Pteropus

Members
  • Content

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Jump Profile

  • License
    D
  • License Number
    999999998
  • Number of Jumps
    100000
  • Years in Sport
    99
  1. And this has what to do with Speaker's Corner? It already has two other threads elsewhere, in proper places.
  2. Some people would have said, prior to this video; "That's never happened before, therefore it's not something to worry about." Just like the do for skydiving with hooded sweatshirts, with dangling drawstrings... But weird stuff happens at 120 mph. And sooner or later it WILL happen. Don't let it happen to you.
  3. So all those FBI crime stats are comprised of only famous people who have been attacked? And ordinary folks are never attacked, live their lives in perfect safety, and have nothing to fear? Of course not. So you would seem to be using a very narrow definition of "target". One that is so narrow as to render your submission invalid. Women who are raped were targets. Homes that were burglarized were targets. People that are robbed were targets. All perfectly ordinary people. It's not just the rich and famous that are targets of crime. Everyone is subject to it. And everyone should have the right of armed self defense against it.
  4. Pretty good video, interspersing celebrity anti-gun messages with segments of them in movies blasting away with guns. If they want to have any credibility with their anti-gun views, they should take a pledge not to glorify gun violence in their movies, and refuse to accept any roles in which they have to shoot guns. Oh, but that might cost them a little money...
  5. Is there an echo in here? Just because someone doesn't address your particular point, doesn't mean that they didn't understand it. They are under no obligation to address your point. And maybe they just wish to make their own, different point. Furthermore, if you find that so many people seem to have missed your point, then maybe it's your own fault for not expressing it well enough.
  6. The worst school massacre ever, in 1927 before assault weapons had even been invented, didn't even use guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
  7. They can be easily defeated with a hammer and chisel, bolt cutters, or a hack saw. Someone determined enough to commit mass murder, isn't likely to be stopped by a trigger lock. There are companies working on that, but they don't work reliably. You don't want a self-defense gun that won't fire when you need it to, because it has a dead battery, or doesn't recognize your dirty fingerprint. And besides, there are already millions of regular guns already in circulation, and they aren't going anywhere. So no killer is going to be deterred for want of a workable gun.
  8. My profile. Edit picture. Browse. Add profile picture. Select profile picture. The big bat is already taken!
  9. Because there are no perfect solutions to anything. No matter what measures are instituted to solve some problem, the problem-makers will circumvent them or find new ways to continue being problems. And in the process of doing all these things to try and stop the problem-makers, the rest of us who aren't the problem-makers, are burdened more and have less freedom. That's my cynical view of things.
  10. Oh no, not a FLASH SUPPRESSOR! No wonder the gun is so deadly. Maybe we should just ban flash suppressors, and then they wouldn't be dangerous any more.
  11. Nor does she have any idea what it's like to have another person looking through their gun sights at her and her kids. But she knows that's something to be avoided if at all possible.
  12. That one was rather loosely enforced by the 70's...
  13. Two questions: 1) what about the kids behind the teacher in your first return fire scenario? 2) What about a perpetrator wearing a (fake) police uniform? 1) If the shooter wins that duel, then the kids are dead anyway. So better to try and lose, then to not try at all. 2) I haven't heard of any mass shooter wearing a fake police uniform yet. If they do, and the teacher lays down her gun, then once again, the sitution is no different from the unarmed schools we already have - the entire class is at the mercy of the shooter.
  14. The armed person entering the room will be wearing a police uniform, and the teacher will know not to shoot - it's the good guys. If she opens fire anyway, she'll die from return fire - that's her doing - make the correct decisions. If the person entering is the actual shooter, the teacher still has an advantage of surprise, because the shooter doesn't know where they are right away, and that gives a second or two to identify and decide. If the teacher hesitates and the shooter gets her first, then it's no different than if she was unarmed - the entire class will be at the mercy of the shooter. Better to have some chance to save the kids, then none. Teachers would be trained to immediately put down their gun when they see the police to avoid mistaken identity with the real shooter - the police will then hold fire. A real shooter wouldn't do that, or if they did, then they deserve the same hold fire so they can be apprehended - again no difference in the way things already work.
  15. Three officers wounded, two with only minor injuries. Shooter quickly killed by return fire. Quite a difference from the high body counts of mass shooters in no-gun zones...