The Cysko Kid Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 The only benefit to the stamping technology is the possibility of pinning a robbery charge on a murderer, if you can place him in the vicinity of the robbery at the time it happened. It won't prevent the robbery or the murder and thus seems rather pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Until James Bond's palm-print gun becomes a viable option - ie, not crazy expensive - I'm not sure there's any way to make 100% certain that the only person that can fire a gun is the rightful owner. Until then, you've got to lock it up as best you can. But then, it's not exactly handy for confronting a break in... It is a double edged sword but the ring is a mechanical process vs an electronics based one and thus seems more reliable in my mind. If it could be developed you could leave your gun lying on your nightstand of you desired. It would be exactly as dangerous as a brick at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Cysko- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Gun education isn't emphasized because it doesn't fit the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 It is a double edged sword but the ring is a mechanical process vs an electronics based one and thus seems more reliable in my mind. If it could be developed you could leave your gun lying on your nightstand of you desired. It would be exactly as dangerous as a brick at that point. Cysko ************************************* Actually, not even that is correct - the gun won't fire, but curious children could get the bullets out of the gun, and who knows what could happen with those bullets alone. I have an HR 8 shot .22 revolver. Trouble is, it has a lock w/key at the bottom of the grip. Which is cool, and safe. Trouble is? It locks itself. I don't know how. But I went out a couple of times, to teach a friend to shoot, and it was locked, and I had to go find the key. The ammo is well hidden away, but the gun can't be depended on when apparently, vibrations cause it to lock itself. And fingerprint controlled? you don't think that stolen guns would cause a loss of owners fingers? Hey, I saw that on TV already....@@ 20/20 had a good show about children and guns. It was actually fair treatment, even. There were people who had saved their family's lives by driving off intruders... and a police officer, award winning, and his wife, who tragically lost their young son, who happened to get high enough to explore the chest of drawers. The officer had kept a loaded gun there. Also showed studies where children who swore never to touch a gun....did so anyways. The anti-gun crowd, instead of honoring our 2nd Amendment, and working with gun owners and the NRA, and gun manufactureres, to work on education programs, and strict laws about accidental access to unauthorized guns, especially access by children, to solve the problem - has done the opposite. Instead, the left has waged political hostility against gun owners, gun manufacturers, and our 2nd Amendment. Meanwhile, innocent children and adults are getting killed and murdered and maimed. The left doesn't seem to care about those deaths, anymore than they care about our soldiers dying overseas now that the pres has been a democrat for the last six years. The left sees political advantage through the eyes of arrogance, and vicious political expedience. Too tragic to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Cysko- I stopped watching after this douche tried to correlate drowning in the lake to being murdered with a handgun. As long as you continue to try and make that argument expect people to treat you like a stupid fuckin' Retard. You can't murder 20 children with the lake before somebody stops you. Don't be a moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Horrific tragic death is horrific tragic death. Preventing these tragedies should be the main focus, not political expediency. Seems there's no political expediency involved with noting that children drown. But there IS with guns and conservatives. How sad, how pitifully freakin sad. See any lib wanting to outlaw swimming pools? Not one, yes? Example: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/2013/Tragic-Tally-More-Than-200-Reported-Child-Drownings-In-Pools-and-Spas-This-Summer/ Tragic Tally: More Than 200 Reported Child Drownings In Pools and Spas This Summer SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 Release Number: 13-276 WASHINGTON, DC – From Memorial Day through Labor Day 2013, at least 202 children between the ages of 1 and 14 drowned in a swimming pool or spa in the United States, according to media reports compiled by the USA Swimming Foundation. Of those, 143 of the victims were children younger than age 5. The latest media-reported figures are consistent with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) annual Submersion Report, and show that young children and toddlers are especially vulnerable to drowning. Drowning is the leading cause of unintentional death among children 1 to 4 years of age and it is the second leading cause of death for children from 5 to 14 years old. “The time is now to turn the tide on child drownings,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. “In warm weather states and indoor swim parks, pools are still open. Let’s work together to prevent drownings by putting up barriers and having eyes-on supervision of children in and around the water.” CPSC’s national Pool Safely campaign reinforces important safety steps: fence all pools, stay close to children in the water, be alert, and teach children how to swim. Media-reported drownings show that during the summer of 2013, the following states suffered the largest number of pool and spa drownings involving children younger than 15 (figures may not account for all fatalities): 1. Texas (28) 7. Pennsylvania (9) 2. Flordia (24) 8. Tennessee (8) 3. California (23) 9. North Carolina (8) 4. Ohio (11) 10. Louisiana (7) 5. New York (11) 11. Illinois (7) 6. Arizona (10) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 "CPSC’s national Pool Safely campaign reinforces important safety steps: fence all pools, stay close to children in the water, be alert, and teach children how to swim." "NRA's national gun safety campaign reinforces important safety steps: secure all guns, store ammo in secret, unaccessable place away from empty guns, stay CLOSE to children around guns, be alert, and teach children how tragedies can happen, and how to avoid guns unsupervised" Not that different. But libs do the wrong things about guns, and don't care about children drowning. No lefty political advantage to be gained. Which is exactly why libs stopped "caring so much about our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan". Very sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Case in point. Cal, continue to expect me to treat you like a stupid fucking moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 I stopped watching after this douche tried to correlate drowning in the lake to being murdered with a handgun. As long as you continue to try and make that argument expect people to treat you like a stupid fuckin' Retard. You can't murder 20 children with the lake before somebody stops you. Don't be a moron Holy fuck you're hopeless. It's a 5 minute video - watch it. He's not correlating lakes and guns. Hes worried about reactions to children's deaths.. Which I thought you were concerned with. Clearly, you'd rather surrender rights than have a single intelligent thought pass through your head. Well done. You're the reason, Obama, Pelosi, Rubio, Christie, and other god damned fucking fools are elected to positions in our government. The moment you drag your head out of your ass, please post a picture - I'd love to have a conversation with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Look bub. Kids can drown. Kids can fall down a well or off a slide and break their necks. It sucks its tragic. It's not the same as a psycho murdering them with a gun because its easy and simple to get. Get a fuckin argument before you start in with that same old inane bullshit. I'd expect that from cal. There is no fucking circumstance where you can defend gun rights by saying "but but but a kid might drown" Also anything branded NRA might as well be branded Al-Qaeda as far as I'm concerned. If gun owners need something to stand behind they ought to find something else. The NRA has sullied their name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Cysko = woody kind of stupid-ass. But woody does it nearly all the time, and he can't help it... Cysko - you're being a hypocrite, and the board's stupid sheethead. The NRA has safety programs nationally. Truth is, you are all bent and whining and bitching because you're one of those who thrive on looking at the upper part of your own colon. All NRA members are terrorists? Dumbass, you just defended Muslims in the other thread, but now, because you think you can win some ignorant ass political score, you bash all gun owners/members of the NRA? Hypocrite. And I pay attention to most everybody, even woody. At least woody TRIES to make sense once in a while, you... just take off on your favorite little bitchy points and make a fool of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Also anything branded NRA might as well be branded Al-Qaeda as far as I'm concerned. If gun owners need something to stand behind they ought to find something else. The NRA has sullied their name. Wowza. You ever trip on your gown, drama queen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Look bub. Kids can drown. Kids can fall down a well or off a slide and break their necks. It sucks its tragic. It's not the same as a psycho murdering them with a gun because its easy and simple to get. Get a fuckin argument before you start in with that same old inane bullshit. I'd expect that from cal. There is no fucking circumstance where you can defend gun rights by saying "but but but a kid might drown" Also anything branded NRA might as well be branded Al-Qaeda as far as I'm concerned. If gun owners need something to stand behind they ought to find something else. The NRA has sullied their name. Look at the data, you simpleton. 62 accidental gun deaths in 2010. 726 accidental drownings in 2010. Both figures use kids from the same age group. By the data, it looks like it's "easier" to drown, than be killed by a big bad gun. Stop trying to qualify data because it doesn't fit your cry-baby "guns are scary" narrative. 62 innocent children dying IS NOT WORSE than 726 innocent children dying. And yes, B. Johnson is a member of the NRA, he's also a member of the ACLU. *Mind asplode!!* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Wowza. You ever trip on your gown, drama queen? Do you ever have anything to say that's not written in troll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Look at the data, you simpleton. 62 accidental gun deaths in 2010. 726 accidental drownings in 2010. Both figures use kids from the same age group. By the data, it looks like it's "easier" to drown, than be killed by a big bad gun. Stop trying to qualify data because it doesn't fit your cry-baby "guns are scary" narrative. 62 innocent children dying IS NOT WORSE than 726 innocent children dying. And yes, B. Johnson is a member of the NRA, he's also a member of the ACLU. *Mind asplode!!* Accidental drowning is quite a bit different than shot to pieces by Adam Lanza. If you can't see that we have nothing more to talk about and I invite you to explore your own rectum with your penis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Cysko = woody kind of stupid-ass. But woody does it nearly all the time, and he can't help it... Cysko - you're being a hypocrite, and the board's stupid sheethead. The NRA has safety programs nationally. Truth is, you are all bent and whining and bitching because you're one of those who thrive on looking at the upper part of your own colon. All NRA members are terrorists? Dumbass, you just defended Muslims in the other thread, but now, because you think you can win some ignorant ass political score, you bash all gun owners/members of the NRA? Hypocrite. And I pay attention to most everybody, even woody. At least woody TRIES to make sense once in a while, you... just take off on your favorite little bitchy points and make a fool of yourself. Cal, you're rarely worth mentioning and today bucks no trends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Do you ever have anything to say that's not written in troll? You compared Al-Qaeda to the NRA and then claim someone else is trolling haha. You disagree with everything no matter how absurd your argument is. You are the definitive troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Face it, Cysko. You're making a fool of yourself. You irrationally hate the NRA, but you love Muslims because they aren't all extremists, and you love ObaMaocare because you can gain hc cheaper like you can gain political posturing points for yourself by attacking an entire great org based on...nothing. Perhaps you should reconsider not sticking a cork in both ends until the weird flu passes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Accidental drowning is quite a bit different than shot to pieces by Adam Lanza. If you can't see that we have nothing more to talk about and I invite you to explore your own rectum with your penis haha. yet you're more concerned with the one that is 1/12 as deadly. Smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Really? Is there actually being an argument made on the pro gun side right now stating lakes are more dangerous than guns? Holy shit... lol That is not even remotely the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 You stupid fucks. 1 resulted in 62 children of a specific age group dying. The other resulted in 726 children of the same specific age group dying. Both are entirely preventable. And Woody. You are the loudest motherfucker in here demanding data to support arguments. Until it's presented to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Nobody is suggesting a hole with water in it is more dangerous than a gun. Please clue the fuck in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 What is your argument? That more kids were killed in a year by drowning in lakes than by guns? Well fucking congrats I guess you are right. What the fuck that has to do with this whole gun control debate is beyond me. I am all for evidence. I am still waiting for some in the other thread. Evidence for you belief isnt just throwing out numbers or google links though (Cal). But again, if all you were trying to say was that lakes killed more kids then you are right. How that helps your argument against Cysko... I will just let you think it does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 watch. the. video. It's about reactions to problems. 1 causing more of the same result (dead children) than the other, but two different approaches to solving those problems. 1 approach: irrational, emotional. The other: rational, logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Alright, I watched it (I did not see where the hole thing was coming from on this board) It is an apples to oranges comparison. Swimming pools are not designed and built with the intent to harm or kill someone or something. Just like cars aren't, knives aren't, and whatever else we will hear as a comparison aren't. I think that is a poor comparison in an attempt to justify being against increased gun control measures. You try to control the danger guns pose by removing or limiting guns in that equation, you try to limit the dangers lakes and pools pose by teaching your kids to swim. You can teach your kid to swim, but you can't teach them to dodge a bullet. You can teach you kid to be protected from the dangers of a pool by equipping them with the ability to swim. No one can force a pool and your child to kill them. You can't teach your kid to be protected from someone with a gun. They can't just all of a sudden take a bullet. I am all for teaching your kids firearms safety. It should be required if you own guns. But I still think the comparison is a bad one and I still think we should have some forms of gun control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 So you don't see how having a measured, rational response to an issue that kills 700+ kids but losing your marbles over 62 deaths is a bit ridiculous? Education can cure both problems (accidental gun deaths in children and child drowning deaths) but it is a favored political positions to scream like a Retard and demand that guns be regulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Teaching your kids firearms safety does not remove them from the potential negative consequences of guns in public places. Knowing how to use a gun would not have saved that man shot by the ex cop in the movie theater. If anyone has a gun in their house, it should be required to have proper training for anyone in the house. It should also be in a secure place. It seems like the comparison that wants to be made here is in the response to these two situations, drownings and accidental shootings. But I do not believe the situations themselves are comparable. (yes, you can teach a kid to swim and they could still drown, but here teaching them to swim reduces the chances of a negative consequence much more). Look, I am not trying to ban guns. That would never happen. No matter whether I think we would be better off or not, that isnt happening any time soon. I am for stricter gun control, less guns in public places, etc etc. And yes, obviously increased mental healthcare to help prevent these issues. I just do not see the great god given right in fighting to protect a man made machine meant to kill other men. Yes, we have something about bearing arms in the constitution, but I do not consider that the end all be all really. I mean, it is there now, so it is valid. But we shouldn't base all of our public policy on documents over a century old. Times change. The founding fathers had no clue about cars, the internet, or how powerful guns would become. It is meant to be amended, a living document that changes over time. I am never going to be super pro gun. I believe it is a very money driven stance. At the same time I am not going to try to ban all guns. If anything I would guess, over time, the public opinion is going to sway to more gun control. Like gay marriage worked its way in to the public. It will just take awhile. It is just an opinion though. I do not know how many young people are that passionate about it. As we grow older our fiscal views may become more conservative, but idk about social ones. More liberal views will just replace them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 gun's are not made to only kill people. They are for hunting. And self defense against animals, or other people also with a deadly weapon. they are also used for signaling. Go look it up - three shots means "emergency help, I'm here". guns are also for sport - target shooting. Every single state in the United States now has ccw laws allowing it. Guess why that is? You go drive some night across some 30 miles of lonely highway with nothing but woods. When some sickos drive by, you tell them to leave you alone because the law says so, and because they are not allowed to have guns. But only do it in your imagination, or you could go missing forever. Now imagine you had a gun and they back off, and drive way down the road as fast as they can. Which outcome suits you? Or go camping in a national forest and have a grizzly come after you. Would you like a stick or a gun to defend yourself? Sure, you'll choose the stick. I don't really care, but you gun control freaks need to grow up and learn - maybe you don't drive, or camp, or go out after dark, or go hiking in your own woods, but a whole lot of the rest of us do. And "less guns in public places" REALLY? Freakin REALLY ? Kids keep getting murdered with guns in GUN FREE ZONES. With no defense, it only takes one sicko to break the law and the sicko goes on a deadly rampage. Get it through that ignorant space - sickoes (sickos?) DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. GUN CONTROL only works with LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. You lib kids need learn that your way should stay your way, and get the hell out of the rest of America's ways. And the fight is for freedom. Guaranteed by our 2nd Amendment. You hate guns because you don't have or want them. Libs always try to force others to do only what the libs condone. You can teach a kid to swim, but hypothermia can kill the best swimmers. Severe cramps can kill the best swimmers. But you don't care about kids who die, you just want to latch onto any political jab at those who have different interests that yours. You can't seriously misunderstand the approach to solving two different problems, (education about swimming and guns), and then say the liberal glory utopia struggle is the same with gay marriage and gun control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Teaching your kids firearms safety does not remove them from the potential negative consequences of guns in public places. Knowing how to use a gun would not have saved that man shot by the ex cop in the movie theater. If anyone has a gun in their house, it should be required to have proper training for anyone in the house. It should also be in a secure place. It seems like the comparison that wants to be made here is in the response to these two situations, drownings and accidental shootings. But I do not believe the situations themselves are comparable. (yes, you can teach a kid to swim and they could still drown, but here teaching them to swim reduces the chances of a negative consequence much more). Look, I am not trying to ban guns. That would never happen. No matter whether I think we would be better off or not, that isnt happening any time soon. I am for stricter gun control, less guns in public places, etc etc. And yes, obviously increased mental healthcare to help prevent these issues. I just do not see the great god given right in fighting to protect a man made machine meant to kill other men. Yes, we have something about bearing arms in the constitution, but I do not consider that the end all be all really. I mean, it is there now, so it is valid. But we shouldn't base all of our public policy on documents over a century old. Times change. The founding fathers had no clue about cars, the internet, or how powerful guns would become. It is meant to be amended, a living document that changes over time. I am never going to be super pro gun. I believe it is a very money driven stance. At the same time I am not going to try to ban all guns. If anything I would guess, over time, the public opinion is going to sway to more gun control. Like gay marriage worked its way in to the public. It will just take awhile. It is just an opinion though. I do not know how many young people are that passionate about it. As we grow older our fiscal views may become more conservative, but idk about social ones. More liberal views will just replace them. I hate that the word 'liberal' is attached to a group of people and ideas that focus on restricting things. It seems counter intuitive. More states are going towards 'constitutional carry' (concealed carry without a permit so long as you can legally own a handgun). I think there is starting to be more backlash against politicians and people for gun control. I am sure it will swing back around and we will have more useless legislation (Clinton Assault Weapon Ban) but it goes back and forth. Once the flood gates finally open for gay marriage, there will be no swinging back towards restricting gay rights. Which I am completely happy with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.