Mass Shooting Reported in Bell, Florida

a reply to: MystikMushroom

what you've just said makes ZERO sense...

i mean...it's so stupid, i'm having a hard time coming up with the words to explain why it's so stupid...

it makes about as much sense as this picture




i mean, obviously saying "don't kill yourself or other people with this" doesn't work.....it's a thoroughly moronic argument. it's like saying to a car owner "don't kill yourself or other people with this"... and taking it away doesn't help, because if someone REALLY wants to kill themselves, or someone else, they're gonna find another way to do it...

it's kinda like one of those moronic danger warnings on the front and back of a pack of fags....you can make the entire box the warning, and i'm still gonna smoke them...

a reply to: bhliberal

funny you should ask that...

Willie J Dennis..in 1984, he was a black belt....under the instruction of karate master Bobby Joe Blythe, he beat a retarded man to death, in front of a dojo full of people(students, actually, i believe)

that's just one incident i can find with a quick google search....

nice try, though...

a reply to: unphased

i think most of us have acknowledged that this was a horrible tragedy, that shouldn't be exploited for political gains, or agenda advancement....

can't help but reply to outright stupidity when we see it(not talking about your post)...sorry, man...

a reply to: ArchPlayer

c'mon man....you should know this already:

a reply to: defcon5

so wait.....firstly, you consider the second amendment to be a "frivolous right"? don't take this the wrong way, but that, right there, tells me you're not playing with a full deck..

then you go on to say that the solution is for gun rights advocates to advocate infringing upon a constitutionally-protected right? that's pure idiocy. "everyone's who's in favor of this specific right, should be against it"

what in the world are you on about?

a reply to: LeatherNLace

lolwut?

perhaps you could elaborate in a way that might make some tiny bit of sense...plzkthx

a reply to: LeatherNLace

how about you stop playing literary footsie with VXN, and actually make a coherent point...

you've not made any sense yet..

a reply to: lightedhype

actually, i can't remember the guy's name...but i mentioned him in detail in another gun debate not too long ago....big long list of lunatic "mass shooters"....this dude went to his workplace, and killed a bunch of folks...before he did that, he murdered his wife, and two kids with a hammer..he did his wife first, and put her in bed...then the next night, he did his kids...so i mean, it's not unheard of...

originally posted by: framedragged
a reply to: Answer

No, that isn't what happens.

Almost all suicide attempts fail if they aren't using a gun.
Almost all suicide attempts succeed if they are using a gun.


Suicide Statistics

"According to the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health3, in the US there were 8.3m adults who had serious thoughts of committing suicide, and 2.3m who had actually made plans to commit to suicide. Of those, 1.1m actually attempted suicide, but only just over 33,000 succeeded. Which would make the ratio of failure to success 33 to 1."

Guns and Suicide

"...75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. These people are found alive 97% of the time. Those who succeed in using drugs to attempt suicide are successful only 3% of the time. By contrast, more than 90% of all suicide attempts by use of firearms are successful. The bottom line is that anyone using a gun to commit suicide is not likely to have their call for help heard and responded to before its too late."

Your average suicide has a success rate of 1/33 = 3%
Your average suicide with a gun has a success rate of 90%.

Guns make suicide far easier and more effective than any other option. Fight the stats all you want.

How about we address the issue of WHAT MAKES PEOPLE SUICIDAL instead of arguing about which method they use?

Your argument is idiotic. Take a look at the number of suicides in the US vs other countries where guns are almost nonexistent. Access to guns does not increase the suicide rate it just becomes the method of choice when available. Take away guns and people will find another way to off themselves... there's ample proof of that all over the world. Your argument about the number of people who survive a suicide attempt is irrelevant. If someone has reached the point where suicide becomes the only option, I would prefer that they get it right the first time.

In Switzerland, where nearly everyone owns a firearm, the most common method is hanging. Source: Wiki

a reply to: Sparkymedic

well, i mean, the two subjects, unfortunately go hand in hand....

crazy folks exist, and guns exist, and sometimes crazy people get access to guns, and sometimes people are MADE crazy by drugs they're given...no way to stop that...

but everyone ignores the actual mental health component, when one of these things happens, and they fixate on the tool the person used to carry out their nutter impulses..and unfortunately, these disgusting individuals ONLY choose to fixate, when the tool was a gun...they don't fixate, or really even pay attention, or care about the story, if the tool is a blade, or blunt object, or something other than a gun....because it doesn't give them a platform of corpses to stand on, and continue spouting nonsense.....they know they won't be taken seriously if they say "ban knives", or "ban bats"....so they just ignore the story, and wait for the next big sexy shooting to happen....come to think of it, that kind of behavior sounds like a form of mental illness, doesn't it?

a reply to: peter vlar

well, i mean, the entire situation, with regards to mental health, medication, and pharma-corps, is screwed up....

we live in a society, where these scumbags can peddle their wares on network television, during pretty much any kind of show you can imagine....sure, they list side effects, but nobody pays attention to that bit, just like they don't read the information sheet that your pharmacist gives you, with your prescription...

i've made lots of posts in other threads about these psychiatric drugs, their side effects, their availability, and the shockingly high percentage rate in which their use coincides with violent acts, whether they be private altercations involving 1-3 people, or large scale acts, "mass shootings", like columbine, virginia tech, and sandy hook....

people always seem to ignore the person who committed the act, their mental state, and what chemicals they were using, and instead, choose to fixate on what tools they used to carry out their violence......but only if the list of tools included a gun....otherwise, they tend to not care...

Another mass shooting. I bet if I went and turned MY weapon in....others would stop doing this. That is the answer right government? If I turn my weapon over, other crazy people will no longer shoot people? I can hear the hoards of politicians running to write another policy to take our guns and somehow associate it with child abuse or something. I can just hear that old burlap sack Nancy Pelosi now.

originally posted by: bhliberal
This is just another reason for strong gun control. Let's watch and see that the perpetrator had a legally obtained firearm. I'm almost willing to bet.

You mean, "This is just another reason to strip the 2nd ammendmant and the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens" Because everyone knows that people who go postal and berserk will stop and ask themselves if KILLING PEOPLE IS LEGAL. Just like they did when they obtained that gun legally as you state. So, If they were allowed to obtain that gun legally, wouldn't that mean they would also consider before shooting innocents if that act was going to be legal?

Or do you mean that if they hadn't been able to even get the gun in the first place, legally or not, that this would have somehow stopped them from carrying out such a crime? Which is stronger in a potentially and even likely crazy person, the need to go get a gun legally, or the need to kill people illegally? Would either restrictions have helped in this instance?

Did you realize that you are attempting to employ logic without the logic? Isn't that kind of showing you aren't really consciously supporting this notion, but in fact are only parroting something your chosen peers on the left have all been rubber stamping?

Wouldn't your true beliefs have a better chance of persuasion if you really believed or had even thought about what you are saying, before you said it?

I do understand how a tragedy like this can garner a lot confusion, where reason goes right out the door, but don't let reason do that to you, especially not like what the alleged shooter did.

a reply to: AphoticJoe

" every time a child dies so does some part of our collective future"

see, i'm not too keen on this argument...call me callous, or mean, but honestly, we can't be sure what any given child will be like when they grow up..for all we know, they could all grow up to be worthless meth-heads, or murders, or some other kind of villain, or they could get crippled, and end up being on disability for the rest of their life, or even worse, they could live out completely boring, useless, mediocre lives, and never accomplish anything worth mentioning, and have ZERO impact on the world....or, one of them could have cured cancer, or discovered the key to FTL travel....

point is, we have no way of knowing, and painting them all as angels, and extinguished sparks of future greatness, is kinda dumb. it's an appeal to emotion...it isn't really necessary....they were human beings, they were murdered, and that's wrong. normally, i'd say someone should be punished, but the one who killed them is already dead. sure, it's sad they're dead, but making huge fuss over it doesn't make any sense.....

a reply to: peter vlar

the problem is that if you seek help, and you're genuinely "nuts"...well, they hafta report you, and you get your rights violated...so until that little piece of legislative genius is done away with, you're gonna see a lot more people NOT address mental health issues...because honestly, who wants be treated like a criminal for something that isn't their fault?

a reply to: Sparkymedic

sparky, i don't think that's entirely fair....

while yes, he's pretty selfish, he also makes a good point....within the limits of the T&C, he can say what he wants...additionally, the reactions seen from him, myself, VXN, and other pro-2nd advocates, is really only the natural response to the initial volly from slimy, degenerate asswipes who only care about these dead kids, because they're stackable, and can make a nice soapbox to stand upon, so their death can be politicized, and exploited to push their nonsensical agenda....

we find that kind of behavior to be completely repugnant, inexcusable, morally bankrupt, and absolutely reprehensible...so we must combat it, whenever we see it.....sorry to have sullied your thread.

a reply to: defcon5

and that old "you hafta be in a milita" chestnut has been so thoroughly debunked, it's not even funny....it's amazing to me how often you lot bring that up, even after it's credibility has been rendered null...

you should start a thread..i'd be happy to debate you..and i'm sure the others would follow me..

originally posted by: defcon5
Now please show me where it states an individual’s right to own weaponry without anything stated regarding its use as part of a “well regulated militia”?

Peter kinda explained that one....you should really go read his post, and take the time to comprehend it...

a reply to: defcon5

"it means today"

jesus christ, who give a flying firetruck what a word means today? what matters is what it meant when the goddamn document was written..

fag means cigarette....to some, it means homosexual....depending on the time period one meaning was more popular than the other ...same with the word privy..at one point, it was used to refer to toilets, it also means to have access.....again, different times, different meanings...

when the document was written, miliatas consisted of anyone and everyone who was male, able-bodied, and old enough to use a gun.....now, the government has redefined it.....terribly sorry, but i don't accept government redefinitions of words....and neither does most anyone else with an I.Q. over room temperature....same goes with the word "regulated"....it meant something different back then, than it does today....

god almighty, stop already....or start a thread...

a reply to: matafuchs

actually, i believe the felon status was from a drug conviction...