4 firefighters shot, 2 dead in NY state

[classy]

Originally Posted by corwin

They wouldn't have been there without the fire, so let's take away everyone's ability to make fire, same logic as taking away guns and just as possible

I wish people would stop making dumbass comments like this. A couple of people got killed.....

[Arkaign]

Originally Posted by SheHateMe

Of course, you expect AT gun nuts to have feelings?



Have you noticed that immediately after Sandy Hook, the AT Gun Club has been making threads about their right to have guns non-stop? There are atleast 3 active Gun threads in OT, and they keep popping up here too.

Bottom-line, fuck you and people dumb enough to get shot. They aren't giving up their guns.

I don't think that's the case, well I suppose some of the whackos also happen to be 2nd amendment supporters, but that's neither here nor there.

The fact is that I would support tougher gun laws if they were helpful in saving lives. The simple truth is that they're not. It's pretty easy to figure out why.

Nothing short of a complete, absolute removal of every single firearm in the country (yes, even including those in the military and law enforcement hands, so they don't get stolen/lost) by mystical means, and the erection of permenant seals on the country's borders completely sealing us off from the rest of the world permanently would have a chance at really solving gun violence. And judging from the UK and Australia, and conversely of Switzerland of course, the fact is that the aftereffects would be more violence by other means.

It's not a matter of being callous and not caring when people are harmed, it's a matter of rejecting bad ideas that have proven to be done with the right heart, but the wrong mind.

Logic > Emotion.

[OrByte]

Originally Posted by corwin

They wouldn't have been there without the fire, so let's take away everyone's ability to make fire, same logic as taking away guns and just as possible

who is arguing to take away guns?

[Arkaign]

Originally Posted by OrByte

who is arguing to take away guns?

Right now, a good many people are. Most of these people have their hearts in the right place, but are letting emotion get in the way of rationality.

[OrByte]

Originally Posted by Arkaign

Right now, a good many people are. Most of these people have their hearts in the right place, but are letting emotion get in the way of rationality.

Im as against guns as anyone else on the street

but you can't ban all guns..thats stupid and a useless argument

[Geosurface]

Expressions of sympathy are cheap and effortless. Anyone can blast out a post about how horrible noble public servants being gunned down for no reason is. Or kindergartners even more obviously so.

No kidding, these are incredibly tragic, sad, senseless events.

But some of you have taught us to be wary of your hollow, effortless, meaningless expressions of sympathy and sadness for strangers none of us knew. Strangers who, as often as not, agreed with us - not you.

Why have we learned to be wary of your expressions of sympathy? Because we've learned what comes with them as a package deal. There is am embedded agenda. Never was this more obvious than it is lately.

It's easy to win the "see how nice I am? I said the most sympathetic thing!" game.

It is a hollow victory. What use is your sympathy here? No use but another form of epeen measurement. If you are in the same community as the victims' loved ones and express sympathy and offer support directly? Fantastic! I certainly would.

But here on a message board? For many of you it is a means to an end. Pushing your political agenda.

So I am uninterested in your shallow, easy expressions of sympathy. What I'm interested in is what you're getting at. Where you intend to go with your agenda. I think I have a damned good idea.

[StinkyPinky]

Originally Posted by Arkaign

Right now, a good many people are. Most of these people have their hearts in the right place, but are letting emotion get in the way of rationality.

No one is arguing to take away guns. Simply taking away ones that serve no practical purpose. If you need a pistol or shotgun to defend yourself, then go ahead

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally Posted by StinkyPinky

No one is arguing to take away guns. Simply taking away ones that serve no practical purpose. If you need a pistol or shotgun to defend yourself, then go ahead

That's right. Clearly murderers use only impractical guns. I'm sure that the guy in the op's story used one such weapon, and would not have been able to kill anyone with a practical weapon like a pistol or shotgun.

[Engineer]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/justic...hters-shooter/

Man killed his grandmother in 1980 with a hammer and was only convicted of manslaughter....SMH. Now two firefighters are dead and their families are left to pick up the pieces because of this piece of shit. I hope he is burning in hell.

[StinkyPinky]

Originally Posted by HamburgerBoy

That's right. Clearly murderers use only impractical guns. I'm sure that the guy in the op's story used one such weapon, and would not have been able to kill anyone with a practical weapon like a pistol or shotgun.

Well if I had my way all the guns would be heavily restricted, but baby steps. Start with guns that are useless for anyone except spree killers and go from there.

[Agent11]

The guy that did this was a felon and was out after doing time for murdering his grandmother.

If anything this incident speaks for more frequent application of the death penalty.

[TallBill]

Originally Posted by SheHateMe

Of course, you expect AT gun nuts to have feelings?



Have you noticed that immediately after Sandy Hook, the AT Gun Club has been making threads about their right to have guns non-stop? There are atleast 3 active Gun threads in OT, and they keep popping up here too.

Bottom-line, fuck you and people dumb enough to get shot. They aren't giving up their guns.

Lol statistics continually prove that letting citizens arm themselves lowers crime. I cant be held responsible for your inability to understand statistics.

This man wasnt legally allowed to own a gun, how would another law help? Surprisingly enough, if firefighters were armed, and im not suggesting this, these men's odds of living would have gone up.

[Agent11]

In all of these events there are other factors. Yet certain people always try to use them to infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners.

Why is it that they do not pursue stricter application of capital punishment for murderers and reform of mental health care for the disturbed with the same zeal they apply towards trying to take our rights?

[TallBill]

Originally Posted by Agent11

In all of these events there are other factors. Yet certain people always try to use them to infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners.

Why is it that they do not pursue stricter application of capital punishment for murderers and reform of mental health care for the disturbed with the same zeal they apply towards trying to take our rights?

Because capital punishment is bad. Boo hoo, dont smash grandmas head in with a hammer and we won't fry you.

[RabidMongoose]

Yet another case. When will it stop?

[Geosurface]

It won't stop. When will the media's agenda-driven push to cover such incidents more relentlessly than ever stop?

[Engineer]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

It won't stop. When will the media's agenda-driven push to cover such incidents more relentlessly than ever stop?

Their agenda is to make money, and as long as people provide money to read/listen to/watch it, the reporting won't stop. Maybe the sensationalism and some of it should, but they have a "right", as much as your right to arms, to do what they are doing. You are for keeping rights so you should have no issue with this.

[Geosurface]

Originally Posted by Engineer

Their agenda is to make money, and as long as people provide money to read/listen to/watch it, the reporting won't stop. Maybe the sensationalism and some of it should, but they have a "right", as much as your right to arms, to do what they are doing. You are for keeping rights so you should have no issue with this.

Firstly let me say the first amendment is far more dear to me than the second. I've never exercised my second amendment rights despite having no obstacles to doing so. If I had to give one up? It's obvious.

I made no comment to the contrary. I understand their first motive is profit but given the percentage of anti-gun minded people in the media you should acknowledge that other motives are at play too. Piers Morgan just makes it more obvious than most.

[TallBill]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

Firstly let me say the first amendment is far more dear to me than the second. I've never exercised my second amendment rights despite having no obstacles to doing so. If I had to give one up? It's obvious.

I made no comment to the contrary. I understand their first motive is profit but given the percentage of anti-gun minded people in the media you should acknowledge that other motives are at play too. Piers Morgan just makes it more obvious than most.

Fuck that. George Washington didn't gain Independence with his freedom of speech. He killed for it.

[Skyclad1uhm1]

There should be heavy psychological tests to determine whether someone can get a license to carry firearms. Of course that would mean that pretty much all the current gunowners would lose the right to carry a gun.

[TallBill]

Originally Posted by Skyclad1uhm1

There should be heavy psychological tests to determine whether someone can get a license to carry firearms. Of course that would mean that pretty much all the current gunowners would lose the right to carry a gun.

This guy was a convicted felon, and you're second statement is ridiculous.

[Doppel]

Based on what he spent 17-18 years in prison for I question whether he should ever have been allowed out of prison. Hammering somebody to death should probably make you a permanent ward of the state until you die. He wasn't, got out, obviously was still a mental nutcase, and did this.

[Arkaign]

Originally Posted by Doppel

Based on what he spent 17-18 years in prison for I question whether he should ever have been allowed out of prison. Hammering somebody to death should probably make you a permanent ward of the state until you die. He wasn't, got out, obviously was still a mental nutcase, and did this.

Yep. I've argued before in favor of abolishing the DEA, giving states the freedom to choose their own drug policies independent of the federal gov't, and basically calling it quits on the the incredibly wasteful drug war.

Would I rather use the same finite local gov't resources to warehouse 30,000 nonviolent drug offenders and 10,000 violent offenders for the approximate same average sentence? Or on the flip side lock up 25,000 of the worst violent offenders for FAR greater amounts of time while offering greater access to mental/substance counseling to the drug offenders?

I can tell you which I think would do more for the country, in budgeting, in allocation of law enforcement (more on violent criminals, less on nonviolent), and in protecting society from lifelong predators. Anyone who commits an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, kills someone while DUI, etc, they really need spectacularly longer sentences than are feasible under the current setup. A massive number of firearms murders are committed by people with past felony convictions, and most of these people already have a violent record.

[TallBill]

Originally Posted by Arkaign

Yep. I've argued before in favor of abolishing the DEA, giving states the freedom to choose their own drug policies independent of the federal gov't, and basically calling it quits on the the incredibly wasteful drug war.

Would I rather use the same finite local gov't resources to warehouse 30,000 nonviolent drug offenders and 10,000 violent offenders for the approximate same average sentence? Or on the flip side lock up 25,000 of the worst violent offenders for FAR greater amounts of time while offering greater access to mental/substance counseling to the drug offenders?

I can tell you which I think would do more for the country, in budgeting, in allocation of law enforcement (more on violent criminals, less on nonviolent), and in protecting society from lifelong predators. Anyone who commits an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, kills someone while DUI, etc, they really need spectacularly longer sentences than are feasible under the current setup. A massive number of firearms murders are committed by people with past felony convictions, and most of these people already have a violent record.

I agree with you, it'd be far more worthwhile. Hell, some politicians might agree, but they'd never admit it.

[StrangerGuy]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

Expressions of sympathy are cheap and effortless. Anyone can blast out a post about how horrible noble public servants being gunned down for no reason is. Or kindergartners even more obviously so.

Exactly. It's so easy to ride the moral high horse and calling others Hitler when that doesn't even address the root cause on reality.