Line numbers... in 2002
-
@Ronald said:
@lucas said:
OK, then let's let kids take guns to school. After all, if everyone has a gun, Columbine couldn't possibly happen again.Has crime rates got anything to do with whether the police are armed or not? Correlation != Causation.
Read this article. It mentions a lot of incidents where simple citizens carrying guns prevented massacres.
People in gun-free zones are sitting ducks.
Here is the tldr for the article:
@Article linked above said:"We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year," adds Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles.
Or, fuck, let's allow concealed carry on aeroplanes! And sell booze! What could go wrong!
-
@PJH said:
@boomzilla said:
They missed with the Taser. There's a video on the BBC from one of the officers' Tasercams, and you can see that one of the darts got stuck in her clothes and wasn't making contact. The other officer should've used his Taser as well before opening fire. The woman was also unsteady on her feet, and clearly having a psychiatric attack. Plod #1 should've distracted her from the front while plod #2 tackles her from the back. I guess in America, summary executions are used for the mentally ill though?But apparently not a woman who hands out free food samples at Costco:
LOLWUT?Two deputies went to the store to check a report of a disorderly person and used a Taser to try to subdue the woman, Loudoun Sheriff Michael Chapman said. But the woman kept advancing, so one of the deputies fired at her and killed her, the sheriff said.
Scott continued to advance, officials said, and a deputy opened fire, striking and killing her. A second deputy was hit by a bullet in the leg and is recovering.
Friendly fire? In a supermarket? From 'experienced' officers?
[...]
Chapman said the two deputies involved in the incident, who have not been identified, were experienced. Both have been placed on paid administrative leave, a routine step in such instances.
“These deputies are not rookies,” he said. “Both have several years on the job, and both are fully certified and have maintained all their training.”
-
@drurowin said:
Or, fuck, let's allow concealed carry on aeroplanes! And sell booze! What could go wrong!
If you're not drinking booze on planes you're either not paying enough for a ticket or flying with the wrong airline.
-
@drurowin said:
After all, if everyone has a gun, Columbine couldn't possibly happen again.
I know you're being facetious here, but could you imagine if they'd attempted it with everyone else in the school armed? They wouldn't have lasted two seconds.
-
@drurowin said:
They missed with the Taser. There's a video on the BBC from one of the officers' Tasercams, and you can see that one of the darts got stuck in her clothes and wasn't making contact. The other officer should've used his Taser as well before opening fire. The woman was also unsteady on her feet, and clearly having a psychiatric attack. Plod #1 should've distracted her from the front while plod #2 tackles her from the back. I guess in America, summary executions are used for the mentally ill though?
These guys are putting themselves on the line against crazy, dangerous people. I think trying the taser first was the right way to go. But I think that at some point, when someone is coming at you with a knife, you need to have that dealt with. And the first thing is to make sure you're not in range of the knife. It is surely simple to sit in the comfort of your office chair diagnosing why a taser wouldn't work, and imagine that all that is necessary is just one more try. Surely, the crazy person with the knife will wait patiently while you do this.
Tackling someone who is brandishing a knife sounds like a good way to get hurt. That's a really stupid idea. Do you hate cops or something?
-
@boomzilla said:
Surely, the crazy person with the knife will wait patiently while you do this.
Are you saying life isn't turn-based?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@lucas said:
I am sure it doesn't matter whether a police officer is armed or not if he isn't there while a attempted murder (that ends up as an actual murder) is taking place.
Obviously armed police can't stop crimes where they aren't present (which is why you need armed citizens, too). But they can stop crimes they are present for, which is a lot of them. Do you really think it's preferable to have police standing around while some woman is raped or murdered just so you can say "Hey, our police don't even carry guns!" And, yeah, your police have batons and mace, but those are virtually useless against someone with a machete or a gun (which does happen in the UK, your civil-rights-violating laws notwithstanding).
The goal isn't to have the police on equal footing with the criminals because you find it "more sporting"; it's to give the police (and law-abiding citizens) every reasonable advantage over the criminals.
That said, I am bothered by some of the guns police carry. I don't care if a beat cop has a semi-auto handgun, but when I see police on the subway or at the airport carrying submachine guns, that's kind of fucked. Outside of swat teams, I don't think police should have anything more powerful than a handgun or shotgun.
The thing is we have armed police to deal with armed criminals. However because guns aren't readily available (this increases the price of getting hold of one, since they are illegal) most officers have batons, pepper spray and knife-proof jacket.Getting hold of something like a machete is pretty difficult but then we are talking about extremely violent criminals and we do have armed police force for those situations. Also in England there is a big difference between Metropolitan police and local police.
In Spain the local police I don't believe have guns, the para-military force (Guardia Civil) does have side-arms.
I think the debate about guns is more a cultural one and I don't believe there is a 100% correct answer. I certainly never felt like I have ever needed one and I have had 4 attempted muggings (one of them was pretty hilarious actually) and I had been beaten about a few times (I used to go out to a local club where the police were stationed outside on a Friday evening, I was working part-time in a factory and most of the people that went there wasn't very bright).
-
@joe.edwards said:
I know you're being facetious here, but could you imagine if they'd attempted it with everyone else in the school armed? They wouldn't have lasted two seconds.
Neither would all the bystanders caught in the crossfire.
-
I have used line numbers in 2002. Not in VB6 though; I used it in a GWBASIC program. And actually, it was a GWBASIC program to convert an unnumbered files with named labels into a BASIC program that has line numbers.
-
Re: Arguments for and against gun control in the US and Europe
@zzo38 said:
C'mon man, this thread is about gun control, not line numbers.I have used line numbers in 2002. Not in VB6 though; I used it in a GWBASIC program. And actually, it was a GWBASIC program to convert an unnumbered files with named labels into a BASIC program that has line numbers.
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
C'mon man, this thread is about gun control, not line numbers.
If you outlaw line numbers, only outlaws will use computed gotos.
-
@drurowin said:
OK, then let's let kids take guns to school.
A lot of people had rifles in their vehicles at my school. It was probably illegal but nobody gave a shit because they weren't retarded Euro-pussies.
@drurowin said:
Or, fuck, let's allow concealed carry on aeroplanes!
I don't know what the fuck an "aeroplane" is, but if it's anything like an "airplane", they should. They already allow "sky marshals" to carry guns on planes.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@drurowin said:
After all, if everyone has a gun, Columbine couldn't possibly happen again.
I know you're being facetious here, but could you imagine if they'd attempted it with everyone else in the school armed? They wouldn't have lasted two seconds.This reasoning will not work on an anti-gun psycho. They want every single person disarmed because, clearly, the criminals will also comply with these requirements. In fact, they should just make crime illegal, then there wouldn't be any more crime!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
@drurowin said:
After all, if everyone has a gun, Columbine couldn't possibly happen again.
I know you're being facetious here, but could you imagine if they'd attempted it with everyone else in the school armed? They wouldn't have lasted two seconds.This reasoning will not work on an anti-gun psycho. They want every single person disarmed because, clearly, the criminals will also comply with these requirements. In fact, they should just make crime illegal, then there wouldn't be any more crime!
So the three sides of the argument are:
- Gun control doesn't work. I know this because criminals break laws.
- Gun control works and doesn't even need enforcement. I know this because criminals never break laws.
- JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY
-
@lucas said:
Getting hold of something like a machete is pretty difficult...
Man, what the fuck is wrong with your fucking country? Do they let you guys have string? Because you might choke someone with string.
@lucas said:
...and we do have armed police force for those situations.
And it takes them even longer to show up. So if you are fortunate enough to have a police officer show up on the scene of a crime-in-progress, the chance they can do anything about it is pretty limited. They might be able to subdue the person if they are physically larger and stronger (albeit with increased chances of being injured)--so, great, you've reverted to a stone age hierarchy of power where the biggest dominate everyone else. (Except your pathetic country probably doesn't let you have stones, either..)
@lucas said:
I certainly never felt like I have ever needed one and I have had 4 attempted muggings...
Wow, what the shit? Do you like getting mugged? If that was me it would read "I had four attempted muggings. All four ended up in the morgue." Of course, those muggers likely went on to mug other people, or commit more heinous crimes like rape or murder. If you had put them down, then their criminal behavior would have ended there.
@lucas said:
...and I had been beaten about a few times...
I have never been in a fist fight in my life. I've been hit by women a few times in my life (just shoved them off of me or pinned them until they calmed the fuck down). I've never been mugged, robbed or the victim of any crime I can think of. I don't even lock my car (I don't think anyone steals from cars here.. too afraid of being shot.) Anyway, being a victim sucks. I don't know how you could tolerate living in a society that let shit like that happen and which gave you no options for fighting back.
-
@Ben L. said:
So the three sides of the argument are:
- Gun control doesn't work. I know this because criminals break laws.
- Gun control works and doesn't even need enforcement. I know this because criminals never break laws.
- JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY
I don't understand how you are able to completely fabricate shit like this from thin air. Maybe Blakey's right and it's your superpower.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@joe.edwards said:
I know you're being facetious here, but could you imagine if they'd attempted it with everyone else in the school armed? They wouldn't have lasted two seconds.
Neither would all the bystanders caught in the crossfire.
There would still have been fewer casualties even with some collateral damage. 14 dead, 20-something wounded.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@joe.edwards said:
I know you're being facetious here, but could you imagine if they'd attempted it with everyone else in the school armed? They wouldn't have lasted two seconds.
Neither would all the bystanders caught in the crossfire.
When people say shit like this, it really shows me how little they understand guns. As if a hundred people would just start spraying bullets in every direction--at everyone except the actual criminals--instead of one or two people stopping them in their tracks. And the thing is, there's no fucking excuse for this. There have been hundreds of cases where some madman has tried to go on a shooting spree in a public place with several armed citizens who put him down with no collateral damage. It shows that you don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.
-
It's about time this forum tackled gun control. We should have this tricky matter sewn up in 5 pages or so. After that we can move on to Global Warming.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Lorne Kates said:
@joe.edwards said:
I know you're being facetious here, but could you imagine if they'd attempted it with everyone else in the school armed? They wouldn't have lasted two seconds.
Neither would all the bystanders caught in the crossfire.
There would still have been fewer casualties even with some collateral damage. 14 dead, 20-something wounded.
REDACTED1 Okay, we have several possibilities to increase school security. Everything is on the table. REDACTED2, you go first.
REDACTED2 I THINK GUNS SHOULD BE PRETTIER SO THEY AREN'T AS SCARY
REDACTED3 NO WAY IF GUNS ARE PRETTY THEY'LL KILL MORE PEOPLE GUNS HAVE TO LOOK MACHO
REDACTED4 YOUR BOTH RETARDS GUNS SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT SO THE BAD GUYS CAN'T FIND THE TRIGGER SO THEY WON'T SHOOT PEOPLE
REDACTED1 Does anyone have any suggestions NOT RELATED TO THE APPEARANCE OF GUNS?
REDACTED2 GUNS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO SHOOT IN A SCHOOL
REDACTED3 NO THAT INFRINGES ON MY FREEDOMS OF... uh... RELIGION
REDACTED4 YOUR FREEDOM OF RELIGION INFRINGES ON MY FREEDOM OF RELIGION
REDACTED1 takes gun, shoots self
-
@boomzilla said:
@drurowin said:
She was weaving back and forth and didn't have a good grip on the knife. If I had been there, and the loonies wouldn't have had their guns out, I would have tackled her personally. She was not acting like a danger. She was acting like someone having a psychiatric episode, or possibly even a stroke based on how unsteady on her feet she was. She needed medical attention, not 8 bullets in her.They missed with the Taser. There's a video on the BBC from one of the officers' Tasercams, and you can see that one of the darts got stuck in her clothes and wasn't making contact. The other officer should've used his Taser as well before opening fire. The woman was also unsteady on her feet, and clearly having a psychiatric attack. Plod #1 should've distracted her from the front while plod #2 tackles her from the back. I guess in America, summary executions are used for the mentally ill though?
These guys are putting themselves on the line against crazy, dangerous people. I think trying the taser first was the right way to go. But I think that at some point, when someone is coming at you with a knife, you need to have that dealt with. And the first thing is to make sure you're not in range of the knife. It is surely simple to sit in the comfort of your office chair diagnosing why a taser wouldn't work, and imagine that all that is necessary is just one more try. Surely, the crazy person with the knife will wait patiently while you do this.
Tackling someone who is brandishing a knife sounds like a good way to get hurt. That's a really stupid idea. Do you hate cops or something?
-
@nosliwmas said:
It's about time this forum tackled gun control. We should have this tricky matter sewn up in 5 pages or so. After that we can move on to Global Warming.
And then Gay Marriage: Are homosexual men just sick, dog-fucking perverts who rape children while reading passages from the Bible backwards? Or are they actually bad?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
And then Gay Marriage: Are homosexual men just sick, dog-fucking perverts who rape children while reading passages from the Bible backwards?
You're only one shy of that, right?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@nosliwmas said:
And next them fags'll want guns too.It's about time this forum tackled gun control. We should have this tricky matter sewn up in 5 pages or so. After that we can move on to Global Warming.
And then Gay Marriage: Are homosexual men just sick, dog-fucking perverts who rape children while reading passages from the Bible backwards? Or are they actually bad?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
And then Gay Marriage: Are homosexual men just sick, dog-fucking perverts who rape children while reading passages from the Bible backwards? Or are they actually bad?
Actually, I suspect that's one of the few normally divisive issues that everyone here wouldn't really give a fuck about.
-
@drurowin said:
If I had been there, and the loonies wouldn't have had their guns out, I would have tackled her personally.
True, but you always wear a thick, impenetrable fur suit in public, so there would have been no danger. These cops were sane and, unfortunately, very vulnerable to knives.
You entire post is fucking retarded on some many levels. So basically it's okay if that crazy bitch had stabbed an officer while he tried to subdue her, because the first duty of police is to risk their lives even more than usual? You're a fucking computer programmer--the biggest risk you take is that the bedsores from your fur suit might get infected. I would love to see you tell a police officer's children why it was necessary for him to die so that the mentally-disturbed bitch didn't get hurt.
A person brandishing a knife is a danger, whether they're sane or not. Once they've done that, they've really forfeited the expectation to survive the encounter, whether it was a conscious decision or not. The fact that she was insane is probably even worse, because it means she'll probably never get better. At least a criminal might choose to reform (although it hardly ever happens) but a knife-wielding loony is probably going to do the same thing again and again. I'm not saying the police should just shoot crazy people for fun, but if they are a danger then it's the right thing to do. I don't see you getting outraged when they put down rabid dogs.
And of course, it's very easy for you to anal-yze this video after the fact, when sitting in the safety of your dingy flat decorated in self-portraits of your fursona; drinking away your woes with cheap booze. You're not there, you're not in any danger, so of course it seems easy for you to say "Oh, hey, this is what they should have done." Thankfully, in the sane parts of the world, armchair police officers like yourself are the subject of ridicule and scorn for their pathetic and sickening displays of cowardice.
-
@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@nosliwmas said:
And next them fags'll want guns too.It's about time this forum tackled gun control. We should have this tricky matter sewn up in 5 pages or so. After that we can move on to Global Warming.
And then Gay Marriage: Are homosexual men just sick, dog-fucking perverts who rape children while reading passages from the Bible backwards? Or are they actually bad?
They'll probably use them to force men whose heterosexuality is above suspicion (like yours truly) to perform vile acts of fellatio on them, turning said men into homosexuals who, on every full moon, must go out and hunt down disco-and-anal-sex parties.
-
@nosliwmas said:
@morbiuswilters said:
And then Gay Marriage: Are homosexual men just sick, dog-fucking perverts who rape children while reading passages from the Bible backwards? Or are they actually bad?
Actually, I suspect that's one of the few normally divisive issues that everyone here wouldn't really give a fuck about.
Fine, how about AIDS: Invented by the CIA to bring down Communism at its faggy source, or God's punishment for sodomy?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@nosliwmas said:
@morbiuswilters said:
And then Gay Marriage: Are homosexual men just sick, dog-fucking perverts who rape children while reading passages from the Bible backwards? Or are they actually bad?
Actually, I suspect that's one of the few normally divisive issues that everyone here wouldn't really give a fuck about.
Fine, how about AIDS: Invented by the CIA to bring down Communism at its faggy source, or God's punishment for sodomy?
Yep, that'll do it. It'll lead to a seven page discussion on whether Nazis were socialists and how America saved Europe.
-
I forgot which post I'm replying to because I'm too lazy to re-read and find it to click quote.
Anyway, I forget the exact numbers, but there's something like 350 million firearms in the United States, and around 11,000 firearms violations per year. That's actually a very low percentage. You're way more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than in a shooting. I'd much rather go without alcohol than without firearms. It's safer.
-
@nosliwmas said:
...Nazis were socialists...
Arguably they were closer to being Communists than socialists, but I throw them all in the same slop bucket of "statist assholes".
@nosliwmas said:
...how America saved Europe.
looks at Europe No fucking way are we taking credit for that. I think I'll go with "America tried to save Europe, but it was a lost cause, so we went back home and invented Rock 'n Roll."
-
@morbiuswilters said:
As if a hundred people would just start spraying bullets in every direction--at everyone except the actual criminals--instead of one or two people stopping them in their tracks.
Holy fucking shit-- I wouldn't trust half the people in a school with a browser without a firewall. You think I want every one of them armed and given the unspoken authority to open fire?
Personally, I think most gun control is utter bullshit. 99% of it is reactionary barn closing to make some politician look like they're "doing something about it".
But arming each and every hormone-imbalanced fucktard and underpaid, overstressed employee in a school? I-- no. Just, no.
I will grant you that IF the Columbine assailants had been spotted and IF the correct number of people reacted with the correct level-headedness and aim, they could have easily taken the threat out before it became a massacre. Ideally.
But play that out in reality. Assume for a moment the Columbine shooters stuck with their original plan-- wander through the middle hallways, exposed, picking off targets of opportunity. Same scenario, but with armed everyone fucking else.
They wander in, draw and have the element of surprise. They get off some shots. How many shots before the other people realize what's going on, draw their own weapons, remove the safeties, aim, etc. I'll admit I'm not an expert, but I would assume even with a non-automatic weapon they're going to murder a few people. For sures.
Half the people around them panic. I don't care if they're armed. Loud noise. Blood flying. Fight or flight. They flight, they scream, they panic. It's just going to happen.
The ones who have the best head about them draw and aim. Line of sight is shit since this is a crowded caf. But let's assume a good half of them are tall, or were on the stairs, or have a good line of sight. BAM they fire. Gunmen are hit.
The other half-- no line of sight. Or poor line of sight. Or someone runs in front of them. Or someone bumps into them. Maybe they hold their fire. Maybe not. But these are the level headed first responders, so those without a good shot hold their fire. Maybe one of them shoots astray and some poor schmuck is hit.
Ideal situation is over. Now the rest of the fighters have caught up. Guns drawn searching for targets. Heads are NOT level. Line of site is even worse shit, especially since one or more of the gunmen are probably dropped at this point. People are running. People are screaming. Where did the initial shots come from? Hey, there's a guy holding a smoking gun right there, pointed at someone in a pool of blood. Is it the gunmen? Is it the first responder who took out the gunmen, and they're looking at the downed gunman? Is it the couple who shot astray and hit an innocent?
Got a shot, open fire! Bam! Gunman is down-- though that's actually the first responder.
The third wave of people now have their guns drawn. Holy shit it's a firefight! Maybe someone will eventually shout "Clear". Maybe.
Maybe you can train all those people to handle guns properly. Maybe you can require licenses, mandatory training and responder certifications, and proper ownership papers. Maybe you can do that and somehow not label it "gun control".
Because everyone knows that if every single person was armed and trained with the discipline of the military, a shooting like that wouldn't ever happen, and if it did it would be over with a bare minimum of casualties. [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting"]Unless it was Fort Hood[/url].
But okay, let's concede that if everyone in the school was armed, they casualties they inflicted would have been less than the Columbine gunmen did. What makes you think the Columbine idiots would have used the same tactics-- marching down the middle of a brightly-lit corridor, exposed, wearing contrasting colors? Maybe they would have waited until there was a large concentration of people, flooded the area with diversions and scare tactics, and then attacked from an unexpected angle. Take the 2012 Aurora movie theatre shootings, and replace "movie theatre" with "school assembly". What sort of casualties would you have been looking at if everyone in the Aurora theatre was well armed and carried the "shoot first" mentality?
Again, I fully concede that there are situations where an armed protector will win out every time. Like you said, Air Marshalls. Fuck yeah! A single, well trained, heavily armed person incognito whose sole job is to take down a bad person in a very tiny, confined place where there is already a significant amount of screening? Air Mashall will win every fucking time. And if for some reason the hijacker's randomly picked first target of surprise in the Marshall-- there's 300 other people who aren't going to put up with that shit any more. Airplane security's a solved problem.
But a densely populated public place where you have no control over the environment, number of people, where they can flee, what weapons are available to the assailant, etc, etc? I have my doubts.
In a school? No way. Forget it. And even if-- EVEN IF-- you can skew the odds somehow so that the general populace can inflict less friendly fire than the assailant can inflict non-friendly fire-- you're ignoring the 99.999999999% of the rest of the time when there isn't a school shooting going on. You've now put deadly weapons into the hands of each and every hormonally imbalanced fucktard who can draw it in a moment of stupitude or arrogance or bravado or anger or thoughtlessness. Congratulations, you've recreated Chicago.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
If you're not drinking booze on planes you're either not paying enough for a ticket or flying with the wrong airline
I quite like this approach to booze when it's combined with the picture of Vinni Puh. It seems suitably Russian.
-
@mott555 said:
I'd much rather go without alcohol than without firearms.
You can have both when you pry them from my cold, clammy, passed-out hands.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
AIDS: Invented by the CIA to bring down Communism at its faggy source, or God's punishment for sodomy?
The CIA is an agency of the American Government. America was given to Americas by God Himself to fulfil their Manifest Destiny.
Therefore, there is no "or" in your question.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
AIDS: Invented by the CIA to bring down Communism at its faggy source
Hey, man, if you take CIA backwards, and then add 1, and then you append an S. I'm just sayin', man. Makes you think.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
And the best you can come up with is an ad-hominem attack. Good to know I've won. :3If I had been there, and the loonies wouldn't have had their guns out, I would have tackled her personally.
True, but you always wear a thick, impenetrable fur suit in public, so there would have been no danger. These cops were sane and, unfortunately, very vulnerable to knives.
You entire post is fucking retarded on some many levels. So basically it's okay if that crazy bitch had stabbed an officer while he tried to subdue her, because the first duty of police is to risk their lives even more than usual? You're a fucking computer programmer--the biggest risk you take is that the bedsores from your fur suit might get infected. I would love to see you tell a police officer's children why it was necessary for him to die so that the mentally-disturbed bitch didn't get hurt.
A person brandishing a knife is a danger, whether they're sane or not. Once they've done that, they've really forfeited the expectation to survive the encounter, whether it was a conscious decision or not. The fact that she was insane is probably even worse, because it means she'll probably never get better. At least a criminal might choose to reform (although it hardly ever happens) but a knife-wielding loony is probably going to do the same thing again and again. I'm not saying the police should just shoot crazy people for fun, but if they are a danger then it's the right thing to do. I don't see you getting outraged when they put down rabid dogs.
And of course, it's very easy for you to anal-yze this video after the fact, when sitting in the safety of your dingy flat decorated in self-portraits of your fursona; drinking away your woes with cheap booze. You're not there, you're not in any danger, so of course it seems easy for you to say "Oh, hey, this is what they should have done." Thankfully, in the sane parts of the world, armchair police officers like yourself are the subject of ridicule and scorn for their pathetic and sickening displays of cowardice.
Also, the police in the UK know that they're putting their life on the line every day, and aren't gung-ho cowboys like your American coward squad, hiding behind firearms so they can pick off niggers and insane women from up to 50 yards.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
You think I want every one of them armed and given the unspoken authority to open fire?
Where did I say this? I would say it's okay to let the adults who want to be armed and feel comfortable with it to carry. That's quite different than arming every single person unequivocally. One of the nice things about guns is that generally the people who shouldn't be trusted with them (due to incompetence, not criminality, of course) don't go near them.
@Lorne Kates said:
Personally, I think most gun control is utter bullshit. 99% of it is reactionary barn closing to make some politician look like they're "doing something about it".
Yes.
@Lorne Kates said:
I'll admit I'm not an expert, but I would assume even with a non-automatic weapon they're going to murder a few people. For sures.
Maybe. A lot of times the first several shots are going to miss. You'd be surprised how often a public shooter fires off several rounds and is then killed by an armed citizen, but never hits anyone.
@Lorne Kates said:
The other half-- no line of sight. Or poor line of sight. Or someone runs in front of them. Or someone bumps into them. Maybe they hold their fire. Maybe not. But these are the level headed first responders, so those without a good shot hold their fire. Maybe one of them shoots astray and some poor schmuck is hit.
Most people aren't going to fire at all. Many (even armed) will freeze up or panic and run. It's just human nature.
@Lorne Kates said:
The third wave of people now have their guns drawn. Holy shit it's a firefight! Maybe someone will eventually shout "Clear". Maybe.
Once again, this bizarre fantasy never plays out, despite there being many opportunities for it. Most people don't draw. The one or two who do know who they're aiming for. It's usually over quickly and it doesn't devolve into some crazy firefight. This isn't a hypothetical, these situations have happened many times.
@Lorne Kates said:
Maybe you can train all those people to handle guns properly. Maybe you can require licenses, mandatory training and responder certifications, and proper ownership papers. Maybe you can do that and somehow not label it "gun control".
You seem a bit confused. I'm not arguing there should be absolutely no gun control (I don't know that anybody has been). When people are arguing about gun control it's either: 1) an absolute prohibition on guns, as many of the Euroweenies are advocating; or 2) new laws added to those already in-place in the US. But we already have licenses, background checks, mandatory training, papers, waiting periods, etc. in the US, and I'm fine with keeping those. Not every state has all of those, but ironically it's the states that don't have those things which have the lowest gun crime, so I don't see any need to implement them there if the voters don't want them.
@Lorne Kates said:
Because everyone knows that if every single person was armed and trained with the discipline of the military, a shooting like that wouldn't ever happen, and if it did it would be over with a bare minimum of casualties. Unless it was Fort Hood.
Except, if you knew anything, you'd know that Ford Hood was a gun-free zone. It is illegal for soldiers to carry guns around on the base to defend themselves. In other words, it supports my argument and eviscerates yours.
@Lorne Kates said:
Take the 2012 Aurora...
Another gun-free zone.
@Lorne Kates said:
What sort of casualties would you have been looking at if everyone in the Aurora theatre was well armed and carried the "shoot first" mentality?
Not long after, there was another shooting in a theater in the US, but this one was not gun-free. The shooter was put down by armed citizens and with zero civilian casualties. Like I said, this isn't a hypothetical. It's been proven to work (and work well) thousands of times. In the US, an innocent civilian is significantly more likely to be erroneously shot by a police officer than by a citizen who is carrying. Now, in defense of police, they are obviously being put into a lot of situations that are much hairier than what your average CCW civilian is in. Civilians aren't doing traffic stops or entering some house where a man has been hitting his wife or doing raids on crack houses, so clearly the police have much more opportunity to accidentally shoot someone. What that statistic does show, though, is that armed citizens aren't a danger to innocent bystanders.
-
@drurowin said:
Also, the police in the UK know that they're putting their life on the line every day...
I'm not disputing that they're putting themselves on the line, but it's questionable why you'd senselessly want to increase the risks. It's sick and cowardly, especially coming from someone who's never done more than sit behind a computer screen and jerked off to crude drawings of Bread Loaf Snout (and Friends).
@drurowin said:
...and aren't gung-ho cowboys like your American coward squad, hiding behind firearms...
Once again, this is just kind of the talk of a lunatic. It's like saying "How come you would hide behind seatbelts and airbags when you can just take on the car with your body??"
@drurowin said:
...so they can pick off niggers...
Wow, that was some justifiable racism there. Man, what the fucking hell is wrong with you? Did your daddy bang your head against the wall too hard while he was raping you while wearing a fox costume? Because that's about the only way I can imagine a retarded piece of shit like yourself could be created.
@drurowin said:
...insane women from up to 50 yards.
Wha..? 50 yards is pretty damn good marksmanship with a handgun; those guys deserve a medal. It would been far less impressive at point-blank range--I think even you could hit someone at point-blank range. (That's assuming you could get the fingers of your fur suit into the trigger guard, and assuming the massive boner you had from your bizarre gun fetish didn't leave you incapacitated.)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
6 out of every 10 people shot by the police in America are Afro-merican.
@drurowin said:
...so they can pick off niggers...
Wow, that was some justifiable racism there. Man, what the fucking hell is wrong with you? Did your daddy bang your head against the wall too hard while he was raping you while wearing a fox costume? Because that's about the only way I can imagine a retarded piece of shit like yourself could be created.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@morbiuswilters said:
AIDS: Invented by the CIA to bring down Communism at its faggy source, or God's punishment for sodomy?
The CIA is an agency of the American Government. America was given to Americas by God Himself to fulfil their Manifest Destiny.
Therefore, there is no "or" in your question.
Fine, that was an easy one. Here's a harder one:
Canadian chicks: Is it a good thing they're so easy when it would basically be like fucking your older brother?
-
@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
6 out of every 10 people shot by the police in America are Afro-merican.
@drurowin said:
...so they can pick off niggers...
Wow, that was some justifiable racism there. Man, what the fucking hell is wrong with you? Did your daddy bang your head against the wall too hard while he was raping you while wearing a fox costume? Because that's about the only way I can imagine a retarded piece of shit like yourself could be created.
And probably 7 out of 10 of the people waving weapons and making threats against the police are black. A lot of violent crimes are perpetrated by young black men. Of course, a lot of police are also black men. I'm not sure why that's an excuse for your racism, though.
-
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Canadian chicks: Is it a good thing they're so easy when it would basically be like fucking your older brother?
My older sibling is female, and-- um--
I see your point.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
I'm British, so unironic racism is fine, as long as I say it with my lovely accent.@morbiuswilters said:
6 out of every 10 people shot by the police in America are Afro-merican.
@drurowin said:
...so they can pick off niggers...
Wow, that was some justifiable racism there. Man, what the fucking hell is wrong with you? Did your daddy bang your head against the wall too hard while he was raping you while wearing a fox costume? Because that's about the only way I can imagine a retarded piece of shit like yourself could be created.
And probably 7 out of 10 of the people waving weapons and making threats against the police are black. A lot of violent crimes are perpetrated by young black men. Of course, a lot of police are also black men. I'm not sure why that's an excuse for your racism, though.
-
@drurowin said:
I'm British, so unironic racism is fine, as long as I say it with my lovely accent.
Yeah, you can get away with murder with those accents. (In fact, given your justice system..)
But I don't get it. There's no fathomable reason why Americans should be charmed by British accents since they post-date the Revolution.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
But I don't get it. There's no fathomable reason why Americans should be charmed by British accents since they post-date the Revolution.
You say 'revolution', we say 'traitorous secession'. American's Anglophilia is merely an acknowledgement of the unspoken truth: the US is founded on treason, and has never regained the level of civilisation it violently rejected. The entire US national psyche is basically just a series of rationalisations for what you all deep-down know was indefensible treason. Hence the whole 'we have to have guns to protect ourselves from the government' bullshit - because, of course, you can't admit that there was no real reason to overthrow your legitimate government 300 years ago, so have to keep pretending that government is a big evil bully you must protect yourselves from.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@morbiuswilters said:
But I don't get it. There's no fathomable reason why Americans should be charmed by British accents since they post-date the Revolution.
You say 'revolution', we say 'traitorous secession'. American's Anglophilia is merely an acknowledgement of the unspoken truth: the US is founded on treason, and has never regained the level of civilisation it violently rejected. The entire US national psyche is basically just a series of rationalisations for what you all deep-down know was indefensible treason. Hence the whole 'we have to have guns to protect ourselves from the government' bullshit - because, of course, you can't admit that there was no real reason to overthrow your legitimate government 300 years ago, so have to keep pretending that government is a big evil bully you must protect yourselves from.Confirmed MPS
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:
@joe.edwards said:
I know you're being facetious here, but could you imagine if they'd attempted it with everyone else in the school armed? They wouldn't have lasted two seconds.
Neither would all the bystanders caught in the crossfire.
When people say shit like this, it really shows me how little they understand guns. As if a hundred people would just start spraying bullets in every direction--at everyone except the actual criminals--instead of one or two people stopping them in their tracks. And the thing is, there's no fucking excuse for this. There have been hundreds of cases where some madman has tried to go on a shooting spree in a public place with several armed citizens who put him down with no collateral damage. It shows that you don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.
Now hush... You know it is not allowed to bring attention to incidents where gun possession has saved the day. Safe use and self defense are simply not the PC message today.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@morbiuswilters said:
But I don't get it. There's no fathomable reason why Americans should be charmed by British accents since they post-date the Revolution.
You say 'revolution', we say 'traitorous secession'. American's Anglophilia is merely an acknowledgement of the unspoken truth: the US is founded on treason, and has never regained the level of civilisation it violently rejected. The entire US national psyche is basically just a series of rationalisations for what you all deep-down know was indefensible treason. Hence the whole 'we have to have guns to protect ourselves from the government' bullshit - because, of course, you can't admit that there was no real reason to overthrow your legitimate government 300 years ago, so have to keep pretending that government is a big evil bully you must protect yourselves from.
Actually the Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the Right to Bear Arms was to make sure the citizens would be able to stage another armed revolt if it becomes necessary. It was actually tried once but the Feds won the "trial". Americans have fought 2 Civil Wars ... the Rebels won the first one :P (On the Brits scorecard: The American Colonies won, the Roundheads lost...there have been other revolts, but I'm not taking the time to look up things like British Palestine, British Guinea, British India, Scotland, Ireland, etc.)
