Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 39    Average: 3.3/5]
106 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 12433
Rating: 3.3
Category:
Date: 12/17/12 01:26 PM

106 Responses to Michael Moore Tweets About Sandy Hook [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18499 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    Link: Michael Moore Tweets About Sandy Hook - Your move, NRA and other concerned parties.
  2. Profile photo of Kegomatix
    Kegomatix Male 18-29
    1341 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:35 pm
    Setting some more bait, eh Fancy?
  3. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18499 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:35 pm
    Kegomatix, your beef is with Michael Moore.
  4. Profile photo of TruTenrMan
    TruTenrMan Male 30-39
    2553 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm
    She can`t posses the same gun her son took. Same mass can`t exist twice. Stupid Michael Moore.
  5. Profile photo of triki-trakes
    triki-trakes Male 18-29
    83 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:37 pm
    You know, I find Michael Moore just an attention whore, and rather than being sympathetic he uses this tragedy to (which will undoubtedly follow) make another stupid michael Moore documentary
  6. Profile photo of monkerz
    monkerz Male 30-39
    194 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:37 pm
    STFU fat man, you pompous, arrogant rooster.
  7. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:37 pm
    If only McDonalds had a saftey you wouldn`t be such a fatass!
  8. Profile photo of Neyro
    Neyro Male 18-29
    148 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    thats a low blow, even for a scumbag like moore
  9. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:45 pm
    She was asleep, you fat drat.
  10. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:47 pm

  11. Profile photo of sosueme1966
    sosueme1966 Male 40-49
    439 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:49 pm
    Yes, because she should have known that her own son was going to shoot her.
  12. Profile photo of sosueme1966
    sosueme1966 Male 40-49
    439 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm
    LOL @ fancy for saying kegomatix`s beef should be with Moore and not him. Are you saying you DON`T agree with Moore here? I haven`t exactly seen many posts from you taking the other side.
  13. Profile photo of Fancysucksss
    Fancysucksss Male 18-29
    1048 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 1:59 pm
    I wouldn`t have even touched that one. But that is about how stupid the argument really is. All the rednecks I know in AZ are preaching about losing guns. I try to have a discussion with them and all they can say is, "They can`t mess with my rights, My guns can`t be taken away!" Nor can they take away your brain. Because you obviously lost it quite a while back huh..
  14. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6650 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 2:00 pm
    Sure it`s real?
  15. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 2:02 pm
    "She can`t posses the same gun her son took."

    She likely had those weapons "for protection". And like most people, she likely didn`t have them locked up properly, or she told her son how to access them. Those "for protection" guns, like many other guns obtained "for protection", resulted in many deaths of innocent people rather than actually protecting the gun owner. Maybe he could have got guns even if he didn`t have access to his mom`s guns, but it definitely made it easier for him.
  16. Profile photo of TruTenrMan
    TruTenrMan Male 30-39
    2553 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    It was more of a tongue-in-cheek response to Moore`s tongue-in-cheek Tweet.
  17. Profile photo of AdamBomb
    AdamBomb Male 18-29
    47 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 2:11 pm
    Well I guess he showed her. Fkn idiot ...
  18. Profile photo of insane_ai
    insane_ai Male 30-39
    737 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 2:17 pm
    @Michael Moore: Stick to greaseball burgers you ignorant fat-ass.

    Adam Lanza`s mother was a `survivalist` who stockpiled food, guns
  19. Profile photo of Zeegrr60
    Zeegrr60 Male 40-49
    2105 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 2:23 pm
    That`s why you always carry.
  20. Profile photo of Cruzosaurus
    Cruzosaurus Female 30-39
    8 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 2:34 pm
    @insane_ai.... I think that was his point.
    I love it!
  21. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 2:48 pm
    LillianDulci-"Those "for protection" guns, like many other guns obtained "for protection", resulted in many deaths of innocent people"

    And many more times, resulted in many deaths of some not-innocent people or at the very least, SAVING some innocent people, when they were used for exactly the purposes they were kept....Protection.
  22. Profile photo of paddy215
    paddy215 Male 18-29
    1677 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 2:51 pm
    "I find Michael Moore just an attention whore"
    "STFU fat man, you pompous, arrogant rooster"
    "If only McDonalds had a saftey you wouldn`t be such a fatass!"
    "thats a low blow, even for a scumbag like moore"
    "She was asleep, you fat drat"
    " Stick to greaseball burgers you ignorant fat-ass"
    "Well I guess he showed her. Fkn idiot ..."

    Any actual arguments against what he`s saying? Or do you all just feel really stupid so you`ve resorted to personal insults. I don`t particularly like Michael Moore, but that doesn`t mean the massive holes he`s poking in that ridiculous argument aren`t their.
  23. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 2:54 pm
    @paddy215

    Here`s one perhaps you should examine what causes a person to do such a thing instead of putting blame on an object that only does what it`s told.
  24. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 2:55 pm
    And many more times, resulted in many deaths of some not-innocent people or at the very least, SAVING some innocent people, when they were used for exactly the purposes they were kept....Protection.

    Something the media never covers for some reason.......
  25. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 3:02 pm
    paddy215-"that doesn`t mean the massive holes he`s poking in that ridiculous argument aren`t their"

    Well, she was asleep and helpless, so there`s absolutely no comparison to an awake, alert armed individual.

    So, he poked exactly ZERO holes in that argument. It in no way resembles the argument. It in no was is relative to the argument.

    The teacher that lunged to toward the shooter, would have had a better chance than just throwing her life away had she been armed.

    So, the holes just aren`t `their`.
  26. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    McGovern1981-"Something the media never covers for some reason"

    Actually, there`s several reasons that compound that reporting.

    1) The liberial bias of the media is partly to blame, as it doesn`t fit their agenda
    2) Many times the successful defense outcome (no one killed) is not reported by the one that did the defending
    3) And when it is, an arrest of an uninjured assailant does not have does not have the same interest as a killing of eitehr assailant or victim.
  27. Profile photo of peakingo
    peakingo Male 30-39
    761 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 3:19 pm
    The point that is being missed, is the irony of her buying these guns so to protect herself only to be killed by her own guns by her own son which wouldn`t of happened if she never owned these weapons.

    Just to reiterate the point. her son couldn`t of killed her with her guns she purchased to protect herself.
  28. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31766 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 3:23 pm
    Is M.Moore saying she needed protection from her own son? What an idiot.

    Many killers got their weapons from other family members:
    Should familys of "crazy-types" be barred from ownership?
    Others stole from friends:
    Should you be barred from ownership if someone you know is crazy?

    The point is that fire, guns, knives and bombs don`t happen by themselves: a HUMAN did it! I`m refering to criminal arson of course.

    It`s already illegal to murder, life in jail or the death penalty! Would another "law" make criminals afraid to go on a shooting spree?

    BTW: The very SAME folks who say "death penalty doesn`t dissuade criminals" are the SAME folks saying "More Laws to prevent (deter) crime!"

    Which is it?

    M.Moore is a certified idiot...
  29. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 3:24 pm
    Australia`s ban has worked. Period. The fact that you don`t care is fine. But, it has.
  30. Profile photo of sxpkppy
    sxpkppy Male 40-49
    4 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 3:28 pm
    just out of curiosity what would people rather have happen a sane well trained teacher or school authority be armed and able to protect their children from a lunatic or to let the lunatic roam free from threat to do what they want to who they want.now just think if your child was in that situation what might they want
  31. Profile photo of Evil_Eye
    Evil_Eye Male 18-29
    1443 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 3:45 pm
    Are more innocents killed with guns, or more innocents saved with guns?

    Innocents killed you hear about every day or two, but innocents saved you hear about once a month. Last time I heard about people being saved by a gun was a few weeks ago with that old man in the shop, so it is not like they are not reported as well. Fox news would be all over any pro-gun news!

    US will never give up the guns, but I do wish they would just make them hard to obtain. Background check on immediate family and home residents maybe. They do it with taxes, so why not guns too?
  32. Profile photo of ledgehead
    ledgehead Male 40-49
    633 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm
    Michael, I see what you did there.
  33. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4888 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 3:56 pm
    auburnjunky so you are suggesting that guns owners must not sleep...never,or are you ok with the fact that weapons in itself are dangerous cause as you can see also if the gun owner is a good person incidents can still happens with guns around. If in that house there were no guns lot of lives can have be saved.
  34. Profile photo of Darkalen
    Darkalen Male 40-49
    403 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 4:19 pm
    So for a teacher or school authority figure to have a gun, he/she would have to be sane and well-trained. I can safely assume that this teacher or authority figure would then have to have some kind of strict background check as well as have passed some kind of test to prove said training was valid. So why not cut out the middle and just require anyone who want to own a firearm be sane and well-trained? Just out of curiosity...
  35. Profile photo of Solvent
    Solvent Male 18-29
    2842 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 4:36 pm
    Silly mikey, being a freedom hater and all.
  36. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 4:45 pm
    or are you ok with the fact that weapons in itself are dangerous
    Weapons are inherently dangerous - hence we call them weapons. However, a firearm independent of an actor is not a weapon and is not dangerous.

    Consider a firearm laying on a table. If no person acts on that firearm, is it dangerous? Of course not. So then, what is the defining action that causes a firearm to become dangerous (and therefore a weapon)? The answer is simple - an actor.

    Let us consider a car for a moment. Is a car inherently dangerous? Of course not. However, what if I decide to drive it into a crowd of people at 75MPH? Has it then become a dangerous weapon? Yet again, the attribute "dangerous" and the classification "weapon" are not inherent to these objects; only the actions of an actor impart such.
  37. Profile photo of botfly
    botfly Male 50-59
    616 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    `a responsible gun owner`, maybe
  38. Profile photo of peakingo
    peakingo Male 30-39
    761 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 5:01 pm
    @5cats to answer all those questions. No it shouldn`t be illegal, but it should be common sense to not own them if you think you know someone who isn`t all there could snap. Hell, I think common sense says if I have kid, don`t own a gun. Kids are stupid and so are parents.

    In the wake of all these 6/7 year olds who were killed, why make it easy to kill?

    And as far as arming teachers, have you met most teachers? I know I have and some are nutty, anxiety, fear living pu$$ies who would probably do more harm than good. Many are overweight and would probably pass out from a spike in blood pressure or an asthma attack.

    Another thing to consider is what happens then if everyone is armed and everyone starts firing their gun at the same time? Remember the Empire State Building shooter a few months back? Everyone outside his target that was shot was done by 3 cops and they`re REALLY good with guns. Imagine my jackass neighbor with a gun "protecting&q
  39. Profile photo of peakingo
    peakingo Male 30-39
    761 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 5:12 pm
    @Humanaction, that`s just dumb, it`s not called a weapon when Morgan Freeman uses it or any other "actor", it`s call a weapon because it`s intention is to inflect harm and death on living creatures.

    If the gun is on the table and falls off due to gravity and a poorly leveled floor and fires on it`s own and going through the wall and kills a neighbors kid. It wasn`t an "actors" fault. Or if an "actor" is cleaning a gun with no bullet in it`s chamber and misfires and shoots out a piece of metal it isn`t an "actors" fault.

    Also a car is dangerous. It`s got lots of moving parts moving quickly, is filled with toxic chemicals, and weighs literally a ton. Even if it`s not moving it can kill you even without an "actor". But it isn`t a weapon because.... drum roll, it isn`t make to harm or kill people. Guns are.

    Look, pooe happens, why try to argue semantics and just admit guns are dangerous with or without an &
  40. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 5:54 pm
    "Are more innocents killed with guns, or more innocents saved with guns?"

    It`s hard to say because when stories of a homeowner preventing a robbery or something like that by drawing a weapon on a criminal are reported, the media usually doesn`t report on it because it`s not all that exciting to them so it`s not newsworthy. Here`s the kicker, the majority of cases where a gun owner prevents a crime are never reported to the police. If the police are called about an incident that involves a gun being drawn, even if it`s never fired, you`re looking at a mountain of paperwork. That`s why they usually say, "F*ck it, no one got hurt, nothing was stolen or damaged so there`s no need to get the cope involved."
  41. Profile photo of SarahofBorg
    SarahofBorg Female 18-29
    3564 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 5:55 pm
    I thought I heard that he got the guns FROM his mother.
  42. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 6:07 pm
    Michael Moore can be a bit of a dick but he is spot on here. It`s funny reading the comments and watching people bee bopping and skatten all over the place. The shooter`s mother was a gun owner whose guns were taken and used against her. It is insane to suggest that we need to have guns in schools because the same damn thing would happen there. The guns would fall into the wrong hands and teachers would get killed by their own guns, and then the guns would be turned on the students. It would actually make it easier for school shooters if schools had guns on site. Can you imagine how much worse the town would feel knowing the murder was committed using guns they authorized to be there? It physically sickened me the day of the shooting when people were suggesting that we need to arm our elementary schools. Let`s just throw gas on the fire that will help. What`s next should we arm the eighteen-year-old cashiers at Toys R Us?
  43. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31766 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 6:13 pm
    @peakingo: FYI: It`s a weird thing here at IAB: If you hit "refresh (F5)" it RE-posts your last comment.
    Just go back and delete the duplicates, thx!

    All the laws and rules that ARE in place failed to protect... anyone!

    He did steal the guns from his mother, @SarahofBorg, apparently he killed her in her sleep. idk with what.

    The rules prevented him from buying a gun ALREADY! More rules are useless.

    Dianne Feinsein and the rest of the DEMOCRATS are already making this tragic event a POLITICAL football: we`re going to ban Bushmasters! She says. What a tool...
  44. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31766 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    The shooter`s mother was a gun owner whose guns were taken and used against her.
    @markust: Other mass-killers had stolen their weapons from a freind`s parent`s house, from other houses or bought them illegally. HOW would more "laws" stop that?

    Banning "semi-automatic" weapons = 75% of ALL GUNS ffs.

    People who cannot tell the difference between "full auto" (military) and "semi-auto" (civilian) versions are absolute morons. That includes M.Moore and 50% of the Democrats...

    More laws would have STOPPED this from happening? Yes or No?
    It`s a simple question with a very simple answer.

    What to actually DO about it? That`s tougher to say. More laws only make one "feel safer" they in fact do nothing.
    Unfortunately they have side-effects: taking people`s freedom away! Making "criminals" out of honest citizens!
  45. Profile photo of msieg007
    msieg007 Male 18-29
    2035 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 6:23 pm
    We can`t fight hate with hate, folks.
  46. Profile photo of Dad4Life
    Dad4Life Male 50-59
    2067 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm
    Just an another non-nice individual from Michigan.
  47. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 6:30 pm
    @peakingo:

    it`s not called a weapon when Morgan Freeman uses it or any other "actor"
    An actor in this sense is a person who acts on an object... *facepalm*...

    it`s call a weapon because it`s intention is to inflect harm and death on living creatures
    This is incorrect; it has no intention as it is inanimate. It`s purpose is merely to fire a projectile. The target is selected by the actor.

    If the gun is on the table and falls off due to gravity and a poorly leveled floor and fires on it`s own
    This never happens with modern firearms. Manufacturers must meet strict "drop test: requirements ensuring such.

    But it isn`t a weapon
    If I hit you with a car purposefully, then I used it as a weapon in that instance. The intent of the ACTOR is what makes an object a weapon.

    PS. You`re an idiot.
  48. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm
    "The rules prevented him from buying a gun ALREADY! More rules are useless."

    I`ve heard that a couple times here. I don`t know where you guys are getting this misinformation. The clerk at the gun store said the shooter didn`t want to abide by the state`s waiting period for gun sales (I`m calling him the shooter because I do not want to repeat his name). He wasn`t prevented from buying a gun. He didn`t have a criminal background. He just didn`t want to wait two weeks.
  49. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 6:41 pm
    peakingo-"to be killed by her own guns by her own son which wouldn`t of happened if she never owned these weapons"

    Yes, much better to be killed by someone elses guns, or a knife, or a baseball bat. (you don`t actually think there weren`t other options, did you?)

    Evil_Eye-"Innocents killed you hear about every day or two, but innocents saved you hear about once a month."

    Which is reported by the paper? Drunk Driving arrests? Or the 99% who didn`t get arrested for drunk driving?

    SmagBoy1-"Australia`s ban has worked."

    If, by `worked`, you meant `no measurable effect` on homicide and an increase in violent crime, you`d be right.
  50. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 6:44 pm
    "@markust: Other mass-killers had stolen their weapons from a freind`s parent`s house, from other houses or bought them illegally. HOW would more "laws" stop that?"

    Not sure why you are asking me this or why you went on a further rant about changing laws. My statement had zip to do with laws. I have not once mentioned changing the gun laws. My comment was about the idiotic idea of arming our elementary schools.

    "What to actually DO about it?"

    I`ll let my very conservative mother answer that because this is something we agree on, "There are no safe, long-term places to put our mentally ill. Until we are willing to fund these facilities these tragedys will continue to happen. This is a national disgrace and without help for the mentally ill, no amount of gun control will solve the problem."
  51. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 6:51 pm
    "Innocents killed you hear about every day or two, but innocents saved you hear about once a month"

    Estimated of legitimate annual defensive gun use (DGU) range from 100,000 to 2.5 million with the average appearing to be around 750,000. Source

    Total firearm deaths are ~30,000/year. Source (pg. 143)

    This means that, using the average, guns are used about 25 times as often to deter a crime than to cause a death in the US.

    Now stfu with your absurd speculations - the stats are right there for you.
  52. Profile photo of panicXswitch
    panicXswitch Male 18-29
    25 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 6:55 pm
    According to a news article I read, Adam Lanza`s mother WAS a gun owner, and was the one who taught him how to shoot.
  53. Profile photo of nubblins
    nubblins Female 18-29
    1743 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 7:04 pm
    Not sure if Michael Moore is dumb or trolling..

  54. Profile photo of nubblins
    nubblins Female 18-29
    1743 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 7:05 pm
    MeGrendel, have you ever thought that maybe a man like Adam Lanza might be too timid at the thought of using a weapon that actually takes force/strength to use?
  55. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3435 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 7:08 pm
    Making Murder illegal hasn`t stopped it from happening.
  56. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 7:32 pm
    @HumanAction Nice data cherry-picking
    Your source on DGU is all about how unreliable the author believes the data is. Number vary by a factor of 22. But if you believe the data, how about these studies from your same source:

    Kellermann et al. (1993) found that persons who had a firearm in the home were at a greater risk for homicide in their home than persons who did not have a firearm (adjusted odds ratio of 2.7). Cummings et al. (1997) found that persons who purchased a handgun were at greater risk for homicide than their counterparts who had no such history (adjusted odds ratio of 2.2).

    In light of these findings, Kellermann et al. (1993) ultimately conclude that owning firearms for personal protection is "counterproductive," (p. 1087) and that “people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in the home” (p. 1090).
  57. Profile photo of peakingo
    peakingo Male 30-39
    761 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 7:51 pm
    @HumanAction, I am making fun of your attempt to sound intellectual by over using the word actor in the wrong context. Not that I literally believe you meant film actors, Jeesus you`re dumb.

    What lame semantical argument are you trying to pull of what constitutes a weapon? WEAPON: A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. Hate to break it to you-that`s a gun. A car can be used as a weapon, but it isn`t it`s intention.

    Guns don`t go off on their own? Keep telling yourself that. *cough* Ruger Sr9.

    @McGrendel, you`ve missed my point entirely as well as Michael Moores`. Which is in moments like these, as proven from posts and comments there`s always a call to arm ourselves. What he wrote, which I agree with is in this situation it`s IRONICAL considering she was killed by the guns she purchased to protect herself.

    This has nothing to do with his (in)ability to obtain a gun from elsewhere. Also, quote me properly, do
  58. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 8:50 pm
    @lauriloo: How else would you present data from multiple research articles than your so-called "cherry pick"? You literally do the same exact thing that you attempt to ridicule me for in your second paragraph.

    Also, regarding you challenge, Gallup had a 1991 poll that estimated 777,153 and a 1993 poll that estimated 1,621,277. The LA Times ran a 1994 poll and concluded with an estimate of 3,609,682. My "average" was low.

    However, let`s take it up a notch and use the lowest suggested annual DGU rate of 100,000. Even with this estimate, the ratio is 3:1.

    I hope I didn`t confuse you in any of this. If so, please feel free to ask. Here to help, folks.
  59. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 8:51 pm
    For those in need of context- Moore is himself a bona fide card carrying member of the NRA. Yes truly. The point he`s making here is one I`ve made in a previous post, "You are not Charles Bronson and real life is not "Death Wish".

    Satire, most noble of the social commentary arts and the least understood by the unwashed masses. *Headdesk*
  60. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 8:57 pm
    Wow, Michael, if only the federal gun laws were as effective as the federal nutrition guidelines have been for you.
  61. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 9:00 pm
    Not that I literally believe you meant film actors
    You seemed pretty convinced in your previous entry. Please, forgive me if I am doubtful of your recent intellectual awakening.

    Now, the definition of weapon: something used to injure, defeat, or destroy. By this definition, a gun shot into the air is not a weapon. Therefore, since the definition does not apply in one situation, it cannot be a proper fit. Logically, we must conclude that a gun left alone is not a weapon.

    Now, forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn`t a Ruger Sr9 come with a firing pin block? So, without a human actor removing said block, it cannot go off from being dropped...

    Lastly, I`m still curious how you consider a vehicle used intentionally to inflict harm on others to not be a weapon. Would you care to expand upon this idea for me?
  62. Profile photo of peakingo
    peakingo Male 30-39
    761 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 9:37 pm
    Once again you are arguing semantics and we are just running in circles so I`ll clarify once more.

    Gun: 1. A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.

    The first word is weapon.

    Ruger Sr9 were recalled because they were going off when dropped. Nothing is a 100% was my point.

    Seriously, here`s a free life lesson in composition, "There are two reasons to use quotation marks in English writing. The first reason is that you are quoting someone and you are giving that person credit. The second reason you might use quotation marks in English is if you are being sarcastic."

    Try and guess the reason I just used them verses when I confused you. I`ll give you a hint the top is quote, the other was me being sarcastic of your usage of "actor" when you meant facilitator.

    Lastly dumbass here`s my direct quote (laughing) about weapons and cars,
  63. Profile photo of peakingo
    peakingo Male 30-39
    761 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 9:45 pm
    @HumanAction, I feel that you may not realize what semantics are and how it`s used in debate. Specifically I think you don`t understand how your reaching for justification in a losing argument so I`ll break it down.

    Semantics: the branch of linguistics that deals with the study of meaning, changes in meaning, and the principles that govern the relationship between sentences or words and their meanings.

    You are arguing that just because in a moment you don`t intend to harm a person with a gun, then you logically deduct that it`s not a weapon. Here`s the fact, it`s still a weapon. As an example, if I use a wrench as a hammer, it`s still a wrench. I`m not going to sit here and argue, well in this moment my wrench isn`t a wrench it`s a hammer.

    No that semantical, you are using a wrench AS a hammer.

    Do you get it? Let me know I`ll list another example.

  64. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 9:55 pm
    nubblins-"you ever thought that maybe a man like Adam Lanza might be too timid at the thought of using a weapon that actually takes force/strength to use"

    You ever think he could just have drove his mother`s car through the playground? That takes less effort.

    Do you realize that the worst school massacre of all time was not accomplish with guns?

    @lauriloo: Quoting Kellerman is the sign of a losing argument. Kellerman has been debunked repeatedly.
  65. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 10:19 pm
    @peakingo

    This is rather fun; though, if I may say so, you seem a bit upset. Let`s pick apart your statements (once again) and attempt to reintroduce some semblance of intelligence to the discussion - shall we?

    First, I`ll include your quote regarding cars as weapons since you so spectacularly failed to do so:

    But it isn`t a weapon because.... drum roll, it isn`t make to harm or kill people.
    Now, let us use your logic in the following analysis. I submit to you this - a baseball bat. This is an object designed to hit a baseball; it is not designed to harm or kill people. Are you still arguing that, if I were to strike you with said baseball bat, it is still not a weapon?

    I believe you should now see the error of your ways.

    The first word is weapon.
    Actually, the first word was `A` - just saying.
  66. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 10:25 pm
    Nothing is a 100% was my point.
    A valid point indeed. However, do guns load themselves? Do they remove the safety and the firing pin block? Of course not! As I have shown, a firearm that is independent of human action is not dangerous nor is it a weapon.

    No that semantical, you are using a wrench AS a hammer.
    Exactly! I knew you would get it. Well, I`ll be honest, there were moments in which I doubted your capacity for such abstract thought, but alas, you`ve managed to pull through. I am proud of you!

    Just as you use a wrench AS a hammer (wonderful analogy by the way), one could use a firearm AS a weapon. Or, said person could use it as a toy. One could even use it as a paperweight if they so choose.

    I am glad that you have finally decided to accept my logic as correct - and in much less time than I had anticipated!
  67. Profile photo of peakingo
    peakingo Male 30-39
    761 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 10:49 pm
    I`m not mad, but you are really reaching and that`s obvious. If you want to be technical "a" is an indefinite article. Weapon was the first technical word.

    My quote was randomly cut off, here it is "A car can be used as a weapon, but it isn`t it`s intention. Why are you misquoting me to prove your point when I can or anyone else can scroll down and read the actual quote.

    face palm, lets try this again. I can use a gun AS a hammer, but it isn`t a hammer, it a gun used AS a hammer. If you work at a hardware store and someone ask for a hammer and you give them a gun you realize they`ll think you`re an idiot. You understand that right?

    Either way, lets say you shot a gun in the air which in your weird mind stops it from being a weapon, what happens when the bullets falls and kills someone? Or, let`s say you intend to shoot a person and miss, is it no longer a weapon? Regardless of how you use it or if it sits on a shelf. It`s still a we
  68. Profile photo of peakingo
    peakingo Male 30-39
    761 posts
    December 17, 2012 at 10:55 pm
    And I wanted to add that in fact guns can randomly fire out metal pieces without any human interaction. It has happened in fact Bruce Lee`s son was killed on a movie set by this exact cause.

    And I understand that was a complete quote, but to clarify though being used as a weapon, doesn`t define it was a weapon like a gun.

    I can use a balloon as weapon, but it isn`t one. A gun is a weapon that can be use as something other... like a hammer, but above all else it`s a weapon being misused same as a car or balloon is misused as a weapon.
  69. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 1:28 am
    Like I say, reasonable gun laws have worked AMAZINGLY WELL in Australia. I love how you guys ignore that fact so that you can own your kid-shredding, 6-round-per-second, flesh-gouging, bone-shattering, brain-splattering guns, you know, for "hunting" or "personal defense." While, in the meantime, reasonable controls have worked EXTREMELY WELL in Australia. Whatever. Keep allowing kids to die because, not only do you not want to control guns, you don`t want to improve access to healthcare, either. `Cause, what, God? Idiots.
  70. Profile photo of insanmonster
    insanmonster Male 18-29
    291 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 1:58 am
    @Smagboy1: Automatic weapons are not legal here in America nor have they been for a long time. Also the weapons used in Sandy Hook were semi-automatics, either way, the same thing could have been done with a Shotgun or a Rifle.
  71. Profile photo of xelous
    xelous Male 18-29
    2513 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 4:18 am
    Give everyone guns, that`ll solve it.
    Crazy asshats will think twice before committing some depraved act if they know they can be killed from any direction at any time.
  72. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 5:50 am
    peakingo-"Bruce Lee`s son was killed on a movie set by this exact cause"

    Actually, in Brandon Lee`s case, someone actually pulled the trigger, actor Michael Massee.

    They had loaded the handgun with dummy rounds for a close up (bullet, but now gunpowder or primer).

    When they switched from the dummy to a blank (powder & primer, but no bullet), the bullet from the dummy round remained lodged in the barrell.

    So, Brandon Lee`s death was very much the cause of human error and actions (and a crappy dummy round).
  73. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 6:18 am
    SmagBoy1-"Like I say, reasonable gun laws have worked AMAZINGLY WELL in Australia."

    Let`s see, Australia`s guns laws have:
    done nothing to reduce gun-related homicide.
    cause a miniscule reduction in gun-related suicide, while showing an increase in other types of suicide...the suicide rate remains basically the same (but hey, a person dead through hanging is MUCH more preferable than one dead through gunshot).

    True, there has only been one mass shooting since they were enacted, but even the experts agree that mass shootings have been such a rare event historically that it`s incredibly difficult to perform a reliable statistical test on such events.
  74. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 6:30 am
    @peakingo: Well weren`t you up late! Kudos.

    Let`s take a different perspective for a moment. We will use your own words to demonstrate the contradiction you`ve created. Shall we begin?

    A car can be used as a weapon, but it isn`t it`s intention
    OK - great quote. Let`s break it down logically. You state here that a car, and otherwise inanimate object, has the capacity to be a weapon at moment and not the other; is that fair? So what can we deduce from this? Well, we can deduce that the classification as a weapon is not innate, since it can be added to or subtracted from an object.

    So then, since the classification as a weapon is not innate, what causes an object to become a weapon? Well, with the car, it is the action of a human.

    Now, this is very simple and straight forward logic. By extrapolating from your own words, we find that a gun cannot innately be a weapon.
  75. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 6:39 am
    And I wanted to add that in fact guns can randomly fire out metal pieces without any human interaction.
    This is entirely inaccurate and incorrect. There has never been a firearm that, in it`s natural state and bereft of further action, has fired. A firearm cannot load itself, remove the safety(s), remove the firing pin block, move a round into the chamber, and pull the trigger.

    What you suggest is impossible. You can`t possibly think that a firearm can load itself.. or do you?

    I can use a balloon as weapon, but it isn`t one.
    This is another contradiction. In that moment, the balloon is a weapon (you said so yourself in the quote). Therefore, the status as a weapon is not innate; rather, it is given as a result of the actions performed by the actor.

    *sigh*... so many contradictions, so little time.

    Here to help.
  76. Profile photo of Nihilism
    Nihilism Male 50-59
    32 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 6:45 am
    @insanmonster - In the USA the manufacture of assault (or fully automatic weapons) for civilian use was banned from 1994 to 2004 when the ban lapsed. Currently, registered full automatic weapons produced before 1986 are federally legal for civilian ownership; state laws vary.
  77. Profile photo of tomo511
    tomo511 Male 18-29
    162 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 7:48 am
    I don`t understand why there are so many Americans that feel the need to have guns?
    I don`t need a gun to protect my family because it`s pretty unlikely that a house robber has a gun in my country seeing as they`d have to go through the black market to get one. And if someone has mental health issues and decides they hate the world (which happens in every country), they`d probably end up topping themselves without taking down a whole community in the process because they have no means to do so.
    The whole `criminals have guns therefore I need a bigger gun to protect myself` attitude seems like a futile almost cold war like scenario to me.
    In my opinion the only way to solve the problem would be to get rid of all guns in the country and live the same way so many other countries in the world do. It`s just a shame that America has gone so long without realising this and it`d now be near impossible to remove guns from society.

    But I`m not American so I probably don`t
  78. Profile photo of tomo511
    tomo511 Male 18-29
    162 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 7:48 am
    I really hope a gun control solution can be found and history doesn`t keep repeating itself
  79. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 8:59 am
    tomo511-"it`s pretty unlikely that a house robber has a gun in my country "

    Why do you consider it unlikely? I`m not sure about your particular country (as I don`t know which country that is), but Europe, as a whole, has on average 17 privately owned handguns per every 100 people.

    So, that`s far from `unlikely`.


    tomo511-"it`d now be near impossible to remove guns from society."

    Not `now`. It`s been impossible to remove guns from society since they were invented. There`s nothing `magical` about them. I could make one in my shop. Many people can. In fact, they`re so easy to make that they predate electricty, mass production and modern manufacturing.
  80. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 9:06 am
    By extrapolating from your own words, we find that a gun cannot innately be a weapon.
    I see no fault per se in this logic, however what you are not taking into account is that cars have much, much more value and importance to society than guns. If you were, for sake of argument, able to rid the US of all guns, society would continue to function more or less as it used to. Some things will change but overall the economy, governance, and day-to-day operation will be relatively unchanged. If you were to remove cars, the economy would collapse, many people would not be able to go to work, and the country would become essentially a third world. Comparing guns and cars is simple apples and oranges because the value to society of cars is much greater than the value of guns to society.
  81. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 9:19 am
    MeGrendel: "Let`s see, Australia`s guns laws have:
    done nothing to reduce gun-related homicide."
    You need to source your claims. This study found a substantial decrease in firearm suicide rates and firearm homicides with little substantial impact on non-firearm death rates.
  82. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 9:34 am
    I see no fault per se in this logic, however what you are not taking into account is that cars have much, much more value and importance to society than guns.
    I agree with this for the most part. However, my argument is not regarding the capacity of an object to be used as a weapon. Simply put, I do not disagree that firearms have a greater capacity to be used as weapons than cars.

    Instead, my argument is that the intentions and actions of an actor ultimately decide if an inanimate object is a weapon or not. Innately, a firearm is no more a weapon than a car. While a firearm certainly has a greater capacity to become a weapon (than a car), without an actor, it`s merely inanimate mass.

    I`m also committed to the argument that a firearm, independent of action, is not inherently dangerous.
  83. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 9:37 am
    @HA: Fair enough. A claim that guns can go off on their own is pretty silly.
  84. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    578 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 9:44 am
    Of all the stupid dumb-assed comments that have spewed from Michael Moore`s mouth, this may be the dumbest.
  85. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 10:10 am
    patchgrabber-"You need to source your claims."

    "GUN LAWS AND SUDDEN DEATH" by Jeanine Baker & Samara McPhedran, British Journal of Criminology, 47: 455-469

    with follow up of "Enhancing evidence-based policy: principles and practice from an Australian case study" by Jeanine baker & Samara McPhedran, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(2
  86. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4710 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 10:32 am

    Flame bait poo post.
  87. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 10:33 am
    Moore is a d|ckhead, he spouted this same sort of crap after Columbine. He was just as wrong then as he is now.
  88. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 10:43 am
    @MeGrendel: Interesting, however the second link isn`t really anything, and all I can read from the first is the abstract, so I can`t scrutinize their methodology. For example, the study I cited uses panel data to account for jurisdictional-specific fixed effects as well as accounting for factors that affect all jurisdictions in the same way. Since I can`t read your source, I don`t know if they analyzed Australia simply as a whole, or if they delved deeper into each jurisdiction`s numbers specifically.
  89. Profile photo of edana42
    edana42 Female 50-59
    2509 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 10:43 am
    bahahhaha does anyone have the follow up twitters to this?!
  90. Profile photo of furryblob
    furryblob Male 18-29
    574 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 11:09 am
    He`s right, screw the 2nd amendment and gun rights supporters. People have a right to life without the fear of being gunned down.
  91. Profile photo of furryblob
    furryblob Male 18-29
    574 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 11:16 am
    What I learned from the Sandy Hook Massacre is guns are only for killing and gun nuts/conservatives are lying bastards.
  92. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 11:24 am
    What I learned from the Sandy Hook Massacre is guns are only for killing and gun nuts/conservatives are lying bastards.
    This is an interesting perspective. As one of the "gun nuts ... lying bastards", I am curious how you`ve come to this conclusion. Would you care to expland upon this notion?
  93. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 12:23 pm
    furryblob-"People have a right to life without the fear of being gunned down."

    Sorry, you do not have a `right` to live without fear.


    furryblob-"What I learned from the Sandy Hook Massacre is guns are only for killing"

    Then you have learned absolutely nothing. Which is probably a frequent occurance in your life.
  94. Profile photo of OzzyMerc
    OzzyMerc Male 30-39
    55 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 12:47 pm
    This post is kinda tasteless. Gun bans will not do anything to reduce gun violence. You see, the criminals committing murder are still going to commit murder. The streets are already flooded with fully automatics as it is AND NOW you want to take guns away from citizens who obey the law and obtain theirs legally? Wake up America. People kill people and in the case of Sandy Hook, it was a mentally disturbed young man...step up the mental health laws in this country before you go around talking about gun bans. The laws have failed us soo far in VA Tech, Tuscon where Gabby Giffords was shot as well as in Aurora, CO. Something culd have been done to intervene before these mentally deficient people went on their rampage.
  95. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 3:36 pm
    MeGrendel, your data come from a thoroughly debunked study from, yep, you guessed it, gun advocates. Every single peer-reviewed study shows 35-50% reduction in gun deaths. PERIOD. Also, although suicide rates overall have stayed about the same, gun suicide is down over 50%. And, guess how many mass killings they`ve had since the law? ZERO! NONE! NADA. I`m not even going to bother being polite about it, drat MAN?!!?!? You can just out and out lie and think it`s okay? 20 kids were shredded to bits by a SEMI automatic weapon that was built for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill. It`s ridiculous.
  96. Profile photo of Demstar_Aus
    Demstar_Aus Female 18-29
    179 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 3:42 pm
    Banning guns will make it more difficult for people to acquire them. Driving things underground makes them more expensive, so the low-end criminals won`t have enough money to buy guns and ammunition. The rich people will still be able to. Doesn`t solve the problem but makes guns less of a standard thing. Does your house have running water? Lights? Guns? Not that last part...
  97. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 3:43 pm
    OzzyMerc, if the guns aren`t available, as in Australia, Germany, Japan, China, etc., then they`re not available for violence. And, yes, you can kill with a knife, but not at six rounds per second of flesh-tearing, bone-shattering, life-sapping lead meant for the sole purpose of killing people. Get your facts straight. Look at the stats. They`re so obvious that it`s not even worth discussion. If you want to deny them, it`s no different than denying gravity.
  98. Profile photo of 8BitHero
    8BitHero Male 18-29
    5414 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 3:56 pm
    Unless he shot you in the bed while you`re asleep...
  99. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 4:03 pm
    That`s the point, 8BitHero. She had a whole arsenal of guns "for her protection". See how much good they did her? People fantasize that they can stop a robber with their awesome guns. Well, I guess like you said, not if they`re shot dead while they sleep.
  100. Profile photo of ginger5010
    ginger5010 Male 30-39
    6 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    what Timothy responded I`m dazzled that a single mom can earn $8087 in a few weeks on the computer. have you read this web site Great70.com

  101. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 7:25 pm
    SmagBoy1-" if the guns aren`t available, as in Australia, Germany, Japan, China, etc., then they`re not available for violence."

    Australia: Between 3.0-3.5 Million Privately Owned fireamams, 15 firearms for every 100 people, number of ILLEGAL firearms is estimated to be between 550,000 & 6 million.

    Germany: 25 million privately owned, 30 for every 100 people, estimated 17 million illegal guns.

    Japan: 710,000 privately owned, 1 gun for every 400 people,

    China: 40 million private guns, 4.9 per 100 people

    (no estimates by Japan & China over illegals, but they`re there).


    What was that you were saying about `guns aren`t available`?
  102. Profile photo of shaustin
    shaustin Male 18-29
    143 posts
    December 18, 2012 at 8:46 pm
    @MeGrendel firstly: YOU ARE OBSOLETE, second: you can`t just state a bunch of random facts without any proof or sources and expect to be taken seriously, third: where`s your "statistic" on america?
  103. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 19, 2012 at 6:19 am
    shaustin-" YOU ARE OBSOLETE"

    YOU are delusional.

    shaustin-"you can`t just state a bunch of random facts without any proof or sources "

    Why cite? If it doesn`t meet with your pre-conceived bias you`ll just discount it anyway.

    But for your viewing pleasure:
    Australia
    Germany
    Japan
    China
  104. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5874 posts
    December 19, 2012 at 6:20 am
    shaustin-" where`s your "statistic" on america"

    Try to follow the conversation.

    SmagBoy1 stated ` if the guns aren`t available, as in Australia, Germany, Japan, China`.

    So I found the statistics for THOSE COUNTRIES HE NAMED as having no guns available that cleary proved that yes, indeed, there are many guns available.
  105. Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    December 20, 2012 at 8:13 pm
    The guns were registered to her......

Leave a Reply