Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

elementary school shooting in CT


  • Please log in to reply
238 replies to this topic

#221 Matisse

Matisse
  • Members
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Khaz Modan
  • Vengeance
  • Posts: 3636
  • Talents: Shadow

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:58 AM

View Poststcolbert, on 17 December 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".

But yes, I guess it is a superlative.

This sort of brings up why firearms laws are so confusing/incorrect: of course if you define an "offensive weapon" you'll come up with a definition that relates to causing injury. The CPS page you took that from defines an offensive weapon, but not a defensive one. It should just be "weapon," and how it is used should determine whether it is 'offensive' or 'defensive'. (I suppose that since it is the CPS, the context sort of makes sense, but it's still kinda goofy.) But to say it is solely an "offensive weapon" in the' context above doesn't really make sense, and adds a certain connotation to it before it is necessary to do so.

Also, above, I used the word "incorrect" regarding firearms laws, which is not to say that I disagree with the need for firearms laws, just the way they're written (by people who have no clue what they're legislating on). And I don't mean you specifically, it's just weird as fuck to write "if one defines..." for some reason. Using "one" sounds a lot better in French, I think.

Posted Image

View PostBreadstick, on 07 September 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

some pickles are really good


#222 Jayru

Jayru
  • Members
  • Orcclass_name
  • EU-Bloodfeather
  • Rampage / Saccage
  • Posts: 3391
  • Talents: Survival

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:58 AM

View Poststcolbert, on 17 December 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

My point is that you are having a conversation with me on my views so I'd appreciate if you stop trying to fight my points with what other people think or do.

In that case, you aren't make points--you're stating opinions.  You haven't given any arguments other than "I think you shouldn't be able to own X" or "I don't think people should carry guns."  

View Poststcolbert, on 17 December 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

It's an offensive weapon because that's what it is.  It doesn't matter if it is used "defensively" or not.  It's used to kill, period.  Stop trying to redefine that.  The only other thing a gun can be used for is competitions, and if that's the case, regulations won't effect said competitions.

I'm interested in understand how you define a gun as an offensive weapon, as opposed to something that is a defensive weapon--and give me examples.  The gun is a gun, the manner in which it is used is offensive or defensive.  Guns aren't solely used for killing, the majority of people with guns don't kill people with said guns.  Yes, gun regulations (usually negatively) affect recreational gun use.  You're restricting access to guns yet claiming that it won't affect "competitions," I'm assuming you're including recreational target shooting.  Regulations also affect collectors, technically they aren't "using" their gun.

View Poststcolbert, on 17 December 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

Yes, and YOU are saying that they SHOULD.  You like to keep saying "oh the benefits of guns and stopping criminals" yet then when I say that I don't like vigilantes, you try to take the contradictory route of "lol, no one does this".  Make up your mind and stay consistent.

I'm saying citizens should play cop/be a vigilante?  No, I'm saying citizens are responsible for their own self defense.  We don't leave it to the state to lock our doors, install our alarm systems, secure our valuables, or fight our fights for us.  Cops are rarely ever there when you need them.  Cops are there to attempt to prevent crime, and to catch criminals usually after the crime is committed.  Citizens are actually the ones that stop the majority of crimes in progress.  This isn't playing vigilante.  This is defending yourself, and your property--things you are responsible for, not leaving it to someone else.  Are you really advocating people should roll over and do nothing when criminals show up?  The Supreme Court even ruled that police have no extraordinary duty to protect citizens.  

View Poststcolbert, on 17 December 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

No there doesn't.

Because you don't have an argument or don't care to make one?

View Poststcolbert, on 17 December 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

What someone does to their own body is none of my concern.
Alcohol is regulated.  
Having a bottle of alcohol does not give you the ability to kill many people.
The two aren't even remotely comparable.  Just stop with this.

You missed the point.  I said alcohol is directly linked to physical assault and murder, unlike guns.  Alcohol consumption is the direct casual mechanism of murder, rape, and physical assault.  Alcohol also plays a huge part in not only creating crime, but raises a person's victimization chance as well.  I never said alcohol wasn't regulated.  Consuming alcohol increases aggressiveness, impairs judgement, creates exaggerated emotional states, and raises the pain threshold.  Possessing a gun merely gives confidence.  You're right, the two aren't comparable.  One causes and enables crime, the other is merely a tool used in crime.  One is used as a tool in other (recreational) activities, the other is a recreational drug.  Both, depending on who you talk to, aren't necessities and there's no reason for anyone to have or us it.  One is worth monetary value that doesn't devalue much, the other has potential monetary value that might increase until it's consumed.  

So to state my point again, you don't ban/regulate stuff solely based on the potential harm.  The things/practices you advocate banning are the least of the problems.  Permit holders are some of the most law abiding people on the planet, with an absurdly low crime rate.  Legally owned automatic weapons are used in virtually no crimes, "assault weapons" are used in less than 3% of crimes.  

View Poststcolbert, on 17 December 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

Regardless we aren't talking about alcohol, we are talking about guns.  The two are very different so stop trying to equate the two.  There's no need to create some new argument we aren't even discussing so you can straw-man the shit out of me.

I was trying to explain why you don't pass regulations on stuff based on necessity, merely not liking something, or saying "it's harmful."  Yes, alcohol is regulated here in similar ways as a firearms.  Yet people don't starting asking for bans on alcohol after alcohol related incidents (inb4 4 Loko).  I'm assuming you got my point.  Saying guns kill lets ban them isn't a reasonable argument.  Plenty of shit kills, and isn't banned.  Why are (certain) guns an exception?  

View Poststcolbert, on 17 December 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

Fundamental differences in viewpoints between us then.  I believe the safety of community/nation ranks higher than insignificant individual freedoms.  I could careless about what you are considering fairness.

Yet, some people believe owning a gun "makes you safer" taking into account deterrence, the effectiveness (of the threat)of a firearm.  Fairness isn't even the largest part of the equation here considering we have the 2nd amendment.  Feel free to explain how an inanimate object endangers the safety of the community, complete with the whole picture of why you don't seem to support a total gun ban vs banning certain guns.  If you were genuinely concerned I'd think you would support a total gun ban.  

Unlike virtually any other weapon a gun levels the playing field, the reason why criminals choose them, and the reason why American citizens choose them as a primary means of self defense.

#223 stcolbert

stcolbert
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Eredar
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 5465
  • Talents: Holy

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:44 AM

View PostMatisse, on 17 December 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

This sort of brings up why firearms laws are so confusing/incorrect: of course if you define an "offensive weapon" you'll come up with a definition that relates to causing injury. The CPS page you took that from defines an offensive weapon, but not a defensive one. It should just be "weapon," and how it is used should determine whether it is 'offensive' or 'defensive'. (I suppose that since it is the CPS, the context sort of makes sense, but it's still kinda goofy.) But to say it is solely an "offensive weapon" in the' context above doesn't really make sense, and adds a certain connotation to it before it is necessary to do so.

Also, above, I used the word "incorrect" regarding firearms laws, which is not to say that I disagree with the need for firearms laws, just the way they're written (by people who have no clue what they're legislating on). And I don't mean you specifically, it's just weird as fuck to write "if one defines..." for some reason. Using "one" sounds a lot better in French, I think.
I believe the difference is that anything can be used as a weapon without that being its purpose, i.e. a kitchen knife or baseball bat.  Whereas an offensive weapon is designed to inflict harm and death like a gun, or nerve gas.

These types of things should be regulated.


View PostJayru, on 17 December 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:



I'm saying citizens should play cop/be a vigilante?  No, I'm saying citizens are responsible for their own self defense.  We don't leave it to the state to lock our doors, install our alarm systems, secure our valuables, or fight our fights for us.  Cops are rarely ever there when you need them.  Cops are there to attempt to prevent crime, and to catch criminals usually after the crime is committed.  Citizens are actually the ones that stop the majority of crimes in progress.  This isn't playing vigilante.  This is defending yourself, and your property--things you are responsible for, not leaving it to someone else.  Are you really advocating people should roll over and do nothing when criminals show up?  The Supreme Court even ruled that police have no extraordinary duty to protect citizens.  
You made references to people stopping criminals in public with the use of firearms.  That's taking the law into their hands and thus vigilantism.   Yes that is exactly what I am advocating.  Running away, calling the cops, getting the fuck out of there.  You don't need to engage a criminal to defend your property.  All of these seems to be a different issue though and I fail to see how a shotgun or hunting rifle is not adequate in providing protection while in your home.

View PostJayru, on 17 December 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

Because you don't have an argument or don't care to make one?
I've been stating my argument but for some reason you think I make "no points" while I've made many most of which you tried to address so I don't know wtf you are going on about.

View PostJayru, on 17 December 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

You missed the point.  I said alcohol is directly linked to physical assault and murder, unlike guns.  Alcohol consumption is the direct casual mechanism of murder, rape, and physical assault.  Alcohol also plays a huge part in not only creating crime, but raises a person's victimization chance as well.  I never said alcohol wasn't regulated.  Consuming alcohol increases aggressiveness, impairs judgement, creates exaggerated emotional states, and raises the pain threshold.  Possessing a gun merely gives confidence.  You're right, the two aren't comparable.  One causes and enables crime, the other is merely a tool used in crime.  One is used as a tool in other (recreational) activities, the other is a recreational drug.  Both, depending on who you talk to, aren't necessities and there's no reason for anyone to have or us it.  One is worth monetary value that doesn't devalue much, the other has potential monetary value that might increase until it's consumed.  
I didn't miss the point it is just fucking retarded.  We are talking about guns not alcohol, you even go on to accept the two aren't comparable so why the fuck are you comparing them.  
Also your line of logic is extremely hypocritical.  You want to blame all the crimes of violence on alcohol and not the user, whereas with guns its 100% the user and has nothing to do with the gun. Come on.  I know tons of people who drink responsibly and I gave examples where indeed the government does regulate alcohol.  Anyways, I don't want to get into this because it is a totally different argument.


View PostJayru, on 17 December 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

So to state my point again, you don't ban/regulate stuff solely based on the potential harm.  The things/practices you advocate banning are the least of the problems.  Permit holders are some of the most law abiding people on the planet, with an absurdly low crime rate.  Legally owned automatic weapons are used in virtually no crimes, "assault weapons" are used in less than 3% of crimes.  
To state my point again,  YES YOU DO.  
This is important:  Now tell me, what is harder to get and what is more strictly regulated, assault weapons and full autos, or semi automatics and pistols?  Now is it any wonder why the the former is used in less crimes?  DO you really think that regulation does nothing.


View PostJayru, on 17 December 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

I was trying to explain why you don't pass regulations on stuff based on necessity, merely not liking something, or saying "it's harmful."  Yes, alcohol is regulated here in similar ways as a firearms.  Yet people don't starting asking for bans on alcohol after alcohol related incidents (inb4 4 Loko).  I'm assuming you got my point.  Saying guns kill lets ban them isn't a reasonable argument.  Plenty of shit kills, and isn't banned.  Why are (certain) guns an exception?  
I never said all guns should be banned.  I said they should be regulated and more heavily than they are.  Stop making fucking straw-man it is annoying.


View PostJayru, on 17 December 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

Yet, some people believe owning a gun "makes you safer" taking into account deterrence, the effectiveness (of the threat)of a firearm.  Fairness isn't even the largest part of the equation here considering we have the 2nd amendment.  Feel free to explain how an inanimate object endangers the safety of the community, complete with the whole picture of why you don't seem to support a total gun ban vs banning certain guns.  If you were genuinely concerned I'd think you would support a total gun ban.  

Unlike virtually any other weapon a gun levels the playing field, the reason why criminals choose them, and the reason why American citizens choose them as a primary means of self defense.
Great the second amendment point.  Heaven forbid we adjust our laws accordingly with the times.

Would you leave your child in a room full of razor blades?  Just because an object is inanimate does not mean it does not pose a danger.

The reason I don't support a full gun ban is because I believe that certain guns do have uses other than to harm others, such as hunting and competition.
I'm always right.
Posted Image

#224 Matisse

Matisse
  • Members
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Khaz Modan
  • Vengeance
  • Posts: 3636
  • Talents: Shadow

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:57 AM

View Poststcolbert, on 17 December 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

I believe the difference is that anything can be used as a weapon without that being its purpose, i.e. a kitchen knife or baseball bat.  Whereas an offensive weapon is designed to inflict harm and death like a gun, or nerve gas.

These types of things should be regulated.

Firearms are regulated, so gonna assume you mean regulated more strictly. Are you essentially claiming that the primary purpose of a gun is to inflict harm?

Posted Image

View PostBreadstick, on 07 September 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

some pickles are really good


#225 stcolbert

stcolbert
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Eredar
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 5465
  • Talents: Holy

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:27 AM

View PostMatisse, on 17 December 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

Firearms are regulated, so gonna assume you mean regulated more strictly. Are you essentially claiming that the primary purpose of a gun is to inflict harm?
Yes to both.
I'm always right.
Posted Image

#226 Matisse

Matisse
  • Members
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Khaz Modan
  • Vengeance
  • Posts: 3636
  • Talents: Shadow

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:58 AM

Even though 99% of gun owners use their guns for sport/hunting/protection/collecting, etc., which would be considered secondary uses, are secondary to the least-likely use of a gun (inflicting harm on another person)?

Posted Image

View PostBreadstick, on 07 September 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

some pickles are really good


#227 Slashgiggle

Slashgiggle
  • LocationHome of the Brave

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:37 AM

View Postzsuper, on 17 December 2012 - 02:54 AM, said:

Gun laws aren't really the problem. If someone like this wanted to get their hands on a gun in the US, they could do it regardless of the laws; at this point, there are too many guns in the US for any new laws to have an effect.

The problem is that there's nothing parents can do about their mentally fucked children. If your kid has violent outbursts and threatens or you on occasion, there's not much you can do about it. Once the thing is born, you're stuck with it until it does something so terrible that it can be admitted to 24/7 supervision or put in prison.

People with problems like this can't be cured. The best we can do is segregate them from society, which is a huge drain on a country's finances. Not only that, but it's hard to make the call that a person needs 24/7 supervision. The ideal situation would be to euthanize people who show tendencies to extreme violence and related, but evidently that wouldn't fly.

p.s. did anyone else watch Shinsekai Yori this week and notice how relevant it was to this shooting? No human rights until 17 is the way to go.

This has to be a troll
Fernando Torres, Lord of Football

#228 stcolbert

stcolbert
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Eredar
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 5465
  • Talents: Holy

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:21 AM

View PostMatisse, on 17 December 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Even though 99% of gun owners use their guns for sport/hunting/protection/collecting, etc., which would be considered secondary uses, are secondary to the least-likely use of a gun (inflicting harm on another person)?
What they were designed to do (purpose) and what people use them for are two different things, yes.
I'm always right.
Posted Image

#229 Naatzors

Naatzors
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • EU-Haomarush
  • Rampage / Saccage
  • Posts: 1512
  • Talents: Feral Combat
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:04 AM

View PostJayru, on 17 December 2012 - 02:54 AM, said:

--Alcohol plays a part in 70-80,000 deaths a year, second only to the 300-400,000 deaths caused by tobacco


Reminded me of the movie "Thank you for Smoking" where the top lobbyists of Firearms/Tobacco/Alcohol occasionally meet

Not relevant for the discussion - but a good movie for people who haven't seen it yet!
Posted Image

#230 Sykeasaurus

Sykeasaurus
  • Moderators
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 6954
  • Talents: Shadow

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:39 AM

agreed, good movie.  i saw that movie before TDK or w/e and i was pleasantly surprised to see him play Harvey Dent.

uptoked for thank you for smoking

bk said:

I used to beat off alot, and fail all my classes


Insight said:

I figured he's a phony but I was secretly hoping to get pounded by someone famous.

View PostTw1zle, on 07 August 2011 - 11:05 PM, said:

i wasnt aware that america was a country

i guess we learn things every day

#231 Shaylá

Shaylá
  • Members
  • Taurenclass_name
  • EU-Onyxia
  • Raserei / Frenzy
  • Posts: 5348
  • Talents:

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:03 PM

Regarding that Sperglord who told me mentally ill people deserve to be executed:

'In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.


“I can wear these pants,” he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

“They are navy blue,” I told him. “Your school’s dress code says black or khaki pants only.”

“They told me I could wear these,” he insisted. “You’re a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!”

“You can’t wear whatever pants you want to,” I said, my tone affable, reasonable. “And you definitely cannot call me a stupid bitch. You’re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.”

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.

At the start of seventh grade, Michael was accepted to an accelerated program for highly gifted math and science students. His IQ is off the charts. When he’s in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He’s in a good mood most of the time. But when he’s not, watch out. And it’s impossible to predict what will set him off.  

Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district’s most restrictive behavioral program, a contained school environment where children who can’t function in normal classrooms can access their right to free public babysitting from 7:30-1:50 Monday through Friday until they turn 18.

The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, “Look, Mom, I’m really sorry. Can I have video games back today?”

“No way,” I told him. “You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly.”

His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. “I’m going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself.”

That was it. After the knife incident, I told him that if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital, no ifs, ands, or buts. I did not respond, except to pull the car into the opposite lane, turning left instead of right.

“Where are you taking me?” he said, suddenly worried. “Where are we going?”

“You know where we are going,” I replied.

“No! You can’t do that to me! You’re sending me to hell! You’re sending me straight to hell!”

I pulled up in front of the hospital, frantically waiving for one of the clinicians who happened to be standing outside. “Call the police,” I said. “Hurry.”

Michael was in a full-blown fit by then, screaming and hitting. I hugged him close so he couldn’t escape from the car. He bit me several times and repeatedly jabbed his elbows into my rib cage. I’m still stronger than he is, but I won’t be for much longer.

The police came quickly and carried my son screaming and kicking into the bowels of the hospital. I started to shake, and tears filled my eyes as I filled out the paperwork—“Were there any difficulties with....at what age did your child....were there any problems with...has your child ever experienced...does your child have....”  

At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You’ll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing.

For days, my son insisted that I was lying—that I made the whole thing up so that I could get rid of him. The first day, when I called to check up on him, he said, “I hate you. And I’m going to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here.”

By day three, he was my calm, sweet boy again, all apologies and promises to get better. I’ve heard those promises for years. I don’t believe them anymore.

On the intake form, under the question, “What are your expectations for treatment?” I wrote, “I need help.”

And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. (http://www.motherjon...s-shootings-map). Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.

When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise—in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population. (http://www.hrw.org/n...sons-quadrupled)

With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill—Rikers Island, the LA County Jail, and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011 (http://www.npr.org/2...y-ill-prisoners)

No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.”

I agree that something must be done. It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That’s the only way our nation can ever truly heal.

God help me. God help Michael. God help us all. '

She's a terrible human being and a Ronald Reagan lover, but you get the idea.

taken from: http://anarchistsocc...nkable.html?m=1

#232

  • Members
  • Taurenclass_name
  • EU-Stormscale
  • Cyclone / Wirbelsturm
  • Talents: Feral 2/0/2/1/0/2
  • LocationPakistan

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:02 PM



#233 LowDeeps

LowDeeps
  • Junkies
  • Trollclass_name
  • US-Magtheridon
  • Ruin
  • Posts: 1066
  • Talents: Discipline

Posted 18 December 2012 - 07:01 AM

Has anyone out there proposed a 500% tax on anything larger than a handgun?  That way, if your too unstable to hold down a job, your too unstable to hold a weapon.

Sounds workable to me.
I am:
:priest: Lowdeeps on Magtheridon
:priest: Lowdeepz on Arthas
:warlock: Lowdeepz on Emerald Dream

View Postdusknoir_, on 07 April 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

I FUCKING HATE TALBADAR SO MUCH.

#234 Matisse

Matisse
  • Members
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Khaz Modan
  • Vengeance
  • Posts: 3636
  • Talents: Shadow

Posted 18 December 2012 - 07:09 AM

View PostLowDeeps, on 18 December 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

Has anyone out there proposed a 500% tax on anything larger than a handgun?  That way, if your too unstable to hold down a job, your too unstable to hold a weapon.

Sounds workable to me.

No

Posted Image

View PostBreadstick, on 07 September 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

some pickles are really good


#235 LowDeeps

LowDeeps
  • Junkies
  • Trollclass_name
  • US-Magtheridon
  • Ruin
  • Posts: 1066
  • Talents: Discipline

Posted 18 December 2012 - 07:26 AM

View PostMatisse, on 18 December 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

No

Why?
I am:
:priest: Lowdeeps on Magtheridon
:priest: Lowdeepz on Arthas
:warlock: Lowdeepz on Emerald Dream

View Postdusknoir_, on 07 April 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

I FUCKING HATE TALBADAR SO MUCH.

#236 iamgoingham

iamgoingham
  • Members
  • Posts: 30

Posted 20 December 2012 - 10:57 AM

i think it does not matter where you live... if you are really going ham u find out ways to do it regardless of rules

#237 Buglamp

Buglamp
  • Members
  • Posts: 6815

Posted 20 December 2012 - 11:44 AM

View PostLowDeeps, on 18 December 2012 - 07:26 AM, said:

Why?
People would just avoid registering. And many people would sell their guns ASAP to not pay, to people who'd acquire them privately to avoid paying.

It's not particularly realistic and most of our gun crime already happens in very specific areas where it wouldn't matter. Just inconveniences hobbyists who are law abiding peaceful citizens for the most part, odd as they may be. The problem is obviously not people keeping registered handguns either, it's those who buy them to use them on people and in this particular case the killer clearly wasn't going to hold onto a gun long enough to need to pay such a tax.

Those just seem like the logical repercussions to me, not applying any specific knowledge on the subject 'cause I don't have much.
Ghost of the white faced clown

#238 yourmomrofl

yourmomrofl
  • Members
  • Trollclass_name
  • EU-Vashj
  • Rampage / Saccage
  • Posts: 3071
  • Talents: Blood

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:34 PM

Quote

who are you to say who can or can't own an ak47? if i want one on the wall for its decorative appeal, that's my decision and should be my right.
sorry, but this is 21st century, not some libertarian jungle, and we're living in a civilizated society, a society that understands giving away some fuck-worth "freedom" will serve a higher purpose

View PostZenneroth, on 03 March 2011 - 07:42 PM, said:

Alright, so I've started experimenting with alcohol (only 20 so I can't go out to bars yet) and last weekend my brother and I were chillin out, watching netflix, and I started drinking at around 10 in the morning. I get tipsy and keep around that level till about 6 PM, then after the buzz wore off I felt like shit. It wasn't necisarily a headache, the best I can describe it is how you feel when you are really fucking tired but not sleepy. Anyway I tried to get feeling better by drinking water but I didn't feel any better until I woke up the next morning.

#239 stcolbert

stcolbert
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Eredar
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 5465
  • Talents: Holy

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:41 PM

That is honestly the best fenorr post I've ever read.
I'm always right.
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

<