NR-tarded

[Guynemer]

When you argue with DD, you argue with every conservative blog he's ever been with.

Actual audible laughter over here.

[BlackCat]

It's a Sava thread. Were you expecting a serious argument from anyone when he didn't even bother to make one?

While Sava may have his moments of nutcasedness, he still present some nice ass and occationally some sane arguments. You unfortunatedly lack seriously in the last two while you seem to be excellent in the first

[giblets]

When you argue with DaShi, you are arguing with someone who never does anything other than the meta "useless poster"/"evidence?" argument. It's not that he never has an original thought. It's that he literally doesn't think.

Evidence?

[DinoDoc]

While Sava may have his moments of nutcasedness, he still present some nice ass and occationally some sane arguments.

This is you joking again, yes?

You unfortunatedly lack seriously in the last two while you seem to be excellent in the first

Beyond a few issues and posters, I stopped caring about debates here years ago. If my posts serve to entertain me, then my purpose is served. The opinions of others are secondary. Your opinions along with DaShi's generally don't rate very highly on my scale of caring though.

[Felch]

And of the 6 theaters in Aurora CO, he selected that one because of the sign, and the sign alone. And we have to take his word for it that there are no other bans on guns at those theaters, at least not explicit bans. Because he's DD. And he knew the rationale of the shooter.

It's impossible to know the rationale of the shooter. It is possible to say that there were five movie theaters in Aurora that allowed firearms, and one that did not. The theater that forbade firearms was the scene of a mass murder that left twelve people dead and dozens more injured. The theaters that permitted firearms had no such violence.

It is reasonable to say that banning firearms from such a place does nothing to make people safer from spree killers.

[giblets]

Putting up a sign doesn't do anything. If they actually enforced a ban with metal detectors, maybe it would help, although customers might not like having to go through security every time they see a movie.

[BlackCat]

This is you joking again, yes?

Are you seriously claiming that you don't like the ass that Sava present ?

Beyond a few issues and posters, I stopped caring about debates here years ago. If my posts serve to entertain me, then my purpose is served. The opinions of others are secondary. Your opinions along with DaShi's generally don't rate very highly on my scale of caring though.

This is kind of pathetic. You furiously post on subjects without really caring about the opinion you express. Neither do you care of the opinion of other posters unless they agree with you.

Honestly, even MOBIUS and DaShi or even regexcellent (sorry can't be arsed to look up the correct spelling) are way more relevant than what you can deliver.

[DinoDoc]

Neither do you care of the opinion of other posters unless they agree with you.

Some of the more interesting posters here are people I don't agree with. Guy and MtG are awesome for instance.

[Guynemer]

Alright, off my dick, DD. You don't want to have to deal with an angry Galnemer. She will **** you up.

[Hauldren Collider]

Evidence?

[DinoDoc]

Alright, off my dick, DD. You don't want to have to deal with an angry Galnemer. She will **** you up.

[Felch]

Putting up a sign doesn't do anything. If they actually enforced a ban with metal detectors, maybe it would help, although customers might not like having to go through security every time they see a movie.

You're right. A ban without teeth is no use to anyone. But unless there are armed guards ready to kill anybody who triggers the metal detectors, then it's just more security theater. If I wanted to kill a bunch of people, and didn't really care about the consequences, then a metal detector and some security guard with a little wand wouldn't stop me from bringing a bunch of guns and getting my kill on. The best it can do is make a sound that alerts bystanders, but people still won't dive for cover just because a metal detector goes off.

The problem with these spree killers is that they're nuts. Normal methods of control just don't work. It's not like they'll just sheepishly give up once a metal detector goes off. Those only work on healthy minded people who aren't going on rampages and don't want to escalate a tense situation. The only way to stop the killers is with force, and the only way to make sure that force can be brought to bear in time is to either have a giant police state or allow people to defend themselves.

That's really what it all comes down to for me. The only effective gun control is banning guns. And I'm not willing to let that happen, because guns are awesome, and gun violence is not a problem in my life. I know two people involved in murders, one was a roommate's little brother, and the other was a guy I went to high school with. Both of the killings involved novelty baseball bats. I know people who were shot, in their lower bodies, but those were drug related shootings. They happened because of the War on Drugs, and if guns weren't available then something else would have been used, knives or bats or something. Wherever somebody has cash and a reason to avoid cops, violence will soon find him. I know a guy who was bashed in the face with a shotgun, also in a drug robbery, but he could have easily been bashed with any blunt object. Point is, I don't see any benefit to half assed measures, and I see no problem in the status quo worthy of drastic measures.

[MRT144]

It's impossible to know the rationale of the shooter. It is possible to say that there were five movie theaters in Aurora that allowed firearms, and one that did not. The theater that forbade firearms was the scene of a mass murder that left twelve people dead and dozens more injured. The theaters that permitted firearms had no such violence.

It is reasonable to say that banning firearms from such a place does nothing to make people safer from spree killers.

But is unreasonable to say he targeted the theater with the ban because of the ban, which is what DD was implying. I agree that bans don't stop spree shooters.

[MRT144]

You're right. A ban without teeth is no use to anyone. But unless there are armed guards ready to kill anybody who triggers the metal detectors, then it's just more security theater. If I wanted to kill a bunch of people, and didn't really care about the consequences, then a metal detector and some security guard with a little wand wouldn't stop me from bringing a bunch of guns and getting my kill on. The best it can do is make a sound that alerts bystanders, but people still won't dive for cover just because a metal detector goes off.

The problem with these spree killers is that they're nuts. Normal methods of control just don't work. It's not like they'll just sheepishly give up once a metal detector goes off. Those only work on healthy minded people who aren't going on rampages and don't want to escalate a tense situation. The only way to stop the killers is with force, and the only way to make sure that force can be brought to bear in time is to either have a giant police state or allow people to defend themselves.

That's really what it all comes down to for me. The only effective gun control is banning guns. And I'm not willing to let that happen, because guns are awesome, and gun violence is not a problem in my life. I know two people involved in murders, one was a roommate's little brother, and the other was a guy I went to high school with. Both of the killings involved novelty baseball bats. I know people who were shot, in their lower bodies, but those were drug related shootings. They happened because of the War on Drugs, and if guns weren't available then something else would have been used, knives or bats or something. Wherever somebody has cash and a reason to avoid cops, violence will soon find him. I know a guy who was bashed in the face with a shotgun, also in a drug robbery, but he could have easily been bashed with any blunt object. Point is, I don't see any benefit to half assed measures, and I see no problem in the status quo worthy of drastic measures.

Novelty baseball bats? Jesus christ.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm also skeptical of the whole gun-totin' hero stops the spree killing theory. I don't think there is a convincing case of its accuracy. But spree killings are such a tiny percentage of gun violence, I honestly think they are an issue that shouldn't be worried about. They are deeply tragic when they occur but honestly don't hurt that many people. Instead, we need to focus on helping poor kids in inner cities and keep them from getting involved in gangs. The real tragedy in this country is that we have a permanent underclass in our inner cities unaware that there is a way out. They live short, violent lives of crimes because they don't have schools, they often have absent parents, and we don't take care of them. This might sound melodramatic, but of all the social ills in this country, that one really makes me mad. Maybe if we actually did something that would alleviate inner city poverty, rather than more chuck-money-at-problems government welfare programs, we could do something about gun violence and give these kids a chance.