WEEKEND TICKETS GOING FAST!

PRICES GO UP AT THE GATE

PURCHASE TICKET
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
Another School Shooting in the USA
Posted 10/1/15
I feel like every news station just has a written post that looks like this. They just fill it out.

A gunman opened fire at _____, killing _____ people and wounding ____ others. The shooter is identified as _____.
3267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The Void
Offline
Posted 10/1/15

ChinaCat89 wrote:

What bothers me the most is my lack of feeling shocked due to how routine this has become.


Same for me...

4755 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Chicago, Illinois
Offline
Posted 10/1/15 , edited 10/1/15


I just think the term Gun-free zone is silly... an unarmed resource officer is there, but he's not armed. A cop without a gun? that would make him feel naked. Just like military personnel without a firearm. They train for 8-10 weeks to learn how to use weapon systems, and educational bureaucracy thinks they are a danger to society... I'm more scared of someone holding a gun rather than the gun...

You don't say Abe Lincoln was killed by a Derringer. You say he was killed by John Wilkes Booth. You don't say Martin Luther King was killed by a Remington rifle. You say he was killed by James Earl Ray. You don't say JFK was killed by a Carcano. You say he was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald.
8988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / U.A Highschool
Offline
Posted 10/1/15
I dont know I mean it a lot of shooting happens form cops too schools honselty I whoudnt be surpised if we have the highest death by guns ration really
255 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/1/15
This is happening a lot more recently, will those security guards at school be able to do anything if this were to happen at their school? All the ones at my school are overweight/obese :/
29204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 10/1/15 , edited 10/1/15

Junkmeister wrote:

I as an American am finding it curious as to how people still to this day still use the second amendment as some sort of shield to protect their "right to bare arms". Like all the amendments there are clauses and limitations the must mold to the modern day. Take the first amendment the freedom of speech, religion, and press. Is one allowed to yell "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded space like a movie theater. Answer, no. You'll be arrested on the spot, and if you try and say "my first amendment right" well the court will turn around and say the rights of the many are greater than the rights of the few. And that is basic democracy. You can't have 100% agreement on everything but the majority makes the rule of the land. And if the majority says that the current status of lenient gun control is not working which it is not. Then it must change. If you were to look at the concentration of where the shootings are you will notice a greater portion of them are in lenient gun law states. And that means the laws don't work. A person who can get 20 rifles and no one bothers to ask the question "gee I wonder why he bought so many rifles?" It's a problem.


And how, precisely, is 20 rifles in the hands of one man more dangerous than two rifles in the hands of one man? Have you ever tried to carry 20 rifles?

The guy with 20 rifles isn't the threat. The guy with 20 rifles clearly has money to spare, and has other reasons to have so many: he is a sportsman with differing specific uses for each, or a collector with a historic interest. He's not the desperate criminal or sociopath; they need just one.

For that matter, rifles aren't the problem: rifles account for 300-500 homicides a year in the US. ALL rifles, of ALL types, from single-shot pre-WW1 types all the way to the scary black plastic guns. They get a disproportionate share of the media attention because they tend to be the weapon connected to mass shootings, but 10 to 15 times as many homicides are committed with handguns each year than with rifles of any type. I wouldn't *agree* with a gun-control proponent who wanted all handguns banned, but I could at least concede that as far as gun control measures go, it would have a logical basis in fact and statistics. Going after the "scary black rifles" is just kind of dumb; they're only used in a handful of crimes outside these statistically rare mass shootings (you're more likely to be struck by lightning, statistically. Go ahead, look it up)

As to where the rights endowed by the First Amendment ends: it ends exactly where the Second ends: with actions that harm other citizens. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater because the resulting panic is reasonably expected to cause physical injury; similarly, you can't shoot in the direction of other persons (outside legitimate self defense) because it carries a reasonably expected likelihood of death or injury. Reckless endangerment is a crime. Attempted murder is a crime. Owning a piece of metal should not be. I own swords that, just like guns, can hardly be argued as useful for anything but their "intentional design to kill people"; should I have to turn them in, too?

At any rate, this has more to do with modern American culture desensitizing it's youth to violence (seriously, read "On Killing: the Pyschological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by LTC Dave Grossman, ret.), the enabling factors of gang violence and the drug trade, and increasingly narcissistic trends in youth. Kids are coddled to believe they are special snowflakes, that they are all perfect, and that anything that goes wrong must be someone else's fault. They are then taught by the media (through the litany of television, film, and game depictions) that vigilantism is a valid way to resolve grievances, and that it's morally acceptable to decide what is just, all on their own- which enables them to reason that it's ok to kill someone for a perceived slight. Then this is all reinforced by seeing it in the news, where the latest mass killer is given his 15 months of fame, and "experts" on the nightly news ponder what terrible things must have happened to the murderer for him to end up such a poor, tortured soul.
29204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 10/1/15

gvblackmoon wrote:


Roadmonster wrote:


HuastecoOtaku wrote:


K3n21 wrote:

Yee haww best country in the world!


Guns keep us safe from the king of England!


I'm sorry to say this as a Swede. But your 2nd Amendment was never intended to protect you from foreign oppressors, as Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.".

Your 2nd Amendment is your de facto right to rebel aginst your own government.


Incorrect it was designed so we would have militias rather then a standing army. Since Jefferson as well as the others that actually wrote the Constitution didn't want them. The military under Jefferson was about 20 thousand men mostly made up of coast Guard and Navy not army. The means by which we in the states change our government is through elections which is how it is designed to work. And if you look at our history the last two times a group of citizens rebelled against the government didn't work to well. The whiskey rebellion and the south succeeding from the north guns really didn't help them in either case against the stronger central government. In the first case Washington called up the militia in the second the same was done as well with the same results.

Now our militia system has been replaced with the National Guard and Air National Guard since to be an official militia you have to fall under the guidance of the state since that is how the laws are written that regulated them. If you want to change the government and the country win elections don't take up arms it ends badly if you do. No really look at the history of it and if you think an AR15 beats an predator drone you are sadly mistaken.

Original Virginia Constitution which was also written by Jefferson and this is the text he wanted to use for the US Constitution.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.



So the question is how many more dead before folks start reading the first part that is in the actually Constitution which says well regulated.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Oh and the courts hold the vie that you can regulate firearms this did come down in the last case so we can require background checks and the like.


Absolutely not. First, the National Guard is NOT a militia formed of the body of the people. The National Guard is a standing army. Commanded, by statute, directly by the state. Exactly what the militia is NOT. Also, "the body of the people" means ALL the people. Not just the ones that the government decides meets their arbitrary standards for military service. When the Virginia Constitution stated that the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power, how do you think they intended to enforce that subordination? If the military had all the weapons, the civil power has no actuarial power to control them.
29204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 10/1/15

AirMarshall wrote:


Junkmeister wrote:

I as an American am finding it curious as to how people still to this day still use the second amendment as some sort of shield to protect their "right to bare arms". Like all the amendments there are clauses and limitations the must mold to the modern day. Take the first amendment the freedom of speech, religion, and press. Is one allowed to yell "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded space like a movie theater. Answer, no. You'll be arrested on the spot, and if you try and say "my first amendment right" well the court will turn around and say the rights of the many are greater than the rights of the few. And that is basic democracy. You can't have 100% agreement on everything but the majority makes the rule of the land. And if the majority says that the current status of lenient gun control is not working which it is not. Then it must change. If you were to look at the concentration of where the shootings are you will notice a greater portion of them are in lenient gun law states. And that means the laws don't work. A person who can get 20 rifles and no one bothers to ask the question "gee I wonder why he bought so many rifles?" It's a problem.


Am I a criminal for owning lots of firearms? I'd just like to hear your amazing input.

The 2nd amendment was made not for sport shooting or for hunting... it was made to defend us against tyrannical governments, and to be used in self-defense. If he had a brown bess musket he could have done the same thing. A trained British infantryman could shoot and reload every 7 seconds.


Yeah, I may support the right for the citizen to bear military-style arms, but that's just dumb. There is no way someone with a muzzle-loading flintlock could successfully commit a mass murder of this type. Not without VERY cooperative targets. He'd be more successful forgetting about the bullets after the first shot, and going with the bayonet.

Now, that said, there ARE plenty of non-gun ways for a mass murderer to kill many people. Pipe bombs in a crowd, or an incendiary accellerant in an enclosed area (like a theater) combined with blockading exits. Drive a heavyweight commercial truck or bulldozer through the wall of a crowded building (like a theater or church). Toxic household chemicals such as fumigation insecticides (most of which are nerve agents, by the way). Any number of ways.

But a flintlock musket? That's stretching awful far. ...or you're just intentionally trolling.
4755 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Chicago, Illinois
Offline
Posted 10/1/15

outontheop wrote:


AirMarshall wrote:


Junkmeister wrote:

I as an American am finding it curious as to how people still to this day still use the second amendment as some sort of shield to protect their "right to bare arms". Like all the amendments there are clauses and limitations the must mold to the modern day. Take the first amendment the freedom of speech, religion, and press. Is one allowed to yell "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded space like a movie theater. Answer, no. You'll be arrested on the spot, and if you try and say "my first amendment right" well the court will turn around and say the rights of the many are greater than the rights of the few. And that is basic democracy. You can't have 100% agreement on everything but the majority makes the rule of the land. And if the majority says that the current status of lenient gun control is not working which it is not. Then it must change. If you were to look at the concentration of where the shootings are you will notice a greater portion of them are in lenient gun law states. And that means the laws don't work. A person who can get 20 rifles and no one bothers to ask the question "gee I wonder why he bought so many rifles?" It's a problem.


Am I a criminal for owning lots of firearms? I'd just like to hear your amazing input.

The 2nd amendment was made not for sport shooting or for hunting... it was made to defend us against tyrannical governments, and to be used in self-defense. If he had a brown bess musket he could have done the same thing. A trained British infantryman could shoot and reload every 7 seconds.


Yeah, I may support the right for the citizen to bear military-style arms, but that's just dumb. There is no way someone with a muzzle-loading flintlock could successfully commit a mass murder of this type. Not without VERY cooperative targets. He'd be more successful forgetting about the bullets after the first shot, and going with the bayonet.

Now, that said, there ARE plenty of non-gun ways for a mass murderer to kill many people. Pipe bombs in a crowd, or an incendiary accellerant in an enclosed area (like a theater) combined with blockading exits. Drive a heavyweight commercial truck or bulldozer through the wall of a crowded building (like a theater or church). Toxic household chemicals such as fumigation insecticides (most of which are nerve agents, by the way). Any number of ways.

But a flintlock musket? That's stretching awful far. ...or you're just intentionally trolling.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
29204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 10/1/15

Tehnery wrote:

I dont know I mean it a lot of shooting happens form cops too schools honselty I whoudnt be surpised if we have the highest death by guns ration really


...aaaand you have just excused yourself from making any meaningful contribution to this topic. Wow. That's... I don't even know where to start; that's one of the most ignorant (no to mention syntactically flawed) posts I've ever seen
29204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 10/1/15


Yeah. You've got to be trolling. That's a shot every 15 seconds, not every 7, and in an enclosed area, 15 seconds is a LOT of time to be reloading, during which you are easily subdued by anyone with a modicum of boldness and presence of mind.

You couldn't even commit mass murder Charles Whitman style with that, as the effective range at which you could expect to hit a man-sized target is under 100 yards.

Sorry, but no.
19921 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / A town called "Ci...
Offline
Posted 10/1/15

Roadmonster wrote:

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/bevapnad-person-skot-elever-i-skola-i-usa/

*Sigh*

"Gud som är i himlen, helgad vare ditt namn. Vaka över dessa själar som nu vandrar längs dödens dal. Vänd ditt ansikte mot dom, förlåt deras synder och låt dom vila i frid i väntan på återuppståndelsen då de ska vandra till din sida i himlens rike. I faderns, sonens och den helige andens namn. Amen."

Trans:

God who are in heaven, holy is thy name. Watch over these souls that now walks in the valley of death. Turn your face upon them, forgive their sins and let them rest in peace awaiting the day of resurrection when they shall walk to your side in the kingdom of heaven. In the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit. Amen.


Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. This unspeakably delightful verse has been sung on many a dying bed, and has helped to make the dark valley bright times out of mind. Every word in it has a wealth of meaning.
8741 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 10/1/15

AirMarshall wrote:



Is this how Liberals are? Gun control before mourning? You things make no sense...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/gun-control-is-a-religiou_b_1692993.html

Posted 10/1/15 , edited 10/1/15

AirMarshall wrote:


Junkmeister wrote:

I as an American am finding it curious as to how people still to this day still use the second amendment as some sort of shield to protect their "right to bare arms". Like all the amendments there are clauses and limitations the must mold to the modern day. Take the first amendment the freedom of speech, religion, and press. Is one allowed to yell "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded space like a movie theater. Answer, no. You'll be arrested on the spot, and if you try and say "my first amendment right" well the court will turn around and say the rights of the many are greater than the rights of the few. And that is basic democracy. You can't have 100% agreement on everything but the majority makes the rule of the land. And if the majority says that the current status of lenient gun control is not working which it is not. Then it must change. If you were to look at the concentration of where the shootings are you will notice a greater portion of them are in lenient gun law states. And that means the laws don't work. A person who can get 20 rifles and no one bothers to ask the question "gee I wonder why he bought so many rifles?" It's a problem.


Am I a criminal for owning lots of firearms? I'd just like to hear your amazing input.

The 2nd amendment was made not for sport shooting or for hunting... it was made to defend us against tyrannical governments, and to be used in self-defense. If he had a brown bess musket he could have done the same thing. A trained British infantryman could shoot and reload every 7 seconds.


How's that self-defense working for ya? I haven't owned a gun and haven't had the compelling issue to need to own one. Many others out there feel the same way.

Really what are you trying to defend against? You say against the government. Okay. So how are you going to defend against drones, helicopters, tanks, sophisticated weaponry that citizens themselves cannot own and should not own to begin with?

You also say mental health -- you realize ANYONE can snap, right? People with mental issues aren't the only ones capable to committing these kinds of crimes and mentally challenged people would hardly have the capacity to plan such events.

I find it amusing that you blame liberals for thinking they're going to strip away your precious gun when I'm wondering what is it that your so worried over that would cause you to lose ownership over it. Liberals, independents, and conservatives that are on the same page, are addressing issues to how people are obtaining these guns through ineffective policies that obviously need regulation.

Don't believe me? Look at this video:


Easy gun buying without an ID
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A51Gr0zpX_c


BBC News How easy is it to buy a gun in Texas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc1FLSg2wIY


Guns for Cash! No Background Check, no ID, AND IT'S ALL LEGAL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q
Posted 10/1/15

VZ68 wrote:

Blackmoon is a troll, just ignore him.


Because he has different opinion than your own?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.