America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by dpnewell. 25 replies replies.
A solution at last... gun free zones...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 9:31 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
http://youtu.be/5dg_AcBeHgo

Mellow
dpnewell Offline
#2 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 2:26 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Yet, there are some who reallly believe that if you declare something a "gun free zone", criminals will not enter, and you've made it "safe". You know, like schools. I can not believe how utterly stupid some happen to be.

Just like the brainless surfs who think that Obama's gun restrictions on the good people, will stop criminals. Bow down, oh dullard ones, and kiss the feet of your master.
bloody spaniard Offline
#3 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 2:28 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Haven't check out Drafter's link (never do) but haven't 11 out the 12 last "massacres" occurred in gun free zones?
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 2:35 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
the video is sarcasm on the point you just brought up Bloody.... they are saying if you put up a sign, after sending them money, you'll be safe..... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#5 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 2:36 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
bloody spaniard wrote:
Haven't check out Drafter's link (never do)




Bassard..!! Mad
bloody spaniard Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 2:39 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
DrafterX wrote:
Bassard..!! Mad



d'oh! Ok ok, I'll check your links from now on, since I now know what I'm missing...



Sarcasm
victor809 Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 3:47 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
dpnewell wrote:
Yet, there are some who reallly believe that if you declare something a "gun free zone", criminals will not enter, and you've made it "safe". You know, like schools. I can not believe how utterly stupid some happen to be.

Just like the brainless surfs who think that Obama's gun restrictions on the good people, will stop criminals. Bow down, oh dullard ones, and kiss the feet of your master.


I don't think that's what people assume dp...
I'm gonna guess that when people declare something a "gun-free zone" they're trying to reduce the instances of "accidental discharge"...anything from a kid getting ahold of a gun and pulling the trigger, to two soccer moms fighting over a mini-van parking spot until one finally pulls a gun on the other. Completely law abiding citizens with no intent of shooting someone.... but fights happen, accidents happen... whatever.

Seems like that is the more likely reduction they are looking for at least. No one tries to stop a determined criminal with a sign.
DrafterX Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 3:50 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
victor809 wrote:
they're trying to reduce the instances of "accidental discharge"....



isn't there a pill for that..?? Huh
HockeyDad Offline
#9 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 8:26 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
DrafterX wrote:
isn't there a pill for that..?? Huh


Depends.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#10 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 8:29 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,591
HockeyDad wrote:
Depends.



Medicine AND diapers...ObamaCare thinks of everything...for all else there's Executive Orders!Frying pan
HockeyDad Offline
#11 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 8:51 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Once assault rifles are illegal, we should seize them all and send them to Mexico. Wait....that sounds like a familiar idea.
allichaparra Offline
#12 Posted: Mon, Jan 21 2013, 2:48 PM EST
Joined: 01-19-2012
Posts: 40
dpnewell wrote:
Yet, there are some who reallly believe that if you declare something a "gun free zone", criminals will not enter, and you've made it "safe". You know, like schools. I can not believe how utterly stupid some happen to be.

Just like the brainless surfs who think that Obama's gun restrictions on the good people, will stop criminals. Bow down, oh dullard ones, and kiss the feet of your master.


How often do you see criminals shooting up a gun shop or police station compared to gun free zones like schools?
Brewha Offline
#13 Posted: Mon, Jan 21 2013, 3:44 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
Yet, there are some who reallly believe that if you declare something a "gun free zone", criminals will not enter, and you've made it "safe". You know, like schools. I can not believe how utterly stupid some happen to be.

Just like the brainless surfs who think that Obama's gun restrictions on the good people, will stop criminals. Bow down, oh dullard ones, and kiss the feet of your master.

Ok, ok, jeez. Laws deter crimes, not prevent them. Law allow us to take legal action against a bad guys not stop bad guys from being bad, you dim bulb.

Remember how during the banking collapse lots of white collar criminals didn't go to jail because we did not actually have regulations to criminalized their actions?
dpnewell Offline
#14 Posted: Mon, Jan 21 2013, 9:37 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Brewha wrote:
Ok, ok, jeez. Laws deter crimes, not prevent them. Law allow us to take legal action against a bad guys not stop bad guys from being bad, you dim bulb.

Remember how during the banking collapse lots of white collar criminals didn't go to jail because we did not actually have regulations to criminalized their actions?


OK, let's follow your logic. Drunk divers kill and mane thousands each year. Drunks are also responsible for many domestic killings and beatings. According to your logic on gun control, the best way to control alcohol abuse is to further restrict the law abiding. We can start by restricting the legal blood alcohol limit of everyone to .08% (the legal driving limit in many states). All alcohol containers should require a serial number that is recorded at time of sale. Special permits will be required for any purchase. You'll have to blow into a breathalyze to prove you're not in violation of the law before being served each drink at a bar or restaurant. Spirits that contain more then 10% alcohol will be banned.

It won’t stop the abusers, but since they’re already breaking current laws, the only solution is to enact further laws and restrictions on the responsible users of alcohol, right? Total lunacy, especially in a “free society”, but it makes as much sense as the additional restrictions you and others want to impose on responsible gun owners.

Now, to address the 2nd part of your post about the white collar criminals not going to jail, because we did not have regulations to criminalize their actions. Murder is already a capital offense. But, by your argument murder is not a sufficient crime to charge a killer with. The only way to properly prosecute a killer is to have dozens of additional gun law violations to charge him with. Dude, do you actually read the stuff you post?
Brewha Offline
#15 Posted: Mon, Jan 21 2013, 10:01 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
OK, let's follow your logic. Drunk divers kill and mane thousands each year. Drunks are also responsible for many domestic killings and beatings. According to your logic on gun control, the best way to control alcohol abuse is to further restrict the law abiding. We can start by restricting the legal blood alcohol limit of everyone to .08% (the legal driving limit in many states). All alcohol containers should require a serial number that is recorded at time of sale. Special permits will be required for any purchase. You'll have to blow into a breathalyze to prove you're not in violation of the law before being served each drink at a bar or restaurant. Spirits that contain more then 10% alcohol will be banned.

It won’t stop the abusers, but since they’re already breaking current laws, the only solution is to enact further laws and restrictions on the responsible users of alcohol, right? Total lunacy, especially in a “free society”, but it makes as much sense as the additional restrictions you and others want to impose on responsible gun owners.

Now, to address the 2nd part of your post about the white collar criminals not going to jail, because we did not have regulations to criminalize their actions. Murder is already a capital offense. But, by your argument murder is not a sufficient crime to charge a killer with. The only way to properly prosecute a killer is to have dozens of additional gun law violations to charge him with. Dude, do you actually read the stuff you post?

Obviously, I am not writing with the level of clariy that is needed.
Oddly, I don't I think wrote anything like that . . . . Hummmmm.

Are you sure that you are read my posts?
wheelrite Offline
#16 Posted: Mon, Jan 21 2013, 10:06 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Guns don't kill people ,,,

Bullets and syphillis do.....

Outlaw intercourse NOW !!!
Brewha Offline
#17 Posted: Tue, Jan 22 2013, 9:58 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
wheelrite wrote:
Guns don't kill people ,,,

Bullets and syphillis do.....

Outlaw intercourse NOW !!!


Actually is sounds fun; outlaw intercourse . . . .
tailgater Offline
#18 Posted: Thu, Jan 24 2013, 3:15 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Signs designating a Gun Free Zone are a great idea.

I mean, if the deer only cross where the signs tell them to...
tailgater Offline
#19 Posted: Thu, Jan 24 2013, 3:17 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
allichaparra wrote:
How often do you see criminals shooting up a gun shop or police station compared to gun free zones like schools?


Of course, you don't see many shootings at the local locksmith or dry cleaners either.
chemyst Offline
#20 Posted: Thu, Jan 24 2013, 3:23 PM EST
Joined: 05-29-2006
Posts: 1,674
Is a "Gun Free Zone" sign the same as a "Free Target Shooting Here" sign?

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

But, I don't want to be at the mercy of outlaws.
ZRX1200 Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Jan 24 2013, 3:24 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
Victor when was the last accidental discharge massacre???
ZRX1200 Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Jan 24 2013, 3:25 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
Sorry I never clean my guns at the movie theater.
chemyst Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Jan 24 2013, 3:39 PM EST
Joined: 05-29-2006
Posts: 1,674
What happened when they offered the libtard media signs that said,
"Proud to be a Gun Free Home"?

The hypocrite libtards refused to put them on their lawn, front door,
in the front window, or anywhere on their property.
victor809 Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Jan 24 2013, 7:58 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
ZRX1200 wrote:
Victor when was the last accidental discharge massacre???


Huh...
Because 18 kids being killed over the course of a year due to accidents is somehow better than 18 kids being killed over the course of a year in 3 separate massacres?

If you believe having guns everywhere will prevent massacres, that's fine. I'm just saying that you need to factor an increase in accidental discharge death and injury. Not a big deal, just has to be assessed.

For instance, with current ownership numbers, what is the accidental death rate with firearms?
What's the current number of people killed in massacres?

How many massacres would be prevented/reduced in severity with a doubling of firearm ownership numbers?
How many additional deaths from accidents would occur with a doubling of firear ownership numbers?

Which of those two numbers is bigger?
I haven't bothered to look it up, but I can guarantee you that both sides of the issue ONLY use one of the two numbers when pushing their respective agenda.
dpnewell Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Jan 24 2013, 8:51 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
victor809 wrote:
Huh...
Because 18 kids being killed over the course of a year due to accidents is somehow better than 18 kids being killed over the course of a year in 3 separate massacres?

If you believe having guns everywhere will prevent massacres, that's fine. I'm just saying that you need to factor an increase in accidental discharge death and injury. Not a big deal, just has to be assessed.

For instance, with current ownership numbers, what is the accidental death rate with firearms?
What's the current number of people killed in massacres?

How many massacres would be prevented/reduced in severity with a doubling of firearm ownership numbers?
How many additional deaths from accidents would occur with a doubling of firear ownership numbers?

Which of those two numbers is bigger?
I haven't bothered to look it up, but I can guarantee you that both sides of the issue ONLY use one of the two numbers when pushing their respective agenda.


I understand your point, Victor, and it is a legitimate one. But, it's not something that you'll likely find a true answer to. Whatever source you use is going to provide you with skewed numbers. How many times have you heard “the gun just went off”, or “someone dropped it and it discharged”? This could happen with old guns if they where banged hard or dropped, but guns made in the last 30 years or so have firing pin blocks and disconnects that prevent accidental discharge. More then likely when a gun “just went off” or was “dropped” some idiot pulled the trigger. A gun firing when someone pulls the trigger is not an “accidental” discharge. It may be an unintentional discharge (I pulled the trigger and surprise, the blasted thing just went off, duh), but it’s not accidental, even though government statistics would classify it as such.

Another problem statistic is the number of children killed each year by firearms. Anyone 20 years and under is a “child” under these statistics. Every 18, 19, 20 year old gang banger shot by another gang banger, and even a 20 year old robber shot by police are added to this statistic. Teenage suicides by firearm are also included.

The true numbers are considerably less then those thrown out by the Brady Bunch and government agencies. I’m not saying that this should not be a concern, but you’ll never be able to come up with an unbiased answer to your question as long as these statistics are calculated the way they are today.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top