Upload
Login or register

denonymous

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:2/21/2012
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#3297
Comment Ranking:#944
Highest Content Rank:#1261
Highest Comment Rank:#259
Content Thumbs: 4530 total,  5104 ,  574
Comment Thumbs: 32658 total,  34505 ,  1847
Content Level Progress: 21% (21/100)
Level 142 Content: Faptastic → Level 143 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 46.4% (464/1000)
Level 328 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 329 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:2
Content Views:160947
Times Content Favorited:187 times
Total Comments Made:5676
FJ Points:17838
Favorite Tags: Dota 2 (3) | are (2) | for (2) | shit (2) | that (2) | this (2)

latest user's comments

#6 - Picture 01/23/2016 on guide to the internet 0
#41 - Picture 01/23/2016 on Found this. +3
#42 - just shove it in his stab wound. 01/23/2016 on mfw my pocket backstabbed &... +1
#11 - can i get a higher res of the first one?  [+] (1 new reply) 01/22/2016 on Undercomp23 What if Sans... +4
#27 - theroflcer (01/23/2016) [-]
Here you go.
And thanks for that Muffet Pic.
#8 - I believe those are called transvestites 01/22/2016 on my favorite monster girls +10
#13 - sweet, free box 01/22/2016 on a box of kittens +3
#16 - Picture  [+] (3 new replies) 01/22/2016 on it's girl and a monster... +32
User avatar
#84 - selfdestructo (01/22/2016) [-]
we must crop out those 3 reaction faces
#94 - knightbean (01/22/2016) [-]
Here you go
User avatar
#105 - selfdestructo (01/22/2016) [-]
Ty. now take thumb.
#28 - The foolish Japanese have decided to take sides with the faili… 01/21/2016 on THE MIGHT OF THE JAPANESE... 0
#30 - sorry mate, already taken 01/21/2016 on (untitled) +2
#21 - Picture 01/21/2016 on Somebody stop me! 0
#9 - chara (the child that the little girl is dressed as) wan…  [+] (3 new replies) 01/21/2016 on (untitled) +17
User avatar
#17 - fatminion (01/21/2016) [-]
"dressed as "? I mean, she's just wearing normal clothes and holding a knife. I would say she's probably dressed more like Charlie Brown as she is "Chara", unless you can produce a picture of Chara that is wearing exactly the same clothes
#18 - fatminion (01/21/2016) [-]
meh, I guess looks a little like the pixelated character. Needed brown pants instead of red, but OK I guess.
#29 - adzoh (01/21/2016) [-]
They were stained red as she waded through the blood of innocents
#10 - Picture 01/19/2016 on underfail +15
#128 - thats the whole point. its an action comedy. he's a parody tha… 01/18/2016 on ok +1
#124 - he became super saiyan god super saiyan (actual title for the … 01/18/2016 on ok 0
#11 - Picture 01/17/2016 on mercaaa +1
#39 - I do agree that added security would make a lot of places a wh…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/17/2016 on Chokinandtokin 0
User avatar
#58 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
In most mass shooting situations it's plain and clear who the bad guy is, he is the one gunning people down left and right. Maybe he is the one executing people in a classroom one by one as everyone stands by helplessly. Is it worth it to have the no gun zone? It's irresponsible to not be armed.
#34 - because government organizations make that rule for their own …  [+] (3 new replies) 01/17/2016 on Chokinandtokin -1
User avatar
#36 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
So then concede that if a place wants to put up a no guns sticker, it makes sense they should have the security to back it up.

I will level with you, some places a no guns policy makes sense, court houses, jails, places where nuclear materials are stored etc. But in all of those places they have security.

At my work we have a no guns allowed sticker and no security at all.

When a guy got his leg crushed in an accident, it took the ambulance 10 minutes to show up, our first aid saved his life, not the ambulance. The moral of the story is that emergency personal show up after the fact, not just in time to save you. That's why we have fire alarms, fire extinguishers(CO2 is dangerous but everyday normal people who could snap have access to them) ,defibrillators, first aid kits, etc. Because the first lien of defense is you.

So decent people need to get their CCs, tear down the retarded stickers and start trusting each other, because maniacs are a very small % of the population.
User avatar
#39 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
I do agree that added security would make a lot of places a whole ton safer, there isn't enough money to have each place supplied. as of right now, most places are running a mimicry tactic, where non-protected buildings follow very similar fashions and rules as protected places, because from an outside point of view, its very difficult to tell which one has security and which one doesnt. problems do arise when the enemy comes from within, someone who knows how the security, or lack thereof works.
as i said before, its very hard to know who the enemy is until the moment they start shooting, because before that moment, anyone can be the enemy. CCs should be allowed in the general public, or any business that allows it. but the places that dont allow it that has a high population per foot area, security should be enforced but again, that shit costs a lot of money, a lot of money we don't have.
User avatar
#58 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
In most mass shooting situations it's plain and clear who the bad guy is, he is the one gunning people down left and right. Maybe he is the one executing people in a classroom one by one as everyone stands by helplessly. Is it worth it to have the no gun zone? It's irresponsible to not be armed.
#32 - why they have it on the door, or why they have it in general? …  [+] (5 new replies) 01/17/2016 on Chokinandtokin -1
User avatar
#33 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
Why have it in general.
Because it does nothing.
Also, protip; The kind of people who want to kill people won't do it with a legal CC.
It's either going to be a Columbine situation loaded for bear or a ghetto-blast.
Neither of these are stopped by a sign.
User avatar
#34 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
because government organizations make that rule for their own buildings and certainly have the big guns to back it up. small institutions like schools follow government rules but unfortunately do not have the resources or the funds to back it up (with the exception of universities that make a fuck ton of money and usually have a decent security team. This is why you see mass killings in places like these and very rarely in government property.
User avatar
#36 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
So then concede that if a place wants to put up a no guns sticker, it makes sense they should have the security to back it up.

I will level with you, some places a no guns policy makes sense, court houses, jails, places where nuclear materials are stored etc. But in all of those places they have security.

At my work we have a no guns allowed sticker and no security at all.

When a guy got his leg crushed in an accident, it took the ambulance 10 minutes to show up, our first aid saved his life, not the ambulance. The moral of the story is that emergency personal show up after the fact, not just in time to save you. That's why we have fire alarms, fire extinguishers(CO2 is dangerous but everyday normal people who could snap have access to them) ,defibrillators, first aid kits, etc. Because the first lien of defense is you.

So decent people need to get their CCs, tear down the retarded stickers and start trusting each other, because maniacs are a very small % of the population.
User avatar
#39 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
I do agree that added security would make a lot of places a whole ton safer, there isn't enough money to have each place supplied. as of right now, most places are running a mimicry tactic, where non-protected buildings follow very similar fashions and rules as protected places, because from an outside point of view, its very difficult to tell which one has security and which one doesnt. problems do arise when the enemy comes from within, someone who knows how the security, or lack thereof works.
as i said before, its very hard to know who the enemy is until the moment they start shooting, because before that moment, anyone can be the enemy. CCs should be allowed in the general public, or any business that allows it. but the places that dont allow it that has a high population per foot area, security should be enforced but again, that shit costs a lot of money, a lot of money we don't have.
User avatar
#58 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
In most mass shooting situations it's plain and clear who the bad guy is, he is the one gunning people down left and right. Maybe he is the one executing people in a classroom one by one as everyone stands by helplessly. Is it worth it to have the no gun zone? It's irresponsible to not be armed.
#27 - because the sign is merely showing the rule implemented on gov…  [+] (7 new replies) 01/17/2016 on Chokinandtokin 0
User avatar
#30 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
That is a answer of what it does, not why they have it.
A stop sign prevents car crashes.
A "no smoking" sign prevents children getting second hand smoke.
What does a "no guns" sign prevent.
"mentality of doing harm but has not done it yet"
What does that mean? You mean a person who snaps?
Fair enough, but if they're that unstable, my money's on them ignoring that and CCing anyway.
User avatar
#32 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
why they have it on the door, or why they have it in general?
and yes, generally either a person who snaps or a person who wants to kill people but is wait for the right moment. kind of like the scene in Men in Black where Will smith shoots the little girl target because he noticed the tiny detail of the text on the book. so unless this is all a movie and you're the main protagonist, you're probably not going to see all the tiny details and figure out who the true enemy is. a similar and more realistic example would be during the cold war, where propaganda was made telling civilians to keep a close eye on other civilians, done in a way saying, "which one is the communist" posters where its the same person copied multiple times.
User avatar
#33 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
Why have it in general.
Because it does nothing.
Also, protip; The kind of people who want to kill people won't do it with a legal CC.
It's either going to be a Columbine situation loaded for bear or a ghetto-blast.
Neither of these are stopped by a sign.
User avatar
#34 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
because government organizations make that rule for their own buildings and certainly have the big guns to back it up. small institutions like schools follow government rules but unfortunately do not have the resources or the funds to back it up (with the exception of universities that make a fuck ton of money and usually have a decent security team. This is why you see mass killings in places like these and very rarely in government property.
User avatar
#36 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
So then concede that if a place wants to put up a no guns sticker, it makes sense they should have the security to back it up.

I will level with you, some places a no guns policy makes sense, court houses, jails, places where nuclear materials are stored etc. But in all of those places they have security.

At my work we have a no guns allowed sticker and no security at all.

When a guy got his leg crushed in an accident, it took the ambulance 10 minutes to show up, our first aid saved his life, not the ambulance. The moral of the story is that emergency personal show up after the fact, not just in time to save you. That's why we have fire alarms, fire extinguishers(CO2 is dangerous but everyday normal people who could snap have access to them) ,defibrillators, first aid kits, etc. Because the first lien of defense is you.

So decent people need to get their CCs, tear down the retarded stickers and start trusting each other, because maniacs are a very small % of the population.
User avatar
#39 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
I do agree that added security would make a lot of places a whole ton safer, there isn't enough money to have each place supplied. as of right now, most places are running a mimicry tactic, where non-protected buildings follow very similar fashions and rules as protected places, because from an outside point of view, its very difficult to tell which one has security and which one doesnt. problems do arise when the enemy comes from within, someone who knows how the security, or lack thereof works.
as i said before, its very hard to know who the enemy is until the moment they start shooting, because before that moment, anyone can be the enemy. CCs should be allowed in the general public, or any business that allows it. but the places that dont allow it that has a high population per foot area, security should be enforced but again, that shit costs a lot of money, a lot of money we don't have.
User avatar
#58 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
In most mass shooting situations it's plain and clear who the bad guy is, he is the one gunning people down left and right. Maybe he is the one executing people in a classroom one by one as everyone stands by helplessly. Is it worth it to have the no gun zone? It's irresponsible to not be armed.
#25 - while I cannot say for all schools, every school ive been to a…  [+] (9 new replies) 01/17/2016 on Chokinandtokin -2
User avatar
#26 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
Only time I've seen guards at a school is on college campuses and at ghetto areas.
Suburban schools rarely have them.
Predetermined attacks.
Ex.
Fucking.
Zactly.
Putting up a sign preventing people from carrying a 9mm is not going to stop people who come in loaded-for-bear and intending to do harm.
But you know what could stop them?
A person carrying the 9mm. Not always, but it's still better than having nothing.
And you are still ignoring the question.
Why have it when it does jack-fuck-all to help improve safety except for preventing lib-tards from suffering a panic attack.
A good practicer of concealed carry doesn't look any different from someone who isn't carrying.
There is no purpose.
"A possible enemy"
I think a faggot who's shooting at people with a AR-15 is not a "possible enemy".
So again, I ask you;
Why have it.
User avatar
#27 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
because the sign is merely showing the rule implemented on government buildings and is for law abiding citizens to understand not to bring fire arms into government buildings. its just a sticker showing the rule, regardless if its there or not its still part of the rules. most schools follow government rules but do not have the fundings to supply such things to the teachers. I've been to ghetto, suburban, military, and college schools, and they've all had police officers working on the security team, but that just might be because this is Chicago, so again, I cannot say much about other schools. While I agree some fucker whose shooting people is an actual enemy, im talking about people who have the mentality of doing harm but has not done it yet.
User avatar
#30 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
That is a answer of what it does, not why they have it.
A stop sign prevents car crashes.
A "no smoking" sign prevents children getting second hand smoke.
What does a "no guns" sign prevent.
"mentality of doing harm but has not done it yet"
What does that mean? You mean a person who snaps?
Fair enough, but if they're that unstable, my money's on them ignoring that and CCing anyway.
User avatar
#32 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
why they have it on the door, or why they have it in general?
and yes, generally either a person who snaps or a person who wants to kill people but is wait for the right moment. kind of like the scene in Men in Black where Will smith shoots the little girl target because he noticed the tiny detail of the text on the book. so unless this is all a movie and you're the main protagonist, you're probably not going to see all the tiny details and figure out who the true enemy is. a similar and more realistic example would be during the cold war, where propaganda was made telling civilians to keep a close eye on other civilians, done in a way saying, "which one is the communist" posters where its the same person copied multiple times.
User avatar
#33 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
Why have it in general.
Because it does nothing.
Also, protip; The kind of people who want to kill people won't do it with a legal CC.
It's either going to be a Columbine situation loaded for bear or a ghetto-blast.
Neither of these are stopped by a sign.
User avatar
#34 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
because government organizations make that rule for their own buildings and certainly have the big guns to back it up. small institutions like schools follow government rules but unfortunately do not have the resources or the funds to back it up (with the exception of universities that make a fuck ton of money and usually have a decent security team. This is why you see mass killings in places like these and very rarely in government property.
User avatar
#36 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
So then concede that if a place wants to put up a no guns sticker, it makes sense they should have the security to back it up.

I will level with you, some places a no guns policy makes sense, court houses, jails, places where nuclear materials are stored etc. But in all of those places they have security.

At my work we have a no guns allowed sticker and no security at all.

When a guy got his leg crushed in an accident, it took the ambulance 10 minutes to show up, our first aid saved his life, not the ambulance. The moral of the story is that emergency personal show up after the fact, not just in time to save you. That's why we have fire alarms, fire extinguishers(CO2 is dangerous but everyday normal people who could snap have access to them) ,defibrillators, first aid kits, etc. Because the first lien of defense is you.

So decent people need to get their CCs, tear down the retarded stickers and start trusting each other, because maniacs are a very small % of the population.
User avatar
#39 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
I do agree that added security would make a lot of places a whole ton safer, there isn't enough money to have each place supplied. as of right now, most places are running a mimicry tactic, where non-protected buildings follow very similar fashions and rules as protected places, because from an outside point of view, its very difficult to tell which one has security and which one doesnt. problems do arise when the enemy comes from within, someone who knows how the security, or lack thereof works.
as i said before, its very hard to know who the enemy is until the moment they start shooting, because before that moment, anyone can be the enemy. CCs should be allowed in the general public, or any business that allows it. but the places that dont allow it that has a high population per foot area, security should be enforced but again, that shit costs a lot of money, a lot of money we don't have.
User avatar
#58 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
In most mass shooting situations it's plain and clear who the bad guy is, he is the one gunning people down left and right. Maybe he is the one executing people in a classroom one by one as everyone stands by helplessly. Is it worth it to have the no gun zone? It's irresponsible to not be armed.
#21 - Owners of establishments can set the rules for the customers, …  [+] (7 new replies) 01/17/2016 on Chokinandtokin +1
User avatar
#22 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
That doesn't answer the "why". It is because they are retarded?
User avatar
#49 - Haentar (01/17/2016) [-]
Well if they want to detect/confiscate guns, don't they need to show that they aren't allowed, first?
User avatar
#57 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
What?
User avatar
#59 - Haentar (01/19/2016) [-]
How can guards search someone for guns if they don't put up a "no guns allowed here" sign?
User avatar
#60 - kingderps (01/20/2016) [-]
Why would they be searching someone for guns?
User avatar
#61 - Haentar (01/21/2016) [-]
Well to stop them from shooting a politician?
User avatar
#62 - kingderps (01/22/2016) [-]
At such an event there would be a lot of security, so a no guns allowed zone would make sense. Our argument is against gun free zones that offer no security.
#19 - because government buildings and most places have security gua…  [+] (12 new replies) 01/17/2016 on Chokinandtokin 0
User avatar
#24 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
"because government buildings and most places have security guards who have guns. "

Fort Hood was a military base. Most places where mass shooting occur are gun free zones and no armed guards on site.

"problem is, people who follow the laws and people who don't follow the laws look exactly the same."

So what? Now you can't tell an unarmed law abiding citizen from an armed criminal. What does it achieve? We are living in a fallacy that we are too scared to admit. We need to put on our big boy pants and admit that law abiding citizens should be armed and vigilant everywhere.

"As well as not being public property. Government and government paid building set their rules in the same way business owners can set the rules to the store, customers have to follow the rules or be denied sale, entry, or other such punishments. "

Nobody is questioning that they can set their rules how they like, we are questioning WHY they do that.
User avatar
#23 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
Schools are government buildings. No security guards though.
"No guns" really seems to work there, right?
Right.
Saying "No guns allowed" does jack fuck all except advertise that you are an easy target.
Tell me, how does it help.
At all.
The only thing it does is make people feel safe that there aren't any guns around them, which to me does jack fuck all for my feeling of safety.
User avatar
#25 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
while I cannot say for all schools, every school ive been to and seen has security. every school ive been in has police officers, on and off duty. (chicago and general Illinois area). The majority of school shootings are not random acts of violence but rather predetermined attacks. while not fully planned, A school or likewise building is chosen. Trains can also be used as an easy target because theres not much to hide behind. or even just general crowded locations. and those are targeted in most terrorist attempts in predetermined attacks. as for your feeling of safety, you can feel just as safe in an unarmed room as you would in an armed room. I'm not saying that an unarmed room makes you feel safe, but if you are in a situation containing a possible false positive, ie. theres a possible enemy in the area, and you cannot determine who the enemy is, you will not feel safe at all, regardless if everyone has a gun or no one has a gun and it is a faux feeling.
User avatar
#26 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
Only time I've seen guards at a school is on college campuses and at ghetto areas.
Suburban schools rarely have them.
Predetermined attacks.
Ex.
Fucking.
Zactly.
Putting up a sign preventing people from carrying a 9mm is not going to stop people who come in loaded-for-bear and intending to do harm.
But you know what could stop them?
A person carrying the 9mm. Not always, but it's still better than having nothing.
And you are still ignoring the question.
Why have it when it does jack-fuck-all to help improve safety except for preventing lib-tards from suffering a panic attack.
A good practicer of concealed carry doesn't look any different from someone who isn't carrying.
There is no purpose.
"A possible enemy"
I think a faggot who's shooting at people with a AR-15 is not a "possible enemy".
So again, I ask you;
Why have it.
User avatar
#27 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
because the sign is merely showing the rule implemented on government buildings and is for law abiding citizens to understand not to bring fire arms into government buildings. its just a sticker showing the rule, regardless if its there or not its still part of the rules. most schools follow government rules but do not have the fundings to supply such things to the teachers. I've been to ghetto, suburban, military, and college schools, and they've all had police officers working on the security team, but that just might be because this is Chicago, so again, I cannot say much about other schools. While I agree some fucker whose shooting people is an actual enemy, im talking about people who have the mentality of doing harm but has not done it yet.
User avatar
#30 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
That is a answer of what it does, not why they have it.
A stop sign prevents car crashes.
A "no smoking" sign prevents children getting second hand smoke.
What does a "no guns" sign prevent.
"mentality of doing harm but has not done it yet"
What does that mean? You mean a person who snaps?
Fair enough, but if they're that unstable, my money's on them ignoring that and CCing anyway.
User avatar
#32 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
why they have it on the door, or why they have it in general?
and yes, generally either a person who snaps or a person who wants to kill people but is wait for the right moment. kind of like the scene in Men in Black where Will smith shoots the little girl target because he noticed the tiny detail of the text on the book. so unless this is all a movie and you're the main protagonist, you're probably not going to see all the tiny details and figure out who the true enemy is. a similar and more realistic example would be during the cold war, where propaganda was made telling civilians to keep a close eye on other civilians, done in a way saying, "which one is the communist" posters where its the same person copied multiple times.
User avatar
#33 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
Why have it in general.
Because it does nothing.
Also, protip; The kind of people who want to kill people won't do it with a legal CC.
It's either going to be a Columbine situation loaded for bear or a ghetto-blast.
Neither of these are stopped by a sign.
User avatar
#34 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
because government organizations make that rule for their own buildings and certainly have the big guns to back it up. small institutions like schools follow government rules but unfortunately do not have the resources or the funds to back it up (with the exception of universities that make a fuck ton of money and usually have a decent security team. This is why you see mass killings in places like these and very rarely in government property.
User avatar
#36 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
So then concede that if a place wants to put up a no guns sticker, it makes sense they should have the security to back it up.

I will level with you, some places a no guns policy makes sense, court houses, jails, places where nuclear materials are stored etc. But in all of those places they have security.

At my work we have a no guns allowed sticker and no security at all.

When a guy got his leg crushed in an accident, it took the ambulance 10 minutes to show up, our first aid saved his life, not the ambulance. The moral of the story is that emergency personal show up after the fact, not just in time to save you. That's why we have fire alarms, fire extinguishers(CO2 is dangerous but everyday normal people who could snap have access to them) ,defibrillators, first aid kits, etc. Because the first lien of defense is you.

So decent people need to get their CCs, tear down the retarded stickers and start trusting each other, because maniacs are a very small % of the population.
User avatar
#39 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
I do agree that added security would make a lot of places a whole ton safer, there isn't enough money to have each place supplied. as of right now, most places are running a mimicry tactic, where non-protected buildings follow very similar fashions and rules as protected places, because from an outside point of view, its very difficult to tell which one has security and which one doesnt. problems do arise when the enemy comes from within, someone who knows how the security, or lack thereof works.
as i said before, its very hard to know who the enemy is until the moment they start shooting, because before that moment, anyone can be the enemy. CCs should be allowed in the general public, or any business that allows it. but the places that dont allow it that has a high population per foot area, security should be enforced but again, that shit costs a lot of money, a lot of money we don't have.
User avatar
#58 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
In most mass shooting situations it's plain and clear who the bad guy is, he is the one gunning people down left and right. Maybe he is the one executing people in a classroom one by one as everyone stands by helplessly. Is it worth it to have the no gun zone? It's irresponsible to not be armed.
#12 - the signs are for concealed carrying and the likes. you can't …  [+] (24 new replies) 01/16/2016 on Chokinandtokin +5
#29 - anon (01/17/2016) [-]
It's a sign that says come shoot us we're unarmed.
User avatar
#17 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
Why would we need to stop law abiding citizens from having their guns in those places? That is retarded.
User avatar
#21 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
Owners of establishments can set the rules for the customers, or else the customer be denied sale, entry, or other such punishments. the same goes for government and government paid organizations. plus most, if not all, government type buildings have security with guns.
User avatar
#22 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
That doesn't answer the "why". It is because they are retarded?
User avatar
#49 - Haentar (01/17/2016) [-]
Well if they want to detect/confiscate guns, don't they need to show that they aren't allowed, first?
User avatar
#57 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
What?
User avatar
#59 - Haentar (01/19/2016) [-]
How can guards search someone for guns if they don't put up a "no guns allowed here" sign?
User avatar
#60 - kingderps (01/20/2016) [-]
Why would they be searching someone for guns?
User avatar
#61 - Haentar (01/21/2016) [-]
Well to stop them from shooting a politician?
User avatar
#62 - kingderps (01/22/2016) [-]
At such an event there would be a lot of security, so a no guns allowed zone would make sense. Our argument is against gun free zones that offer no security.
User avatar
#14 - hourlyb (01/16/2016) [-]
No, but preventing people from being able to defend themselves just for the fallacy that is a "safe zone" is fucking stupid.
How is that sign going to help when someone who doesn't "follow the rules" gonna help?
Hint; It's not going to do jackshit except get people killed.
User avatar
#19 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
because government buildings and most places have security guards who have guns. problem is, people who follow the laws and people who don't follow the laws look exactly the same. As well as not being public property. Government and government paid building set their rules in the same way business owners can set the rules to the store, customers have to follow the rules or be denied sale, entry, or other such punishments.
User avatar
#24 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
"because government buildings and most places have security guards who have guns. "

Fort Hood was a military base. Most places where mass shooting occur are gun free zones and no armed guards on site.

"problem is, people who follow the laws and people who don't follow the laws look exactly the same."

So what? Now you can't tell an unarmed law abiding citizen from an armed criminal. What does it achieve? We are living in a fallacy that we are too scared to admit. We need to put on our big boy pants and admit that law abiding citizens should be armed and vigilant everywhere.

"As well as not being public property. Government and government paid building set their rules in the same way business owners can set the rules to the store, customers have to follow the rules or be denied sale, entry, or other such punishments. "

Nobody is questioning that they can set their rules how they like, we are questioning WHY they do that.
User avatar
#23 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
Schools are government buildings. No security guards though.
"No guns" really seems to work there, right?
Right.
Saying "No guns allowed" does jack fuck all except advertise that you are an easy target.
Tell me, how does it help.
At all.
The only thing it does is make people feel safe that there aren't any guns around them, which to me does jack fuck all for my feeling of safety.
User avatar
#25 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
while I cannot say for all schools, every school ive been to and seen has security. every school ive been in has police officers, on and off duty. (chicago and general Illinois area). The majority of school shootings are not random acts of violence but rather predetermined attacks. while not fully planned, A school or likewise building is chosen. Trains can also be used as an easy target because theres not much to hide behind. or even just general crowded locations. and those are targeted in most terrorist attempts in predetermined attacks. as for your feeling of safety, you can feel just as safe in an unarmed room as you would in an armed room. I'm not saying that an unarmed room makes you feel safe, but if you are in a situation containing a possible false positive, ie. theres a possible enemy in the area, and you cannot determine who the enemy is, you will not feel safe at all, regardless if everyone has a gun or no one has a gun and it is a faux feeling.
User avatar
#26 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
Only time I've seen guards at a school is on college campuses and at ghetto areas.
Suburban schools rarely have them.
Predetermined attacks.
Ex.
Fucking.
Zactly.
Putting up a sign preventing people from carrying a 9mm is not going to stop people who come in loaded-for-bear and intending to do harm.
But you know what could stop them?
A person carrying the 9mm. Not always, but it's still better than having nothing.
And you are still ignoring the question.
Why have it when it does jack-fuck-all to help improve safety except for preventing lib-tards from suffering a panic attack.
A good practicer of concealed carry doesn't look any different from someone who isn't carrying.
There is no purpose.
"A possible enemy"
I think a faggot who's shooting at people with a AR-15 is not a "possible enemy".
So again, I ask you;
Why have it.
User avatar
#27 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
because the sign is merely showing the rule implemented on government buildings and is for law abiding citizens to understand not to bring fire arms into government buildings. its just a sticker showing the rule, regardless if its there or not its still part of the rules. most schools follow government rules but do not have the fundings to supply such things to the teachers. I've been to ghetto, suburban, military, and college schools, and they've all had police officers working on the security team, but that just might be because this is Chicago, so again, I cannot say much about other schools. While I agree some fucker whose shooting people is an actual enemy, im talking about people who have the mentality of doing harm but has not done it yet.
User avatar
#30 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
That is a answer of what it does, not why they have it.
A stop sign prevents car crashes.
A "no smoking" sign prevents children getting second hand smoke.
What does a "no guns" sign prevent.
"mentality of doing harm but has not done it yet"
What does that mean? You mean a person who snaps?
Fair enough, but if they're that unstable, my money's on them ignoring that and CCing anyway.
User avatar
#32 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
why they have it on the door, or why they have it in general?
and yes, generally either a person who snaps or a person who wants to kill people but is wait for the right moment. kind of like the scene in Men in Black where Will smith shoots the little girl target because he noticed the tiny detail of the text on the book. so unless this is all a movie and you're the main protagonist, you're probably not going to see all the tiny details and figure out who the true enemy is. a similar and more realistic example would be during the cold war, where propaganda was made telling civilians to keep a close eye on other civilians, done in a way saying, "which one is the communist" posters where its the same person copied multiple times.
User avatar
#33 - hourlyb (01/17/2016) [-]
Why have it in general.
Because it does nothing.
Also, protip; The kind of people who want to kill people won't do it with a legal CC.
It's either going to be a Columbine situation loaded for bear or a ghetto-blast.
Neither of these are stopped by a sign.
User avatar
#34 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
because government organizations make that rule for their own buildings and certainly have the big guns to back it up. small institutions like schools follow government rules but unfortunately do not have the resources or the funds to back it up (with the exception of universities that make a fuck ton of money and usually have a decent security team. This is why you see mass killings in places like these and very rarely in government property.
User avatar
#36 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
So then concede that if a place wants to put up a no guns sticker, it makes sense they should have the security to back it up.

I will level with you, some places a no guns policy makes sense, court houses, jails, places where nuclear materials are stored etc. But in all of those places they have security.

At my work we have a no guns allowed sticker and no security at all.

When a guy got his leg crushed in an accident, it took the ambulance 10 minutes to show up, our first aid saved his life, not the ambulance. The moral of the story is that emergency personal show up after the fact, not just in time to save you. That's why we have fire alarms, fire extinguishers(CO2 is dangerous but everyday normal people who could snap have access to them) ,defibrillators, first aid kits, etc. Because the first lien of defense is you.

So decent people need to get their CCs, tear down the retarded stickers and start trusting each other, because maniacs are a very small % of the population.
User avatar
#39 - denonymous (01/17/2016) [-]
I do agree that added security would make a lot of places a whole ton safer, there isn't enough money to have each place supplied. as of right now, most places are running a mimicry tactic, where non-protected buildings follow very similar fashions and rules as protected places, because from an outside point of view, its very difficult to tell which one has security and which one doesnt. problems do arise when the enemy comes from within, someone who knows how the security, or lack thereof works.
as i said before, its very hard to know who the enemy is until the moment they start shooting, because before that moment, anyone can be the enemy. CCs should be allowed in the general public, or any business that allows it. but the places that dont allow it that has a high population per foot area, security should be enforced but again, that shit costs a lot of money, a lot of money we don't have.
User avatar
#58 - kingderps (01/17/2016) [-]
In most mass shooting situations it's plain and clear who the bad guy is, he is the one gunning people down left and right. Maybe he is the one executing people in a classroom one by one as everyone stands by helplessly. Is it worth it to have the no gun zone? It's irresponsible to not be armed.
#62 - What is this? made by Dorkly? most of this stuff is barely loo… 01/16/2016 on grim disney +5
#18 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 01/16/2016 on READ THE TRUTH +1
#31 - tankeruber Comment deleted by denonymous
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (32)
[ 32 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
20 comments displayed.
#45 - blackmore (10/29/2015) [-]
#43 - hitlerisgod (09/10/2015) [-]
#44 to #43 - denonymous ONLINE (09/10/2015) [-]
#41 - mcburd (11/25/2014) [-]
Hallo
Hallo
#42 to #41 - denonymous ONLINE (11/26/2014) [-]
hai
hai
#39 - denonymous ONLINE (11/17/2012) [-]
test
test
#40 to #39 - denonymous ONLINE (11/17/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#37 - iaaron (11/14/2012) [-]
Haha, no worries man. And i appreciate the gift
#35 - rcathell (11/09/2012) [-]
take a look and see what'd you like for them.
#36 to #35 - denonymous ONLINE (11/09/2012) [-]
a fabulous gem (45k) is worth somewhat similar to the velaSIRaptor (50k), so depending on how many you want, a 1 for 1 sounds decent enough. perhaps some pony poop with it to make it evened out. and like early, you can always try to make an offer.
#24 - trivdiego (10/27/2012) [-]
okay sure. the unimportance of this trade is amazing
#25 to #24 - denonymous ONLINE (10/27/2012) [-]
well you did say anything
#26 to #25 - trivdiego (10/27/2012) [-]
can you decline my trade so i can accept yours?
#27 to #26 - denonymous ONLINE (10/27/2012) [-]
well ****, i already accepted it
#28 to #27 - trivdiego (10/27/2012) [-]
oh. well ill collect a bit more poop then
#29 to #28 - denonymous ONLINE (10/27/2012) [-]
that sounds great
that sounds great
#23 - denonymous ONLINE (10/06/2012) [-]
#16 - hakusprite **User deleted account** (08/14/2012) [-]
What was that?
What was that?
#17 to #16 - denonymous ONLINE (08/14/2012) [-]
what was what
#14 - bobbybeats (04/21/2012) [-]
I love you and everything you stand for.