Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Militant Slashdot (Score 1) 293

Yeah, government oppression NEVER happens [rolls eyes].

Tell you what. Go to ANY local store and buy a Blu-Ray player. Pop in a BBC disc (say, a recent Doctor Who), and try to skip the previews. Just try it. Guess what? The government FORCES companies to make DVD players to not allow certain bits to be skipped. Yeah, that is for the good of you and I, sure. [rolls eyes].

Now, have you EVER heard of this group called the "NSA?" They actually got the metadata from most (if not all) cell phone calls for a while (and maybe they still are). Yup, no warrant, like the 4th Amendment says they have to get. Get this... the government went after an honest person who told the American citizens how their own government was breaking the law. They are trying to accuse Snowden of treason. Treason is helping the enemy. I guess the government considers the common people to be the enemy. [rolls eyes]

Oh, our government has actually targeted journalists with surveillance, and even sent the IRS after people and groups based on their political stance. Yeah, that is OK, right? [rolls eyes]

If you trust the government, then you have not been paying attention. Stop being ignorant -- you have only yourself to blame.

Comment Re:Guns save lives (Score 1) 293

I have heard two better hypothesis. Maybe one or the other, or both, are true.

1) Lead in the environment. No more lead in gas and paint. Lead, if I recall correctly, has been shown to increase violent behavior.

2) Abortion becoming legal. With more abortion, you have less criminals.

Note that NEITHER of these are my theories, and I don't have any personal opinions on either one. I am just parroting what I have heard elsewhere.

Comment Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles (Score 1) 336

You can certainly get an AR for well under $1,000. However, decent optics can cost about as much as the rifle. Rifles are only useful if you can actually hit the target. So, that is at least $1,500. You can also customize the AR platform with all sorts of "tacticool" goodies (lights, lasers, handles, etc.). Such upgrades also cost a premium. Still, $3,000 seems like too much for most people, but I am sure that you could spend $3,000 if you really wanted to.

Comment Re:Women are the majority of gun owners (Score 1) 500

Wow. You are reaching....

From that link that YOU posted:

âoeBasically, by registering to be a student, by being an employee, or by using a ticket to an event, the person had to agree not to bring a weapon â" even if they had a concealed weapons permit,â

So, yeah, that was how the policy was SUPPOSED to work.

Now, let's see ANOTHER quote from the SAME article:

Redell, Oct. 19: The student misconduct policy regarding firearms does not apply to students with a valid concealed weapons permit.

So, yeah. AFTER THE FACT, the college clarified that they legally could not do anything about concealed permits, even though they wanted to.

But, what about the students and faculty actually there at the time? Just reading the handbook, the intent is clear that the intent is to be a gun-free zone. A lawyer who is an expert in the field might be able to know better, but the average law person would think that guns are now allowed.

So, if YOU were a student there and without the benefit of hindsight, what would YOU think about the policy there. Apparently it was so confusing even the president of the college was confused. Simply stated, the matter is FAR from clear, and a student there could hardly be blamed for THINKING that it was a gun free zone, which was the INTENT of the policy. So, yeah, the school was dishonest in this regard.

Also, some of those shootings that you listed were apparently WERE gun free zones. According to this site, the Hartford and Accent Signage ones were gun free zones.

http://sund.org/gun-free-zone-...

The Modesto shooting was at a PARTY with ALCOHOL. Responsible gun owners do not carry guns while drinking, so that was also winds up in the "fuzzy" category.

Yes, history ... and YOU.. have shown that guns rarely hit their mark.

Wow, you are reaching again. How have I shown that? All of those mass shooting, the criminal manages to hit his target, but you assume that a person fighting for their life will miss? That is called "wishful thinking."

so I assume you'll believe the morons you listen to on the radio.

Yeah, morons like Justin Timberlake and Beyonce? I would not trust them on gun policy.

Comment Re:Women are the majority of gun owners (Score 1) 500

You didn't answer my question about how you'd feel

You asked me how I would "react" not how I would "feel." Sorry, but I answered the question that you asked, not the one that you MEANT to ask.

How I would FEEL? I would think that you are an unfit parent.

Nope. They tried it and were sued in 2013... and they lost. They cannot supercede Oregon law, all they can do is politely ask that nobody bring their guns.

Funny, that is not what it says in the student handbook -- and, yes, I read it after the shooting. Once again, I can believe you (without references), or the word of the college president and the college handbook. Hmmmm, which one is more trustworthy?

Well, *IF* your statement is true, despite evidence to the contrary, you are up to ONE shooting not in a "gun free" zone.

Let me list the ones, just off of the top of my head, that were in gun free zones:

Movie Theaters. Columbine high school, Sandy Hook Elementary, Virginia Tech, Churches in S. Carolina. Military recruiting offices. Yeah, all of those were gun free zones.

According to you: Guns are safe because they don't actually hurt anybody.

Huh? Seriously, dude, what are you smoking? I never said or implied that. According to me, guns in the hands of an honest, responsible person are no danger to YOU unless you are a criminal. According to YOU, apparently, evil guns go out and find victims on their own.

Anyway, I'd rather wait for police to arrive than have a numbnut who think he's John McClane adding more bullets to the mix. Your fantasies about how heroism works are based on what Hollywood has shown you, not reality.

So, you would rather be locked in a room with a murderer unarmed with help 10 minutes away rather than have somebody in the same room be armed and take a chance of stopping the bad guy? Like I said, history has shown what that looks like, and it isn't pretty.

Now, this incident happened about TWO MILES from my house: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So, yeah, a lady with a concealed carry permit stopped a bad guy. Once again, whom do I believe? Facts, or your opinion?

Here is another incident where a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun. Only one innocent killed, but without the good guy, who knows how many?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Like I said. Make this interesting. Please deal in the truth. If I can prove what you say is false with 10 seconds of Googling, you aren't doing it right.

Tell you what. Before you post again, Google for evidence to the contrary to save me time.

Comment Re:Women are the majority of gun owners (Score 1) 500

you answered a question I did not ask. And you are continuing to dodge.

Wow. Is lying the only way that you can make your point? Here is your question:

And how would you react if I let your kids play with my drill press unsupervised?

And here is my answer:

I would not let my kids play at your house.

So, YES, I answered your question. Duh!

No, he didn't. The college can frown on it all they like but he did not break any rules.

Once again, LYING. The student who carried a weapon could get expelled for carrying. This is in their rules.

Oregon Community College. Postal shootings.

Here is the PRESIDENT OF THAT COLLEGE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A NO GUNS ON CAMPUS POLICY. If you can't believe the person who RUNS the college, then who will you believe?

Sorry, post offices are officially "gun free" zones. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...

Not really. It means more shots fired, broader group of potential victims, and confusion about who the police shoot.

So, you would rather take a CHANCE at getting accidentally hit rather than a CERTAINTY of taking a bullet to the head. Well, you choice, but not the one that I would make. However, how dare you force your stupid decisions on me?
And as to police, they warn you before they shoot. If you put your gun down, you will be OK. Let the police arrest EVERYBODY carrying a gun and sort it out later. Better to be arrested than dead.

Going by that logic you can avoid having an unwanted child by not purchasing a mini-van

You apparently do not know what "logic" means. Please explain that one.

Ah, reality. Here's reality: Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the school up in Oregon were shot up by actual students attending there.

And here is MORE reality. The victims were DISARMED, so nobody could stop the bad guy until good guys showed up -- with guns.

Now, I am still waiting for you to list the mass shootings in the last 20 years that are NOT in gun free zones. And, no, just saying that a place is gun free does not make it so when I can produce firm evidence to the contrary.

Anyways, this has been fun, but I am getting tired of refuting lies. It is just too easy and not much fun. Please at least make it challenging for me to prove you to be a liar. Be more clever! It is more fun that way.

Comment Re:Women are the majority of gun owners (Score 1) 500

No, you didn't.

Yes, I did. I did not answer the way you wanted, but I answered it honestly.

I'll show you a link to an armed student that was there.

Yeah. He broke the rules. So did that shooter. That did not mean that there was not a "gun free zone" policy there.

Or, will you present evidence of a guy going 100 MPH down the highway as proof that there is no speed limit?

Do you understand how gun-free zones came into being?

Yes. Stupid people think that a person who is willing to commit murder will actually obey a sign.

Now, I will ask you ONCE AGAIN... which mass shooting in the last 20 years have NOT been in a "gun free" zone. I am expecting a dodge again.

How would people with widely varying skills with firearms somehow end in less bloodshed? We already have statistics that show that, at best, the "Good guy with a gun" only works about 15% of the time. Meanwhile you're opening the door to problems like people rage shooting, accidental discharge, innocent victims, etc.

When a mass shooter attacks unarmed victims, it ends badly 100% of the time. Even your supposed 15% of the time is much better than 0% of the time.

Sorry, but we have seen repeatedly the consequences of gun free zones. It is stupid to think that the answer is more gun free zones. I would rather be protected by a gun than a plastic sign.

We've already learned that surrounding our kids with more guns doesn't make them safer.

Yeah, we learned that at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia tech. Those "no guns allowed" sign really worked. I can believe you, or I can believe reality. Hmmm, which to choose...

Comment Re:Women are the majority of gun owners (Score 1) 500

He dodges! So why don't you want to answer my question?

I answered the question that you asked. No dodge.

Heh. Yeah this country is just chock-full of hunters protecting their farms.

Around where I live, a lot of hunters. Fresh elk and antelope are yummy.

More recently there was the community college in Oregon.

It was a gun-free zone, at according to the president of the college. Carrying a gun there is not illegal, but you can get fired or expelled, so yeah, gun-free zone, at least if you want to keep your job and/or diploma.
Please know your FACTS. If you are in doubt, I can provide a link to a video of the college president saying that no guns are allowed.

So, once again, how many mass shootings in the last 20 years not in gun free zones?

Nah, but you should be pulled over if you're driving drunk. Fiery crashes aren't 100% preventable, but drunk driving is.

And YOU dodge.

You want to have a gun so you can kill anybody the law will allow? Why are you so eager to shoot a living being?

No, I am not eager. I hope it never happens. However, if forced to choose between a criminal or a family member dying, I am going to save my family.

Except mass shootings, which are going up rather dramatically. Which is why we're even having this conversation.

More publicized, maybe. More in general? I don't think so.

He almost certainly knew when he obtained a gun to use against human beings it was illegal to shoot them, and that's why he brought several of them along with him.

But his victims shouldn't have guns? Yeah, makes sense. That worked out SO well in movie theaters, schools, and churches in S. Carolina. All had a "no guns" policy.

We protect the President with guns. We protect our kids with plastic signs.

Comment Re:Women are the majority of gun owners (Score 1) 500

And how would you react if I let your kids play with my drill press unsupervised?

I would not let my kids play at your house.

But but but shouldn't they have the freedom to choose whether they lock up their guns?

Gun ownership is a right -- and a responsibility. With young kids in the house, locks are necessary. How old still qualifies as "young" is another discussion.

So what are they being used for then, changing the channels on the TV?

Well, putting meat in the freezer, shooting holes in paper targets, killing pests that threaten your crops and/or livestock.

Where are the guns in those areas coming from?

Generally, from areas with looser gun laws and less crime.

Violence in general.

You really think that Switzerland has the same level of violence as Venezuela? Wow. Just.... wow.

I still cannot believe the wide-spread brain-damage people must have to believe this.

OK. How many mass shootings can you name in the past 20 years that did NOT happen in gun free zones? Go ahead. I will wait...

How are you part of that group? By owning a gun. You're part of the reason other people want to own guns. Your ownership of that gun creates the potential to have it taken from you and misused, either by a criminal or possibly even someone in your own family. You could one day fire on an unarmed intruder. Or maybe you could be shot by a police officer coming to your rescue, not realizing you're not a bad guy because you're holding your gun in defense.

Really? That is what you are going with?
1) I am a danger to NOBODY, unless you break into my house or try to seriously hurt my family. If you don't want to be a victim of my gun, it is simple -- don't be a criminal.

2) Let me guess, we should ban seat belts because you MIGHT get trapped in your car, and unable to flee if it catches on fire. Yeah, it is like that. What you say MIGHT happen, but those are the long odds. I bet you base your financial future on winning the lottery.

3) And wanting to take away my gun because I MIGHT hurt an intruder? What about the fact that the intruder MIGHT hurt me?

It's not wrong. What is wrong is too many people are dying.
You're offering obstruction without a solution.

And the number of people dying goes DOWN every year. Plus, I have yet to actually hear a solution from you. All you propose are things that are unconstitutional and ineffective. Which of those traits appeals to you more? The fact that you would be going against the Constitution, or the fact that more laws just inconvenience the people who follow the laws?

The "Let everybody have guns!" approach is simple, clear, and also wrong. But, hey, at least we'll get to repeat this again in a month or so when the next mass-shooting happens. Within a year or two it could even reach once-a-week! Aren't you looking forward to this endless debate?

Did I ever say "everybody have guns?" If so, show me where. I don't remember saying that. How much easier to attack people if you can invent things that they say.

And, yes, there will be another shooting eventually in another gun-free zone where all of the victims are unarmed. Didn't the person committed to mass murder realize that he will be breaking the law by bringing a gun in where it is not allowed? Maybe we need to make gun in a "gun free zone" MORE illegal, maybe then the criminal will obey that law.

Comment Re:Women are the majority of gun owners (Score 1) 500

I asked about how you felt about giving chainsaws to toddlers.

Well, obviously, dangerous items need to be kept out of the hands of children. I have kids. That is why I keep a lock on my drill press, and I keep a lock on my guns. Safety is common sense. YOU were the one that brought toddlers into this.

Actually your pool is a lot less dangerous right now than it would have been if not for regulations about how it's constructed and maintained.

Yes, and guns need to be LOCKED UP if you have kids in the house. Simple enough. But I don't want to ban guns or pools.

it's singular purpose is to kill

Guns are doing a remarkably bad job then, since for every gun used in a murder, over 30,000 guns hurt nobody. Show me a single other tool that fails so spectacularly. I bet that more than 90% of steak knives actually cut steak each year, and at least 80% of table saws cut wood each year. To have only one out of over 30,000 tools used for its intended purpose shows that maybe that is NOT its intended purpose.

It is a crime enforced specifically to prevent harm from occurring.

I am all for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. But you can't just say that OWNING a gun is irresponsible.

But it doesn't matter since it's roughly uniform across the globe.

What is uniform across the globe? The murder rate? Hardly. In fact, try this. Take the US homicide rate. Exclude the gang-related homicides that happen in high-poverty areas. With what is left, you are as safe here as pretty much anywhere in Europe. It is a sad fact that most of the violent crime is concentrated in a few areas.

In fact, if you want to be safe from guns, here is what you need to do:
1) Don't own a gun. If you want to commit suicide, you will need to use a rope or pills, like they do in "more civilized" countries.
2) Avoid poverty-stricken areas.
3) Avoid gun-free zones. This will keep you safe from mass shootings.
4) Don't hang out with people of questionable character (ex-convicts, people with violent tendencies, etc).
If you do these things, the odds of you dying from a gun are almost completely zero.

Because you're part of a group of people who have ruined it for everybody.

How, exactly? I am honest. I have killed nobody. I obey the law. I pay my taxes. I respect the Constitution. What have I ruined, except the plans of those who want to tell me how to live.

I have five kids. I want them to grow up to be as free as I am. I want my kids to have the ability to live their lives the way that they want, and the ability to stop those who would want to deprive them of life or liberty. In what way is that wrong?

Comment Re:Women are the majority of gun owners (Score 1) 500

That's a weird response that doesn't answer my question in any meaningful way. "Look! There's a distraction!"

I would not feel comfortable letting a toddler own a gun, a razor blade, or a power drill. What does that have to do with ANYTHING? You mentioned giving guns to toddlers, not me.

Are you training right now? Is the hope that you'll win a Gold Medal and that it's worth the increased risk to your loved ones?

Is that any of your business. You know that having a pool at your house greatly increases the chance of drowning, right? Are you campaigning against owning pools? Since it is MY family, it is MY decision to make. You don't get to make decisions for others. It is called "Freedom." Look it up in a dictionary.

Actually drunk drivers are often arrested before they've caused any damage. By your logic their freedoms have been taken away. You're against that, right? They shouldn't be put in handcuffs until there's a collision, right?

No, my logic is to arrest a person once they have committed a crime. Driving drunk is a crime. Using a gun in a crime is also a crime. I don't want to ban guns or beer. I am all for giving people as much freedom as they want, as long as they don't hurt anybody else. You are apparently for taking away somebody's freedom based on fear of what the MIGHT do.

They went down everywhere else at that rate as well, we're still way higher in the rankings.

And once again, comparing places with different levels of poverty, different languages, blah blah blah, means that things are DIFFERENT. You can't directly compare apples to oranges, as you always want to do.

But, OK. Japan has no guns and a lot more suicides. We need to give Japan guns in order to save all those people who kill themselves. We can safely ignore the COMPLETELY different culture and different language. There, see how easy that is to compare things that aren't alike?

Heh. Yeah, Australia is great until it's used against you, then it's too different to use as a point of reference.

Australia STARTED a lot less violent, even before their gun grab. But since you want to play this game, Russia has no private guns, but a higher murder rate than the US. Clearly, you can see that more guns = less murder. See, I can play this "let's blindly and stupidly compare" game too. At least I am honest enough to admit that I am making a false comparison.

Pretending you live in Robocop's "Old Detroit" doesn't put you or your family in a better position, either. Extremes suck. Sorry.

No, I actually live in a pretty safe area. I am happy, my wife is happy, and my kids are happy. I don't pretend anything. However, I don't like it when people start sticking their nose all up in my business and telling me how I should live and what I should be allowed to own. I have hurt nobody. I raise my kids. I do my job, and help improve the economy. I pay my taxes. Why is it asking too much to just be allowed to live my life the way that I see fit? Why do you insist on trying to control what I do? What have I ever done to hurt you?

Slashdot Top Deals

When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"

Working...