Trump's Final 100 days
"In most cases, knowing a female teacher has a gun might make her more likely to be attacked."Quote: billryanIn most cases, knowing a female teacher has a gun might make her more likely to be attacked.
Your school is under attack. You are locked in a classroom with five football players. All of whom think they are stronger and better suited to protect their friends than this middle aged female who has the only gun in the room. Does the teacher give up the gun or shoot the students who want it? Multiply that by every classroom in the school?
You are a teacher ,with 25 students in your class. Is your duty to stay and protect them or to leave them defenseless and go out to engage the unknown threat?
I did a very small smattering of substitute teaching in the late 80s/early 90s. This simply wasn't covered in the Substitute teachers Manuel
How do you know that?
I don't quite understand the rest.
No wonder I can't spell, my substitute teachers were teaching me how to spell defenceless wrong (J/K you know I'm just messing with you)
Quote: AZDuffmanYes.
We fundamentally disagree. Shocker!
Romes probably (-;Quote: SteverinosWho is proposing banning all guns? What anti-gun people are proposing that?
Rhetorical of course.
You will have to explain this...
"It's not reasonable for anybody to have a weapon of war unless you are engaged in warfare."
It sounds like you don't think anyone should have a gun unless they are in warfare. Perhaps you are not anti-gun, just anti anyone having one unless they are engaged in warfare. What kind of warfare are you talking about?
Quote: SteverinosWho is proposing banning all guns? What anti-gun people are proposing that?
Rhetorical of course.
You do not understand liberal incrementalism. They want all guns banned, but know they cannot in the mainstream come out for that. But I have met many a liberal who would prefer all guns be banned. Fortunately, enough of us do not take pols at their word.
Same as Obama wanted socialized medicine but settled for the small bite of Obamacare because that was as far as he could push it.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou do not understand liberal incrementalism. They want all guns banned, but know they cannot in the mainstream come out for that. But I have met many a liberal who would prefer all guns be banned. Fortunately, enough of us do not take pols at their word.
Same as Obama wanted socialized medicine but settled for the small bite of Obamacare because that was as far as he could push it.
Obama didn't even push for Medicare for all OR the public option. He supported the ACA because that was the model that the Republican Party had supported for 25 years. Bob Dole's plan in 96 and Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts. That was back when Obama was still trying to work with republicans, much to the dismay of his liberal base. (But of course, he was the most leftist liberal socialist terrorist anti-christ president in history).
Nobody is proposing banning all guns. Nobody WOULD propose banning all guns because it will NEVER happen. EVER.
Gun control is such a tough debate IMO and it is an argument thst is not worth having. Both sides have valid points and there is never going to be a winner so why even waste energy doing so.
Also at this point it would be impossible to even have strict gun control or remove them. There are so many guns out there right now that the only people that you would be able to remove them from are people who probably deserve to have them. There will still be.millions of guns on the streets and the people who want to do harm will be able to get their hands on them.
Ok I am done, I really had no point to my ramblings.
Quote: AxelWolfRomes probably (-;
You will have to explain this...
"It's not reasonable for anybody to have a weapon of war unless you are engaged in warfare."
It sounds like you don't think anyone should have a gun unless they are in warfare. Perhaps you are not anti-gun, just anti anyone having one unless they are engaged in warfare. What kind of warfare are you talking about?
The AR-15 is not designed for hunting. It's designed for killing. I've only been hunting once. On the West Point Military Reservation, where special permission was needed and hard to get.
Went with my Major, my First Sgt. and a friend of theirs who was a Captain in the Marine reserve. All of them were very experienced hunters, growing up in the South (and Missouri if that's not the same thing). None of them took an AR 15 or even its automatic firing counterpart, the M-16.
AR-15s and its counterparts were virtually unknown in civilian hands until the late 1980s. Somehow ten generations of Americans managed to hunt and protect their families without one.
Same thing with Uzis. I bought my first( and only) in 1983 and it was quite an attraction at the gun ranges. Most people were very surprised to find out they were street legal.
Quote: AxelWolfRomes probably (-;
You will have to explain this...
"It's not reasonable for anybody to have a weapon of war unless you are engaged in warfare."
It sounds like you don't think anyone should have a gun unless they are in warfare. Perhaps you are not anti-gun, just anti anyone having one unless they are engaged in warfare. What kind of warfare are you talking about?
I'm not against people having guns for personal protection or sport.
I'm from Alaska. This might be the hunting capital of the country. You ought to hear the way these guys who are avid hunters describe folks that would use an AR-15 for hunting. We'll just say they don't think too highly of them.
So it seems to me that the AR-15's primary purpose is killing HUMANS. So why would any regular citizen need it? For protection? 9mm handgun can't suffice?
The AR-15 is a weapon of war. You aren't part of a militia. Saving lives is more important than your hobby.
Quote: AxelWolfYeah, them kindergarteners are really f****** strong.
Let's be reasonable and not assume k-5 are going to be attacking and overpowering teachers all the time.
Are they saying women can't handle their guns? That may be correct for most.
Point being that if this is allowed, NOW any guy who wants can enter a school for whatever reason real or fake (delivery man, maintenance, tradesman, made an appointment with someone inside, who knows) without being armed and get a gun FROM a teacher, by force or theft.
20 dead kids in Sandy Hook. Average age 6 1/2. 6 adults also dead. 20 yo a##hole used guns his mother bought for him. Killed her first. Now he doesn't even have to shoot his way in.
It's not always, or even most, of these massacres that are started by people who are currently in that school. Boyfriends or husbands of teachers, expelled kids, graduates, neighborhood people, total strangers. And the teachers in elementary school are better than 90% women. So it would look like the easiest target of all to a killer/suicidal idiot. Women and children. Maybe an SRO if the district can afford one.
Quote: SteverinosObama didn't even push for Medicare for all OR the public option. He supported the ACA because that was the model that the Republican Party had supported for 25 years. Bob Dole's plan in 96 and Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts. That was back when Obama was still trying to work with republicans, much to the dismay of his liberal base. (But of course, he was the most leftist liberal socialist terrorist anti-christ president in history).
Yeah, no. Obama was not "trying to work with Republicans." Not at all. He never did in his entire political history. He wanted to go much further, but realized Obamacare was all he could ger.
Quote:Nobody is proposing banning all guns. Nobody WOULD propose banning all guns because it will NEVER happen. EVER.
Again, you just do not understand the real world. Of course they will not PROPOSE it. But look at DC, where liberals did de facto get guns banned, until SCOTUS overturned it. Its the boiling frog thing. They get useful idiots to believe, "it is just a few assault weapons nobody needs." Then "nobody 'needs' more than 8 bullets." Then an ammunition tax. The entire way the useful idiots will cheer them on. Eventually they get the gun ban they want.
Is it possible to drive the prices up so high so the average crazy person can't afford one or make it more difficult at least? I don't know, perhaps that creates more organized crime and black market opportunities.Quote: GWAEThere was a video I saw on Facebook that was a guy in a classroom with a muzzle loader. It had captions something like. The 2nd amendment was made in a year where this was the type of gun available. They showed him shooting someone and then reloading. By the time he was reloaded everyone was able to run out of the classroom.
Gun control is such a tough debate IMO and it is an argument thst is not worth having. Both sides have valid points and there is never going to be a winner so why even waste energy doing so.
Also at this point it would be impossible to even have strict gun control or remove them. There are so many guns out there right now that the only people that you would be able to remove them from are people who probably deserve to have them. There will still be.millions of guns on the streets and the people who want to do harm will be able to get their hands on them.
Ok I am done, I really had no point to my ramblings.
Quote: AxelWolfIs it possible to drive the prices up so high so the average crazy person can't afford one or make it more difficult at least? I don't know, perhaps that creates more organized crime and black market opportunities.
That didn’t happen with the quasi ban of fully automatic weapons.
They are very difficult & expensive to buy now. I honestly doubt there is much of a black market for them, because collectors are willing to pay $10k+++++
Quote: AxelWolfIs it possible to drive the prices up so high so the average crazy person can't afford one or make it more difficult at least? I don't know, perhaps that creates more organized crime and black market opportunities.
Is it possible to quit blaming the guns and start blaming the crazy person?
Quote: AZDuffmanAgain, you just do not understand the real world.
lol, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, coming from the guy who thinks the south will rise again. You ever been to Mississippi?
And Obama supported MANY things that were very unpopular with his base in order to try strike compromise with Republicans. 1/3 of stimulus devoted to republican champioined tax cuts when democrats did not have to? Chained CPI? 4-1 spending cuts/new revenue in Grand Bargain negotiations? ACA? Raising retirement ages? (how do you think this went with liberals, lol) Charter schools? Even compromise on gun control that had bipartisan support after Sandy Hook? Resisted calls for criminal investigation into Bush administration? Gang of Six debt ceiling plan? Gang of Eight immigration plan?
You either didn't pay attention during Obama's presidency or were severely misinformed, or maybe a combination of both. Obama did a lot of things that were very unpopular with liberals (drone strikes?). And if you aren't nearly liberal enough for liberals, than by definition you cannot be the most liberal president in history.
No offense on the useful idiot thing.
I thought we were talking about the STUDENTS unarming the teachers? Can we agree that the k-5 kids and most of the middle school kids are not going for teachers? So let's take that 90% BS number and make it 40% male teachers in high school.Quote: beachbumbabsPoint being that if this is allowed, NOW any guy who wants can enter a school for whatever reason real or fake (delivery man, maintenance, tradesman, made an appointment with someone inside, who knows) without being armed and get a gun FROM a teacher, by force or theft.
20 dead kids in Sandy Hook. Average age 6 1/2. 6 adults also dead. 20 yo a##hole used guns his mother bought for him. Killed her first. Now he doesn't even have to shoot his way in.
It's not always, or even most, of these massacres that are started by people who are currently in that school. Boyfriends or husbands of teachers, expelled kids, graduates, neighborhood people, total strangers. And the teachers in elementary school are better than 90% women. So it would look like the easiest target of all to a killer/suicidal idiot. Women and children. Maybe an SRO if the district can afford one.
Perhaps they might think better of attacking a school knowing lots of teachers also have guns. Or maybe they will plan better, who knows, perhaps the more they plan the bigger chances they have of getting caught before it happens.
So you are saying that if an unarmed person comes into a school and tries to get a gun from a teacher by force, everyone is just going to stand/sit around just waiting for them to disarm the teacher and start shooting them?
I would hope by the time that happens the kids would run and tell the other Gun-toting teachers there is a shooter in my classroom. I'm, not a fan of being on lockdown just waiting and hoping not to be shoot. I would rather a teacher have a gun with a chance at killing the gunman.
Quote: AZDuffmanIs it possible to quit blaming the guns and start blaming the crazy person?
Umm, the kid is in jail, right?
They'd get shot trying to take down a shooter. However dogs might also bring in funds from parents and strangers to buy lightweight vests. Also food and other care.
Human security guards would get next to no support. Not furry or friendly.
Ya, that would be great but we cant get rid of the crazy people. If you rotate 2 unknown crazy people, 5 unknown normal people and 2 guns in a room, the only solution is to remove the guns. Even if you remove the 2 crazy people someone else may come in whos crazy and use the guns. Without the guns, the normal people rule the room.Quote: AZDuffmanIs it possible to quit blaming the guns and start blaming the crazy person?
Edit to add:
Yes, I know, you want everyone to be armed with gun's while everyone is pointing them at each other.
That's sounds like a very good idea. Way better than arming teachers.Quote: rxwineI'd rather see the schools bring in trained dogs. Trained to run toward the shooter. 4 should be enough.
They'd get shot trying to take down a shooter. However dogs might also bring in funds from parents and strangers to buy lightweight vests. Also food and other care.
Human security guards would get next to no support. Not furry or friendly.
Of course, some kid will get bit or killed by a dog and lawsuits will ensue.
Quote: Steverinoslol, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, coming from the guy who thinks the south will rise again. You ever been to Mississippi?
When did I say this?
Quote:And if you aren't nearly liberal enough for liberals, than by definition you cannot be the most liberal president in history.
Uh, that makes no sense. You can be the most liberal yet not satisfy liberals. Just because he did not always get what he wanted does not make him the most liberal. Obama was the furthest left in history.
Quote: rxwineI'd rather see the schools bring in trained dogs. Trained to run toward the shooter. 4 should be enough.
They'd get shot trying to take down a shooter. However dogs might also bring in funds from parents and strangers to buy lightweight vests. Also food and other care.
Human security guards would get next to no support. Not furry or friendly.
A lot of public support for the IRA was lost when a tv camera filmed horses caught in a blast suffering before being put down.
Maybe a bunch of dead puppies will accomplish what dead six year olds didn't.
New charges against Manafort and Gates
Bank and tax fraud
Lock em up
MAGA!
Millionaires Are Going Away (to jail)
Quote: AZDuffmanYou do not understand liberal incrementalism. They want all guns banned, but know they cannot in the mainstream come out for that. But I have met many a liberal who would prefer all guns be banned. Fortunately, enough of us do not take pols at their word.
Same as Obama wanted socialized medicine but settled for the small bite of Obamacare because that was as far as he could push it.
This is exactly why we are nowhere. ANY regulation , no matter how sensible or necessary, is THE END OF THE WORLD BECAUSE IT MEANS WE WILL LOSE ALL GUN RIGHTS SO NO NO NO NOTHING WILL WORK EXCEPT MORE GUNS MORE GUNS MORE GUNS.
The only people saying Liberals want all the guns are GUN people. The Liberals aren't saying that. More lies and exaggerations that only stop the conversation.
However, there are a lot of people pointing out that our "free" society is armed to the teeth and killing innocents, while comparable countries who don't allow or strictly regulate guns DON'T have this problem.
Ooh, facts. Don't let those get in the way of a good delusion. Yes, Virginia, there is a correlation between gun ownership in a country and gun violence.
HELLO. HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
Washington, DC waiving an un-holstered pistol and yelled out;
"I have a .45 caliber Colt 1911, with a seven round magazine, plus one in the chamber.
I want to know who's been sleeping with my husband?"
A female voice from the back of the room called out,
"You Need More Ammo, Mrs. Clinton"
You realize that you're sending this school person or persons directly into the conflict, say, at the other end of the school? If someone targets or comes up to shoot you, a handgun is better than nothing, but even SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) doesn't go in so half-cocked. It's like Trump thinks some more persons are expendable, just for him.Quote: AxelWolfI say, let any teacher(even the janitor) who has a military or law enforcement background be armed, if they WANT to be armed (I assume there would be at least a few at most schools).
Quote: billryanThe AR-15 is not designed for hunting. It's designed for killing. I've only been hunting once.
Not successful, was it?
I kid =) But I do so because I don't know another reaction to this type of speech. There is absolutely zero way for me to approach this otherwise so I can only say that I don't intend this to be personally offensive to you, but it's this sort of vaguely defined, soft definition word game bulls#$% that oh so many in the media and in politics play, and we as the people MUST be able to see through it.
You, by design or by example, have created a distinction between these terms. That seems to be / is in my experience a tactic used to sway emotion, a bit of "THIS bitty piece right here is what we use for varmints and pestulance (sic), but THESE AIN'T NOTHIN' BUT FOR KILLIN' FOLK!"
Truth is all do both. And it's important to remember that because...
Quote: SteverinosSo it seems to me that the AR-15's primary purpose is killing HUMANS. So why would any regular citizen need it? For protection? 9mm handgun can't suffice?
What ends up happening is you begin a fight from falsehood. Stever, what do you think the 9mm round is? I mean, credit where it's due, the 5.56 NATO in an AR-15 was created for military applications, as most rounds are. But "most rounds" includes the 9mm. The 9mm was designed by Luger for the German army who wanted a bigger pistol. It was made, like every single other piece of ammunition bar none, to be The Best at killing people. It's so good it has worldwide notoriety in both military and police applications, and while it is possible, I can't think of a single 9mm off hand used expressly FOR hunting.
I'm not trying to be a d#$%, to either of you, sincerely. I'm trying to understand your side, see if I "get it" or see common ground. But all I see is "This one is bad because it kills people, so you should use this one that's good because it... kills people".
I want a fix, too. This doesn't seem like one of them.
Quote: billryanI dropped almost $8,000 in February so far but he won't see another dime from me, nor will I give publicity for his stuff.
You sure showed him.. I own eleventy-teen
guns and every time there's a shooting like
this I want to buy 5 more. There's isn't a
place in my house where a gun isn't seconds
away from my hand.
Quote: FaceI can't think of a single 9mm off hand used expressly FOR hunting.
Never said 9mm was used for hunting.
At least with a bolt action rifle the shooter has to slow down a bit, giving his targets a chance to fight back.
Remember the robbers in Calif. who held off law enforcement with their assault rifles and body armor?
Had them outgunned.
I have a problem with all semi-auto long guns, as they make it too easy.
Sure, they're good for self-defense, but that isn't the point, is it?
The point is what can be done to help make it less easy for young people to shoot up schools.
Quote: EvenBobYou sure showed him.. I own eleventy-teen
guns and every time there's a shooting like
this I want to buy 5 more. There's isn't a
place in my house where a gun isn't seconds
away from my hand.
This just confirms my theory that the people who need guns the least buy them the most.
You probably already got all the kids in your neighborhood scared to walk on your grass.
Can we all agree they all had a reason for what they did? I’m not saying their reason is justified, but simply that they had a reason. Why don’t we focus on the reason people are doing mass shootings, instead? A perfectly normal, happy, and successful person doesn’t just decide one day to go on a shooting spree because he has access to some “assault” rifles.
IIRC, mass shootings make up something like 2% of all gun deaths in the USA. It’s interesting this subject is only brought up after mass shootings. That’d be like if anti-cigarette people wanting to ban cigarettes only after whenever a story comes out of a parent abusing his children by burning them with cigarettes. If you really think there’s a problem with the product, you’re looking at the smallest reason to ban them and not the big picture.
Quote: RSWhat causes these things to happen? Liberals argue it’s the existence of the guns. I don’t think someone can truly believe that, but use it as a reason to push some agenda. Why? Who the f*** knows. I don’t think one of these people thought to shot up a school, church, movie theatre, etc. because they had access to a gun.
Can we all agree they all had a reason for what they did? I’m not saying their reason is justified, but simply that they had a reason. Why don’t we focus on the reason people are doing mass shootings, instead? A perfectly normal, happy, and successful person doesn’t just decide one day to go on a shooting spree because he has access to some “assault” rifles.
IIRC, mass shootings make up something like 2% of all gun deaths in the USA. It’s interesting this subject is only brought up after mass shootings. That’d be like if anti-cigarette people wanting to ban cigarettes only after whenever a story comes out of a parent abusing his children by burning them with cigarettes. If you really think there’s a problem with the product, you’re looking at the smallest reason to ban them and not the big picture.
They might be 2% of all gun deaths but they are a much larger percentage of children killed by guns. If a society can't protect its children, it's pretty broken.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou do not understand liberal incrementalism. They want all guns banned, but know they cannot in the mainstream come out for that. But I have met many a liberal who would prefer all guns be banned. Fortunately, enough of us do not take pols at their word.
Same as Obama wanted socialized medicine but settled for the small bite of Obamacare because that was as far as he could push it.
Bull.
Canada has plenty of guns with a gun for every four residents. Most Canadians are perfectly fine with it. Canada had a registry to register all guns and it was scrapped because the benefits was useless.
Over on DT the discussion has been about statistics, the fact that xxK die every year from malaria. The odds of a child being killed by a gun by a school shooter in their K-12 career I calculated at being over 140,000 to 1, higher than lightning, and way higher than Islamic terrorism.
The reason why the gun debate comes out at these times is the sheer outrage when these things happen, and in all cases, they have been perpetrated by arms that nobody needs to have for defense or hunting for that matter. 80 people in the United States will die by a gun today. It's the mass casualties that make the difference. This is why airplanes are extremely safe, because when 250 people get killed, everything stops until answers are found even though the odds of you dying in a plane are extremely remote. This is why when someone poisons tylenol and a few people die the industry races to introduce tamper-proof packaging. On smaller scales, this is why stop signs are erected, traffic lights are built, and so on and so forth. Safety.
And that's the thing you don't get, Face. Individually, your personal ownership of a weapon very likely doesn't matter. But collectively, there will be a small portion of the population who will take a gun and kill someone, who will take the AR-15 and wreak mass destruction well before a "good guy" with a gun gets to him. There is a larger size of the population who will want to kill themselves and do so very successfully with a firearm (83%) or take a bunch of pills (2%) or cut themselves (2%) and live another day, learn, and live on.
It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that further measures are necessary to reduce the risk.
We ALWAYS balance safety against freedom. Why not guns?
The FBI, for failure to follow up leads about Cruz being a potential shooter?
The sheriff, for having an armed deputy on site who could have stopped it, had he not responded like a deer in the headlights?
The school district, for not being more proactive about identifying Cruz as a potential shooter while he was still in school?
Deep pockets, that's what they're after.
Quote: MrVBe interesting to see who the lawyers sue in Fla. over the shooting.
The FBI, for failure to follow up leads about Cruz being a potential shooter?
The sheriff, for having an armed deputy on site who could have stopped it, had he not responded like a deer in the headlights?
The school district, for not being more proactive about identifying Cruz as a potential shooter while he was still in school?
Deep pockets, that's what they're after.
Can't really blame any lawyers who see this as a giant pile of cash with all the potential malfeasance to argue.
What happens if a teacher shoots and kills the wrong student during a school shooting?
Teachers are going to want protection from mistakes. I would think.
But parents of the student won't be happy if teachers get that kind of protective exclusion once their child is dead from the accident?
Will the lawsuit address whether teachers had sufficient gun training to proactively address a shooter? Police make mistakes and they have as close to day to day real events to deal with?
Quote: billryanSo who should be armed?
Anyone who wants to be.
Quote: billryanI fired my auction house today. I've sold about $10,000 and easily bought $50,000 worth of stuff from them but today I get an email inviting me to come in and register for an AR -15 rifle. I was literally watching last nights town hall about banning these when the email arrived. Left the owner an email explaining why I won't be there anymore. I'm pretty sure I was one of this top ten regulars, I dropped almost $8,000 in February so far but he won't see another dime from me, nor will I give publicity for his stuff.
This is rich...lol
Quote: MrVBe interesting to see who the lawyers sue in Fla. over the shooting.
The FBI, for failure to follow up leads about Cruz being a potential shooter?
The sheriff, for having an armed deputy on site who could have stopped it, had he not responded like a deer in the headlights?
The school district, for not being more proactive about identifying Cruz as a potential shooter while he was still in school?
Deep pockets, that's what they're after.
I feel bad for the sheriff who did nothing. He probably took the job thinking it was easy and he probably gets paid a crap wage like the mandalay bay security guard. So while he stands there and hears ar15 rounds he panicks, but his odds with a pistol vs ar15 were pretty bad so it would be a suicide mission anyways.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2018/02/05/labor-department-tip-rule
Quote: beachbumbabsThis is exactly why we are nowhere. ANY regulation , no matter how sensible or necessary, is THE END OF THE WORLD BECAUSE IT MEANS WE WILL LOSE ALL GUN RIGHTS SO NO NO NO NOTHING WILL WORK EXCEPT MORE GUNS MORE GUNS MORE GUNS.
The only people saying Liberals want all the guns are GUN people. The Liberals aren't saying that. More lies and exaggerations that only stop the conversation.
Because liberals won't say that! They hide what they really want, hoping to peel off just enough support to get an inch.
Let;s take a recent example. The idea of gay marriage came up in the early 1990s. But they didn't say they wanted "marriage." Not initially, except a few radicals. They said they respected marriage and just wanted a "civil union." Let the word "marriage" be for marriage. Some of us said that they will not be satisfied with "civil unions."
Well, we can see what happened. A few people agreed in a few places, the inch was take up arms to take the next foot, then the next yard, then the whole mile. It happens every time.
Quote:However, there are a lot of people pointing out that our "free" society is armed to the teeth and killing innocents, while comparable countries who don't allow or strictly regulate guns DON'T have this problem.
And others of us point out, which liberals ignore, that lots of places with strict regulations have MORE violence. Mexico virtually forbids guns for citizens outside their home, and yet loads of gun violence. Strict gun laws in Chicago, and lots of gun violence. Or DC in the 80s, same thing.
Quote:Ooh, facts. Don't let those get in the way of a good delusion. Yes, Virginia, there is a correlation between gun ownership in a country and gun violence.
Liberals never do, because the correlation is really not there!
The reality is that your chances of dying of gun violence is very, very low. Check out the stats that were posted at DT. I pointed out that any school student is 197 times more likely to commit suicide than die of a school shooting. Really, we have to stop screaming "THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW!" when something random happens.
It is against the law to kill people, that does not stop killers. The cops and FBI were called on this guy, they ignored the problem. It looks like the school had an armed guard, didn't help. Quit saying a law to ban guns will magically stop things. The problem is a sickly and declining society, not guns.
Quote: GWAEI feel bad for the sheriff who did nothing. He probably took the job thinking it was easy and he probably gets paid a crap wage like the mandalay bay security guard.
He made 75k a year
At that pay level, I expect him to go in and take out the shooter
I don't feel sorry for him
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause liberals won't say that! They hide what they really want, hoping to peel off just enough support to get an inch.
Let;s take a recent example. The idea of gay marriage came up in the early 1990s.... Well, we can see what happened. A few people agreed in a few places, the inch was take up arms to take the next foot, then the next yard, then the whole mile. It happens every time.
Ah, the liberals destroying society because of gay people argument!
[q[And others of us point out, which liberals ignore, that lots of places with strict regulations have MORE violence. Mexico virtually forbids guns for citizens outside their home, and yet loads of gun violence. Strict gun laws in Chicago, and lots of gun violence. Or DC in the 80s, same thing.
A vast number of other places don't have that correlation: New York for one. Perhaps poverty with the gun law is a key factor. Mexico has a gun and murder problem because the gangs get at least 70% of their high powered weaponry from easy arms sales in the United States. They have money to buy these arms from the drug trade while Mexican citizens do not. Canada doesn't have the same problem because it's difficult to grow cocaine in the snow. Canada also does not have a widespread poverty problem like Mexico or inner cities in the US have.
Quote:Liberals never do, because the correlation is really not there!
Conservatives apparently never do the same thing (aka the actual threat of terrorism, the violence of Muslims, minimum wage and unemployment, etc, etc, etc)
Quote:The reality is that your chances of dying of gun violence is very, very low... Really, we have to stop screaming "THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW!" when something random happens.
Like when an idiot decides to light his shoe on fire? Like when an airplane loses an engine? Like when someone decides to poison some tylenol? Like when there's a food poisoning outbreak that kills a person?
All random noise. All resolved. You're solution: do nothing. Not for this!
Quote:It is against the law to kill people, that does not stop killers. The cops and FBI were called on this guy, they ignored the problem. It looks like the school had an armed guard, didn't help. Quit saying a law to ban guns will magically stop things. The problem is a sickly and declining society, not guns.
It's also against the law to smoke in an airplane, yet somehow, you don't hear about 30,000 convictions for smoking on a plane each year. The FBI and cops couldn't take away the guns from the kid anyway. What law did he break that would have permitted him to take the guns away? Did he not obtain his arms legally?
So yeah, I agree that an immediate gun ban would be deleterious for the nation and you can argue that Chicago, DC etc (but not New York and a number of other cities) with tough gun laws have gun problems. Why is that? Easy. Gangs and the lack of police to take them and keep them off the streets. Why do gangs exist? Mainly the drug trade. Why does the drug trade exist? Poverty. There's a cycle there. You add gun control to that mix and allow the illegal guns to stay and don't bother policing and enforcing it and yeah, you'll have a problem.
Still waiting for a good argument as to why AR-15s should be readily available to anyone besides "it's random" argument.
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause liberals won't say that! They hide what they really want, hoping to peel off just enough support to get an inch.
Let;s take a recent example. The idea of gay marriage came up in the early 1990s. But they didn't say they wanted "marriage." Not initially, except a few radicals. They said they respected marriage and just wanted a "civil union." Let the word "marriage" be for marriage. Some of us said that they will not be satisfied with "civil unions."
Well, we can see what happened. A few people agreed in a few places, the inch was take up arms to take the next foot, then the next yard, then the whole mile. It happens every time.
"If you just allow civil unions, you won't be bothered about marriage." otherwise known as the agreement never made by gay rights groups but imagined by anti-gay as having happened or is somehow relevant.
Is the President about to get into a Twitter war with a massacre survivor who has shrapnel lodged behind her eye??? Place your bets!
Quote: 1MatterToMotionYou realize that you're sending this school person or persons directly into the conflict, say, at the other end of the school? If someone targets or comes up to shoot you, a handgun is better than nothing, but even SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) doesn't go in so half-cocked. It's like Trump thinks some more persons are expendable, just for him.
2 pages unread, so probably posted already. Jumping off your post, 1MTM.
It bears repeating.
There was an armed Sheriff's Deputy on duty outside Parkland. HE DIDN'T GO IN AND ENGAGE THE SHOOTER. 4 MINUTES OR SO PASSED WITH HIM OUTSIDE.
Reportedly he has resigned.
A trained, licensed, armed LEO did not even TRY to stop the shooter. He CHOSE that occupation with every expectation that he would someday be called on to discharge his weapon. He couldn't do it.
And some of you expect teachers and janitors to do it? And not just pull a trigger, but ONLY pull it in an appropriate and necessary situation, a righteous shooting, and meanwhile, guard it every second while trying to do their jobs?
Puh-leeze.
