EPTArizona is Insane - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HeadhunteR
Argentina1258 Posts
| ||
|
GodIsNotHere
Canada395 Posts
On July 16 2010 08:25 keV. wrote: Oh boy. So she's not only gun crazy but she's conspiracy nut job as well? | ||
|
FuDDx
United States5014 Posts
The main thing I am mad about is the lack of an Arizona lan!!!! | ||
|
Loanshark
China3094 Posts
| ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On July 16 2010 08:29 Loanshark wrote: That's completely fucking bullshit. This just makes the teachers and staff present at any school a "priority target". Kill them first, add to your weapons cache, then kill some students. Isn't that better than having a bunch of lamb ready for the slaughter? Better a few teachers go down rather than a lot of unarmed students. Besides with concealed weapons the teachers might have creative hiding spots for those weapons. I'd be worried more about deranged and psycho teachers killing co-workers and students rather than someone else trying to take out teachers for their guns. | ||
|
GodIsNotHere
Canada395 Posts
On July 16 2010 08:29 Loanshark wrote: That's completely fucking bullshit. This just makes the teachers and staff present at any school a "priority target". Kill them first, add to your weapons cache, then kill some students. This is also a good point what happens if a crazy person with only a knife goes into a school? All he needs to do it attack one of the teachers and then hes got a gun.... GREAT! Now the situation just got even worse an like you said with a little effort he'd have a handful of guns... YEAH! this idea doesn't have an huge flaws at all! /EndSarcasm  | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
I'm fairly sure registered gun owners rarely ever commit crimes. They rarely deter crimes, either, considering 500,000 guns are stolen every year (data from 1980-1990's where gun crime was the highest). Edit: Oil producing nations are all our enemies? Oh Lord, watching these people talk is painful. I'd have sex with her, though. | ||
|
XsebT
Denmark2980 Posts
I'm probably just hallucinating again. It's pretty freaky. | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
On July 16 2010 08:19 SilverLeagueElite wrote: I'm interested in seeing a study of what percentage of gun related violence are caused by registered gun owners. http://www.rmgo.org/images/GunFacts4-2-Press.pdf All sourced from official studies, mostly Federal sources. Gun control is nonsense. The fact that people believe that the freedom to bear arms will result in war in the streets is a testament to how stupid we have become. Hell, in Switzerland every service-age male has an assault rifle in the home, and they have notoriously low (practically nonexistent) violent crime rates. I also think it is hilarious that Arizona passes laws that are already on Federal books and they're "openly racist". | ||
|
MuffinDude
United States3837 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On July 16 2010 08:39 MuffinDude wrote: In bars??? Lol, this will lead to drunken shooting in bars. If they are forcing bars to allow it, that is pretty lol. I can't be bothered checking. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On July 16 2010 08:35 Romantic wrote: Edit: Oil producing nations are all our enemies? Oh Lord, watching these people talk is painful. We all know those Canadians are dying for revenge against the USA. We can only belittle them so much before they can't take it anymore. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On July 16 2010 08:41 Adila wrote: We all know those Canadians are dying for revenge against the USA. We can only belittle them so much before they can't take it anymore. Hey man, if I were you I'd worry about the Venezuelan Communist Super-Soldiers coming across the ocean. Iraq might also nuke us!!!! Oh wait, we're occupying them ^.^. We snuffed out that problem quick. Angola is looking mighty threatening. Get ready to fight for freedom! | ||
|
billyX333
United States1360 Posts
has to be a joke | ||
|
Belegorm
United States330 Posts
Anyway, Second Amendment says people can carry arms (and actually carry them, not be forced to leave them locked up in their closets at home). I'm sure we can all agree the people behind the Constitution had their heads on straight, and they clearly intended us to be able to carry arms. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
What is not funny, however, is that the states pay hundreds of millions of dollars every year in health care costs, education and other social services for illegal immigrants and the feds basically tie the hands of anyone trying to enforce immigration laws. If you point out the stupidity of this, you get called a racist. God knows we can't have the arrogance to decide who the hell is in the country. Meanwhile, Mexico, who is doing everything they can do to dump people they are unwilling and unable to care for, gets a free pass to accuse the U.S. of racism. | ||
|
MrMotionPicture
United States4327 Posts
| ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On July 16 2010 08:59 Jerubaal wrote: What is not funny, however, is that the states pay hundreds of millions of dollars every year in health care costs, education and other social services for illegal immigrants and the feds basically tie the hands of anyone trying to enforce immigration laws. There are legitimate complaints to be found in the Tea Party movement(s), but it's lost on their choice of words, imagery, and clumsiness with facts. What's also not funny is that taxpayers pay (read: "borrow") hundreds of billions of dollars every year in illegal war spending and a realpolitik foreign agenda. There's more than enough in there to cover welfare spending and start balancing the budget. But the rule of law shall prevail. "One nation, indivisible." | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 16 2010 08:02 mmp wrote:And if that didn't make you scratch your head, Arizona lawmakers want to legalize gun possession in bars, on university campuses, and in public schools. Ignoring the rest of the argument cause I'm not particularly interested in liberal/conservative kneejerk "arguments", but: What, precisely, is wrong with this? I want to hear the arguments. [edit] "illegal war" is an oxymoron. Wars are by definition outside the scope of laws. | ||
|
Bey
United States78 Posts
I'm really annoyed with the first several posts here. There's this notion that says that more guns = more violence and this seems to be taken by many people as a trivial and self-evident truth. So then, from that belief, it's natural to conclude that people who want fewer restrictions on guns want more violence or at the very least find more violence an acceptable tradeoff for the right to have more guns. So first, we should acknowledge that on the violence issue, more or less everybody is on the same side: we want less. All of the sarcastic posts and the "omg wtf is America coming to" seem to forget or ignore this. The debate is about what is the best way to achieve less violence, and this is particularly true with the article linked by the OP which specifically calls this out as a primary goal. Second I'm going to argue that this claim isn't even trivial to make. Let's acknowledge that making something illegal does not mean people won't do it. There are violators of exactly 100% of every law that's ever been or ever will be written. Writing on paper that you can't bring a gun somewhere doesn't actually prevent someone from bringing a gun there (See: Columbine, VA Tech, etc.). As far as the law is concerned, it's a person's reaction to its existence which impacts whether they will or will not carry out an illegal act. But it's not the law's existence itself. (See: every crime ever). Murdering, harming, assaulting, robbing, etc., someone is already illegal (so, doing these things with a gun is already covered). Recreational use of a gun in a public place is also already illegal. Gun *use* is already heavily restricted, and rightly so. But the laws in question here are not about use, they are about possession. The people who have made up their minds to attack someone have already made up their minds to break a law about gun use, not about possession. While it's very easy to show that the restricted types of gun use are dangerous/harmful/etc., it's not quite as straightforward for possession for a couple of reasons. Take one example (because I'm at work and need to do real things soon), many states allow gun use for self-defense. If you are being attacked by someone, you are allowed to defend yourself with a weapon. Perhaps this is something that people do not support, but arguing against it would also be far from trivial (and I'm not sure you'd have much support). But note that restrictions on possession are also restrictions on your ability to defend yourself in certain locations. Also note that many of these locations have become targets of recent gun violence (school shootings, mall shootings, work place shootings, etc.). I won't be so presumptuous to argue a CAUSAL relationship here because the data aren't sufficient to do that (in particular, there are certainly many other emotional reasons a person might choose to attack a school or workplace). But it's worth pointing out that a restriction on possession in these places is a restriction on self-defense in these places. Can you still argue that the restriction is worth it? Absolutely, but stop treating it like it's obvious and that people who contend on this point are all crazy gun nuts who just want to shoot shit. For instance, you could argue that people carrying weapons in these places increases the risk of an accidental shooting. I'd buy that. Argue that it makes people uncomfortable or feel unsafe, I'd be all ears. But the fact of the matter is, it's pretty easy to point out that there are a lot of dead people today (va tech, columbine, NIU, etc.) of which a subset would be alive if they were armed (again, no guarantees about who or how many, but it seems likely that at least some would have survived). Would more *other* people be dead if we allowed guns in those places? Would we all be living in fear anyway? I don't know. Personally, I suspect the answer is yes to both those questions actually. I'm not sure that I support arming people in those settings at all. Maybe the deaths of those people are worth it. But I respect the notion enough to discuss it and give it some thought, and I respect those people enough not to trivially dismiss an idea that could have resulted in them not being murdered. This is a pretty mature forum as far as gaming communities go, and I really expected more people would do the same. | ||
| ||
