Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 9:22:43 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
This guy isn't like any other gun nut in the nation and I seriously doubt anyone here is going to defend him. So on that alone you're full of shit as usual. What's your point ? Are you going to advocate that I can't keep my handgun ?


Then you agree we should have tougher gun control laws in effect?

Because if you say 'no', then you are indeed defending such killers.

It's called LOGIC.

How does disagreeing with tougher gun laws...staying "ENFORCE the ones we have and go after the CRIMINAL, not the law-abiding citizen"...turn into defending this or any other killer?


Because it is his latest song and dance.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 9:41:13 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

You saw the movie, right Bama, you know, the one with Tom Cruise, Minority report.

Damn, that was one crappy movie.

I am familiar with the movie, but I didn't waste my money on it.


The TV show is avoidable as well.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 9:56:45 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Well Joether...you're right about one thing...he is a criminal. He is...not the gun.


No, actually he is nor a criminal. He may have behaved criminally. But until he states he is guilty as charged, or a jury states he is guilty; he is innocent. That is how the law operates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
As for his braking not being fully functional until the mid-thirties, you must have read different ststudies than I did. Those studies place that age around 24-26. Could you cite your studies?


"....his braking...."

Er....I'm going to say you would have stated the following:

"As for his brain not being fully functional...."

I'm going to assume that is what you had in mind (cus it sucks to be on the receiving end of a grammar nazi, right?).

It has been about two years. The information I want to place as being from the New England Journal of Medicine. But don't quote me on that! The author was explaining several concepts in the article. One was why men have problems with women and infidelity, along with why we consume high sugary foods/drinks even though we know its bad for us. That our brains are still operating on software 'developed' about 100,000 years ago. Interesting stuff, eh?

Anyways, the author noted that the human brain does not see full development until the ages of 30-34. Sooner for women than men. That at the age of 18, the human brain is not fully develop but continuously developing. Which is why its MUCH easier to get a higher college degree when your young then when your in your 50's. There is much in the way of data to support this stuff. Really fascinating stuff!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
And to whoever posted about the braking not being fully capable of reasoning being the explanation for Obama's popularity with the young...That may be true but let's not forgive what else he promised them: full or partial forgiveness of student loan debt.


Yeah, dont remind me. Its been blocked by the GOP/TP. But that's for another thread.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 10:01:57 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Your defending future law breakers. Not a good position to hold.....

Nobody is defending lawbrakers, past present or future.
You on the other hand are in effect saying we don't know who will be a criminal so we have to treat them all like they will be. You go on about innocent until proven guilty, then want to treat all gun owners like they are bound to be guilty of something someday. That is far worse thatn saying I think they are guilty.
Has this guy actually been convicted? If not how dare you say he has done anything wrong?
Your position is irrational, unconstitutional and hypocritical.


Yes, you are defending the lawbreakers.

I posted a series of six ways we could curb firearm violence. That it would drastically reduce the frequency they happen and hopefully their intensity. It would lower the chances of firearms falling into the wrong hands, while allow 'honest and law abiding Americans' to have guns. In a way, restoring the breach of distrust that has engulfed this nation.

Not one of you signed on. Said "Yes, these are reasonable laws". No, you were against them all. Therefore, you want to keep a system that allow lawbreakers to obtain firearms to use against good Americans! Kind of tough to defend your point against that reality.

Do you even remember me stating those ideas? An you do, because you replied to the post as a whole (not the points specifically). So you had your chance and you blew it! You effectively side with protecting the lawbreakers so they can have as easy a time acquiring and using firearms.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 10:19:44 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yes, you are defending the lawbreakers.

And you are a piece of shit. Gun-owners, along with the NRA and the trade organization for the firearms industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, have been pushing for more action against gun crime for decades, for fixing the broken NICS system, stiffer penalties for illegal possession, and more vigorous efforts to pursue and prosecute traffickers, all to no avail. That they don't view your suggestions as the height of brilliance you imagine them to be doesn't mean they're defending killers. Is there no fucking bottom to how low you'll sink?

K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/11/2015 10:25:21 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 10:25:40 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yes, you are defending the lawbreakers.

And you are a piece of shit. Gun-owners, along with the NRA and the trade organization for the firearms industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, have been pushing for more action against gun crime for decades, for fixing the broken NICS system, stiffer penalties for illegal possession, and more vigorous efforts to pursue and prosecute traffickers, all to no avail. That they don't view your suggestions as the height of brilliance you imagine them to be doesn't mean they're defending killers. Is there no fucking bottom to how low you'll sink?

K.

No

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 10:28:16 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
This guy isn't like any other gun nut in the nation and I seriously doubt anyone here is going to defend him. So on that alone you're full of shit as usual. What's your point ? Are you going to advocate that I can't keep my handgun ?


Then you agree we should have tougher gun control laws in effect?

Because if you say 'no', then you are indeed defending such killers.

It's called LOGIC.

How does disagreeing with tougher gun laws...saying "ENFORCE the ones we have and go after the CRIMINAL, not the law-abiding citizen"...turn into defending this or any other killer?



As I was stating to someone (most likely on another thread running next ot this one...):

To enforce the laws we have right now, does nothing to problem. Mr. Jones, is defined right now as a 'Honest and Law Abiding Citizen' with a firearm. He is accused of murdering one person and injuring three others with a firearm. If the existing firearm laws were working, why did this happen?

Tougher firearm laws do a number of things:

A ) We close what is known in the media as the 'gunshow loop holes'. You want a gun? Your getting a background check.

B ) A two week waiting period. That way if your REALLY pissed at someone, hopefully in those two weeks you calm down enough to think things through (or tell someone whom tells the police what your plotting).

C ) You are to get a physical every three years. This includes a mental and emotional health screening. While not perfect, its less annoying than every year.

D ) You'll get insurance on your firearm. Protects you from damages if you should lose control of it.

E ) Training and proficiency test on each new firearm. (to see who cant shoot down range)

F ) Age to acquire a firearm legally raised to 21.

G ) Allow the CDC to conduct experiments

H ) In additional to other restrictions, those whom abuse others, suffering from mental/emotional disorders, or create a dangerous/deadly situation, do not get guns. If they already have them, they are taken by the local police until such time as the person is out of danger to themselves and/or the community.

The problem is distrust. Many conservatives have this view of total distrust towards the government and their fellow Americans. Yet, demand unconditional trust back from both groups. Why should the people conservative distrust, trust them? When conservatives get pissy, they start talking about murdering everyone, taking the nation by force, in installing a tyrann---er---'conservative' government. With a 'conservative' US Constitution. Yeah, really breeds 'trust' back towards conservatives.

Right now, conservatives have a credibility problem as it concerns firearms. Each new mass shooting (not to mention shootings like the one from the OP) bring more Americans over to the 'liberal' side of the argument. Why should we, the nation, trust you conservatives? With firearms?

Hence, the ideas listed above. If you do not decide building trust with your fellow Americans is a good thing; then the 2nd will get removed. So decide what is more important. Here's a hint that might help you: Most Liberals do....NOT....want to ban the 2nd amendment. Yes, some do. The more you distrust and push bullshit, the more that number grows.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 10:31:21 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
...
Is there no fucking bottom to how low you'll sink?

K.


You seem to be unfamiliar with the anti-rights crowd.

Perhaps ironically, Bloomberg gave $50M towards additional gun control laws but NICS continues to receive under 10% of the funding allocated.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 10:33:40 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
...
B ) A two week waiting period. That way if your REALLY pissed at someone, hopefully in those two weeks you calm down enough to think things through (or tell someone whom tells the police what your plotting).
...


You've just murdered Carol Bowne.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 10:35:20 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Yes, you are defending the lawbreakers.

And you are a piece of shit. Gun-owners, along with the NRA and the trade organization for the firearms industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, have been pushing for more action against gun crime for decades, for fixing the broken NICS system, stiffer penalties for illegal possession, and more vigorous efforts to pursue and prosecute traffickers, all to no avail. That they don't view your suggestions as the height of brilliance you imagine them to be doesn't mean they're defending killers. Is there no fucking bottom to how low you'll sink?


If that was even remotely true, please explain why there are mass shooting EVERY THREE WEEKS!?!?!?!?!?!

All the 'concepts' and 'ideas' from all those groups would not have prevented Mr. Jones from killing one person and injuring three others. So I have to call BULLSHIT.

If all those grounds were for better checks against criminals getting guns, explain why background checks are not mandatory in America? Explain why the CDC is not allowed to conduct experiments?

No, all those groups what MORE gun violence. Because it helps the gun industry MAKE A PROFIT. I guess your not clear on the NRA's motives.....

They are a LOBBYING group for the Gun Industry. What would they have to gain by having more sane firearm laws on the books? That actually decreased violence and lessen the need for firearms?

An you no what, Kirata? DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. The more mass shootings and smaller scale shooting that take place, the more Americans will demand tighter firearm laws. The rest of America will tell you and your NRA-puppets....GO...FUCK...YOURSELVES! We do not like going to funerals. Maybe in your sick and twisted universe they are fun. But they are not fun for us. We like our loved ones, friends, and even fellow Americans in the land of the living.


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 10:46:47 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Well Joether...you're right about one thing...he is a criminal. He is...not the gun.


No, actually he is nor a criminal. He may have behaved criminally. But until he states he is guilty as charged, or a jury states he is guilty; he is innocent. That is how the law operates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
As for his braking not being fully functional until the mid-thirties, you must have read different ststudies than I did. Those studies place that age around 24-26. Could you cite your studies?


"....his braking...."

Er....I'm going to say you would have stated the following:

"As for his brain not being fully functional...."

I'm going to assume that is what you had in mind (cus it sucks to be on the receiving end of a grammar nazi, right?).

It has been about two years. The information I want to place as being from the New England Journal of Medicine. But don't quote me on that! The author was explaining several concepts in the article. One was why men have problems with women and infidelity, along with why we consume high sugary foods/drinks even though we know its bad for us. That our brains are still operating on software 'developed' about 100,000 years ago. Interesting stuff, eh?

Anyways, the author noted that the human brain does not see full development until the ages of 30-34. Sooner for women than men. That at the age of 18, the human brain is not fully develop but continuously developing. Which is why its MUCH easier to get a higher college degree when your young then when your in your 50's. There is much in the way of data to support this stuff. Really fascinating stuff!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
And to whoever posted about the braking not being fully capable of reasoning being the explanation for Obama's popularity with the young...That may be true but let's not forgive what else he promised them: full or partial forgiveness of student loan debt.


Yeah, dont remind me. Its been blocked by the GOP/TP. But that's for another thread.
While I did find a British study that stated in 2010 that full maturation took place in the mid 30s, most seem to come down on the mid 20s.

At what age is the brain fully developed?

Although brain development is subject to significant individual variation, most experts suggest that the brain is fully developed by age 25. For some people, brain development may be complete prior to age 25, while for others it may end after age 25. The mid-20s or “25” is just an average age given as checkpoint for when the brain has likely become mature.


http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/

Understanding the Teen Brain
It doesn't matter how smart your teen is or how well he or she scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn't something he or she can excel in, at least not yet.

The rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed and won't be until he or she is 25 years old or so.

In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain's rational part. This is the part of the bran that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdale. This is the emotional part.

In teen's brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing. That's why when teens are under overwhelming emotional input, they can't explain later what they were thinking. They weren't thinking as much as they were feeling.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

According to recent findings, the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s. (See J. Giedd in References.) The specific changes that follow young adulthood are not yet well studied, but it is known that they involve increased myelination and continued adding and pruning of neurons. As a number of researchers have put it, "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car.

http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html

Finally, there's this 100-some page beauty:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/#!po=0.490196


< Message edited by CreativeDominant -- 10/11/2015 11:02:49 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 10:52:53 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
...
B ) A two week waiting period. That way if your REALLY pissed at someone, hopefully in those two weeks you calm down enough to think things through (or tell someone whom tells the police what your plotting).
...


You've just murdered Carol Bowne.


Your link is listed verbatim across the entire 'firearm' area of the net. That usually tells me the piece is used for political/propaganda issues rather than for rational and objective debate.

What would the gun have done? That you foolishly believe that if she had a gun...*POOF*....she was instantly protected from all harm? You must be joking, right? He gets a gun, ambushes her and fires before she even knows he was there. Now he has two guns. By your 'belief system' you just scored the bad guys ANOTHER gun.

Yes, there is a chance she could be alive or taken him down with her. We'll never know which 'What If' scenario would have happened.

Yes, the issue was a problem for that police station to deal handle. So, because she couldn't get a gun, we therefore should do nothing about the mass shootings taking place every few weeks?

Such a fucking cop-out of a belief system. Its so you do not have to take ownership of the many other Americans who lose their lives due to gun violence.

Maybe on top of those firearm laws, we toughen up laws to keep abusive people away from their victims....

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 11:00:30 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
...
B ) A two week waiting period. That way if your REALLY pissed at someone, hopefully in those two weeks you calm down enough to think things through (or tell someone whom tells the police what your plotting).
...


You've just murdered Carol Bowne.


Your link is listed verbatim across the entire 'firearm' area of the net. That usually tells me the piece is used for political/propaganda issues rather than for rational and objective debate.

What would the gun have done? That you foolishly believe that if she had a gun...*POOF*....she was instantly protected from all harm? You must be joking, right? He gets a gun, ambushes her and fires before she even knows he was there. Now he has two guns. By your 'belief system' you just scored the bad guys ANOTHER gun.

Yes, there is a chance she could be alive or taken him down with her. We'll never know which 'What If' scenario would have happened.

Yes, the issue was a problem for that police station to deal handle. So, because she couldn't get a gun, we therefore should do nothing about the mass shootings taking place every few weeks?

Such a fucking cop-out of a belief system. Its so you do not have to take ownership of the many other Americans who lose their lives due to gun violence.

Maybe on top of those firearm laws, we toughen up laws to keep abusive people away from their victims....


Perhaps the situation could have worked out as you suggested. Perhaps it could have ended differently. It seems convenient that you are able to ignore defensive firearm uses and ironic that you accuse me of having a fucking cop-out of a belief system.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 11:21:29 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

A ) We close what is known in the media as the 'gunshow loop holes'. You want a gun? Your getting a background check.

There is no gun show loophole. Purchases at gun shows are subject to background checks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

B ) A two week waiting period. That way if your REALLY pissed at someone, hopefully in those two weeks you calm down enough to think things through (or tell someone whom tells the police what your plotting).

How would having to wait two weeks to acquire the weapon he retrieved from his car have stopped Jones? Or Harper-Mercer? Or any of the other mass shooters?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

C ) You are to get a physical every three years. This includes a mental and emotional health screening.

We have no screening method capable of reliably predicting future violence. And you are a hypocrite:

How do we determine mental/emotional illness with 100% certainty again? Oh that's right.....we dont....because there is no technology or convenient process of determining if someone is in full control of their minds.

Those are your words, in case you don't remember them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

D ) You'll get insurance on your firearm. Protects you from damages if you should lose control of it.

How will this stop mass shootings?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

E ) Training and proficiency test on each new firearm. (to see who cant shoot down range)

Already required for a CCW, but why do you think that requiring these shooters to be more accurate would help?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

F ) Age to acquire a firearm legally raised to 21.

I could go for that, with allowance for supervised use in shooting sports.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

G ) Allow the CDC to conduct experiments

Why the CDC?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

H ) In additional to other restrictions, those whom abuse others, suffering from mental/emotional disorders, or create a dangerous/deadly situation, do not get guns. If they already have them, they are taken by the local police until such time as the person is out of danger to themselves and/or the community.

Numerous laws already apply, better ones might be created, but until we fix NICS it doesn't matter.

K.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/11/2015 11:50:34 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/11/2015 11:25:43 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yes, you are defending the lawbreakers.

And you are a piece of shit. Gun-owners, along with the NRA and the trade organization for the firearms industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, have been pushing for more action against gun crime for decades, for fixing the broken NICS system, stiffer penalties for illegal possession, and more vigorous efforts to pursue and prosecute traffickers, all to no avail. That they don't view your suggestions as the height of brilliance you imagine them to be doesn't mean they're defending killers. Is there no fucking bottom to how low you'll sink?

All the 'concepts' and 'ideas' from all those groups would not have prevented Mr. Jones from killing one person and injuring three others. So I have to call BULLSHIT.

Nothing you've suggested would be likely to have stopped him either. But more to the point, why are you so oddly unconcerned about the thousands of other homicides better enforcement could prevent?

K.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/11/2015 11:48:23 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/12/2015 2:26:41 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The difference is, had Mr. Jones not had a firearm, could he have inflicted as much damage?





That depends, was there a crockpot handy?

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2015/05/28/slow-cooker-beating-death-plea/28063883/

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/12/2015 6:13:17 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
oh we are talking about single deaths now???
Its amazing what you can achieve with a broken beer bottle and a broom handle...inside a vagina.
Ban broom handles and beer?


< Message edited by Lucylastic -- 10/12/2015 6:14:22 AM >


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/12/2015 6:18:46 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yes, you are defending the lawbreakers.

And you are a piece of shit. Gun-owners, along with the NRA and the trade organization for the firearms industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, have been pushing for more action against gun crime for decades, for fixing the broken NICS system, stiffer penalties for illegal possession, and more vigorous efforts to pursue and prosecute traffickers, all to no avail. That they don't view your suggestions as the height of brilliance you imagine them to be doesn't mean they're defending killers. Is there no fucking bottom to how low you'll sink?

K.


So who exactly is opposing these measures and why?

It's not we're seeing the gun lobby in any all-out fight to achieve these. Or much of a less than all-out fight.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/12/2015 8:41:36 AM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh we are talking about single deaths now???
Its amazing what you can achieve with a broken beer bottle and a broom handle...inside a vagina.
Ban broom handles and beer?



I recall the US attempting to ban beer and it not working out as planned.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful - 10/12/2015 8:42:45 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
yes another failure.
We know how bad alchohol is, SINCE prohibition failed.
war on drugs is a failure too
But way to deflect.
They dont kill on their own either.
stupid people are neccessary.

< Message edited by Lucylastic -- 10/12/2015 8:46:25 AM >


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.111