0
gregpso

How do you live like this

Recommended Posts

Quote


And the only 'gun free zone' I've alluded to is a national law abiding civilian populace.



You forgot two key words... ;)
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


And the only 'gun free zone' I've alluded to is a national law abiding civilian populace.



You forgot two key words... ;)


Negatory good buddy.

Bear in mind gun nuts are often law abiding citizens themselves prior to committing atrocities.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Banning guns won't work here. What is needed is to stop it being trivially easy for anyone, even a crazy person, to get a semi-auto weapon. We have a so-called background check that is so easy to circumvent it may as well not exist.



MSNBC Video: Lanza reportedly tried to buy rifle, was denied

Yeah, you want to try that one again, professor?



OH, then he must have used a knife. No, wait, he got it from his Mom, a gun nut herself.

Wouldn't you think a self-confessed gun enthusiast would have been smart enough to secure her firearms when she knew she had a son with "mental problems" (to quote the gunman's brother). No, neither would I, based on what I see written by gun nuts on here.



Oh, so now you admit there's nothing wrong with the background check and purchasing system in this country? Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of your argument?



Nope - as the many other massacres by crazy people have shown. This is NOT the ONLY massacre to have occurred. You have a conveniently short memory.

Maybe THIS will jog it.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Banning guns won't work here. What is needed is to stop it being trivially easy for anyone, even a crazy person, to get a semi-auto weapon. We have a so-called background check that is so easy to circumvent it may as well not exist.



MSNBC Video: Lanza reportedly tried to buy rifle, was denied

Yeah, you want to try that one again, professor?



OH, then he must have used a knife. No, wait, he got it from his Mom, a gun nut herself.

Wouldn't you think a self-confessed gun enthusiast would have been smart enough to secure her firearms when she knew she had a son with "mental problems" (to quote the gunman's brother). No, neither would I, based on what I see written by gun nuts on here.



Oh, so now you admit there's nothing wrong with the background check and purchasing system in this country? Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of your argument?



Nope - as the many other massacres by crazy people have shown. This is NOT the ONLY massacre to have occurred. You have a conveniently short memory.

Maybe THIS will jog it.



The kid stoled the gun from his mom, the gun owner. Gun owners bare the responsibility to ensure the guns are properly locked up. I recommend removing the guns in a home where there are depressed, unstable youth. A relative can keep your guns until the youth moves out and we all know as parents we want the kids to move out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Nope. But here's a hint. Part of the problem is our legal system. It allows too many violent criminals to commit too many aggressive crimes before they are evn locked up.



Red herring. How many of the many massacre perps had a record of being violent criminals? They are crazy people.



How many people have the many massacre perps killed compared to the numbers that the many violent criminals that already have records that are walking the streets with illegal guns? Pales in comparison I would wager.



Why does it have to be one or the other?

Why can't you tackle both? they may well require different measures, after all.
OK, if you stop the statistically unlikely mass murder sprees, you may only drop the death rate by 2%, but isn't that a good thing? I can't see how ANY decrease in innocent people being shot can be bad.

You can then challenge the harder problem of illegal gun crime as a separate issue - better intelligence, more policing etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nope. But here's a hint. Part of the problem is our legal system. It allows too many violent criminals to commit too many aggressive crimes before they are evn locked up.



Red herring. How many of the many massacre perps had a record of being violent criminals? They are crazy people.



How many people have the many massacre perps killed compared to the numbers that the many violent criminals that already have records that are walking the streets with illegal guns? Pales in comparison I would wager.



Why does it have to be one or the other?

Why can't you tackle both? they may well require different measures, after all.
OK, if you stop the statistically unlikely mass murder sprees, you may only drop the death rate by 2%, but isn't that a good thing? I can't see how ANY decrease in innocent people being shot can be bad.

You can then challenge the harder problem of illegal gun crime as a separate issue - better intelligence, more policing etc.



You are absolutely correct. The gun nuts are just trying desperately to distract from the issue. They will compare with cars, swimming pools, lightning strikes, or whatever, in order to avoid having their enabling behavior examined.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Once teachers are known to be armed, who do you think will be the first target for a loony with a gun entering a classroom?

I am a teacher and I have no wish to set myself up as the primary target of a nutter with a gun.



You're a very intelligent man, but sometimes your logic fails me.

If a nutter has his sites set on you, you are a target with or without the weapon.

You having a weapon gives you and those in your class a greater chance of not being a victim(s).

The issue for me is that these nutters seem to "target" gun-free zones... school, school, movie, mall, school.

One cannot deny, there is a common theme.
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

One cannot deny, there is a common theme.

One can't deny that there is a common theme of targeting places where there are a large number of potential victims,which would prominently include schools, malls, movie theaters, and fast food "restaurants". People bent on mass murder go to those places, it would be logical to assume, for the same reason bank robbers rob banks (because that's where the money is). Most of those places have a no-guns policy, I'm guessing because of concerns about liability issues. Alternatively, people commit mass murder at a place that has a specific connection to them, such as a work place. Are you aware of any incidents where it is known for a fact that the killer targeted a specific site because of a "gun-free" policy? Can you point me to any study that has compared the risk of a mass murder incident occurring in movie theaters/shopping malls with a "gun-free" vs "gun-friendly" policy? A single study that suggests that permitting concealed carry makes a movie theater or shopping mall or school less likely to be targeted?

I doubt that people who plan such attacks are thinking at the level of calculating the risk that they will be stymied by a private citizen. Either they are motivated by a specific attachment to a place (such as a place of work), seeking revenge against people who have "done them wrong", or they go to where there a lot of people they can take by surprise. In most cases it seems the perpetrators are trying to make some sort of a statement, though what that is may not be apparent to anybody else, and they don't expect to live through the incident (often killing themselves), so it seems unlikely that they would be put off by the chance of being resisted by an armed civilian or even the police.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

One cannot deny, there is a common theme.

One can't deny that there is a common theme of targeting places where there are a large number of potential victims,which would prominently include schools, malls, movie theaters, and fast food "restaurants". People bent on mass murder go to those places, it would be logical to assume, for the same reason bank robbers rob banks (because that's where the money is). Most of those places have a no-guns policy, I'm guessing because of concerns about liability issues. Alternatively, people commit mass murder at a place that has a specific connection to them, such as a work place. Are you aware of any incidents where it is known for a fact that the killer targeted a specific site because of a "gun-free" policy? Can you point me to any study that has compared the risk of a mass murder incident occurring in movie theaters/shopping malls with a "gun-free" vs "gun-friendly" policy? A single study that suggests that permitting concealed carry makes a movie theater or shopping mall or school less likely to be targeted?

I doubt that people who plan such attacks are thinking at the level of calculating the risk that they will be stymied by a private citizen. Either they are motivated by a specific attachment to a place (such as a place of work), seeking revenge against people who have "done them wrong", or they go to where there a lot of people they can take by surprise. In most cases it seems the perpetrators are trying to make some sort of a statement, though what that is may not be apparent to anybody else, and they don't expect to live through the incident (often killing themselves), so it seems unlikely that they would be put off by the chance of being resisted by an armed civilian or even the police.

Don



It's a society problem that really can't be overcome entirely. Even if teachers were armed and people sitting in theaters were armed, a suicide killer will have the upperhand. Look what happened in AZ. There were cops in the audience and the guy managed to kill so many and he never got a scratch. A fact of life.

Ban cell phone use in cars and you'll save waaaaay more people. I'm all for CELL PHONE CONTROL. And keeping eye on the door an eye for nutjobs no matter where I am, even in CHURCH, as we all know plenty of nutty religious people including the church lady at our church who called up the school last year and said she was going to blow it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's difficult to say if these placeswere targeted because of their restrictions on guns because most of these nuts end up commiting suicide. However, when was the last time you heard of one targeting a gun show or a police station? Even the Ft. Hood murderer knew that very few on the base were armed because since 1993, soldiers have not been allowed to carry weapons on the base. Hsan was able to walk around for10 minutes shooting people before he could be stopped by someone with a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However, when was the last time you heard of one targeting a gun show ...

How many permanent, open every day, gun shows are there? How many permanent, open everyday malls or movie theaters? One would have to have a specific reason to target a gun show, find out when/where one would be held, and plan specifically for that event. If someone was to do that, it would very much imply that they were specifically targeting gun shows (not just looking for places where people could be found in large numbers). That would suggest they had a grudge against guns, so it's not likely they would choose to use a gun to express their anger against guns, don't you think? Maybe the notion that it would be a bad idea to try to shoot up a gun show might cross their mind, but the logistical issues suggest other explanations may apply. As a comparison, I have never heard of a mass murder at a dog show either (same issues of having to plan for a specific day/location; why bother when the mall/movie theater is open every day).

I'll grant the police station, perhaps, though even there would you expect to have access to hundreds of potential victims like you would at a theater/mall? Sometimes people do target police stations, but only if they are intent on "suicide by cop".

Fort Hood, I think, was a different sort of beast altogether. I think it's pretty clear that was a terrorist attack, motivated by religion and specifically targeted to military personnel.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sixteen mass shootings in the USA since V. Tech in 2007. 180 victims.

What a record to be proud of, gun owners of America.

Everyone who claims "nothing can be done" and opposes any changes is culpable to some extent in these killings.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sixteen mass shootings in the USA since V. Tech in 2007. 180 victims.

What a record to be proud of, gun owners of America.

Everyone who claims "nothing can be done" and opposes any changes is culpable to some extent in these killings.



If you think that gun owners are proud of mass murderer you are pretty stupid. So what did you do to prevent the youth from killing his mom and taking her guns. This was after gun control worked that he was denied buying a gun. Looks like your gun control didn't work in this instance. What are you going to do, stand a liberal goon in the kitchen to ensure the kid doesn't take her guns, or perhaps you think she shouldn't have any guns.

I take it you're not a competitive shooter in the Olympics, or participate in shooting sports?


I can't control what you write on here and that doesn't make me culpable, or anyone else, for that matter, for your idiotic statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sixteen mass shootings in the USA since V. Tech in 2007. 180 victims.

What a record to be proud of, gun owners of America.



While horrible and upsetting, being killed in a mass shooting (36 per year since 2007) is as rare as being struck by lightning and not something to worry about.

Quote


Everyone who claims "nothing can be done" and opposes any changes is culpable to some extent in these killings.



People who can't get over their fears of inanimate objects and look at root causes that could be responsible may be culpable.

Those of us who logically conclude that additional restrictions on guns which won't help aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The kid stoled the gun from his mom, the gun owner. Gun owners bare the responsibility to ensure the guns are properly locked up. I recommend removing the guns in a home where there are depressed, unstable youth. A relative can keep your guns until the youth moves out and we all know as parents we want the kids to move out!



Let's not lose sight that this is not a kid, this is a 20 year old adult. Parents can fairly be held responsible for most of what their underage children do with guns not secured, but the responsibility here lies with the shooter. (and obviously the mother is dead anyway)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


One of today's articles describes 3 teachers who put themselves in harm's way. 2 left safety to go towards the sound of shots fired and if we can take on faith what the reporter wrote, were shot execution style. One other blocked the children in a cabinet as was shot for it.

Can anyone argue that they would have been worse off armed, rather than sheep walking towards the slaughter? They had no options here, they knew it. They were just trying to buy time for a response, putting the children's well being ahead of their own. I wish they could have had better options than that.



I wish they could've had better options too. :(

But having armed teachers isn't the solution. What if it transpires one of the armed teachers is a nutter and runs amok? Arm the kids??



Your counter argument is that it won't prevent every situation from happening. That's a lousy one - there is no magic bullet solution here. We want solutions that can reduce the frequency of events, or reduce the consequences of the events that happen.

If a teacher were to decide he or she wants to harm her children, that's a tough scenario to stop. Unless the teachers go through metal detectors every day, they can bring in a gun anyway. Or they can serve up Jim Jones cool-aid to the kids. If they want to get their hands dirty, locking the door and pulling out the Bowie knife. So let's be honest - the first class in a school incident are sitting ducks. But at least then the next class would be protected.

So repeating the question - how would those teachers having guns have made this event worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that arming everybody is a solution to stuff like this is a fantasy for a load of reasons.

Take the Batman cinema shooting... Pro gun people have this image that if they'd been there and carrying a gun, they'd calmly have shot the bad guy, saved the day, been a hero and proven that having gun saved the day... far more likely would be that in the dark, noisy cinema people would panic and start shooting each other by accident.
The idea that you could be calm, rational and controlled in that situation without the sort of training that they give to military personnel is a fiction.

Ok, well what about deterrence then? Surely if all the teachers are armed then the shooters will know not to go on a murder spree there, right? No, not necessarily - you're applying RATIONAL logic to a subset of the population that are crazier than a box of frogs! Most of these people end up killing themselves anyway and for all you know the idea of their fantasy massacre turning into some romanticized image of the gunfight at the OK Corral in their warped brain might be an even bigger turn on for them.

Even IF the deterrence idea did work, where does it end? Great, schools aren't getting shot up anymore because all the teachers are armed, trained and wearing flak vests. Maybe these nutters are logical? So they pick a different target... a cinema. A library. A McDonalds.

Is the end of the pro gun argument that we just arm EVERYONE and let people always carry guns around? Think about that for a second... think about the people you've met. Would you really want all of them carrying a lethal weapon all of the time? [:/]


All of that aside, the 'how could it make it worse?' argument is a morally terrible one. If people aren't standing up and saying 'we have to STOP these thing happening' after this one, then their priorities are way out of whack in my opinion. Now - Stopping it in the future isn't the same as saying 'ban everything!' I'm bright enough to realize that that ship has sailed already, but there has to be some sort of control in place.

How many 6 year olds are worth your constitutional right to carry a gun?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


All of that aside, the 'how could it make it worse?' argument is a morally terrible one. If people aren't standing up and saying 'we have to STOP these thing happening' after this one, then their priorities are way out of whack in my opinion. Now - Stopping it in the future isn't the same as saying 'ban everything!' I'm bright enough to realize that that ship has sailed already, but there has to be some sort of control in place.

How many 6 year olds are worth your constitutional right to carry a gun?



'If it will save one children, it's worth it' is the most intellectually deficient argument out there.

We already can see from the rest of the world that bans don't stop these statistically rare events from occurring. But it does enable those people to be very 'successful.' IMO, there is more to be gained by limited the potential carnage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


All of that aside, the 'how could it make it worse?' argument is a morally terrible one. If people aren't standing up and saying 'we have to STOP these thing happening' after this one, then their priorities are way out of whack in my opinion. Now - Stopping it in the future isn't the same as saying 'ban everything!' I'm bright enough to realize that that ship has sailed already, but there has to be some sort of control in place.

How many 6 year olds are worth your constitutional right to carry a gun?



'If it will save one children, it's worth it' is the most intellectually deficient argument out there.

We already can see from the rest of the world that bans don't stop these statistically rare events from occurring. But it does enable those people to be very 'successful.' IMO, there is more to be gained by limited the potential carnage.


There were 3 other points I raised in my post as well... ;)

Anyway, I was very precise in my wording. I called it a moralstance, not an intellectual one.
The intellectual stance is to realise that the 'ban all guns' ship has long since sailed for the US and that alternative methods of stopping crazies going on shooting sprees needs to be sought - personally that's morally repugnant, but I can get behind it because it's the right solution. I've not seen any sort of compromise that limits guns from the pro-gun camp... Quite the opposite!

Do people really need an arsenal at home? What if families were limited to 1 or 2 guns? Ignore the 'how' for now... If we want something enough we find a way to make it happen.

If there can never be any compromise and the right to have pretty much free access to guns will always have priority in someone's mind, then I tend to agree with Kallend. They have to then assume some of the culpability when guns find their way into situations like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Banning guns won't work here. What is needed is to stop it being trivially easy for anyone, even a crazy person, to get a semi-auto weapon. We have a so-called background check that is so easy to circumvent it may as well not exist.



MSNBC Video: Lanza reportedly tried to buy rifle, was denied

Yeah, you want to try that one again, professor?



OH, then he must have used a knife. No, wait, he got it from his Mom, a gun nut herself.

Wouldn't you think a self-confessed gun enthusiast would have been smart enough to secure her firearms when she knew she had a son with "mental problems" (to quote the gunman's brother). No, neither would I, based on what I see written by gun nuts on here.



Well, I guess you could call me a 'gun nut' since we collect WWII firearms and target shoot in our back yard. All of our firearms are 'semi-automatic', but that's not saying much, since a lot of firearms are, even the 100 year old ones.

I also have a son with violent tendencies and mental health issues, who has been getting increasingly volitile since getting no mental health care or meds after leaving our home. We taught our son to shoot, and gun safety. We also have ammunition in locked boxes in a completely different location from the guns, which are also stored with clips removed and hidden. Sure, he could put a bullet in the chamber (if he even knew how to do that.. we didn't teach this) to fire, but it would only be one shot. Most of the guns have trigger locks anyway.

So I'm not sure why you think that 'gun nuts' are not as a rule following safety rules regarding their firearms.

Oh... our son could easily be a mass murderer, he has that kind of rage in him. It is only a matter of time til he hurts someone. Mental health would not help him when he lived with us, other than ineffective therapy, he did not want treatment for himself, so could not be forced to do so, and even when he was violent, we were told either press charges or 'deal with it.' There was no help, and I'm a persistent pain in the ass when it comes to problem solving, and I tapped every possible source of help I could.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0