49er Fan Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) oh, hell no.....I couldn't possibly disagree with him more. your presumption of sarcasm on my part was 100% accurate. for what it's worth, my take on the subject is that any one of us here could have walked into that school full of little kids with a baseball bat and killed just as many of them as this maniac did. to argue guns as the big issue here is wrong imo. Specious. I've heard this argument in numerous forms - He could have had a knife, planted a bomb, etc. The school had security in place to deter unknown visitors. Lanza blasted his way into the school. Without ample firepower, he wasn't getting in. And about the baseball bat - I agree with "any one of us here...." But I bet you didn't say "Lanza could have killed those kids with a bat" for a reason. Have you seen pictures of him? His arms were so skinny he could barely pick up a bat, much less swing one. The ease, skill and detachment of the lethal violence he was able to dole out with his mother's guns is what's at issue here. Edited December 17, 2012 by 49er Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Specious. I've heard this argument in numerous forms - He could have had a knife, planted a bomb, etc. The school had security in place to deter unknown visitors. Lanza blasted his way into the school. Without ample firepower, he wasn't getting in. And about the baseball bat - I agree with "any one of us here...." But I bet you didn't say "Lanza could have killed those kids with a bat" for a reason. Have you seen pictures of him? His arms were so skinny he could barely pick up a bat, much less swing one. The ease, skill and detachment of the lethal violence he was able to dole out with his mother's guns is what's at issue here. as I'm sure you'll continue to hear this same arguement play out over and over as more of these tragedies occur. some people believe that banning or restricting guns will prevent things like this from happening, others believe that if more people carry guns, less of this would happen because someone would be able to shoot the gunman before he could rack up so many kills. I happen to believe the latter, but I have no way to prove it......and neither does anyone else. and for the record, I used 'baseball bat' as an example right off the top of my head. I could have said pipe-bomb, un-lit molotovs, or even knitting needles and made the same point. it's presumptious of you to to say 'But I bet you didn't say "Lanza could have killed those kids with a bat" for a reason'. what if I would have suggested that he could have used a knife to kill so many children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 as I'm sure you'll continue to hear this same arguement play out over and over as more of these tragedies occur. some people believe that banning or restricting guns will prevent things like this from happening, others believe that if more people carry guns, less of this would happen because someone would be able to shoot the gunman before he could rack up so many kills. I happen to believe the latter, but I have no way to prove it......and neither does anyone else. and for the record, I used 'baseball bat' as an example right off the top of my head. I could have said pipe-bomb, un-lit molotovs, or even knitting needles and made the same point. it's presumptious of you to to say 'But I bet you didn't say "Lanza could have killed those kids with a bat" for a reason'. what if I would have suggested that he could have used a knife to kill so many children? Not that I'm a big advocate of gun control but I really believe that in this specific case, this kid would have most likely not succeeded had he not had access to guns from his moms house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Not that I'm a big advocate of gun control but I really believe that in this specific case, this kid would have most likely not succeeded had he not had access to guns from his moms house. im having a hard time piecing together an opinion on that with the ever changing narrative of how this all played out. i was early to say that there was no preventing this individual case, but will say now that its hard to say with so much in the air. i will maintain that the amount of attention paid to such an absolutely small, near non-existent, part of the spectrum with regards to gun violence/laws and mental health probably isnt a healthy way to handle this. not when there are such broad based conversations that need to take place, ultimately. im pretty sure i said it in this thread (not going back to look) but obviously we all want to find something that leaves us feeling like we are in total control of these situations, but we arent. nothing will really create that, and the search for it often leaves us ignoring bigger problems or real solutions that are less direct but likely more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 oh, hell no.....I couldn't possibly disagree with him more. your presumption of sarcasm on my part was 100% accurate. for what it's worth, my take on the subject is that any one of us here could have walked into that school full of little kids with a baseball bat and killed just as many of them as this maniac did. to argue guns as the big issue here is wrong imo. There is no way a baseball bat could have killed 20 children before somebody knocked the dude down. The children are not going to just stand there like bowling pins. I an not saying the baseball bat is or can't be deadly... Your argument is just plain silly. Two adults lunged for him first. No way! Not that I'm a big advocate of gun control but I really believe that in this specific case, this kid would have most likely not succeeded had he not had access to guns from his moms house. That is all I am advocating, he was thwarted @ the point of sale trying to buy the weapons. I am not saying it would have never happened... BUT why not make it extremely hard on the potential perp to obtain the weapons? Of course, if there is a will there is a way. But DO not make it easy on him OR the law abiding citizen... Sorry about the law abiding citizen part. "Collateral damage" should fall more on the law abiding citizen than the innocent victim. im having a hard time piecing together an opinion on that with the ever changing narrative of how this all played out. i was early to say that there was no preventing this individual case, but will say now that its hard to say with so much in the air. i will maintain that the amount of attention paid to such an absolutely small, near non-existent, part of the spectrum with regards to gun violence/laws and mental health probably isnt a healthy way to handle this. not when there are such broad based conversations that need to take place, ultimately. im pretty sure i said it in this thread (not going back to look) but obviously we all want to find something that leaves us feeling like we are in total control of these situations, but we arent. nothing will really create that, and the search for it often leaves us ignoring bigger problems or real solutions that are less direct but likely more effective. And here I am @ this moment, about a 1,000 miles away, helping my wife unload a car with 200 candles so she can plan a candle light vigil for Wednesday in our small town... Things are a changing my friend... Things are a changing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 SEEN ON FACEBOOK: “What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?” “I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State?” Ouch. But a fair response to unfair stigmatization. With the gay community, everyone would complain about smearing millions for the deviant and predatory behavior of a few. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/159861/ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 SEEN ON FACEBOOK: “What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?” “I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State?” Ouch. But a fair response to unfair stigmatization. With the gay community, everyone would complain about smearing millions for the deviant and predatory behavior of a few. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/159861/ . Right, because in your world, a gay guy is pretty much the same thing as a pedophile. Why not ask what the Catholic Church is going to do about Penn State instead? That's more appropriate if you really want to get down to it. What's the hetero community going to do about all of the young girls who get raped every year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Right, because in your world, a gay guy is pretty much the same thing as a pedophile. Why not ask what the Catholic Church is going to do about Penn State instead? That's more appropriate if you really want to get down to it. What's the hetero community going to do about all of the young girls who get raped every year? You really don't understand what was being said there................................sad "Because in your world"...... there's your giveaway folks...........Gene builds all his little replies off of his incorrect preconceptions. . Edited December 18, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 There is no way a baseball bat could have killed 20 children before somebody knocked the dude down. The children are not going to just stand there like bowling pins. I an not saying the baseball bat is or can't be deadly... Your argument is just plain silly. Two adults lunged for him first. No way! That is all I am advocating, he was thwarted @ the point of sale trying to buy the weapons. I am not saying it would have never happened... BUT why not make it extremely hard on the potential perp to obtain the weapons? Of course, if there is a will there is a way. But DO not make it easy on him OR the law abiding citizen... Sorry about the law abiding citizen part. "Collateral damage" should fall more on the law abiding citizen than the innocent victim. And here I am @ this moment, about a 1,000 miles away, helping my wife unload a car with 200 candles so she can plan a candle light vigil for Wednesday in our small town... Things are a changing my friend... Things are a changing... We will see. It'll take more than 200 candles. We can hope though. One might argue that last time we went through the changes that come with a national disaster it wasn't for the best in the long run, even though it brought the country together in the short run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 You really don't understand what was being said there................................sad "Because in your world"...... there's your giveaway folks...........Gene builds all his little replies off of his incorrect preconceptions. . Oh, please correct my preconceptions big guy. Were you not equating gays with pedophiles? What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy? I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State? With the gay community, everyone would complain about smearing millions for the deviant and predatory behavior of a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 We will see. It'll take more than 200 candles. We can hope though. One might argue that last time we went through the changes that come with a national disaster it wasn't for the best in the long run, even though it brought the country together in the short run. Fair enough NoSaint! Touche! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) You really don't understand what was being said there................................sad "Because in your world"...... there's your giveaway folks...........Gene builds all his little replies off of his incorrect preconceptions. Actually he just destroyed you. Edited December 18, 2012 by Coach Tuesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Actually he just destroyed you. It seemed much more like Gene actually provided a better analogy and in doing so furthered B-Man's point, but was too busy congratulating himself and pursuing his tangent to notice. Is that what you meant by destroyed? Edited December 18, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 A lot of people are understandably upset. I have been so miserable since this happened, many coworkers and family members don't want to talk to me right now. Being upset is one thing, but jumping to conclusions are another. I am for guns being part of what we analyze, but don't look at it with guns in the back of your mind, as that will lead you to the conclusion you want. We will never solve the problem completely, but if we put our heads together as a country, we can slow this down. We don't have much of a choice. Also, we need to expose that fraudulent church, which reared its ugly head again. Very, very sick of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Actually he just destroyed you. In your world, are the Bills a superbowl contender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 It seemed much more like Gene actually provided a better analogy and in doing so furthered B-Man's point but was too busy congratulating himself and pursuing his tangent to notice. Is that what you meant by destroyed? No, I mean Gene actually supplied him with a better bad argument than the one he was trying to make, and exposed him as an ignoramus in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) It seemed much more like Gene actually provided a better analogy and in doing so furthered B-Man's point but was too busy congratulating himself and pursuing his tangent to notice. Is that what you meant by destroyed? What, the Catholic Church is a better analogy? I agree. LOL My point is that B-Man seems to think gay people are pedophiles, and that we can't say that simply because of the lefties and their overly-PC culture. Not to mention it was a terrible analogy. It speaks to the man's intelligence and how much weight should be given to his thought process IMO. In your world, are the Bills a superbowl contender? When's hockey starting you hoser? Edited December 18, 2012 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 What, the Catholic Church is a better analogy? I agree. LOL My point is that B-Man seems to think gay people are pedophiles, and that we can't say that simply because of the lefties and their overly-PC culture. Not to mention it was a terrible analogy. It speaks to the man's intelligence and how much weight should be given to his thought process IMO. When's hockey starting you hoser? Mr Maher, the last time you were here, you got your ass handed to you, took your ball and went home. Now you're back acting like the typical (*^*&%^$^#that you are. If you really are annoyed by the arguments on this forum, there are plenty of lefty havens for cunts like you to share in your opinions. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 What, the Catholic Church is a better analogy? I agree. LOL My point is that B-Man seems to think gay people are pedophiles, and that we can't say that simply because of the lefties and their overly-PC culture. Not to mention it was a terrible analogy. It speaks to the man's intelligence and how much weight should be given to his thought process IMO. Now that we've agreed that comparing a pedophile to a homosexual isn't a strong analogy, and we've decided to run with "what is the hetero community going to do about the rape of girls?" as a proxy for "what are gun owners going to do about psychotic mass murderers?", can we get back to the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Mr Maher, the last time you were here, you got your ass handed to you, took your ball and went home. Now you're back acting like the typical (*^*&%^$^#that you are. If you really are annoyed by the arguments on this forum, there are plenty of lefty havens for cunts like you to share in your opinions. Cheers. Link? I think Tasker wants to show you his tool... Now that we've agreed that comparing a pedophile to a homosexual isn't a strong analogy, and we've decided to run with "what is the hetero community going to do about the rape of girls?" as a proxy for "what are gun owners going to do about psychotic mass murderers?", can we get back to the point? You're right, it's not up to the gun owners. It's up to the American people and the government to take care of it. I just felt the need to respond to a really sh*tty analogy, as I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts