Elementary School Shooting, Newtown CT - 26 innocent dead, 20 children

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Relevant:

[TheQsanity]

the right one

[TheQsanity]

Now I know how politicians are created.

They start as trolls.

As in they were trolls when they were younger? Like when they were kids? Hasn't all kids been trolls before at one point or another? Or do you mean someone that jokes around a will somehow become a politician?

[keyboardlover]

No, I meant in that they are people who are trolls, prone to trolling and like to troll other people.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Ripster for Congress...?

[keyboardlover]

Ripster for Congress...?

Already won

[TheQsanity]

Illuminati is behind it all?

[keyboardlover]

Illuminati is behind it all?

I didn't go there...I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Just a seeker of truth.

[TheQsanity]

Thanks kl. Now I am watching a bunch of illuminati videos. Just curious. Any signifigant illuminati theory that you would like to agree on or oppose to.

[tp4tissue]

Relevant:

Show Image

This is an example of FRAMING... it has nothing to do with which one'll work better.

[keyboardlover]

Thanks kl. Now I am watching a bunch of illuminati videos. Just curious. Any signifigant illuminati theory that you would like to agree on or oppose to.

To be completely honest with you I am not familiar enough with the whole theory to really discuss. I looked into it a little at one point, found really nothing conclusive and got bored.

My advice to you is to focus on facts and truth and then draw your own points and conclusions. Once you do that the writing will be on the wall. (And YOU will be the one making the people shouting "tinfoil" look like fools).

Edit: my friend just brought up this incident which is fairly similar in nature and never referenced by the media:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

[clickclack]

...Edit: my friend just brought up this incident which is fairly similar in nature and never referenced by the media:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

Bummer the assistant principal couldn't stop the mass shooting with his personal firearm. But it's a good thing he was able to stop him in the parking lot afterwards. Saved the police the extra step.

[precarious]

Bummer the assistant principal couldn't stop the mass shooting with his personal firearm. But it's a good thing he was able to stop him in the parking lot afterwards. Saved the police the extra step.

I don't know if he would've been able to get a clean shot off if the guy hadn't driven into a tree first!

[iri]

Show Image

guns are banned in christiania in copenhagen. there are respective signs everywhere. but in the place itself, there are lots of local pushers armed with guns.

[longweight]

If it is true and obvious then prove it.

Show Image

If handguns are killers, then why don't we send try them in court and send them to jail instead of the people who use them? That sounds like a great idea, doesn't it? I just love your smart, logical ideas...

Look, I'm going to be completely serious for a minute.  I know a lot of my posts are casual and in jest, but this is for real.

Last night I was merrily traipsing down my favorite neighborhood dark alley when I heard a metallic rattling coming out from behind the dumpster.  I expected to encounter a homeless man upon my passing, rooting amidst the refuse for some snacks, but instead there was a Sig Sauer P226 semi-automatic handgun chambered in 9MM barely conscious with a half-empty bottle of Jack Daniels beside him.  I asked the handgun very politely and respectfully, "Sir, are you okay?  Do you need any help?"  and he only grumbled incoherently in response.  Then, out of absolutely nowhere, this wildly intoxicated drunken sod of a handgun just started popping off rounds at me!  I mean, I could have been killed!

We need to ensure that underage, irresponsible handguns are not able to purchase liquor.  This is a dangerous combination and we need to put a stop to this at once.

While we're at it we should also sever the genitalia of all men so they can no longer rape.  THOUSAND OF PENISES RAPE WOMEN EACH YEAR, WE MUST BAN PENISES.

ALSO BAN BREASTS FOR MAKING THEM HARD.

(BAN BRAINS FOR EXHIBITING PARTICULAR BEHAVIOR IN RESPONSE TO CERTAIN EXTERNAL STIMULI.)

Prove your point with facts instead of the old rhetoric.

[precarious]

If it is true and obvious then prove it.

Show Image

If handguns are killers, then why don't we send try them in court and send them to jail instead of the people who use them? That sounds like a great idea, doesn't it? I just love your smart, logical ideas...

Look, I'm going to be completely serious for a minute.  I know a lot of my posts are casual and in jest, but this is for real.

Last night I was merrily traipsing down my favorite neighborhood dark alley when I heard a metallic rattling coming out from behind the dumpster.  I expected to encounter a homeless man upon my passing, rooting amidst the refuse for some snacks, but instead there was a Sig Sauer P226 semi-automatic handgun chambered in 9MM barely conscious with a half-empty bottle of Jack Daniels beside him.  I asked the handgun very politely and respectfully, "Sir, are you okay?  Do you need any help?"  and he only grumbled incoherently in response.  Then, out of absolutely nowhere, this wildly intoxicated drunken sod of a handgun just started popping off rounds at me!  I mean, I could have been killed!

We need to ensure that underage, irresponsible handguns are not able to purchase liquor.  This is a dangerous combination and we need to put a stop to this at once.

While we're at it we should also sever the genitalia of all men so they can no longer rape.  THOUSAND OF PENISES RAPE WOMEN EACH YEAR, WE MUST BAN PENISES.

ALSO BAN BREASTS FOR MAKING THEM HARD.

(BAN BRAINS FOR EXHIBITING PARTICULAR BEHAVIOR IN RESPONSE TO CERTAIN EXTERNAL STIMULI.)

Prove your point with facts instead of the old rhetoric.

Apparently facts can't arise of circumstances.  Thus, facts are not real and do not exist.

Guess I'll be posting an essay in this thread at some point tomorrow and get this thread closed, too, since everyone needs everything laid out explicitly replete with dictionary definitions because no one understands what words mean.  Most believe words to be only vaguely suggestive of emotion, and nothing more, rather than descriptive terms of circumstances which exist in objectivity.

Then, I suppose it is fine that language is being destroyed, because there seems to be nothing left for anyone to say.

[microsoft windows]

Ripster for Congress...?

Maybe I'll run against him!

[TheQsanity]

If it is true and obvious then prove it.

Show Image

If handguns are killers, then why don't we send try them in court and send them to jail instead of the people who use them? That sounds like a great idea, doesn't it? I just love your smart, logical ideas...

Look, I'm going to be completely serious for a minute.  I know a lot of my posts are casual and in jest, but this is for real.

Last night I was merrily traipsing down my favorite neighborhood dark alley when I heard a metallic rattling coming out from behind the dumpster.  I expected to encounter a homeless man upon my passing, rooting amidst the refuse for some snacks, but instead there was a Sig Sauer P226 semi-automatic handgun chambered in 9MM barely conscious with a half-empty bottle of Jack Daniels beside him.  I asked the handgun very politely and respectfully, "Sir, are you okay?  Do you need any help?"  and he only grumbled incoherently in response.  Then, out of absolutely nowhere, this wildly intoxicated drunken sod of a handgun just started popping off rounds at me!  I mean, I could have been killed!

We need to ensure that underage, irresponsible handguns are not able to purchase liquor.  This is a dangerous combination and we need to put a stop to this at once.

While we're at it we should also sever the genitalia of all men so they can no longer rape.  THOUSAND OF PENISES RAPE WOMEN EACH YEAR, WE MUST BAN PENISES.

ALSO BAN BREASTS FOR MAKING THEM HARD.

(BAN BRAINS FOR EXHIBITING PARTICULAR BEHAVIOR IN RESPONSE TO CERTAIN EXTERNAL STIMULI.)

Prove your point with facts instead of the old rhetoric.

Apparently facts can't arise of circumstances.  Thus, facts are not real and do not exist.

Guess I'll be posting an essay in this thread at some point tomorrow and get this thread closed, too, since everyone needs everything laid out explicitly replete with dictionary definitions because no one understands what words mean.  Most believe words to be only vaguely suggestive of emotion, and nothing more, rather than descriptive terms of circumstances which exist in objectivity.

Then, I suppose it is fine that language is being destroyed, because there seems to be nothing left for anyone to say.

Hehe, you're funny! Though it is hard to fully understand on the internet. I got the feeling you were addressing a point in a light-harded way? More or less important the subject of your story than the person addressed. Maybe for the reason of how blaming something else besides the person responsible is immature?

Ripster for Congress...?

Maybe I'll run against him!

Maybe Apple Macintosh will run against you!?

[keyboardlover]

Maybe I'll run against him!

Sounds like the last election!

Edit: Did you guys know that there is military technology which can put voices in your head?
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Sonic_Projection.html

Worth a watch:

[iri]

\kl, just out of curiosity, do you hear voices in your head?

[keyboardlover]

\kl, just out of curiosity, do you hear voices in your head?

No, but often times I see dumb people.

[tjcaustin]

If it is true and obvious then prove it.

Show Image

If handguns are killers, then why don't we send try them in court and send them to jail instead of the people who use them? That sounds like a great idea, doesn't it? I just love your smart, logical ideas...

Look, I'm going to be completely serious for a minute.  I know a lot of my posts are casual and in jest, but this is for real.

Last night I was merrily traipsing down my favorite neighborhood dark alley when I heard a metallic rattling coming out from behind the dumpster.  I expected to encounter a homeless man upon my passing, rooting amidst the refuse for some snacks, but instead there was a Sig Sauer P226 semi-automatic handgun chambered in 9MM barely conscious with a half-empty bottle of Jack Daniels beside him.  I asked the handgun very politely and respectfully, "Sir, are you okay?  Do you need any help?"  and he only grumbled incoherently in response.  Then, out of absolutely nowhere, this wildly intoxicated drunken sod of a handgun just started popping off rounds at me!  I mean, I could have been killed!

We need to ensure that underage, irresponsible handguns are not able to purchase liquor.  This is a dangerous combination and we need to put a stop to this at once.

While we're at it we should also sever the genitalia of all men so they can no longer rape.  THOUSAND OF PENISES RAPE WOMEN EACH YEAR, WE MUST BAN PENISES.

ALSO BAN BREASTS FOR MAKING THEM HARD.

(BAN BRAINS FOR EXHIBITING PARTICULAR BEHAVIOR IN RESPONSE TO CERTAIN EXTERNAL STIMULI.)

Prove your point with facts instead of the old rhetoric.

Says the guy that bases his point off of a propaganda poster from the mid80s and a Guardian article that seems to negate at least part of what he's saying.

I'm frankly tired of this "I'm 100% right, and you're 100% wrong and I demand you prove yourself and refuse to do the same; all the while, refuting your points as wrong because they aren't backing what I say" garbage.

In this case specifically, the discussion shouldn't be "BAN ALL THE GUNS!" / "BANNING ANY GUNS MEANS WE LOSE ALL FREEDOM", it should be "What is the maximum freedom of arms we can safely allow, given our cultural and technological situation?" 

[WRXChris]

don't mind all the name callers, kl.  It's only their confirmation bias kicking in because they can't come to grips with the fact that they voted for and support mass murders.  If there were solid arguments against many of your points, they wouldn't have to resort to name calling.

[longweight]

I understand that you could never ban guns in the US but you would have far less murders committed if you had much tighter laws and controls.

[microsoft windows]

I understand that you could never ban guns in the US but you would have far less murders committed if you had much tighter laws and controls.

It would be nice if such an approach would work here, but it has not.  Would a murderer will care if an additional weapons charge is added to his murder charge? He'll get life in prison or the death penalty no matter what.  Many of the states here in the US with the tightest gun restrictions also have the highest rates of murder and gun violence. Since they make it much more difficult to obtain permits to legally own firearms, or legally conceal firearms, they've got, for the most part, an unarmed citizenry. Would you rob a house or trespass on another's property if you knew the owner had a gun and was trained to use it?

Guns themselves don't cause violence; it's the users of the guns who do. And even if we tightened up restrictions on them here in the US, we'd still have a nice inflow of illegal weapons on the black market from Mexico and South America, just like drugs. And we've got pretty tight restrictions on illicit drugs but they seem to have little trouble crossing the border. That's probably why gun control works better in western Europe--Most western European countries don't share an unsecured border with a drug- and crime-ridden hell (a. k. a. northern Mexico). They also don't have as many ports connecting them to other nations as the US does, so it would be more difficult to obtain illicit weapons there. But that's not how things are here I'm afraid. If the US had tight border security, especially with Mexico, then gun control might be more effective. But securing thousands of miles of land is prohibitably expensive and difficult, and with today's politics, most of the folks advocating tighter gun laws here are also against securing our southern border.

In America and in its current situation, probably the best way to prevent most gun violence would be to have more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Like I said before, would you want to commit a crime in a neighborhood where you knew everybody had a gun? I don't think so. Gangs and drugs are the top causes of gun violence here in the US, and an armed citizenry has been proven to repel such activity very well.

But with these school shootings...they've very difficult situations in many ways. I was driving through Newtown, right by Sandy Hook Elementary School, on my way to work on the day of the shooting and witnessed much of it firsthand. It is very difficult emotionally to think about it, especially as I pass through there on my commute now, seeing the memorials and the big flag in the center of town flown at half staff. It hurts me a great deal to have to see that.

But another way in which these situations are difficult is the cause of them. They aren't like the other 99% of gun violence here in America. 9 times out of 10, it's a mentally ill person who finds some way to get his hands on weapons and then goes berzerk. There is no simple solution to prevent these crimes--the best thing I can think of is to have somebody at every school who is armed and trained to deal with these situations. But they arise so seldomly that few schools would actually follow through with something like that. I just don't know.

[keyboardlover]

don't mind all the name callers, kl.  It's only their confirmation bias kicking in because they can't come to grips with the fact that they voted for and support mass murders.  If there were solid arguments against many of your points, they wouldn't have to resort to name calling.

Thank you sir. And don't worry, I don't mind them

[Lanx]

prelim story is the kid wanted to buy a rifle 3 days prior, but wanted to forgo the background check(if someone with more knowledge of this subject can chime in) and instead decided to get at the cache of doomsday weapons his mom was stockpiling for 12-21-12.

[Malphas]

Relevant:

Show Image

Signs don't prevent killing sprees.

\kl, just out of curiosity, do you hear voices in your head?

lmao

In this case specifically, the discussion shouldn't be "BAN ALL THE GUNS!" / "BANNING ANY GUNS MEANS WE LOSE ALL FREEDOM", it should be "What is the maximum freedom of arms we can safely allow, given our cultural and technological situation?"

Ah, how refreshing to read a sane comment for a change.

[iri]

"What is the maximum freedom of arms we can safely allow, given our cultural and technological situation?"

vermont-ish.

[Malphas]

It would be nice if such an approach would work here, but it has not.  Would a murderer will care if an additional weapons charge is added to his murder charge? He'll get life in prison or the death penalty no matter what.  Many of the states here in the US with the tightest gun restrictions also have the highest rates of murder and gun violence. Since they make it much more difficult to obtain permits to legally own firearms, or legally conceal firearms, they've got, for the most part, an unarmed citizenry. Would you rob a house or trespass on another's property if you knew the owner had a gun and was trained to use it?

Guns themselves don't cause violence; it's the users of the guns who do. And even if we tightened up restrictions on them here in the US, we'd still have a nice inflow of illegal weapons on the black market from Mexico and South America, just like drugs. And we've got pretty tight restrictions on illicit drugs but they seem to have little trouble crossing the border. That's probably why gun control works better in western Europe--Most western European countries don't share an unsecured border with a drug- and crime-ridden hell (a. k. a. northern Mexico). They also don't have as many ports connecting them to other nations as the US does, so it would be more difficult to obtain illicit weapons there. But that's not how things are here I'm afraid. If the US had tight border security, especially with Mexico, then gun control might be more effective. But securing thousands of miles of land is prohibitably expensive and difficult, and with today's politics, most of the folks advocating tighter gun laws here are also against securing our southern border.

In America and in its current situation, probably the best way to prevent most gun violence would be to have more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Like I said before, would you want to commit a crime in a neighborhood where you knew everybody had a gun? I don't think so. Gangs and drugs are the top causes of gun violence here in the US, and an armed citizenry has been proven to repel such activity very well.

But with these school shootings...they've very difficult situations in many ways. I was driving through Newtown, right by Sandy Hook Elementary School, on my way to work on the day of the shooting and witnessed much of it firsthand. It is very difficult emotionally to think about it, especially as I pass through there on my commute now, seeing the memorials and the big flag in the center of town flown at half staff. It hurts me a great deal to have to see that.

But another way in which these situations are difficult is the cause of them. They aren't like the other 99% of gun violence here in America. 9 times out of 10, it's a mentally ill person who finds some way to get his hands on weapons and then goes berzerk. There is no simple solution to prevent these crimes--the best thing I can think of is to have somebody at every school who is armed and trained to deal with these situations. But they arise so seldomly that few schools would actually follow through with something like that. I just don't know.

I more or less agree with this up until the last paragraph. Your suggested solution to violence with firearms in schools is to have an individual armed with a firearm at every school? *facepalm* I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't really think this through and the multitude of potential ways this could (and inevitably would in some cases) go wrong. You realise that most police officers shot in the USA were shot with their own weapon that a previously unarmed criminal decided to relieve them of?

[keyboardlover]

"What is the maximum freedom of arms we can safely allow, given our cultural and technological situation?"

vermont-ish.

According to the Constitution, we must be armed to a reasonable extent which protects us from the government. This is not nor will ever be the case.

You realise that most police officers shot in the USA were shot with their own weapon that a previously unarmed criminal decided to relieve them of?

Citation needed.

[aggiejy]

You realise that most police officers shot in the USA were shot with their own weapon that a previously unarmed criminal decided to relieve them of?

Citation needed.

Yeah, that sounds like a completely made up fact because it is.  Regardless of your position, debate with facts people!

There are no national statistics on how many times officers' guns are taken away. But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent.

Source: http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/100228-Cases-of-Officers-Killed-by-Their-Own-Guns-Likely-Will-Not-Change-R-I-Policies/

8% is significant, but hardly "most".

[swagpiratex]

Just imagine yourself living in a low-income neighborhood, where home invasions happen maybe once a week in your neighborhood. You'd sleep a lot better at night knowing that you had a gun to protect your family if someone decides to come in, relieve you of your valuable possessions, and maybe let you live.

Now imagine if you weren't allowed to have a gun. Isn't that scary?

All Democrats are Republicans who haven't been mugged yet.

[keyboardlover]

I am still not convinced the kid is responsible...

But I will say that I find it quite ironic when people wonder why kids kill, when their role models are murderers, liars and thieves. "Men of the Year". Nobel peace prize winners.

[Malphas]

Yeah, that sounds like a completely made up fact because it is.  Regardless of your position, debate with facts people!

There are no national statistics on how many times officers' guns are taken away. But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent.

Source: http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/100228-Cases-of-Officers-Killed-by-Their-Own-Guns-Likely-Will-Not-Change-R-I-Policies/

8% is significant, but hardly "most".

It's not most as in over 50%, it's most as in that is the highest figure out of the various classifications of weapon used to shoot police officers (besides legally purchased guns, which admittedly I neglected to clarify but it actually only supports my point further, rather than detracting from it).

Separately, guns obtained or taken from relatives or friends who legally owned them were used in 46 killings. 51 officers were killed when their department-issued firearms or another officer's gun were turned against them. In 41 instances, guns were illegally obtained on the streets through sale or barter. 16 times, someone bought a weapon for a person prohibited from having a gun, an unlawful transaction known as a straw purchase.

[Malphas]

Just imagine yourself living in a low-income neighborhood, where home invasions happen maybe once a week in your neighborhood. You'd sleep a lot better at night knowing that you had a gun to protect your family if someone decides to come in, relieve you of your valuable possessions, and maybe let you live.

That's great, except what about when an unarmed intruder promptly relieves you of your firearm then uses it against you/your family? Or what about when you don't have time to retrieve your gun by the time they've broken in and one of their demands is you hand it over along with the rest of your valuables? Congratulations, you just provided a violent criminal with a firearm, well done.

And yes, those scenarios do happen.

Unaware that Dukes was a cop, they ordered him into the house and demanded money. He told them about his safe in the master-bathroom closet. The detective's wife, Lynette, lay awake in bed, silent and still. She heard her husband identify himself as a police officer and offer them money for his family's safety.

The men forced Dukes to kneel in the bathroom. His wife was brought out and ordered to open the safe and then drop to her knees next to her husband. The suspects grabbed the money and an AR-15 assault rifle.
ad_icon

They asked Dukes if he had other weapons. He directed them to his department-issued Glock handgun under the mattress on the right side of the bed.

Dukes had another Glock, an off-duty gun - the police report does not specify whether he had it on his person or somewhere in his house - which he drew and fired twice. Then the gun jammed. The thieves fired back with Dukes's police gun, striking him in his left arm and stomach. A bullet pierced his wife's left foot.

Dukes, an auto-theft detective and a 19-year veteran, died three weeks later. His wife survived. The alleged gunmen, Anthony Skidmore, now 22, and Chris Dillon, 21, are awaiting trial.

[TheQsanity]

The kid is directly responsible. But like I said before, society has failed to deal with him and prevent it. I know that there will be a day where society will understand more about those people and the proper way to deal with it. Most people concider it a taboo to say they are the same as us. Really they are the same just in different circumstances. Most people can't accept a person like him, disregarding them in our society. Really they should be concidered into our society, because they are there.(imagine you have a black eye but you wear sunglasses to cover it. Or you have blue eyes but you deny it)
 It is like concidering a population without accounting or concidering the needs of the blacks. If you get what I am saying. I really like to think that everyone I meet is my friend, brother, or sister. I know this may be hard to believe or understand but I say to myself that everyone has someone they really love in their life. Though it is not me I know if they were me, they would love my loved ones just as much as I would. And for the people that only love themself, I pity they as if I were in their situation, I would be the same way.

[keyboardlover]

I still find it more believable that, for instance, the CIA which kills children all the time could have something to do with this (esp. With the libor connection) than some random young kid with his whole life ahead of him.

[TheQsanity]

Though that is possible,  I think just from probability and the amount of people there are in the world, things like a child slaughterer are bound to happen just by chance. And the amount of neglected kids at home or at school, it is less of a surprise.

[keyboardlover]

Well, now they are talking about reinstating the "assault weapons" ban. Like THAT'S going to do ANYTHING.

And for those who are new to firearms, the term "assault weapon" is completely political. There is no such type of weapon; it is complete propaganda.

Truth and Fact makes the smoke and mirrors in front of this whole political charade quickly fade away.

[swagpiratex]

That's great, except what about when an unarmed intruder promptly relieves you of your firearm then uses it against you/your family? Or what about when you don't have time to retrieve your gun by the time they've broken in and one of their demands is you hand it over along with the rest of your valuables? Congratulations, you just provided a violent criminal with a firearm, well done.

And yes, those scenarios do happen.

That's a valid argument. But since you're going into a specific scenario and also using me as a variable, I'm telling you now it wouldn't go down that way if it were me, knowing what I know. Maybe that's how it'd play out if you were in that case but not me. Try again?

[Malphas]

That's great, except what about when an unarmed intruder promptly relieves you of your firearm then uses it against you/your family? Or what about when you don't have time to retrieve your gun by the time they've broken in and one of their demands is you hand it over along with the rest of your valuables? Congratulations, you just provided a violent criminal with a firearm, well done.

And yes, those scenarios do happen.

That's a valid argument. But since you're going into a specific scenario and also using me as a variable, I'm telling you now it wouldn't go down that way if it were me, knowing what I know. Maybe that's how it'd play out if you were in that case but not me. Try again?

Lol. Yeah right, that's what all Internet tough-guys think though. I guess you missed the part where a quoted an excerpt from an article about how this happened to a veteran detective of almost twenty years. But yeah, I'm sure you're much more capable than him Mr. Orange County keyboard-enthusiast cubicle worker. It doesn't matter how much time you've spent at the range or how many deluded Liam Neeson fantasies you've had, if you haven't been woken up in the middle of the night to a high stress situation where your life is in danger then you don't know **** about how well you'd actually do. Not only that but these things happen to guys who have been in those situations, like armed forces personnel, cops, etc. - you know, guys that have actually been tested under fire and had to shoot at human beings before rather than just posturing on the Internet about it. That's because it's not just about how prepared you are for the eventuality or how good a shot you are, it's also a lot to do with luck and variables.

You're exactly the kind of person I dislike for giving gun-owners (which again, I am) a bad name, by behaving like pathetic kids desperately trying to sound tough rather than responsible adults.

[keyboardlover]

On the contrary I think that a gun owner which agrees with legitimization of force at the point of a gun when it comes to government doing it rather than an individual is quite possibly the most dangerous kind.

[Malphas]

Yeah, but that's because you're bat**** insane, KL, and see the world in black and white where your (fairly extremist) opinion = right, and everything else = evil.

[swagpiratex]

Whoa, No need to get personal, just pointing out to you that in your model you used me as an example. You know nothing about me and I'm going to keep it that way (aside from what I shared with others in the thread discussing things we liked). There were reasons why the police officer responded the way he did (wife, occupation, location of weapons, mindset, physicial condition). I'm pointing out that my conditions are different, and since you singled me out, your assertion that the outcome would remain unchanged is erroneous.

Let's try again. My post was making the argument that making guns illegal would be unfair to those living in areas that could increase their chances of survivability against violent attacks. You made a point, which I acknowledged. And now I'm being called an internet tough guy because I stated that I've gotten training with firearms that I've purchased. Not knowing anything about me, please elaborate how the possibility of arming a violent criminal supercedes my currently legal right to own a firearm and become proficient in it.

Case 1: Bad guy comes into my house, I don't have any guns.
Case 2: Bad guy comes into my house, I have guns, but they will be taken from me because I'm not a 20 year old police detective who deals with dangerous situations at night
Case 3: Bad guy comes into my house, I have guns, and I know how to use them.

Also, remaining objective, so that we're on the same page, please describe an internet tough-guy, very specifically. It's a pretty wide umbrella term. I'm curious to see how you labeled me as such, knowing only what weapons I own and how proficient I am aiming to become.

[TheQsanity]

Wasn't one of the reason why we have guns is to over throw the government if we needed to?

[swagpiratex]

Wasn't one of the reason why we have guns is to over throw the government if we needed to?

It was, but our commander in chief has tanks and missiles. It's hardly a fair fight.

[TheQsanity]

Ikr, was kinda a joke 

[keyboardlover]

Malphas is like the Piers Morgan/Bill O'Reilly of Geekhack.

[swagpiratex]

Ikr, was kinda a joke 

lolol. sorry i've been defending myself against people trying to tell me how to live my life today. T_T

nolan was onto something. you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.