"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger", etc., etc. (2405 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.13 on 119 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Leonore: Fears the Wrath (View user info) at 2007-12-09 23:38:49 EST
So, what's this I hear about a guy who got capped trying to shoot worshippers in some megachurch in Colorado?
That doesn't bother me so much (apart from, you know, the killing), but the fact that the church had armed fucking security guards, one of whom actually ended up taking the guy out, really doesn't sit well with me. To start with, any kind of "enforcement" apart from cops carrying firearms and having the legal right to shoot and kill somebody if need be scares me to death. Yeah, I know about the right to bear arms, and while I don't personally agree with it, it's a right, it's in our Constitution, so it's here to stay until enough people want it changed. And I know these folks need to take training and classes and shit before they can be authorized to carry their weapons on the job, but their presence in places of retail and such indicates they may be there for purposes other than protecting the public.
This is way more apparent in this megachurch detail. I'm no conspiracy theorist, or anything; I'm not expecting some rent-a-cops to become the Right Hand of God, but doesn't the whole threat-of-violence thing kind of clash with the "thou shalt not kill" mandate? Do guys with guns really need to be present in ANY house of worship? Couldn't the actual law enforcement handle this kind of thing? I suppose that having the guard there prevented potential further loss of life, but that argument could be applied to any public place. We don't have armed security guards in libraries ('cept for that guy that got tased by campus police, in Indiana, I think), right? They're fairly safe.
I dunno; these guys can't make any kind of actual arrest (they can apprehend, but they can't charge a crime), so what business do they have being present to shoot and kill if necessary?
!["basically, i'm just gonna walk the earth".jpg (45 kB)](http://stuff.ubersite.com/1197261529396118263/1/"basically, i'm just gonna walk the earth".jpg)
User Reviews
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-13 18:14:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by pandora (user info) at 2007-12-13 17:19:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-12 03:25:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not sure that I'd pull a weapon to protect them in a dangerous situation. That's not to say I don't care; I'd much sooner take a bullet to save someone I care about than hurt the aggressor. Maybe that makes me sound like a martyr; I'm not, let me assure you. It's more a statement of the value I place in life, even for those who want to hurt others.
--------------------------------------------
I appreciate that you place a lot of value in life, but why place more value on the aggressor's than your own? In my opinion, you're automatically worth more than him because you are not a violent criminal and a scourge to society.
Aside from that, your statement that you could never physically hurt another person, even when they are attempting to kill you, to be amazing. I'm not judging, I've just never met that level of hippy before. I'm sort of in awe.
===
I think of all life as sacred, no matter the actions of the individual, primarily because every individual has the opportunity to do help and harm, no matter what. Criminality doesn't enter into that ethos for me; it's all about potentiality. Everyone deserves to be safe. It's the most primary human desire. Would it make me a "bad person" if I fought off someone attacking me? Probably not, but I'd rather just extricate myself from that situation instead. I don't value myself more than the aggressor; we're both of paramount importance. Were I in that circumstance, I'd either try to talk to them, or run.
And yeah, I'm an Epic Level hippy.
Submitted by pandora (user info) at 2007-12-13 17:19:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-12 03:25:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not sure that I'd pull a weapon to protect them in a dangerous situation. That's not to say I don't care; I'd much sooner take a bullet to save someone I care about than hurt the aggressor. Maybe that makes me sound like a martyr; I'm not, let me assure you. It's more a statement of the value I place in life, even for those who want to hurt others.
--------------------------------------------
I appreciate that you place a lot of value in life, but why place more value on the aggressor's than your own? In my opinion, you're automatically worth more than him because you are not a violent criminal and a scourge to society.
Aside from that, your statement that you could never physically hurt another person, even when they are attempting to kill you, to be amazing. I'm not judging, I've just never met that level of hippy before. I'm sort of in awe.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2007-12-12 19:08:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll weigh in on this. I live in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and everything about the New Life Church gives me a creepy vibe. Did you know they have an armory? I'm not sure why, but apparently the reason all their major churches are on the outside of town are because when God declares war on sinners, they can push inward to the downtown and west-side, where all the fags, liberals, and homeless live.
Kinda makes me wonder. I live on the south end of downtown. I'm sure one morning I'll be at work and I'll see the god soliders set fire to the gas pumps and it'll be all over for this clerk.
In due time.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-12-12 11:20:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh, it most certainly is...Maybe even a "life highlight".
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-12 11:08:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-12-12 11:03:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Please show me your tits.
===
How about I give Ballare permission to label my submission to her UberTits post as officially mine? Is that kosher?
Otherwise, I think we may be able to set up some kind of paid installment plan. :D
Of course, adding my name to the annals of Shlongy's E-Conquests may be worth in the end...
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-12-12 11:03:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Please show me your tits.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-12-12 07:25:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
say it ain't so http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_re_us/word_of_the_year
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-12 03:25:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Mikoo:
You're not the first person here to voice that concern; it makes me a little sad when I say that I can't fully relate. I don't have a significant other, and while I have some very close friends, I'm not sure that I'd pull a weapon to protect them in a dangerous situation. That's not to say I don't care; I'd much sooner take a bullet to save someone I care about than hurt the aggressor. Maybe that makes me sound like a martyr; I'm not, let me assure you. It's not something I'd do at the drop of a hat. It's more a statement of the value I place in life, even for those who want to hurt others. I don't think anything voids that.
Anyhow, don't like shit like this shake your faith in humanity. Most of us just want to be groovy.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2007-12-12 03:21:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Also, the only reason why I would consider keeping a gun on me in public places is not to protect myself, but my woman.
I never thought about this kind of crap when I had no one to care about. Not because I didn't care about dying, getting shot sounds like it would suck, but because I figure if I'm by myself I can run away. Also, if I'm within arm's reach of someone, I know how to disarm them, doesn't necessarily mean I would succeed, however.
If I'm at Macy's, making my lady buy me some pants, and some douchebag starts shooting up the place, I don't know that I could keep her safe, presently.
The idea of that bothers me, to say the least.
I hate people.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2007-12-12 03:15:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-12-12 00:05:05 PST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2007-12-12 01:49:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't own a gun, but the more shootings I hear about, the more likely I am to pursue owning one in the not so distant future.
---
...and then the circle will be complete.
------
Fucking Dark Side, always pullin' me back in.
To Leonore: Oh.
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-12 03:12:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Mikoo:
Good point. Yes, an armed security guard could've very well ended the mall shooter's spree much faster than law enforcement, who must be informed of the situation, dispatched to the area, (in this case) establish a safe perimeter, and then act. In fact, I was fairly surprised when I learned that was not transpired; many of the malls I've been to have had an armed security presence. My initial point was mainly how the idea that such a presence was existent and, indeed, deemed necessary at some point, in a church.
Was the church exceptionally large, thereby increasing the likelihood of such an incident? Yes, but the inherent threat of physical violence present in such a place was what unsettled me.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-12-12 03:05:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2007-12-12 01:49:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't own a gun, but the more shootings I hear about, the more likely I am to pursue owning one in the not so distant future.
---
...and then the circle will be complete.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2007-12-12 01:49:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Couldn't the actual law enforcement handle this kind of thing?
--------------
I don't know if anyone already mentioned this, but remember about a week ago when some other kid shot up a mall? Yeah, well, he got all the killing in he needed, apparently, and killed himself something like six minutes before the Police showed up.
It would be nice to think that there's Police waiting around every corner ready to protect us, but that just isn't the case.
I don't own a gun, but the more shootings I hear about, the more likely I am to pursue owning one in the not so distant future.
Submitted by triangle_man (user info) at 2007-12-11 18:55:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
good heat
time for camwhore
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-11 15:03:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Perhaps (and probably) not. One need only take a look at the levels of violent crime in populated nations that do not allow private citizens to carry guns to see that. However, that also wasn't really what I was suggesting; I was stipulating that the presence of gun-carrying, non-law enforcement personnel in a place such as a house of worship was unsettling and perhaps a sign of a growing concern regarding security in American society. A side note to that was the question of whether or not this security presence actually contributed to a greater amount of safety. Are there other measures we need to take?
-----------------------------------------------------
You would enjoy reading a book called "Civil War 2".
America can be a bigger danger to itself than other countries. Yes, there are other measures that we could take but most of them won't work. Note: don't take it too seriously.
Here is the entire book in PDF form:
http://www.timebomb2000.com/misc/CWII.pdf
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-11 14:54:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2007-12-11 00:31:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-11 00:15:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I've heard that terrorists are the same way. A terrorist will not attack any target, just places that guarantee the maximum amount of people will perish: high rise buildings, refineries, hospitals, etc.
____
This is why I am terrified of the USA's education system. Members of the public seem to think that "Terrorist" identifies and delineates a belief system.
"Terrorists", as a whole (and that is a fucking huge whole), believe in one thing: The use of violence to secure certain motives. What distinguishes them from Governments is only the fact they don't have legally bestowed power to enact that violence.
The Tamil Tigers, the IRA, Al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiah et al. have NOTHING in common except the use of violence. And if all you can say about Terrorists is that they try to achieve their goals through violence, then you're basically saying nothing at all.
-------------------------------------------
Looking back at it, my connection between crazy people and terrorists was really pointless and incorrect. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
That statement is actually the entire point of the book "The Edge of Disaster" by Stephan Flynn. He presents potential places terrorists will attack. They won't go for anything. This is a bestselling book and not the USA education system speaking. You are right though, I wasn't saying anything at all.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2007-12-11 14:01:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
as I said Ray Ray ain't gonna shoot a nigga just because he has a gun, he's gonna shot a nigga because in his mind it's ok to take something from the nigga that ain't his.
its not the guns that are the problem, they are the vehicle, the problems lie deeper than that.
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-11 13:52:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
LOTS of great arguments here, and surprisingly not very many sarcastic ones. I'm impressed.
To those who've said that firing a gun needs to be something that everyone tries:
Short version? I don't wanna. I don't mind knowing how to use a knife, because a knife is a tool. Yes, it can be used to hurt, but that's not the primary function. Conversely, I don't want ever pick up a gun, because a gun has one primary purpose: to hurt someone, or something, else. Now, I'm not trying to be preachy here; I don't believe that everyone out there carrying a firearm is looking to hurt. I believe the claim of a need for protection is a valid one. But the "feeling" of holding a gun isn't an experience I think I need to be a more complete person.
To those who've said that outlawing guns wouldn't decrease violent crime (or, even, the presence of the guns themselves):
Perhaps (and probably) not. One need only take a look at the levels of violent crime in populated nations that do not allow private citizens to carry guns to see that. However, that also wasn't really what I was suggesting; I was stipulating that the presence of gun-carrying, non-law enforcement personnel in a place such as a house of worship was unsettling and perhaps a sign of a growing concern regarding security in American society. A side note to that was the question of whether or not this security presence actually contributed to a greater amount of safety. Are there other measures we need to take?
Submitted by richardcranium (user info) at 2007-12-11 11:47:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
They should have shot him sooner.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2007-12-11 08:18:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm not arguing brother...there is no need, you prove my points time and time again.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-12-11 08:11:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Muddy, the biggest retard is joining in the argument to prove his massive retardation. I'm done. I found a really neat picture that I'll post.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2007-12-11 08:02:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Either you didn't get it or you're just not funny. Either way i don't see a win here.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2007-12-11 08:01:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i love watching retards argue about how they aren't retarded.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-12-11 07:57:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No, fruit basket, if you read the comment after what I quoted it was quite obvious. The plan here is to "paint" Bart by only partially quoting him, tool.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-11 07:57:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-11 06:55:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
All I'm saying (admittedly in a rather roundabout way) is that if you're so terrified of being attacked that you feel the need to arm yourself with a lethal weapon then you've got issues to deal with that probably won't really be solved by arming yourself.
--------------------
There is a difference between terrefied and prepared. I live in a very safe area. I wouldn't live in an unsafe area without protection.
There are plenty of place where you stand a good chance of being the victim of a violent crime. In my opinion the people who live in areas like that who aren't armed are careless, unless they are never out alone, never in parking garages at night, etc or basically don't have a life.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2007-12-11 07:53:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You knew he was joking in the same way that Dwight from The Office knows people were joking all along.
Retrospectively.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-12-11 07:47:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Phallic...what you didn't realize was that I *TOO* was joking, dipshit. Go play in the frog pond :)
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2007-12-11 07:46:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
*when they are young
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2007-12-11 07:46:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-12-11 07:23:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-12-11 01:35:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
We need to make it a crime to buy a gun illegally.
======================
This could, quite possibly, trump any one of electro's comments in the race for most retarded thing on uber. Thanks, Bart, for this gem.
_____
The fact you didn't realise that bart was being facetious means that yes, it was one of the dumbest comments on Uber. What you failed to realise was that you were being the fucking dumb one.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2007-12-11 07:45:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
the problem doesn't sit on the fact that we have guns or are allowed to have them it rests almost solely on the fact that we aren't trained properly about them.
i encourage people to hunt when they are you because going to a shooting range teaches you nothing about the finality of shooting a gun but if you are made to take responsibility for shooting an animal, cleaning it and making use of it then you learn a little something about the non reversal of your actions.
Aside from that almost all of these school/ church shootings or the gun violence that exists in the inner city happen because of other problems. Taking away the gun does not solve the fact that these kids get ostracized by their peers or the fact that Ray Ray gots to get his one way or another. Solving secondary problems (read: taking away guns) does nothing to solve the base problems it just shifts it for a little while and then 15 years from now we'll be talking about taking away knives so they stop going on stabbing sprees or the next big attention getter will be running down pedestrians with cars.
HOw many of these kids that do these sort of shooting sprees leave behind letters about how they just want to be noticed or how they will now be famous and then we fucking plaster the news about them for the 2 months and talk about how we feel sorry or how they were neglected and blah blah blah? It's so easy to show empathy for someone when you don't actually have to fucking deal with them because they are already dead. And we're just driving home how effectual these actions are by actually fucking making these kids famous.
You know what, as cold as it might sound...I don't really care about the people shot in the mall or at the churches. Sure the loss of human life blows but I don't know them in the fucking least so you know what..stop making it a goddamned national story. Have prayer vigils or what have you on a local level don't spread it around like everyone in the goddamned country should take a moment of silence. Spend the money that would go towards that broadcast on fixing the goddamned social systems that might have missed this kid in the first place and make a fucking difference before the fact not after.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-12-11 07:23:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-12-11 01:35:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
We need to make it a crime to buy a gun illegally.
======================
This could, quite possibly, trump any one of electro's comments in the race for most retarded thing on uber. Thanks, Bart, for this gem.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-11 06:55:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
All I'm saying (admittedly in a rather roundabout way) is that if you're so terrified of being attacked that you feel the need to arm yourself with a lethal weapon then you've got issues to deal with that probably won't really be solved by arming yourself.
You lot remind me of my dad you know, he's a paranoid sort. Utterly convinced that somewhere round the corner, out of sight, is a vast band of marauding barbarians intent on pillaging him, his home and his loved ones. Of course this has yet to occur. If he could I have no doubt he would buy a gun and fully ventilate the postman the very next day.
Anyway, most of you lot probably have nothing to worry about. This might not be true for some of you as I know for a fact that some of you live in LA which is, basically, a de-militerised zone where people actually shoot at one another during their morning commute and mexican gangs run people of the road to rape/kill them.
Everywhere else should be fine though.
Y'all need to keep your guns and leave your laws alone, but a few amnestys will probably save a few mailmen from jumpy old dudes.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-12-11 04:05:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Seriously, if you're trying to rob somebody, it's a lot easier to blow them into little bits - along with the money and jewelry you're trying to steal - using a grenade. Thank you, criminal mastermind.
----------
yeah, but if i have a grenade i could ask them to hand over the money or i'll lob the damn thing at them while they walk away. i'm embarrassed to have to spell this out so specifically.
we both have guns. rich guy is more afraid of dying than the guy who is trying to rob him
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-12-11 02:27:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
> plane
1. a flat or level surface.
2. Geometry. a surface generated by a straight line moving at a constant velocity with respect to a fixed point.
3. Fine Arts. an area of a two-dimensional surface having determinate extension and spatial direction or position: oblique plane; horizontal plane.
4. a level of dignity, character, existence, development, or the like: a high moral plane.
5. Aeronautics.
a. an airplane or a hydroplane: to take a plane to Dallas.
b. a thin, flat or curved, extended section of an airplane or a hydroplane, affording a supporting surface.
6. Architecture. a longitudinal section through the axis of a column.
-adjective
7. flat or level, as a surface.
8. of or pertaining to planes or plane figures.
-verb (used without object)
9. to glide or soar.
10. (of a boat) to rise partly out of the water when moving at high speed.
11. Informal. to fly or travel in an airplane: We'll drive to Detroit and plane to Los Angeles.
---
um... I choose 5a, for my definition of 'plane'.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-12-11 02:19:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-12-11 01:44:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"I think we seriously need to rethink the technological advances brought to mankind during the copper and bronze age. Had man never learned the ability to forge metal tools, none of this evil would be happening right now."
---
Well sure... but I kinda dig the computer. Planes are cool. There has been some significant GOOD accomplished.
Overall I think the technological advances we enjoy far outweigh the evil that "man" has done... however significant and disgusting it most certainly has been - and continues to be.
We >should< just figure out a way to fix it. Ignoring it seems to be working for most, though.
Wanna ride bikes?
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-12-11 01:44:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"but lets say guns are legal and everyone carries them, then wouldn't criminals (they don't obey the law remember?) then go look for grenades as to get an advantage? what then?"
THEN I WILL HIRE MR. T AS MY PERSONAL FUCKING BODY GUARD, FOOL!
Seriously, if you're trying to rob somebody, it's a lot easier to blow them into little bits - along with the money and jewelry you're trying to steal - using a grenade. Thank you, criminal mastermind.
I think we seriously need to rethink the technological advances brought to mankind during the copper and bronze age. Had man never learned the ability to forge metal tools, none of this evil would be happening right now.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-12-11 01:35:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/guns.htm
"Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005."
"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"
We need to make it a crime to buy a gun illegally. Then criminals will stop killing people and peace will rule the planet.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-12-11 01:16:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-11 00:15:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-10 05:49:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sadly, making it illegal for private citizens to carry would increase the number of mall shootings because criminals don't obey the rules in the first place. If the criminal knew a certain retail location allowed guns, he/she might choose to skip the place because criminals desire unarmed people.
-------------------------
That's a myth. Seriously.
-------------------------------------------
You really think so? The biggest mass murderers wrote about "wanting to be known to the world" before attacking a mall or a school. People like this crave attention and they aren't going to give up their lives unless they know they will succeed. I've heard that terrorists are the same way. A terrorist will not attack any target, just places that guarantee the maximum amount of people will perish: high rise buildings, refineries, hospitals, etc.
I will admit that the bulk of the "10100 homicides a year" are random, but in all probability if you are in a mall that bans concealed carry there is a higher risk of getting shot by a crazed teenager who just wants to have his name in print, no matter what.
I'll accept your statement if you give me a source though :)
--------------
but lets say guns are legal and everyone carries them, then wouldn't criminals (they don't obey the law remember?) then go look for grenades as to get an advantage? what then?
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2007-12-11 00:31:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-11 00:15:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I've heard that terrorists are the same way. A terrorist will not attack any target, just places that guarantee the maximum amount of people will perish: high rise buildings, refineries, hospitals, etc.
____
This is why I am terrified of the USA's education system. Members of the public seem to think that "Terrorist" identifies and delineates a belief system.
"Terrorists", as a whole (and that is a fucking huge whole), believe in one thing: The use of violence to secure certain motives. What distinguishes them from Governments is only the fact they don't have legally bestowed power to enact that violence.
The Tamil Tigers, the IRA, Al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiah et al. have NOTHING in common except the use of violence. And if all you can say about Terrorists is that they try to achieve their goals through violence, then you're basically saying nothing at all.
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-11 00:15:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-10 05:49:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sadly, making it illegal for private citizens to carry would increase the number of mall shootings because criminals don't obey the rules in the first place. If the criminal knew a certain retail location allowed guns, he/she might choose to skip the place because criminals desire unarmed people.
-------------------------
That's a myth. Seriously.
-------------------------------------------
You really think so? The biggest mass murderers wrote about "wanting to be known to the world" before attacking a mall or a school. People like this crave attention and they aren't going to give up their lives unless they know they will succeed. I've heard that terrorists are the same way. A terrorist will not attack any target, just places that guarantee the maximum amount of people will perish: high rise buildings, refineries, hospitals, etc.
I will admit that the bulk of the "10100 homicides a year" are random, but in all probability if you are in a mall that bans concealed carry there is a higher risk of getting shot by a crazed teenager who just wants to have his name in print, no matter what.
I'll accept your statement if you give me a source though :)
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2007-12-10 22:10:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think our bloodlust as americans stems from something a little more basic, to wit, genetics.
More criminals were shipped here than to Australia back when deportation was the favored method of dealing with criminals.
We just got more meaner badasses back in the day and now we are the biggest kid on the block.
Hell with that in mind it should only seem natural that we would have started an armed revolt against the crown.
"I will lay down my arms only after I have laid down my life."
~-me
Submitted by sadie73 (user info) at 2007-12-10 21:40:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Seems as though the guy in Arvada and the one in Colorado Springs were one and the same. There were 7000 people present at the New Life Church service, out of a membership of ~18,000.
The security guard who killed the guy just happened to be a woman. Did she save a few lives? Probably. Look up what the Founding Fathers had to say about the POPULACE bearing arms, and why. Nothing about National Guard (militia) or Police (militia). The arms were to rebel against the GOVERNMENT!! Can you people read the history books and the writings of intelligent men?
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-10 21:29:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
*It's a logical fallacy.
or
*It's logically fallacious, which makes me think of blowjobs.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-10 21:23:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The happiest country in the world, according to some English dude at the University of Leicester, is Denmark. Prostitution is legal there. Case closed. That's called logic. It's a logically fallacy, of course, but it's still logic.
To answer your question: I don't know. Richardson kinda looks like a john. Therefore he must be.
Submitted by Lambchop (user info) at 2007-12-10 20:58:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
"One does not bring arms into God's house"
- Becket
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-12-10 20:45:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-10 19:11:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
We need more prostitutes, obviously.
__________________
Indeed good sir. I believe that goes without saying, but it's good to air that out every now and again.
However, the shear volume of prostitutes and related services is less important than the quality of prostitute available to the every-man. If the only whore within (economic) reach for Joe Six-pack is some $5 syphilitic working girl with a nasty upper respiratory infection, well then that's hardly any real option at all isn't it? Quality must be an integral component in any whore-expansion policy.
By the way, do you know which candidate(s) are pro-whore? I'd bet Ron Paul is pro-whore. He seems like a friend to the working girls.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-12-10 20:44:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
heh.
I thought of the Pittsburgh Penguins.
I agree, though, it was awful.
Gloriously puntastic.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-10 20:43:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
'Course there are the Pittsburgh Penguins.
I'm going back to paying bills. I love paying bills.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-10 20:41:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I just got that, Berg. That was awful, but I'll admit that at first I thought the Pens were a Canadian sports team of a sort.
D_R's got me believing that my existence is insular and shit.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-10 20:24:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-12-10 20:16:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-10 19:11:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way, our penchant for violence is not caused by our love of guns; it results, ultimately, I believe, from the gross inequities inherent in our social structure.
_______________________
I've always atrributed our penchant for violence as a result of sexual repression (fuckin' Puritans!)
----
I don't disagree. If components of society are not getting laid, this is a gross inequity. We need more prostitutes, obviously. But fewer pimps, probably.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-12-10 20:21:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
GO PENS!
GO PENS!
GO PENS!
GO PENS!
GO PENS!
GO PENS!
GO PENS!
GO PENS!
GO PENS!
GO PENS!
(pen chant.)
(BUAHAHAHAHAa...>cough<)
(um...sorry, don't shoot me k?)
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-12-10 20:16:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-10 19:11:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way, our penchant for violence is not caused by our love of guns; it results, ultimately, I believe, from the gross inequities inherent in our social structure.
_______________________
I've always atrributed our penchant for violence as a result of sexual repression (fuckin' Puritans!)
You'll notice the more violent places on earth tend to be the ones with the stricter societal (and sometimes legal) rules regarding sexual behavior.
All that pent up energy has got to go somewhere. Why not put it into caving in your neighbor's skull? Or beheading an infidel, your choice.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-10 19:11:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way, our penchant for violence is not caused by our love of guns; it results, ultimately, I believe, from the gross inequities inherent in our social structure. Berate us for that, not because we own guns. Dumb-asses. Canadians own a lot of guns too.
+2 I said "penchant" and in my head I pronounced it the French way.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-10 19:00:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 sparking a silly debate.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-10 18:59:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Face it, you fuzzy little foreigners, we're badasses.
Before you knobs jump all over my ass (arse), that was a joke.
I own guns. I've never shot anyone. Not sure I'd want to live in Phoenix without 'em, even though I've never had to use 'em. Weird.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-12-10 17:22:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ChaosJester (user info) at 2007-12-10 16:28:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Plus, everyone knows that Kiwis would rather be throwing rocks at each other, anyway
----
well, statistics show that we would rather be abusing our kids ACUTALLY.
so there.
Submitted by ChaosJester (user info) at 2007-12-10 16:28:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-12-10 16:17:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
alls i know is, the last gun spree happened here nearly 18 years ago - when that happened guns were banned and it has never happened since.
*****************************************
Well, when your ENTIRE country consists of five in-bred cousins and about 30 frightened and abused sheep, it's not so hard to enforce the disarmament.
Plus, everyone knows that Kiwis would rather be throwing rocks at each other, anyway.
Submitted by triangle_man (user info) at 2007-12-10 16:27:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-12-10 16:09:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Nope - never been to Venice Beach - but I WILL be in LA on the 23rd before we head out on a Mexican Cruise.
Is that where you are at?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no longer
I lived there for about 20 years.
If you get a chance check Venice out, it's like an uber streetfair.
I once approached a cop car there to ask directions and he rolled the window up quickly as I got to the car. I had to yell my question to him.
Enjoy the cruise, don't drink any water that isn't bottled, that includes icecubes!
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-12-10 16:17:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't live in australia.
alls i know is, the last gun spree happened here nearly 18 years ago - when that happened guns were banned and it has never happened since.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-12-10 16:14:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-12-10 15:32:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I've always found that there is never much point in arguing with an american in regards to thier retarded gun laws - the literally don't know any different.
-----
The gun laws aren't retarded just because you don't agree with them. They serve their purposes as do the guns themselves. Perhaps not oddly at all, those that (by rumor only, I'm sure) founded your country would not be allowed to legally carry guns here. Felons, y'see, cannot carry guns legally in any State in the US. And it is worth noting that simply because it is illegal for them to do so does not stop any felon from carrying a gun if he/she wants to; all they have to do is decide that they will break the law. So you see that outlawing legal gun carrying only a) makes law-abiding citizens more likely to be victims of non-law-abiding citizens, and b) causes a number of otherwise law-abiding citizens to become criminals simply becasue they wish to be able to defend themselves if necessary.
Bart lives in a State that has basically the same gun laws as does Australia: Unless you're a cop on duty, you can't carry a loaded one at all, ever. Any gun-related crime in Chicago? Yes, there is. Any gun-related crime in Australia? Yes, there is. Outlawing guns doesn't solve the gun crime problem.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-12-10 16:09:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Nope - never been to Venice Beach - but I WILL be in LA on the 23rd before we head out on a Mexican Cruise.
Is that where you are at?
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2007-12-10 16:06:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I invite you all to look at the crime rate in Australia after the populace was disarmed.
Invariably it spiked across the board. Even if you do not personally own a gun you benefit from those of us that do. The criminals think "hey, they might have guns in there"
The second amendment is the reset button for the US constitution.
Our forefathers founded this country on armed rebellion aginst the british crown. They beleived that the populace must be armed in order to prevent tryanny. They were right.
That is why we have guns, so that if things get too bad we can have a good old fashioned rebellion.
It's been over a hundred years since the last one I figure we are due another pretty soon.
Submitted by triangle_man (user info) at 2007-12-10 15:57:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
good point Rob
Keeping a gun in the top drawer of my desk is like wearing a seatbelt and speeding too.
It does nothing to protect the people I might effect by my poor judgement.
But I never jumped out of a perfectly good aircraft.
Have you ever been to Venice Beach?
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-12-10 15:49:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Shooting guns is fucking thrilling - the testosterone and sheer glee that comes from squeezing off a full round is far too intoxicating to ever convince anyone who already has fired a gun that they shouldn't.
Sure they are dangerous - but so is smoking, drinking and doing drugs... and you can see the tremendous progress that has been made in all of those areas.
Throw in the notion of self-defense and point to all of the criminals that are armed and combine that with the (false) sense of security that legally owning a gun has and there will never truly be any sort of gun control in our current society.
Still, I am heartened to see the effort - however futile.
Submitted by triangle_man (user info) at 2007-12-10 15:43:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-12-10 15:32:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I've always found that there is never much point in arguing with an american in regards to thier retarded gun laws - the literally don't know any different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who arguing?
When you come to visit we can go shooting.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-12-10 15:32:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I've always found that there is never much point in arguing with an american in regards to thier retarded gun laws - the literally don't know any different.
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2007-12-10 14:10:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2007-12-10 13:57:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Now a days most states require some sort of proficency test in order to get a concealed carry permit. I belive that mine requires that you make a PERFECT score on a police tactical range.
There are also classes that run for at least several days before you are allowed to test.
The requirments vary from state to state but most are pretty strict.
======================
Gotta love New Hampshire. My friend got a concealed carry permit by driving to the town office and showing them his driver's license. 20 minutes later, a cop showed up at his house with the permit.
You can buy a pistol, rifle, or shotgun with no permit to purchase, you don't register your guns, and you don't need any licensing to own a gun. You need a permit if you want to carry a pistol or revolver hidden on your person, and that's about it.
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2007-12-10 13:57:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Now a days most states require some sort of proficency test in order to get a concealed carry permit. I belive that mine requires that you make a PERFECT score on a police tactical range.
There are also classes that run for at least several days before you are allowed to test.
The requirments vary from state to state but most are pretty strict.
Submitted by triangle_man (user info) at 2007-12-10 13:49:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
for Berty
http://www.cabelasgames.com/
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-10 13:23:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Actually I'd really like to go hunting and gun down animals. If only there was some way of doing it indoors.
Submitted by triangle_man (user info) at 2007-12-10 13:10:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
here's the deal.
The rules on most conceal and carry permits prohibit a law abiding armed citizen from taking a firearm to goverment offices, bars, airports, and believe it or not churches.
So if a church wants security, and in Colorado it's a good idea, they need to hire guards.
Unfortunately certain social behaviours practiced in our fair land in the last 40 years or so have lead to the possibility of suicidal gunmen. That coupled with population density gives us frequency.
On the other hand, I think it's good that murderous assholes get capped.
And
There is a difference between an organised militia (security, police, etc)and an armed citizen.
What you should do is familiarize yourself with some SWAT folks and go to a police style tactical weapons training class or at least a basic firearms safety course. Go to the range and get proficient with a handgun or shotgun.
You'll come away with a whole new understanding of what you and others are capable of.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-12-10 12:58:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-10 11:51:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Alright Skrappy, I read that and er, well, truth be told I'm a little freaked out.
...
---------
There are plenty of ways that scenario could have gone. All of them depend on the guy wanting to rob us in the first place. No robbery attempt, no self-defense necessary. The guy's choice. You can talk about just giving up your money, but if everyone thought as you do then all anyone would have to do is wait outside the ATM and demand your cash once you've gotten it from your account. Is that OK with you? Probably not. Not with me either - I do not agree to be a victim. Here's hoping that you're never in the same situation, and if you are, that you give the guy your money and it goes as well for you after that as it did for Bart. Because if it doesn't and you are not prepared to defend yourself, you may not be around to regret it.
We can argue this point all day. I am not trying to convince you that everyone should have a gun because I do not believe that. If you want to own one and can demonstrate safety, proficiency, and sanity while using it, I think you should not be restricted in your desire. If you don't want to own one, then you don't have to. Conversely, you will not convince me that I shouldn't have guns. My guns have proven useful (I eat what I kill when hunting, even squirrels), fun (teaching my neices to shoot a .22 rifle was more fun for me and them than Disney World), and in one and hopefully the last instance of my personal experience, having a gun and the wherewithall to use it saved two lives. Unfortunately it was at the cost of one life, but that life belonged to a person who actively made the choice to risk death to commit a crime.
Submitted by ChaosJester (user info) at 2007-12-10 12:42:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd comment, but Skrappie, Flack, Plus2 and, hell, even bart have done a better job explaining the situation as I perceive it to be than I could've.
Also, as berty has demonstrated, Brits just don't seem to get this aspect of life/survival. Not that I'm knocking U.K. culture, it's just that they tend to see things in a fundamentally different light than their less couth yank brethren.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-12-10 12:40:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
My understanding is that the church had increased its security because of the other church shooting only 65 miles away. Perhaps they do not mormally have armed guards but did at this time due to the heightened security.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-10 12:30:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I dunno; these guys can't make any kind of actual arrest (they can apprehend, but they can't charge a crime), so what business do they have being present to shoot and kill if necessary?
----------------
If you look at the original language inthe old testament the rule is "though shall not murder"
If that guard wasn't there, that nut would have killed more people.
When I heard about this on my way into work the news announcer made it out like the guard was there because there was a shooting earlier (haven't confirmed this).
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2007-12-10 12:27:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-12-10 10:04:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm with Brdn on that aspect of gun ownership too. I like hunting and target shooting.
Berty: http://www.ubersite.com/m/109238#2443131
===============
Life lessons from a 19-year-old: THE CONTENTS OF YOUR WALLET ARE NOT WORTH YOUR LIFE. YOUR PRIDE IS NOT WORTH YOUR GIRLFRIEND'S LIFE.
I was held up at knifepoint when I was sixteen. I am a trained martial artist. I kicked the guy in balls, kicked him again in the face, and broke all kinds of track and field records on my way to a subway station. Had he had a gun? I would have been maybe $50 dollars poorer, and alive with slight injuries to the dignity region.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-10 11:59:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
There was a typo there but I think I'll leave it as is, it's quite a humerous comment on the truly tripped out nature of the middle states.
Seriously, it's like the north and south of England. Only where we have quirky differences in dialect, different levels of head on pints and desperate poverty vs decadent luxury, you have differing levels of gunplay, sprawling metropoli/wilderness and the KKK/Black Panthers.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-10 11:51:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Alright Skrappy, I read that and er, well, truth be told I'm a little freaked out.
A guy pointed a gun at you and your lady, asked you for money. You then brandished your firearm at him which prompted a gun battle, which you won (yay!). I'm just surprised you didn't hedge your bet by using her as a human shield, at least she could have gotten a more memorable scar than what she suffered from the exploding brickwork.
What freaks me out though is your bloodlust. You didn't have to shoot that guy, heck you could have given him the money and then shot him in the back if you really wanted to rather than put your girlfriend at risk in a firefight. Do you see what I'm driving at here? You didn't have to enter into a gunfight but your automatic response, your initial thought of 'how do I deal with this problem' was to reach for your firearm. For a man that comes from a country of relativley sane folks, I must say I find that pretty warped.
Whatever. That's the culture you're from and it's not mine, nor any other foreigners place to pass judgement on that. I suppose that it might be worth mentioning the fact that at the end of the day you killed a man and escalated a situation which placed yourself and your lady friend in mortal danger, but I imagine you'll counter that with "but I slayed an evil-doer!" which will no doubt justify it to all of your kinsmen. I also do not doubt that the lady would have willingly lain down her life to allow you the oppurtunity to plug a cap in the ass of a local crackhead.
Did this thing with the armed security gaurds happen in middle america or middle America?
Submitted by TheDoctor (user info) at 2007-12-10 11:47:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Guns don't kill people, rappers do.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-12-10 10:04:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm with Brdn on that aspect of gun ownership too. I like hunting and target shooting.
Berty: http://www.ubersite.com/m/109238#2443131
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2007-12-10 09:52:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I like my guns. they are a source of entertainment. I do not own them to protect myself. I do not own them to coerce or threaten others. I own them becuase it is fun to go out and shoot every now and then; clay pigeons, targets, maybe a bunny or two. In other words I am a responsible gun owner and I would be upset if guns were illegal.
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2007-12-10 09:42:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah kinda like banning cars to prevent drunk driving
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-12-10 08:52:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://stuff.ubersite.com/9439509985983980/1/bart_coffee.jpg
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2007-12-10 07:46:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd additionally like to see the US invoke the Laws of 8 so that anyone can challenge for Presidency at any time.
I'd rather see Chuck Liddell running our nation.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-10 07:25:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2007-12-10 07:17:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i love the modern day logic of outlawing the tool instead of being responsible enough to learn how to use the tool in a safe manner and teaching our children to do the same.
i'm ok with outlawing guns in the US if we bring back swords and everyone has to carry them and you are legally allowed to settle disputes using them.
--------------
If nothing else it would give the delegates from the American embassy and the Iran foreign minister some common ground.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2007-12-10 07:17:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i love the modern day logic of outlawing the tool instead of being responsible enough to learn how to use the tool in a safe manner and teaching our children to do the same.
i'm ok with outlawing guns in the US if we bring back swords and everyone has to carry them and you are legally allowed to settle disputes using them.
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2007-12-10 07:15:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
How many people attend this megachurch? From what I understand most of these megachurches have congretations that number in the thousands. With that many people in one place you are going to have some conflict every now and then. With regular gatherings that large it was only a matter of time before one person in the group got pissed enough at another to get violent.
The megachurch foresaw this and provided for it. While I am not a christian I do applaud the megachurch for recognizing this and doing something to keep thier flock safe.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-10 06:48:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What was this situation then Skrappy? You may as well tell us (or link us to the post where you told us formerly) because it is a slow day that can only be sped up by your stories of gunfights in American suburbia.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-12-10 06:25:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I mixed up two news stories there, and I am therefore an idiot.
Berty, I carry a gun and were it not so I would not be alive today. I don't need one, but I'll carry one because there are people who think they do.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-10 06:13:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's still a myth skrappy. You don't need a gun.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-12-10 06:11:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This could be a lot worse.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-12-10 05:54:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This church has armed security guards for the same reasons that schools and office buildings and any other place that has them has them - to provide a measure of security for those people who are supposed to be there against those who would enter for nefarious purposes. In the case of the New Life Church, it worked. The person who entered the church killed two churchgoers but not three or twenty. The guards saved many lives by killing the guy, and that was their job. Well done, I say, almost perfectly done.
Had there been no security, it would have been another news story about a mass killing related to religion, and there would have been a plethera of posts about religion and guns-are-bad-see and like that. Fact is there are people in the world who should not have guns because they would use them to create a situation wherein their gun might be used. For example, the guy who walked into the church and started shooting. Then there are people who carry a gun legally, who are educated and trained in its function and use, and take it seriously, for example the guards. No matter their stance before the incident, every surviving member of that church congregation is pro-gun now, you bet. With good reason - responsible gun use saved some of their lives.
I have stated my pro-educated-and-trained-legal-gun-owner stance here before and I have related why I have that view. No need to rehash it here. My respect to the guards for being there. My derision on those who have over the years made our collective condition such that the guards were needed in the first place.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-10 05:49:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sadly, making it illegal for private citizens to carry would increase the number of mall shootings because criminals don't obey the rules in the first place. If the criminal knew a certain retail location allowed guns, he/she might choose to skip the place because criminals desire unarmed people.
-------------------------
That's a myth. Seriously.
Shit though, at the end of the day y'all tooled up to the max already so you may as well just push the dang boat out as far as you can. Have showdowns & gunfights like in the good old days. Allow people to properly fortify their homes with landmines, punji traps, razorwire and gaurd towers. Make the carrying of semi-automatic weapons mandotary for the 14 year olds to teach them that responsiblity is a life or death thing.
There'd be no more crime, 'cause everybody'd have a gun.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-12-10 05:42:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I swear that that was actually in a mission in SWAT 3.
Anyway, having armed gaurds is pretty saft but then I don't know about their actual situation at that particular church. Maybe they have real problems with armed assailants that require them to have security personnel equipped with the ability to kill/cripple a person at up to 50 yards.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; Christianity is not for pussies.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-12-10 04:34:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
87,397 American Gun Owners kept their heads firmly planted in the sand Yesterday.
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-12-10 04:04:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
87,397 American Gun Owners Killed Nobody Yesterday.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-12-10 03:32:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And are people mostly shot with
a. a random gun
b. their own gun
Curious that
----------
This is about homicides, not accidents. I am going to guess that most homicides are committed by a gun that is not owned by the person who was killed.
Outlawing guns would have little effect on the number of accidental shootings, but simultaneously the number of homicides would go through the roof.
Without a statistic, I'm going to guess that many homicides are related to drugs, much like homicides during Prohibition were related to bootlegging. If you want to lower the homicide rate, I would argue you should legalize drugs to remove the financial motivation to kill.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-12-10 02:32:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-12-10 06:49:01 GMT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quick question:
Which group of people commits more homicides:
a. Law abiding citizens
b. Criminals
With the follow up... if guns were made illegal, which group of people will stop carrying guns:
a. Law abiding citizens
b. Criminals
In answering your question, use previous examples of historical fact to support your view point. Examples you may consider to reference: Prohibition, war on drugs, underage drinking, drunk driving, smoking, prostitution, gambling, abstinence, abortion, suicide, terrorism.
---
And are people mostly shot with
a. a random gun
b. their own gun
Curious that
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-12-10 02:32:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-12-10 06:49:01 GMT (#)
Ranking: 0
Quick question:
Which group of people commits more homicides:
a. Law abiding citizens
b. Criminals
With the follow up... if guns were made illegal, which group of people will stop carrying guns:
a. Law abiding citizens
b. Criminals
In answering your question, use previous examples of historical fact to support your view point. Examples you may consider to reference: Prohibition, war on drugs, underage drinking, drunk driving, smoking, prostitution, gambling, abstinence, abortion, suicide, terrorism.
---
Did the rate of alcoholism drop during Prohibition?
Serious question
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-10 01:53:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bearing in mind, I never advocated the abolition of firearms; just taking a stance on their growing visible presence and their use.
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-10 01:50:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well SHIT, I think bart just won that "argument".
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-12-10 01:49:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Quick question:
Which group of people commits more homicides:
a. Law abiding citizens
b. Criminals
With the follow up... if guns were made illegal, which group of people will stop carrying guns:
a. Law abiding citizens
b. Criminals
In answering your question, use previous examples of historical fact to support your view point. Examples you may consider to reference: Prohibition, war on drugs, underage drinking, drunk driving, smoking, prostitution, gambling, abstinence, abortion, suicide, terrorism.
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-10 01:29:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
10,100 gun related homicides is refering to homicides, not instances of lawful carry people defending themselves. Do not skew facts.
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-10 01:26:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Plus -
I'm not scared of anyone carrying firearms, per se. I don't like the weapons themselves; they represent an opportunity, pure and simple, to save or take a life. That's a huge fucking opportunity, and a simple mistake in a circumstance like that can have devastating consequences. Personally speaking, I have faith in people pretty much above everything else; I think most people are decent and kind and give a shit about their fellow man. But we're fallible, and a mistake with a gun can result in a death, which is something I consider to be almost the height of gruesome.
Bart (HOLY SHIT BART COMMENTED) -
Chalk it up to whacked morality; that's cool, but like I just noted above, I have faith in people. Part of that is the sacredness of life; I just don't think I could hurt or kill someone, even if they're threatening me. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Part of that may be that I've never had a significant other in my life, and I was never really close to my folks, e.g., I've never been with someone that I felt I would harm someone else to protect. That Onion article is pretty dead-on, though, and I laughed. I know its foolish, and I recognize that its all pretty irreconcilable in actual society, but its my belief, and I'll hold onto it as tight as others hold theirs.
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-10 01:25:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
"You americans are a bunch of crazy mother fuckers so why not let y'all carry firearms legally. Yeah, that's smart, y'all can go on shooting eachother, nobody cares"
This is exactly the reason why you should be posting on a gun ownership forum and not here. If you think America has the highest rate of gun violence anywhere in the world, and each American is a walking arsenal of surplus military weapons, your opinions do not matter. Sure, totally ignore the mass murders going on in African villages and huge gang wars in Colombia. Why not just insult America, it's the cool thing to do!
At least American is TRYING to keep citizens from mowing each other down. We have more gun laws than I care to repeat dealing with transfers, banned weapon types, etc. Go ahead and compare that to the Middle East where you can buy a fully automatic AK-47 from a street vendor without filling out any paperwork.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-12-10 01:22:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Just keep in mind that 99.999% of the people that carry never end up shooting people."
in 2005, there were 10,100 gun related homicides in the US. sooooo, that means that the population of the US has jumped to at least around 1 billion people, all carrying firearms. that or theres one or two very fucking busy mass-murderers rocking around your country. and that doesnt include the accidental deaths.
stop rationalising it. youre wrong. face it. its just that its too late to change it now.
the main things is that you STOP HAVING THOSE CHEESY CANDLELIGHT VIGILS when one of your many crazy and well-armed people kills a few of its fellow peons.
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-12-10 01:08:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DeMoNiC (user info) at 2007-12-10 00:57:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You americans are a bunch of crazy mother fuckers so why not let y'all carry firearms legally. Yeah, that's smart, y'all can go on shooting eachother, nobody cares.
---
good thinking. Nice argument. Blow me.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-12-10 01:05:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Free thinking.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-12-10 00:59:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Reminds _me_
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-12-10 00:57:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
If you don't think someone should have the right to shoot a guy who comes into a room and starts killing people, your moral principles are way out of whack. I'm all about nonaggression, but that doesn't mean you sit around defenseless and hope the police save you from the bullets flying by your head.
Reminds of an onion story: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39182
The fact that there are armed guards in a church when one of the church's fundamental beliefs is supposedly "thou shalt not kill" is the least of the hypocrisies that were going on in that church. The buildings, statues, and ceremonies are all worships of a false idol, the preacher lies in every word he says, and it's only be a matter of time before the embezzlement / child molestation / gay love affair is brought to light. The blind faith followers will carry signs saying "He's innocent! Liberal conspiracy!" and the world will keep spinning round and round.
Submitted by DeMoNiC (user info) at 2007-12-10 00:57:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You americans are a bunch of crazy mother fuckers so why not let y'all carry firearms legally. Yeah, that's smart, y'all can go on shooting eachother, nobody cares.
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-10 00:51:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, cities have tried various methods to disarm people and every time it just makes things worse. There was a program where people could bring in guns and get cash for it, no questions asked. The problem with that program was that it was an easy way for criminals to get rid of evidence and make a little bit of money. Some people turned in non-functioning guns. The program should have been called "re-arm the people" since criminals could use the money to buy new, functioning guns.
You stated that you would rather run than fight back, but most people would not agree with that tactic at all. A Keltec P3AT is smaller and thinner than a wallet, and people would rather risk being arrested for carrying illegally than become a statistic in a mall shooting.
Just keep in mind that 99.999% of the people that carry never end up shooting people. Every carry gun I've looked at is absolutely worn. All the finish is gone, scratches everywhere, and the magazine releases worn to a nub. Yet there is absolutely no residual powder or smells to indicate that it was recently fired.
A martial artist told me a story of how he stopped a roadway brawl. He said that his training gave him the courage to step in and calmly talk the people into leaving. When asked why he didn't just knock them both out, he said that "you train so that you don't need it". This is the opinion of most people that carry (legally): you carry the gun so that you don't have to use it, but if god forbid some dude goes crazy in a mall you won't get shot in the back fleeing for a clothing rack.
I hope this makes you feel a little bit safer. Remember, you should be afraid of the wackos and not Jane Smith carrying a revolver around Wal-Mart to defend her kids.
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-12-10 00:49:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
well, that's misconstrued thinking. Arms are there, whether or not people have a right to bear them. Generally people who own guns are very responsible with them. Somebody who wants to kill is going to figure out a way to do it with or without them.
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-10 00:19:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-10 00:03:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
"The thing that really scares me is these fellas (and gals) cropping up in places of worship, and other areas"
People that own the licence carry their guns EVERYWHERE. Around the house, around the mall, and sometimes even at weddings. It is a way of life.
You made the point that you don't mind less lethal devices such as tasers. The problem is that if a citizen zapped another with a taser, he would be given the same penalty as if he had shot the person with a gun. Thus, picking a "less lethal" option will not only bring criminal charges but also the change that the perp will get up and try to kill you.
Police are required to use the tasers because their training insists that they use the least lethal means possible to stop a threat. Citizens are not bound by these rules.
===
I fully accept the gun-bearing life decision. It's not going away any time soon, and I try to live by the precept that unless we accept one another (within certain reasonable standards), we'll never make it.
One small point: while I only casually mentioned the tasing at the university library, I did so in comparison to a shooting, not to imply that I don't mind such measures. I personally find injuring a person or animal at any time horrible (if sometimes necessary). I'm not foolish enough to think that there aren't degrees to this issue; is killing someone, even if in defense of another, the same as disabling them? Nope. Nor am I naive enough to claim that in no circumstance is it "acceptable" to harm someone else. It's more of a personal choice that I make, which I try not to force upon others; I'd never hurt another person, even if they were trying to hurt me. I'd rather just run.
Nevertheless, I grasp your larger point; folks with guns are everywhere, not only in uniforms and squad cars. That scares me, too. I suppose it took a private security guard, for a place of worship, shooting and killing a dangerous person to bring it fully to light for me.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-12-10 00:06:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Sadly, making it illegal for private citizens to carry would increase the number of mall shootings because criminals don't obey the rules in the first place."
this from the country with the - i think the - highest rate of gun crime in the world. yeah that deterrent sure is working. such a weak argument. just accept the fact that your nation was founded by crazy people and it hasnt imporoved since and leave it at that. we dont care if you all shoot each other, just stop holding those cheesy candlelight vigils.
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-10 00:03:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
"The thing that really scares me is these fellas (and gals) cropping up in places of worship, and other areas"
People that own the licence carry their guns EVERYWHERE. Around the house, around the mall, and sometimes even at weddings. It is a way of life.
You made the point that you don't mind less lethal devices such as tasers. The problem is that if a citizen zapped another with a taser, he would be given the same penalty as if he had shot the person with a gun. Thus, picking a "less lethal" option will not only bring criminal charges but also the change that the perp will get up and try to kill you.
Police are required to use the tasers because their training insists that they use the least lethal means possible to stop a threat. Citizens are not bound by these rules.
Submitted by Leonore (user info) at 2007-12-09 23:57:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Good point, sir. While I don't agree with the whole firearms deal (as I've previously stated), I can't argue your point about criminal behavior.
The thing that really scares me is these fellas (and gals) cropping up in places of worship, and other areas. That's sorta creepy.
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2007-12-09 23:53:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"they may be there for purposes other than protecting the public"
You are correct. Private citizens carry guns to protect themselves and not the public.
Sadly, making it illegal for private citizens to carry would increase the number of mall shootings because criminals don't obey the rules in the first place. If the criminal knew a certain retail location allowed guns, he/she might choose to skip the place because criminals desire unarmed people.
A better site for discussing this would be www.thehighroad.org, the largest forum for lawful gun owners.
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-12-09 23:52:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And Jesus said unto Peter," Check it, dawg. IF some crazy dude about 2000 years from now goes into the house of our lord and starts shooting up the place, make sure you at least have armed security guards there to ice his crazy ass."
And Peter said," Aight. Don't worry, JC, I gots dis shit on lockdown."
So sayeth the lord. amen.