a Death Star. And since it has passed 25,000 signatures, the White House must respond.
Maybe the NRA is behind it? Or maybe it's where they want to ship Piers Morgan?
Someone should start a petition asking for a revision of the Second Amendment in order to bring it up to date with today's reality. Not for real, of course, just as a social experiment. And to see how many signature it would get.
The Enhancer
The reply: "Hey guys, look up. See that? That's no moon... Hey Aldrin, keep your fuckin' mouth shut."
Throbbing Member
Active Member
This wouldn't be the first time that SF has a double standard on what freedoms they tollerate, but this one is a little different. I don't agree with it, but there are always going to be restrictions on how kids are allowed to exercise their freedoms within the walls of a school. Second, the article omits the type of school she is in. This is a juvenile reform school. Most of those kids have a history with drugs and/or violence. Those schools tend to be extra cautious. Who knows, maybe this girl was in there due to prior violence. http://www.lifelearningacademysf.org/about.html
Throbbing Member
After we had a student commit suicide a couple of years ago, we all had a crash course in dealing with (violent) traumatic experiences, and one of the things the teacher said was that it's important to allow people to express their emotions, even if we ourselves were uncomfortable with them.
I'm not saying I don't understand a teacher signalling something like that to a principal. I don't understand the suspension. If you really believe a student has negative feelings toward the school, you don't want to add to that by suspending them for something they didn't even write as an assignment. Imho.
Active Member
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/05/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2
New week, new shooting.
Active Member
I agree with you. Censorship, prohibition, and other forms of punishment motivated by fear with the intent to protect has a funny way of doing the opposite. I am just saying that it seems a bit more "justified" than the article lets on.
Active Member
There is something crazy with Colorado. There was plenty of reported defensive gun uses in the US this month (as is the case for most months) but none in Colorado. Same last month too.
http://easybakegunclub.com/blog/2423...se-Report.html
Active Member
So a minimum of 83 defensive gun use in December.
An average of 34 people are killed everyday by a handgun or 1020 per month.
With those numbers in mind, do you increase the number of guns thinking defensive use will increase while decreasing the number of people killed?
Or do you decrease all-around the number of guns in circulation to decrease the number of people killed?
Active Member
Those are just news articles that can be dug up. It's on par with your "new week new shooting" comment.
Defensive uses are not recorded as accurately (especially by the news) but the more in depth studies put them at many times more per DAY than your MONTHLY number of deaths. Your numbers also include the attackers who the victims were defending against. I am ok with people killing criminals, especially when they are threatening innocent lives.
Newsweek reported that citizens shot and killed 250% more criminals than police do. With a 5000:1 ratio of citizens to law enforcement, I would definitely rather the citizens continued to be able to protect themselves at the time they need it vs waiting around for a cop.
Active Member
What you are saying is that the number of DAILY defensive use is higher than the MONTHLY number of gun related death?
Yet, you have the highest number of gun related death in the world?
So I guess the "defensive use" solution is a big FAIL!
Last edited by Deepvoid; 01-08-2013 at 11:21 AM.
Stubby Member
He's a walking ADT home security commercial. Don't even bother arguing with him about guns, you'll regret it later.
Active Member
I see you are still butt-hurt about being outted for your complete lack of knowledge on the gun topic, Mr. "warning shot"
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 01-08-2013 at 01:09 PM.
Active Member
I haven't watched the video but I assume that if you had to answer my question 4 posts above, you would personally add more guns in order to reduce the number of gun related deaths? Am I right?
Active Member
I want to at least understand his logic and his assessment of the situation
Either you think there's too many guns out there and you need to remove some off the streets or you think you need more guns (i.e. armed guards in specific locations) in order to prevent and ultimately reduce the number of death related guns.
It's either one or the other.
Active Member
Well maybe you should watch the video. It's the most intelligent examination of crime statistics that I've seen. If only people on all sides of the issue had that level of standard for information. Instead we have simple minds trying to talk to the masses (see the NRA or Piers Morgan) and the masses regurgitating it (see Presideo).
Armed guards is a dumb fucking idea. Have we not learned from the TSA security theatre bullshit? As for removing gun "from the streets"... I guess that all depends. What is the problem you are trying to solve? "Reducing gun related deaths" is an incredibly dishonest way to frame a supposedly noble cause. WTF does it matter if you stop "gun deaths" only to see the deaths transfer, 3 fold, to other forms of violent crime? Let's try "reduce violent crime" or something a bit more holistic that doesn't allow for the problem to shift out from the focus. I don't think that removing guns from law abiding citizens is going to reduce violent crime. Things just don't add up. Again, check out that video. I am open to anyone proving otherwise, but so far everyone falls very very short and falls back on purely emotional appeals.
Let's ignore statistics and go straight to policy. Show me a gun control policy that is on the table that will A: actually fix the problem (you'll also have to define the problem) and B: doesn't come with a large amount of negative consequence. If you do that, I will gladly back it. So far, I have yet to see a single proposal from any of our representatives that will even satisfy part A. Presideo and friends were completely unable to do this.
Stubby Member
That's impossible. Sift through the "Sandy Hook" discussion and you'll see a web of contradictions and arguments for the sake of arguing (and I'm not the only one who called him out on these issues.)
Google 'castle doctrine'. Actually, on second thought, don't worry about it. I guess you need the satisfaction of thinking you've won a debate on the internet (even though warning shot legality had nothing to do with the discussion, and I went out of my way to not discuss it)I see you are still butt-hurt about being outted for your complete lack of knowledge on the gun topic, Mr. "warning shot"
It's not my job to give you bills that may or may not work. I'm not a lawmaker. What you're basically saying is that since there isn't a bill currently on the table that will satisfy you we should just stop the discussion, and continue with the norm. That a horrible way to go about things and solves nothing. This problem isn't unsolvable, but it's severely hindered by the NRA, who give money to the same lawmakers we trust to solve this gun-control problem.
Active Member
The people who do have the job of creating legislation have been unable to produce solid legislation. Either that means the job is impossible and/or the politicians are incompetent. Considering the legislation I have seen, incompetent is definitely one of the main factors. Meanwhile, we have people like you who want SOMETHING but don't know what. You are also very likely to accept the heavily flawed legislation being proposed, based on the critical analysis skills you've demonstrated.
PS - I live in a state that has castle doctrine. A warning shot is not a lethal shot. By definition, you just brandished a gun in a situation you felt did not require lethal use of force. In my state, you definitely end up in jail. I won't even touch the aspect of you not knowing where that bullet goes. I hope you do not have a gun.
You already stated that you have no desire to discuss this with me. Why do you keep going? You are just rehashing the same old stuff from when you had your chance in the Sandy thread.
Active Member
You think that by stopping "gun death" it will be automatically transferred to stabbing death? I honestly don't think you would get a 1:1 ratio.
I can only speak for what I'm experiencing in Canada, more specifically Quebec, where we have gun registry and it's illegal to conceal carry. We only had 106 homicides with 29 of those related to the mob or street gangs. You cannot convince me otherwise that if they'd pass a law that would allow concealed carry, the number of homicide would increase. Violence overall would increase.
I think the biggest problem in the US is not legislation or lack thereof but the culture and mentality towards guns in general.
If the constitution stated "the right to bear sword"' I kid you not, you people would be walking around with broad swords without stopping for a second to think if it makes sense or not.
how else do you explain that other countries are doing just fine without having the right to carry? Could it have something to do with the degree of education? Is it a general feeling of paranoia; if my neighbor has a gun you bet your ass I'm gonna buy ... just in case.
Active Member
Your point about the issue not being about (gun) legislation is very true. The issue is very complex and involves culture, poverty, education, health care, population density, etc. A lot of people like to compare us to other countries but why? We have been trying out gun control in various states. At least some of the variables are standardized when you stay within the country. California has some very restrictive gun control compared to the rest of the country. California is in 4th place for worst gun homicide rate, 8th place for worst total homicide rate. Meanwhile, you have the states at the bottom of the list who have some of the most relaxed gun control. The issue clearly goes way beyond the control of guns.
FATUM NOS IUNGET
Thoughts?
Stubby Member
You're confusing unable with unwilling. The same legislative stalling was present with health care reform. Lawmakers saw the misinformation and fear-mongering that came along with Hillarycare and didn't want to touch a problem that would take financial and PR resources that they couldn't easily attain. Same problem with gun reform. Lawmakers would rather talk about video games, while the NRA stirs up the fear that laws will take away every citizens gun.
Taken from here.
Getting arrested and charged has nothing to do with whether the shot was lethal not; it's about whether firing the shot was negligent or reasonable. You know from your lie about Obama/Romney not talking about gun control during the elections that I'm going to fact-check what you say, so why do you still try to get away with this shit?California's self-defense laws excuse your otherwise criminal conduct when you reasonably act to protect yourself or another person from suffering imminent bodily harm. This means that even if you discharge your firearm, but only do so because (1) you reasonably fear that you or someone else is about to suffer imminent bodily harm, and (2) firing your gun is a reasonable way to prevent that harm...you should be acquitted of any criminal liability under Penal Code 246. PC
When I had my chance? Sorry, I didn't know you could dictate when and where I could speak about the issue. I equate arguing with you to be similar to watching a trainwreck - so much carnage, but I can't look away.
Last edited by Presideo; 01-08-2013 at 11:21 PM.
Stubby Member
The best part about that video is that his voice sounds exactly like Rush Limbaugh (and he's just as annoying as Rush)
Active Member
This was my favorite part about your lengthy post trying to win the topic of warning shots that you started in a different thread.Your interpretation of the laws is certainly unique. I am happy that you probably do not have a gun. Every gun owner that I have talked to seems to be more responsible and more aware of legality surrounding personal defense.
Active Member
Alex Jones is insane and should be checked for mental health issues. Does TX take weapons from people with mental problems?
Piers acted very much like Alex Jones when he was talking with Larry Pratt. It's another display of the shitty journalism that is Piers Morgan:
But back to Alex Jones... That guy has done way more damage by exercising his 1st amendment rights than his 2nd amendment rights. We could call CNN a 1st amendment assault weapon considering how many more people Jones was able to reach in such a rapid fashionI fucking HATE that this guy calls himself a Libertarian.
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
