Another school shooting - DPChallenge Forums

12/28/2012 03:38:54 PM · #1151

Originally posted by Cory:

So you see freedom as nothing more than stupid and childish bravado huh? (ie, "feel like a man")

Gun control, as amply demonstrated by every other 1st world country, does not eliminate freedom, and every one of your arguments can be summed up as personal insecurity. Childish bravado is thinking you need a gun to protect yourself from the world. This is the reason Bushmaster literally markets their assault rifles with the message that it makes you a man.

Message edited by author 2012-12-28 15:40:04.

12/28/2012 03:47:57 PM · #1152

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Read man, read, your level of comprehension scares me, especially considering that you are much more educated than the average American.

I did read: good cop pulls over bad cop. That others have accessed her files could be for good OR nefarious reasons, but reading your files wouldn't justify arming yourself to shoot cops as you expressly implied.

You sir, are a right idiot.

I said no such thing, and it's pretty clear they're harassing the shit out of her.

Not to mention, as I said previously, the other cops were very clear that she was WRONG to pull him over.

12/28/2012 03:49:54 PM · #1153

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
So you see freedom as nothing more than stupid and childish bravado huh? (ie, "feel like a man")

Gun control, as amply demonstrated by every other 1st world country, does not eliminate freedom, and every one of your arguments can be summed up as personal insecurity. Childish bravado is thinking you need a gun to protect yourself from the world. This is the reason Bushmaster literally markets their assault rifles with the message that it makes you a man.

You sir are a right idiot.

You see, I own several guns, and yet, I never carry them. Why? Cause I don't need a gun to f&*# someone up if they threaten me.

On the other hand, I do like the idea of my 100lb girlfriend packing a pistol, guess that makes her quite a "man" huh?

As I've said a hundred times - it's about the freedom, not the guns - I was equally pissed about the Patriot Act.

I'm ashamed of what America has become - a bunch of media led scared ass pansies.

Message edited by author 2012-12-28 15:52:24.

12/28/2012 04:11:17 PM · #1154

Originally posted by Cory:

I said no such thing, and it's pretty clear they're harassing the shit out of her.

Not to mention, as I said previously, the other cops were very clear that she was WRONG to pull him over.

A police department defending a bad cop in Florida proves you need an assault rifle in New Mexico... because this would allow you to take on a police department? You'll need to make a coherent argument before judging idiocy in the rebuttal.

12/28/2012 04:15:17 PM · #1155

Originally posted by Cory:

You see, I own several guns, and yet, I never carry them. Why? Cause I don't need a gun to f&*# someone up if they threaten me.

You should have a conversation with that Cory character who's been arguing that guns are necessary for self-defense, particularly since none of the gun controls imposed by similar countries have stopped hunting, target shooting or even home defense.

12/28/2012 04:19:34 PM · #1156

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
I said no such thing, and it's pretty clear they're harassing the shit out of her.

Not to mention, as I said previously, the other cops were very clear that she was WRONG to pull him over.

A police department defending a bad cop in Florida proves you need an assault rifle in New Mexico... because this would allow you to take on a police department? You'll need to make a coherent argument before judging idiocy in the rebuttal.

When did I say that? Holy shit dude.

I do not want to take on a police department, or even a single officer. I don't want to take anyone on for that matter..

What it does prove is that they shouldn't be trusted. And I trust them about as much as I trust your comprehension.

12/28/2012 04:23:34 PM · #1157

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
You see, I own several guns, and yet, I never carry them. Why? Cause I don't need a gun to f&*# someone up if they threaten me.

You should have a conversation with that Cory character who's been arguing that guns are necessary for self-defense, particularly since none of the gun controls imposed by similar countries have stopped hunting, target shooting or even home defense.

Self defense is a USE for a gun - which is what was asked when I posted the REASONS to own a gun when asked "what does anyone need a gun for anyway?"..

If you don't think they are effective self defense, that's fine with me - but as a 200 lb guy who has years of martial arts training I am not exactly the "average" guy - I do think that for the average person, if accosted by a fellow like me, a gun would do quite nicely to level the playing field.

Again, it's about FREEDOM. I do not feel comfortable with any smidgen of rights being changed - and yes, it is a right - no matter what you'd like to interpret it as.

ETA: Oh, and no, the laws in other countries haven't stopped the ownership of guns, nor have they stopped violent crime, but what they have done is make ownership a serious burden upon those who wish to own a gun. And 30 round clips are TONS of fun.

Message edited by author 2012-12-28 16:25:18.

12/28/2012 04:27:25 PM · #1158

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by scalvert:
A police department defending a bad cop in Florida proves you need an assault rifle in New Mexico... because this would allow you to take on a police department?

When did I say that?

You directly implied that people must be armed as a counter to rogue cops (the post would be pointless otherwise):

Originally posted by Cory:

do you REALLY want these guys to be the only ones that are armed?

12/28/2012 04:30:48 PM · #1159

NEW TOPIC -

Why are cars allowed that go over 85 MPH? Do you ever need to drive faster? Is it legal anywhere in the US (outside of some very rural areas where no speed limit applies)..

What about fast food - does it serve a purpose? How many people a year does it kill or maim? Do we really need McDonalds? Shouldn't we regulate all food so that people are required to eat healthy?

What about cigarets? Do they have any purpose other than to kill people? Sure they might be mistakenly thought of as a pleasure, but they're really just expensive packages of cancer.

..

It will be people like you that one day nanny the world up such that no fun is available to anyone who's not a criminal. And the thought police probably aren't far behind - hell the genetic police are on the way too - they're studying the DNA of that asshole behind Sandy Hook.

..

Let me be clear on my point, since at least one person here has shown atrocious comprehension - just because something can, does, or will hurt people doesn't mean it should be banned - I'd rather die free tomorrow than live forever in such a world as you seem to desire.

12/28/2012 04:31:32 PM · #1160

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by scalvert:
A police department defending a bad cop in Florida proves you need an assault rifle in New Mexico... because this would allow you to take on a police department?

When did I say that?

You directly implied that people must be armed as a counter to rogue cops (the post would be pointless otherwise):
Originally posted by Cory:
do you REALLY want these guys to be the only ones that are armed?

WTF? Where did I say or imply that - all I asked is if you want them to be the ones who we have to count on to defend us.

12/28/2012 04:34:58 PM · #1161

Originally posted by Cory:

Self defense is a USE for a gun

And it still would be with sensible gun control.

Originally posted by Cory:

the laws in other countries haven't stopped the ownership of guns, nor have they stopped violent crime, but what they have done is make ownership a serious burden upon those who wish to own a gun. And 30 round clips are TONS of fun.

Violent crime in other countries is about the same as here, yet gun homicides are orders of magnitude lower. This is conclusive, verifiable proof that gun control works AND that gun ownership does not prevent violent crime. I'm sure blowing thing up with dynamite is tons of fun, too, and likewise has precisely zilch to do with militias defending a state.

12/28/2012 04:40:26 PM · #1162

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Self defense is a USE for a gun

And it still would be with sensible gun control.

Originally posted by Cory:
the laws in other countries haven't stopped the ownership of guns, nor have they stopped violent crime, but what they have done is make ownership a serious burden upon those who wish to own a gun. And 30 round clips are TONS of fun.

Violent crime in other countries is about the same as here, yet gun homicides are orders of magnitude lower. This is conclusive, verifiable proof that gun control works AND that gun ownership does not prevent violent crime. I'm sure blowing thing up with dynamite is tons of fun, too, and likewise has precisely zilch to do with militias defending a state.

Sensible gun control huh? Like the sensible TSA or sensible Patriot Act, or the sensible DMCA?

Sooo.. You're cool with violent crime, as long as it doesn't involve a gun. Wouldn't our resources be better spent trying to address the real problem, rather than attempting to remove rights to make us feel safer?

Yes, blowing things up with "dynamite" (more like cordite or tannerite these days) is quite fun - and I'm VERY glad that I'm still allowed to do so legally.

12/28/2012 04:47:31 PM · #1163

Originally posted by Cory:

NEW TOPIC...

Cars, fast food and cigarettes are all tightly regulated, not banned (i.e- you can't drive a car with racing slicks on public roads). Gun control proposals are the same thing.

12/28/2012 04:54:55 PM · #1164

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Violent crime in other countries is about the same as here, yet gun homicides are orders of magnitude lower. This is conclusive, verifiable proof that gun control works AND that gun ownership does not prevent violent crime.

Sooo.. You're cool with violent crime, as long as it doesn't involve a gun. Wouldn't our resources be better spent trying to address the real problem, rather than attempting to remove rights to make us feel safer?

Read that again until you get it. Gun homicides are ADDITIONAL to violent crime. If the traffic accident rate were about the same in all 1st world countries, but the U.S. had 100X the number of deaths and the only difference was absence of seatbelts in America, the "real problem" is pretty easy to identify.

12/28/2012 04:56:19 PM · #1165

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
NEW TOPIC...

Cars, fast food and cigarettes are all tightly regulated, not banned (i.e- you can't drive a car with racing slicks on public roads). Gun control proposals are the same thing.

Thank you for the excellent example. As you can see, laws are easily bypassed by those who don't care to follow them.

I wasn't aware that fast food was regulated - please explain, as I might be quite ignorant - but I'm under the impression that they are allowed to feed you whatever sort of unhealthy food they please.

12/28/2012 04:57:25 PM · #1166

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Violent crime in other countries is about the same as here, yet gun homicides are orders of magnitude lower. This is conclusive, verifiable proof that gun control works AND that gun ownership does not prevent violent crime.

Sooo.. You're cool with violent crime, as long as it doesn't involve a gun. Wouldn't our resources be better spent trying to address the real problem, rather than attempting to remove rights to make us feel safer?

Read that again until you get it. Gun homicides are ADDITIONAL to violent crime. If the traffic accident rate were about the same in all 1st world countries, but the U.S. had 100X the number of deaths and the only difference was absence of seatbelts in America, the "real problem" is pretty easy to identify.

Ahh, but you see, there is our disconnect - I think we're just more violent as a society. If you take guns out of the mix, I don't expect violent crimes to drop, I just expect that the gun violence would shift to other weapons.

12/28/2012 05:19:16 PM · #1167

Originally posted by Cory:

laws are easily bypassed by those who don't care to follow them.

That some people break the law is a poor argument against laws.

Originally posted by Cory:

I wasn't aware that fast food was regulated - please explain, as I might be quite ignorant - but I'm under the impression that they are allowed to feed you whatever sort of unhealthy food they please.

There are federal regulations on safe storage and handling of fast food, and no such federal regulations on guns. Additional state and local laws exist and/or are pending for labeling, portion size, salt content, etc.

12/28/2012 05:20:25 PM · #1168

Originally posted by Cory:

I think we're just more violent as a society. If you take guns out of the mix, I don't expect violent crimes to drop, I just expect that the gun violence would shift to other weapons.

We're not, and regulations imposed in other countries have proven that the violence does not shift to other weapons.

Message edited by author 2012-12-28 17:20:36.

12/28/2012 05:46:55 PM · #1169

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
laws are easily bypassed by those who don't care to follow them.

That some people break the law is a poor argument against laws.

Ahh, but you are so wrong. These same people are exactly who you're trying to stop.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
I wasn't aware that fast food was regulated - please explain, as I might be quite ignorant - but I'm under the impression that they are allowed to feed you whatever sort of unhealthy food they please.

There are federal regulations on safe storage and handling of fast food, and no such federal regulations on guns. Additional state and local laws exist and/or are pending for labeling, portion size, salt content, etc.

You intentionally walked past the point. They are allowed to serve food that is, by every measure, harmful and without great nutritional value - sure it has to be somewhat safe, just like guns have to be sold with trigger locks. But to suggest that such "dangerous" items should be removed from availability is beyond asinine.

Message edited by author 2012-12-28 17:47:17.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/28/2012 05:55:09 PM · #1170

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
I think we're just more violent as a society. If you take guns out of the mix, I don't expect violent crimes to drop, I just expect that the gun violence would shift to other weapons.

We're not, and regulations imposed in other countries have proven that the violence does not shift to other weapons.

If you like the laws elsewhere, honestly, why not move there?

They also are under no pretension of freedom either - and are quite comfortable being spied upon by their own governments.

Thanks, but I like my privacy and freedom, at whatever the cost to society ...

Of course, the biggest joke here is that you seem to think the shooter decided to do this because guns were available. Again, super soaker + gas. The biggest difference I see is that it's just a more horrible slow death and the fact that it takes a modicum of creativity to build the weapon.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

12/28/2012 09:26:09 PM · #1171

Originally posted by Cory:

If you like the laws elsewhere, honestly, why not move there?

It is always nice to see the terminal argument of the losing side come out. America, love it or leave it. In a theocracy where all laws are handed down by God, that argument might be put forward; but to suggest that in the United States, where every law is a compromise, and always has been since the first constitutional convention, that this one law is the bellwether of freedom and anyone who wants to change it should leave the country, is absurd.

Our nation and its laws are always "seeking a more perfect union" subject to revision and amendment to have them reflect their desired outcome in an ever changing world, and when we have to balance your personal feelings of where you think your freedoms lie, and balance it out against the bullet ridden bodies of grade school children I don't think your feelings tip the scales very far.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/28/2012 10:15:36 PM · #1172

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by scalvert:
That some people break the law is a poor argument against laws.

These same people are exactly who you're trying to stop.

By this argument, ALL laws are pointless.

Originally posted by Cory:

Au contraire. The regulations in place are intended to reduce the threat of immediate death (e. coli, salmonella, etc.). The risk of an order of french fries is not comparable. You have to prove eligibility to buy tobacco for a pipe, yet you can stroll into WalMart and pick up bullets without question.

Originally posted by Cory:

the biggest joke here is that you seem to think the shooter decided to do this because guns were available. Again, super soaker + gas.

The fact that this and other rampage killers nearly always choose guns rather than super soakers demonstrates the folly of your claim.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/28/2012 11:53:33 PM · #1173

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
the biggest joke here is that you seem to think the shooter decided to do this because guns were available. Again, super soaker + gas.

The fact that this and other rampage killers nearly always choose guns rather than super soakers demonstrates the folly of your claim.

To be fair, I believe Cory's position is that since the guns are available, naturally they'll be used, but that if there were no readily-available guns the dementos would just substitute some other, more available, means of destruction, such as supersoaker flamethrowers or whatever's the red herring du jour.

Personally I think that's not a given (I think there'd be less mayhem if there were no guns) but his *logic* isn't impeachable, or at least not in the way you've just tried to do it.