So, the notion that armed guards will prevent shootings.

What gun free zones are you referring to?

I'm referring to the "Gun Free Zone Act" a piece of legislation, do you agree that it is a failed policy?

Agreed. He comes across a little nutty. He and those lunatics with guns like him are the problem. Get high and listen to Sean Hannity and count my ammo! LOL. Actually, it is a little scary!

Yet you used to pay me to protect you while you sleep at night, and I teach those currently providing you with that protection....lol right on...thanks for the money to buy more guns with. :D
 
It's so great having gun crazy, brainwashed, pot heads on ignore! Lol
 
It's so great having gun crazy, brainwashed, pot heads on ignore! Lol

why would you need to brag about putting someone on ignore...what are you 3?


oh , you are just pretending and he really isn't on ignore its just fun to say. ok never mind
 
why would you need to brag about putting someone on ignore...what are you 3?


oh , you are just pretending and he really isn't on ignore its just fun to say. ok never mind

If you read some of his post you will find that is not his age but his IQ. ;)

The moron actually thinks a weapons accessories ban will stop shootings.
 
I'm referring to the "Gun Free Zone Act" a piece of legislation, do you agree that it is a failed policy?

Good question. Has it entirely prevented school massacres? Obviously not. Has it prevented accidental gun injuries and deaths that might've resulted from more students, teachers and custodians carrying firearms? Probably.
 
It's so great having gun crazy, brainwashed, pot heads on ignore! Lol

Good question. Has it entirely prevented school massacres? Obviously not. Has it prevented accidental gun injuries and deaths that might've resulted from more students, teachers and custodians carrying firearms? Probably.

yes the 'might have' argument is always classy, probably

no way to prove that.

now walking into a school with out a soul there to ask you why you are there is definitely not the way to go as we have seen.

there is always more stories of teachers with a gun and principles with a gun stopping an attack then those that took place, you just never hear about them. its not news when nothing happens.

simple numbers. more school days with out tragedy then school days with a tragedy . the odds are pretty clear. never bet on a tragedy
 
Good question. Has it entirely prevented school massacres? Obviously not.

So the purpose and intent of the legislation is a total bust...yes? I mean the massacre rate went up nearly 5x over night since it was passed, must be some retarded left wing definition of success. Who knows??

Has it prevented accidental gun injuries and deaths that might've resulted from more students, teachers and custodians carrying firearms? Probably.

Nothing but speculative bullshit....I have been carrying all sorts of guns daily for the past 12 years and never had a negligent discharge. Just like 99.9999999999999999% of the other licenced/legal gun owners.


We have strict regulation over civilian machine guns....works very well considering the last machine gun attacks were decades ago in an era long gone.

Yet the left in this case doesn't give a fuck about effective...they just want to pound that tribal drum. "BAN BAN BAN BAN YEAAAAAA PROHIBITION WORKS!! Unless it's not guns then it's totally ineffective, ban assault weapons again the first 15 times failed!!" absolute top notch liberal intelligence there....I applaud the GB left wing.
 
Last edited:
I'm referring to the "Gun Free Zone Act" a piece of legislation, do you agree that it is a failed policy?



Yet you used to pay me to protect you while you sleep at night, and I teach those currently providing you with that protection....lol right on...thanks for the money to buy more guns with. :D

You're answering a question with a question.
 
This thread went pretty much as usual, limp dicks posting the same tired bullshit. But it does have a Mechablade posting, so it's not completely without value. Good to see you around, dude.
 
This thread went pretty much as usual, limp dicks posting the same tired bullshit. But it does have a Mechablade posting, so it's not completely without value. Good to see you around, dude.
Hardly. Our tiny penised RWCJ have been telling us for weeks .....
The limp dick brigade will just carry on repeating the same tired bullshit ad infinitum. It's why I pretty much abandoned gun threads unless I'm really bored.


You're like a fucking parrot talking about flaccid/small cocks .....starting to sound like vette jr. Start mentioning ass's and your transformation to being his bat shit LW counterpart will be complete.
 
Last edited:
Well, not necessarily. I doubt that all suicides are really "planned out". Don't you think that someone can have a really shitty day, come home and get drunk, and just say "Fuck it, things aren't going to get better, there's a gun right there, I'll show them!"? If the gun wasn't easily accessible, and the method of death more complicated, maybe they'd just sleep it off and live to see another day. I'm not saying that it would prevent all suicides, but surely enough to be significant.
exactly this. it's the accessibility and reduced 'fear factor' (fast, generally effective, you-won't-know-anything-about-it concept), combined (sometimes) with the faux glamour of guns, that makes it such a popular choice for the impromptu suicide bid.
 
why would you need to brag about putting someone on ignore...what are you 3?


oh , you are just pretending and he really isn't on ignore its just fun to say. ok never mind

Are you really this stupid?
 
Here's my theory about why the conversation turned so sharply toward the suicide aspect: Because although the study concluded the same thing about homicides (54% reduction, iirc), it's harder to wrap that one up in faux-libertarianism and smoke-screen compassion about "mental health care"; not much downside to a sharp decrease in homicides. So best to ignore it completely and try to find the "flaw" as to why fewer suicides isn't always a good thing.
 
Here's my theory about why the conversation turned so sharply toward the suicide aspect: Because although the study concluded the same thing about homicides (54% reduction, iirc), it's harder to wrap that one up in faux-libertarianism and smoke-screen compassion about "mental health care"; not much downside to a sharp decrease in homicides. So best to ignore it completely and try to find the "flaw" as to why fewer suicides isn't always a good thing.

i missed that.
 
i missed that.
The conversation had already gone to suicide by your post, I believe.

Here's the passage. You have to dig into the report itself for the percentage, but memory tells me it was something like 54% (could be more...):

The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.
 
The conversation had already gone to suicide by your post, I believe.

Here's the passage. You have to dig into the report itself for the percentage, but memory tells me it was something like 54% (could be more...):

The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.
it certainly doesn't surprise me

it takes more from a person to inflict death on another using methods other than a gun - they have to get up close and personal; those who don't get off on that would use a firearm if it was to hand. guns allow a certain distancing from the act.

guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people
 
it certainly doesn't surprise me

it takes more from a person to inflict death on another using methods other than a gun - they have to get up close and personal; those who don't get off on that would use a firearm if it was to hand. guns allow a certain distancing from the act.

guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people
It's a disproportionately more effective killing device than we otherwise make available. I gave sarin gas as an example. It's true, I can kill you with sarin gas if I want (although I'd also face some risk of killing myself). But it's WAY less convenient/effective/expeditious than just shooting you.

Yet sarin gas is unobtainable to most civilians, and guns are sold at Walmart.

Odd.
 
i wonder what the outcome of a poll would be, if every person in the states was asked "do you want to own a gun?"
 
i wonder what the outcome of a poll would be, if every person in the states was asked "do you want to own a gun?"
Different, I would imagine, than a poll asking, "Do you want your neighbor to own a gun? Do you want your child's babysitter to own a gun? Do you want college students to own guns? Would you be willing to give up ownership of your guns if you ever became physically or mentally incapacitated an a manner that compromised your ability to operate one safely? Would you want OTHERS to give up ownership in these conditions?" and so on down the line. I think most people want gun rights as long as "gun rights" means, "Let me keep my guns," emphasis on the first-person.
 
Different, I would imagine, than a poll asking, "Do you want your neighbor to own a gun? Do you want your child's babysitter to own a gun? Do you want college students to own guns? Would you be willing to give up ownership of your guns if you ever became physically or mentally incapacitated an a manner that compromised your ability to operate one safely? Would you want OTHERS to give up ownership in these conditions?" and so on down the line. I think most people want gun rights as long as "gun rights" means, "Let me keep my guns," emphasis on the first-person.

*nods at sagacity*
 
Koaladipshit

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Back
Top