Are you fething kidding me? What the hell is this!?
And a cursory Google search indicates that yes, there are people who think this guy is an actor and the whole Sandy Hook think is a hoax perpetrated by the government.
I'm not sure if those country has always been so rife with stupidity, or if the internet just empowers the same (unchanged) ratio of stupidity, or if the latter leads to the former or what. The adoption of conspiracy theorism into the mainstream is bizarre, that's for sure.
Ouze wrote: I'm not sure if those country has always been so rife with stupidity, or if the internet just empowers the same (unchanged) ratio of stupidity, or if the latter leads to the former or what. The adoption of conspiracy theorism into the mainstream is bizarre, that's for sure.
The internet has allowed the thousands of monkeys to begin putting their ideas out without being tarred and feathered
I've got no words strong enough to voice my contempt for those people. Someone at work called me over to see a two minute snippet of a vid they made and I haven't bothered looking at anything else they've put out.
There's been a significant amount of contradiction so for a lot of people they're like "wait what?". That all feeds things like this. Then for the paranoid fringe everything's a conspiracy any way. Throw in emotional subject matter, dead kids, firearms rights, etc and you have a perfect storm for stupid gak.
Here is the blog post in which James Tracy (the professor from FAU discussed in the OP's article) questions whether or not Sandy Hook took place as authorities described.
Honestly, while I don't defend anything the guy is saying, its less an outright conspiracy theory than it is a weak attempt at indicting state information policy, and what he would doubtlessly refer to as "mainstream" media.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Throw in emotional subject matter, dead kids, firearms rights, etc and you have a perfect storm for stupid gak.
Firearms rights is the big one, I think. At least given the high correlation between the irrational belief in a secretly tyrannical US government, and fervent 2nd Amendment advocacy. To clarify, I'm not claiming that people who engage in 2nd Amendment advocacy tend to be conspiracy theorists, but that conspiracy theorist tend to engage in 2nd Amendment advocacy.
The sad part is that I'm not even remotely surprised. No matter how hard someone tries to do something good, they will inevitably be taunted, branded as part of some conspiracy that fits into a politically-based worldview (often with no real backing in terms of facts or things that happened in reality), or otherwise brought low.
It's times like this I'm glad superheroes don't exist. If they did, I imagine something like this would happen and eventually end up pushing one of them off the deep end. Kinda like in Irredeemable.
dogma wrote: Here is the blog post in which James Tracy (the professor from FAU discussed in the OP's article) questions whether or not Sandy Hook took place as authorities described.
Honestly, while I don't defend anything the guy is saying, its less an outright conspiracy theory than it is a weak attempt at indicting state information policy, and what he would doubtlessly refer to as "mainstream" media.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Throw in emotional subject matter, dead kids, firearms rights, etc and you have a perfect storm for stupid gak.
Firearms rights is the big one, I think. At least given the high correlation between the irrational belief in a secretly tyrannical US government, and fervent 2nd Amendment advocacy. To clarify, I'm not claiming that people who engage in 2nd Amendment advocacy tend to be conspiracy theorists, but that conspiracy theorist tend to engage in 2nd Amendment advocacy.
James tracy is peddling a book of his coming out next week and is a professor of conspiracy theories (what? who hired this feth wad?) coincidence???
James tracy is peddling a book of his coming out next week and is a professor of conspiracy theories (what? who hired this feth wad?) coincidence???
I can't find anything about a book he's releasing in 2013. The only thing I can find is a book he contributed a chapter to that probably hasn't been made available for purchase yet.
Anything for some attention I guess. Trolls, to label them in the most dakka friendly way w/o getting banned. They may get attention from those, though, that have blood on their minds.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the problem in the US isn't with guns but with gun culture.
While most gun owners are perfectly normal folk enjoying a good, fun hobby, there is a significant fringe that is, frankly, completely fething moon bat crazy. They invent all kinds of lunacy and spread around their own little circles, getting ever more paranoid about ridiculous nonsense.
The recent thing we saw posted here about the guys that won't their own self sustaining castle in case of a total system collapse are a harmless variation on the same thing.
sebster wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again - the problem in the US isn't with guns but with gun culture.
While most gun owners are perfectly normal folk enjoying a good, fun hobby, there is a significant fringe that is, frankly, completely fething moon bat crazy. They invent all kinds of lunacy and spread around their own little circles, getting ever more paranoid about ridiculous nonsense.
The recent thing we saw posted here about the guys that won't their own self sustaining castle in case of a total system collapse are a harmless variation on the same thing.
sebster wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again - the problem in the US isn't with guns but with gun culture.
While most gun owners are perfectly normal folk enjoying a good, fun hobby, there is a significant fringe that is, frankly, completely fething moon bat crazy. They invent all kinds of lunacy and spread around their own little circles, getting ever more paranoid about ridiculous nonsense.
The recent thing we saw posted here about the guys that won't their own self sustaining castle in case of a total system collapse are a harmless variation on the same thing.
I support the castle thing honestly. Let the moon bats go live where they won't bother any one else... be nice if we could do the same for the obnoxious breeds of Californians and New Yorkers
edit: also those guido creatures that they featured on the Jersey Shore... the dark side of the moon seems a good place to keep them.
sebster wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again - the problem in the US isn't with guns but with gun culture.
While most gun owners are perfectly normal folk enjoying a good, fun hobby, there is a significant fringe that is, frankly, completely fething moon bat crazy. They invent all kinds of lunacy and spread around their own little circles, getting ever more paranoid about ridiculous nonsense.
The recent thing we saw posted here about the guys that won't their own self sustaining castle in case of a total system collapse are a harmless variation on the same thing.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: edit: also those guido creatures that they featured on the Jersey Shore... the dark side of the moon seems a good place to keep them.
No, please no. Then whenever I listen to pink floyd I won't be able to get the image of snooki out of my head Why would you do that to me?
Slightly more on topic, crazy people are crazy, they've been crazy since forever, and the only difference now is that the Internet allows them to shove the crazy into other people's faces like some insane Jehovah's Witnesses.
The people arguing that this was a government plot are crazy, but mildly benign. The people arguing that it was a satanic ritual make me want to reach through my computer and slap them round the face whilst screaming "How's this for devilry!?"
I'm okay with religion, I'm okay with stupidity, when you combine the two however, then I find it offensive.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: edit: also those guido creatures that they featured on the Jersey Shore... the dark side of the moon seems a good place to keep them.
No, please no. Then whenever I listen to pink floyd I won't be able to get the image of snooki out of my head Why would you do that to me?
Slightly more on topic, crazy people are crazy, they've been crazy since forever, and the only difference now is that the Internet allows them to shove the crazy into other people's faces like some insane Jehovah's Witnesses.
The people arguing that this was a government plot are crazy, but mildly benign. The people arguing that it was a satanic ritual make me want to reach through my computer and slap them round the face whilst screaming "How's this for devilry!?" I'm okay with religion, I'm okay with stupidity, when you combine the two however, then I find it offensive.
The bolded bit made me spit coffee out I was laughing so hard.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support the castle thing honestly. Let the moon bats go live where they won't bother any one else... be nice if we could do the same for the obnoxious breeds of Californians and New Yorkers
Fair point, well made. Let them march around their castle walls, playing their little soldier games.
Right, because you can only tell an NRA ad that fails to understand the difference in security needs between the President's children and your average fourth grader is completely nutty when you're in the continental USA.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I support the castle thing honestly. Let the moon bats go live where they won't bother any one else... be nice if we could do the same for the obnoxious breeds of Californians and New Yorkers
Fair point, well made. Let them march around their castle walls, playing their little soldier games.
.
We as a culture I think seem to have issues with the concept of separatists. The possibility that individuals of a group don't want to live like the rest of us do and will go live their own way in the own place. I personally don't have an issue with it. If you have the money for such a project, the will and the people go for it so long as you follow all applicable law, who's it gonna really bother?
Oddly enough, I'm more sympathetic (hmm... that's not quite the right word...) of these people. I suspect that many "Sandy Hook Truthers" are just those whom are having difficulty dealing with such a horrendous, senseless act and are desperately looking to make sense of it. That is, their own subconsious has created a defense mechanism wherein they would think it's all a big fake conspiracy, rather than become aware that sometimes monstrous things happen to innocent and undeserving people.
It's really not too far removed from the psychology behind blaming the victims of rape.
...however, there are also those who are exploiting the Sandy Hook tragedy in order to capitalize for their own gains. Those people should all get colon cancer and die.
azazel the cat wrote: Oddly enough, I'm more sympathetic (hmm... that's not quite the right word...) of these people. I suspect that many "Sandy Hook Truthers" are just those whom are having difficulty dealing with such a horrendous, senseless act and are desperately looking to make sense of it. That is, their own subconsious has created a defense mechanism wherein they would think it's all a big fake conspiracy, rather than become aware that sometimes monstrous things happen to innocent and undeserving people.
It's really not too far removed from the psychology behind blaming the victims of rape.
...however, there are also those who are exploiting the Sandy Hook tragedy in order to capitalize for their own gains. Those people should all get colon cancer and die.
If the entire US Congress and most of the executive branch mysteriously gets colon cancer all at once, I'm calling the FBI and pointing you out as the killer
KalashnikovMarine wrote: We as a culture I think seem to have issues with the concept of separatists. The possibility that individuals of a group don't want to live like the rest of us do and will go live their own way in the own place. I personally don't have an issue with it. If you have the money for such a project, the will and the people go for it so long as you follow all applicable law, who's it gonna really bother?
I don't think the issue is with seperatists, but with crazy seperatists. And these are genuine, 100% crazy ass lunatics. I mean, they've got rules and regulations for firearms so everyone is prepared if society comes down... but they've got no hospital.
It's gun fetishism that's trying to get a postcode.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: Oddly enough, I'm more sympathetic (hmm... that's not quite the right word...) of these people. I suspect that many "Sandy Hook Truthers" are just those whom are having difficulty dealing with such a horrendous, senseless act and are desperately looking to make sense of it. That is, their own subconsious has created a defense mechanism wherein they would think it's all a big fake conspiracy, rather than become aware that sometimes monstrous things happen to innocent and undeserving people.
Nah, because it's all tied up in issues of gun control. What they're doing here is seeing that an event that promotes the argument of their political opponents, and inventing a fantasy that instead makes their political opponents the villains and therefore themselves the noble heroes fighting that villain.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: We as a culture I think seem to have issues with the concept of separatists. The possibility that individuals of a group don't want to live like the rest of us do and will go live their own way in the own place. I personally don't have an issue with it. If you have the money for such a project, the will and the people go for it so long as you follow all applicable law, who's it gonna really bother?
I don't think the issue is with seperatists, but with crazy seperatists. And these are genuine, 100% crazy ass lunatics. I mean, they've got rules and regulations for firearms so everyone is prepared if society comes down... but they've got no hospital.
It's gun fetishism that's trying to get a postcode.
.
All separatists get labeled crazy for one reason or another, no matter what their reasons might be for wanting to separate.
sebster wrote: Right, because you can only tell an NRA ad that fails to understand the difference in security needs between the President's children and your average fourth grader is completely nutty when you're in the continental USA.
I don't know why the elitism in this post took me so off guard.
sebster wrote: Right, because you can only tell an NRA ad that fails to understand the difference in security needs between the President's children and your average fourth grader is completely nutty when you're in the continental USA.
I don't know why the elitism in this post took me so off guard.
I'm a little surprised at you, seb.
What's so elitist about it?
The man has a point.
The First Family are legitimate targets of politically motivated violence, and as such have an armed security detail.
Your average fourth grader and their family is not such a target nor necessarily requiring that armed security detail at all times.
Kanluwen wrote: Your average fourth grader and their family is not such a target nor necessarily requiring that armed security detail at all times.
You're right, they aren't targets of violence. Right up until they are. Hence the topic of this thread.
No, the topic of this thread is the individuals who are suggesting that this incident is being covered up/misrepresented for some darker purpose.
This is an off topic tangent spawned from discussion of the original topic. Sebster's quote was in the context of a NRA ad which represented the president and his family as hypocrites because they have an armed security detail but are 'forbidding' the average fourth grader to have the same protection.
With that said:
These kinds of shootings are not going to be stopped. If elementary schools start having armed security details, you'll start seeing shootings at middle schools instead by these kinds of individuals.
Middle schools arm up, high schools become the targets.
High schools arm up, you'll start seeing daycares or other places where there is a perception of "no security" targeted instead.
Kanluwen wrote: Your average fourth grader and their family is not such a target nor necessarily requiring that armed security detail at all times.
You're right, they aren't targets of violence. Right up until they are. Hence the topic of this thread.
No, the topic of this thread is the individuals who are suggesting that this incident is being covered up/misrepresented for some darker purpose.
This is an off topic tangent spawned from discussion of the original topic. Sebster's quote was in the context of a NRA ad which represented the president and his family as hypocrites because they have an armed security detail but are 'forbidding' the average fourth grader to have the same protection.
With that said:
These kinds of shootings are not going to be stopped. If elementary schools start having armed security details, you'll start seeing shootings at middle schools instead by these kinds of individuals.
Middle schools arm up, high schools become the targets.
High schools arm up, you'll start seeing daycares or other places where there is a perception of "no security" targeted instead.
I'm more suprised that anyone thinks armed guards would make a place instantly safe from incident. The people who do this are already flying rodent gak anyway.
The topic of this thread mentions Sandy Hook. That was the point.
Your opinion that these shootings can't be stopped is well noted. It is also irrelevant. If a step could be taken to drop the death toll from 23 to 22 I would say that it was worth it.
Kanluwen wrote: Your average fourth grader and their family is not such a target nor necessarily requiring that armed security detail at all times.
You're right, they aren't targets of violence. Right up until they are. Hence the topic of this thread.
No, the topic of this thread is the individuals who are suggesting that this incident is being covered up/misrepresented for some darker purpose.
This is an off topic tangent spawned from discussion of the original topic. Sebster's quote was in the context of a NRA ad which represented the president and his family as hypocrites because they have an armed security detail but are 'forbidding' the average fourth grader to have the same protection.
With that said:
These kinds of shootings are not going to be stopped. If elementary schools start having armed security details, you'll start seeing shootings at middle schools instead by these kinds of individuals.
Middle schools arm up, high schools become the targets.
High schools arm up, you'll start seeing daycares or other places where there is a perception of "no security" targeted instead.
Except these incidents are stopped all the time. BY GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS.
The only possably valid point here would be that Gun Control advocates are using this unfortunate event(and the others like that have occured) as a convenient excuse to ram through pointless gun control.
The event wasn't staged. its just a convenient excuse.
I'm more suprised that anyone thinks armed guards would make a place instantly safe from incident. The people who do this are already flying rodent gak anyway.
Except there have not been mass school shootings where an armed guard has been there... The perps may indeed be batcrap crazy, but they obviously are not stupid and choose gun free zones to commit their crimes. And I doubt anyone thinks armed guards make a place instantly safe, what they probably think is the armed guard makes it a less attractive target AND provides an on-site capability to stop a masacre before it gets too bad.
What really amazes me is the high level of overlap between the groups who are promoting placing an armed police officer into every school and every street corner, etc. in order to prevent villains from shooting people, and the groups who stockpile guns because they're worried that the government will become tyrannical and invoke marshal law or something to that effect.
Honestly, the level of mental gymnastics required to reconcile those two is gold-medal worthy.
Soladrin wrote:I'm more suprised that anyone thinks armed guards would make a place instantly safe from incident. The people who do this are already flying rodent gak anyway.
I tend to agree. I seem to recall that Columbine High School actually had an armed officer on duty the day of its shooting.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Except these incidents are stopped all the time. BY GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS.
I'm more suprised that anyone thinks armed guards would make a place instantly safe from incident. The people who do this are already flying rodent gak anyway.
Except there have not been mass school shootings where an armed guard has been there... The perps may indeed be batcrap crazy, but they obviously are not stupid and choose gun free zones to commit their crimes. And I doubt anyone thinks armed guards make a place instantly safe, what they probably think is the armed guard makes it a less attractive target AND provides an on-site capability to stop a masacre before it gets too bad.
Yup, it could take police a long while to get there. If there is an on-duty security guard, who is armed, it can prevent the situation from becoming worse than it already is.
Many schools already have security guards, its just a simple and relativly cheap matter of arming them and giving them appropriate training. The expense also will not be a significant impact on the schools budget given that firearms courses and the guns themselves are not super expensive.
Grey Templar wrote: Yup, it could take police a long while to get there. If there is an on-duty security guard, who is armed, it can prevent the situation from becoming worse than it already is.
Many schools already have security guards, its just a simple and relatively cheap matter of arming them and giving them appropriate training. The expense also will not be a significant impact on the schools budget given that firearms courses and the guns themselves are not super expensive.
...What budget are we talking about here?
Most schools are already stretched to the limit, budget-wise. I can't see them finding room for "armed private security".
Many schools do not have security guards, they have school resource officers--also known as police officers--who are armed.
azazel the cat wrote: What really amazes me is the high level of overlap between the groups who are promoting placing an armed police officer into every school and every street corner, etc. in order to prevent villains from shooting people, and the groups who stockpile guns because they're worried that the government will become tyrannical and invoke marshal law or something to that effect.
Honestly, the level of mental gymnastics required to reconcile those two is gold-medal worthy.
Soladrin wrote:I'm more suprised that anyone thinks armed guards would make a place instantly safe from incident. The people who do this are already flying rodent gak anyway.
I tend to agree. I seem to recall that Columbine High School actually had an armed officer on duty the day of its shooting.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Except these incidents are stopped all the time. BY GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS.
You're joking, right?
1. You're right. At Columbine there were armed guards. At the time their orders were to cordon off the area and wait for cops. If the orders are more correctly STOP THE BG then it has an effect. After all you can make the same argument anywhere, including a police station. However, mass murderers are usually cowards and won't go after a hard target. When confronted they typically surrender or run off and eat a bullet.
2. Stopped events This occurs all the time. Again FBI statistics typically denote over 1mm instances of brandishing or other nonshoots stopping a potential crime in its tracks. I'm not worried about the crazy (ok I'm worried about a stalker). But I'm worried for my wife about a mugger or assaulter.
azazel the cat wrote: What really amazes me is the high level of overlap between the groups who are promoting placing an armed police officer into every school and every street corner, etc. in order to prevent villains from shooting people, and the groups who stockpile guns because they're worried that the government will become tyrannical and invoke marshal law or something to that effect.
Honestly, the level of mental gymnastics required to reconcile those two is gold-medal worthy.
Soladrin wrote:I'm more suprised that anyone thinks armed guards would make a place instantly safe from incident. The people who do this are already flying rodent gak anyway.
I tend to agree. I seem to recall that Columbine High School actually had an armed officer on duty the day of its shooting.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Except these incidents are stopped all the time. BY GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS.
You're joking, right?
1. You're right. At Columbine there were armed guards. At the time their orders were to cordon off the area and wait for cops. If the orders are more correctly STOP THE BG then it has an effect. After all you can make the same argument anywhere, including a police station. However, mass murderers are usually cowards and won't go after a hard target. When confronted they typically surrender or run off and eat a bullet.
2. Stopped events This occurs all the time. Again FBI statistics typically denote over 1mm instances of brandishing or other nonshoots stopping a potential crime in its tracks.
I'm not worried about the crazy (ok I'm worried about a stalker). But I'm worried for my wife about a mugger or assaulter.
It's worth noting that Columbine High School's Sheriff's Deputy was off site when the Columbine shooters began their rampage
Well if they already have an armed guard thats great. This is for those that don't have a guard.
I figured out it shouldn't cost more than $1500 per security guard to get them a firearm, cleaning kit, and ammo. I would hope the school already does background checks on their employees. Then you have maybe a $500 fee to send the guard to a gunrange for a training course.
Then you have the guard go to the gun range each month for practice. Which is just a range fee plus ammo, maybe another $150 a month.
So ~$2000 up front and another ~$150 a month per security guard.
Hardly breaking the bank for the school, especially if they already have a security guard(s) that they are paying.
Can we really put a price on the safety of kids at schools? This is hardly a massivly expensive proposal. Given how much we spend on our education system, and that we have a rather poor one at that, there has to be waste somewhere that could easily be trimmed to pay for an armed guard(s).
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Except these incidents are stopped all the time. BY GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS.
You're joking, right?
Consider the following: (and I'm not counting the Giffords shooting, even though the guy who tackled the shooter had a CCW)
– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, just in December: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-Clackamas Town Center, right before Sandy Hook: Nick Meli confronted the shooter with his CCW, the shooter then ended his spree, withdrew to a stair well and killed himself. Total dead: Two
– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One
The vast majority of these shootings happen at gun free zones. The shooters aren't stupid. They don't want people to be there to fight back, as the police trainer in the blog post above I linked mentioned it ruins the power fantasy when you're being actively resisted. Insight like that, especially based around the Columbine shootings "lessons learned" are why police procedure has changed completely for these situations. It used to be you secured the area and waited for a tactical team. Now as soon as you have two officers on hand you're through the door trying to put fire on the active shooter as quickly as possible.
Really? The main reason I own a shotgun is for shooting trap and skeet. A rather fun hobby in my opinion.
OT - I haven't watched the video (yet), but it doesn't surprise me that somthing like this was released. The have conspiracy theories for damned near everything now.
Edit - Then again, you said "most" haha. Never mind me!
Really? The main reason I own a shotgun is for shooting trap and skeet. A rather fun hobby in my opinion.
OT - I haven't watched the video (yet), but it doesn't surprise me that somthing like this was released. The have conspiracy theories for damned near everything now.
I have a shotgun for the mosquitoes. They get really big in Texas.
Really? The main reason I own a shotgun is for shooting trap and skeet. A rather fun hobby in my opinion.
OT - I haven't watched the video (yet), but it doesn't surprise me that somthing like this was released. The have conspiracy theories for damned near everything now.
I have a shotgun for the mosquitoes. They get really big in Texas.
Really? The main reason I own a shotgun is for shooting trap and skeet. A rather fun hobby in my opinion.
OT - I haven't watched the video (yet), but it doesn't surprise me that somthing like this was released. The have conspiracy theories for damned near everything now.
I have a shotgun for the mosquitoes. They get really big in Texas.
You need AAA in Alaska, skeeters up there come in single and twin engine varieties
I can't find the link, but there was another situation at a school where the armed officer on campus stopped a potentially violent situation before any one could be shot or injured. Can't remember where for the life of me though.
HOLY COW! Are you sure that's a mosquito? It has to be fake. It's Alaskan propaganda to prove how tough they are. It has to be. I bet there's not even an Alaska.
I can too believe in chiggers. They are tools of Satan sent to this world to wreak havoc on small children who like to roll around and play in the grass.
And I think I established that it's not just the mosquitoes I no longer believe in. I'm officially declaring Alaska to be a hoax.
grayshadow87 wrote: I can too believe in chiggers. They are tools of Satan sent to this world to wreak havoc on small children who like to roll around and play in the grass.
And I think I established that it's not just the mosquitoes I no longer believe in. I'm officially declaring Alaska to be a hoax.
grayshadow87 wrote: I can too believe in chiggers. They are tools of Satan sent to this world to wreak havoc on small children who like to roll around and play in the grass.
And I think I established that it's not just the mosquitoes I no longer believe in. I'm officially declaring Alaska to be a hoax.
Just a conspiracy of cartographers?
Exactly. I'm glad to see you referencing such important historical documentaries on this very serious subject.
So here's a video summery of issues that people have with the Sandy Hook shooting. The two that stand out to me:
1. Initial reports suggested multiple shooters, police sweeps of the woods near the schools, multiple suspects detained. What happened to that?
2. The shooter's weapons. Lots and lots of contradiction there ranging from 2-4 handguns, a long gun in the trunk, to just the AR-15 and a shotgun in the trunk...
So all of this seems it could be fixed with clarification as opposed to 9/11 where as any good truther will tell you all the evidence was buried in the rubble.
Still completely freaking insane in the first place thought.
Can we really put a price on the safety of kids at schools?
There is something deeply wrong with a society that feels the need to post armed guards at schools.
Why? Children aren't worth as much as your everyday bank?
Have you ever entrusted a kid with your money?
What if we changed the banking codes and made our children the vaults for money, and hired armed guards to protect the money and the kids.
You clearly don't have children. If you did you would know you do just that. You're in the involuntary bailiff for their money, temporarily holding "their" cash...
Frazzled wrote: You clearly don't have children. If you did you would know you do just that. You're in the involuntary bailiff for their money, temporarily holding "their" cash...
On a serious note, banks have armed guards because money is important.
Kids are infinitly more important than money. Why shouldn't we have armed guards for our kids?
Now its not practical to have armed guards for children all the time, but having it at school where they spend most of their time away from their parents makes sense.
Frazzled wrote: You clearly don't have children. If you did you would know you do just that. You're in the involuntary bailiff for their money, temporarily holding "their" cash...
International Bank of Dad
Considering I just cut a check for $11 large for a year's dorm for the boy you bet your ass I sure feel like it.
1. Initial reports suggested multiple shooters, police sweeps of the woods near the schools, multiple suspects detained. What happened to that?
2. The shooter's weapons. Lots and lots of contradiction there ranging from 2-4 handguns, a long gun in the trunk, to just the AR-15 and a shotgun in the trunk...
1. Initial reports during a crisis are always wrong. In many people's mind that many shots must = more than one shooter. Of course the cops swept the surrounding area, they would be incompetent not to have. Of course there were 'multiple suspects detained'. It is standard in a hostage situation that when you do the take down you cuff EVERYONE until you can clear them. You don't know who is a perp and who is not during the take down.
2. Again, initial reports are always wrong. Local reporters interviewing confused people before the crime scene is even processed isn't going to give you The Truth.
1. Initial reports suggested multiple shooters, police sweeps of the woods near the schools, multiple suspects detained. What happened to that?
2. The shooter's weapons. Lots and lots of contradiction there ranging from 2-4 handguns, a long gun in the trunk, to just the AR-15 and a shotgun in the trunk...
1. Initial reports during a crisis are always wrong. In many people's mind that many shots must = more than one shooter. Of course the cops swept the surrounding area, they would be incompetent not to have. Of course there were 'multiple suspects detained'. It is standard in a hostage situation that when you do the take down you cuff EVERYONE until you can clear them. You don't know who is a perp and who is not during the take down.
2. Again, initial reports are always wrong. Local reporters interviewing confused people before the crime scene is even processed isn't going to give you The Truth.
For example, the police response to the Columbine shooting was clumsy because of reports of 7 gunmen in the school and a sharpshooter on the roof. Or if you wanna see something more modern, look at that hostage crisis in Algeria that is going on right now. No news source has a clear picture of what's going on.
grayshadow87 wrote: HOLY COW! Are you sure that's a mosquito? It has to be fake. It's Alaskan propaganda to prove how tough they are. It has to be. I bet there's not even an Alaska.
VERY real.
Luckily, that don't last that long since it doesn't stay warm enough long enough (at least at the coasts... not sure how it's like more mainland).
Why? Children aren't worth as much as your everyday bank?
Financially? No. Maybe once they get to a certain age and there is a certain degree of investment in them as commodities, sure. But young children can be quickly, and cheaply, replaced. We could even speed up the process by outsourcing production to countries with high birth rates.
Frazzled wrote: You clearly don't have children. If you did you would know you do just that. You're in the involuntary bailiff for their money, temporarily holding "their" cash...
International Bank of Dad
Considering I just cut a check for $11 large for a year's dorm for the boy you bet your ass I sure feel like it.
Oh, quit yer bitchin. You know damned well you could have just packed him off to the Army if you really wanted to.
Frazzled wrote: You clearly don't have children. If you did you would know you do just that. You're in the involuntary bailiff for their money, temporarily holding "their" cash...
International Bank of Dad
Considering I just cut a check for $11 large for a year's dorm for the boy you bet your ass I sure feel like it.
Oh, quit yer bitchin. You know damned well you could have just packed him off to the Army if you really wanted to.
"So, do you like the color green?"
"wha?"
"Green. Do you hate staying in your own place and really want to live with a lot of other people, like a commune, but with everyone wearing green?"
"Mom! Dad's being weird again!"
Frazzled wrote: "So, do you like the color green?"
"wha?"
"Green. Do you hate staying in your own place and really want to live with a lot of other people, like a commune, but with everyone wearing green?"
"Mom! Dad wants me to be a hippy again!"
Frazzled wrote: You clearly don't have children. If you did you would know you do just that. You're in the involuntary bailiff for their money, temporarily holding "their" cash...
International Bank of Dad
Considering I just cut a check for $11 large for a year's dorm for the boy you bet your ass I sure feel like it.
Oh, quit yer bitchin. You know damned well you could have just packed him off to the Army if you really wanted to.
"So, do you like the color green?"
"wha?"
"Green. Do you hate staying in your own place and really want to live with a lot of other people, like a commune, but with everyone wearing green?"
"Mom! Dad's being weird again!"
Very funny... speaking of which, thought you'd enjoy this:
Now that's an awesome catapault... better think about grabbing this, since it may go on the new "ban-list" soon.
Yea thats like a young TBone there. TBone's record with me was having me stop at 70. Now he can do a short one or two, then its time to get on the sofa and rest (unless there's a snack of course). Thats pretty badass for having cancer and congestive heart failure.
Monster Rain wrote: I don't know why the elitism in this post took me so off guard.
I'm a little surprised at you, seb.
I don't get the elitism. The NRA ad is, frankly, deranged. You don't need to be within the bounds of the USA to know that because of that ad and other stuff the NRA is nutty. Hell, you can be a gun rights group situated within the USA itself and think the NRA is nutty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: You're right, they aren't targets of violence. Right up until they are. Hence the topic of this thread.
Everyone could, theoretically, be a target of violence. Simply noting a bad thing might happen and paying no consideration to the probability that it will leads to nonsense thinking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: On a serious note, banks have armed guards because money is important.
No, they have armed guards because bank robberies have been a regular thing for a couple of hundred years. And by putting an armed guard at a bank it considerably increases the risk the bank robber won't get what he wants - away with the money.
Whereas putting an armed guard in a school doesn't really change that much. The nut will still be able to walk freely to the first classroom and open fire, and will likely still get to a second or third room before any response by the armed guard. And the risk of the guard taking him down, do you really think that's going to change the nutters decision to attack - it was a suicide mission from the get-go anyway.
Kids are infinitly more important than money. Why shouldn't we have armed guards for our kids?
Because the risk is still incredibly small. Just because a thing is shown on the news doesn't make it a thing that happens all the time.
I mean, this is just why the gun debate is just so god damned fething ridiculous. Everyone carrying on as if school shooting constitute more than an incredibly trivial portion of murders with firearms. The stat that really matters is the 10,000 killed by firearms every year.
While most of it is is pure unbridled crazy it is asking questions I'm two questions confused about and would like clarified.
1. The weapons Seriously, how many times can that change? MSNBC even had a correction that stated the shooter used multiple pistols, and there was footage of a long gun being pulled from a trunk of a car. That sort of thing. Coroner said the Bushmaster AR was the primary weapon so I'm inclined to go with him, but the story got juggled enough that it was like "wat" 2. Second Shooter This was all over initial reports complete with footage of cops sweeping the woods. The hell happened with that?
Cached page for the United Way Support fund, again dating three days prior.
Similarly, this guide on how to talk to your kids about the tragedy written by the Crisis Management Institute appears to have been uploaded before it ever happened
Photoshop is of course a thing, and no I couldn't really be bothered to go through and check those exhaustively. Why? Because I don't wear tin foil and subsist only on spam and paranoia. I'm sure one of your internet sleuths will be able to blow this particular sack of crazy open, but till then... it is kinda odd innit?
sebster wrote: Whereas putting an armed guard in a school doesn't really change that much. The nut will still be able to walk freely to the first classroom and open fire, and will likely still get to a second or third room before any response by the armed guard. And the risk of the guard taking him down, do you really think that's going to change the nutters decision to attack - it was a suicide mission from the get-go anyway.
If that were the case, a lot more of these guys would duke it out with the cops rather than offing themselves as soon as the police start moving in, as...pretty much all of them, I think?...have.
Why aren't you arming your children? Stand up for their second amendment rights!
Plus it is private citizens looking out for their own protection and not having to raise taxes to pay for more police/security in schools. A win win for all freedom loving Americans everywhere.
Well, I did get son2 a rifle for Chritmas last year, and ammo this year. And daughter LOVES to go shooting, started with BB guns and has now fired a couple of our .22 rifles and a 9mm pistol.
But to really address your point, much like driving a car or registering to vote, there are age requirements for owning a fire arm, buying a fire arm and carrying a fire arm. Most school kids just are not old enough.
Having said that, if a teacher has a carry permit, I see no reason they should not be able to carry at school oif the desire.
SilverMK2 wrote: Why aren't you arming your children? Stand up for their second amendment rights!
Plus it is private citizens looking out for their own protection and not having to raise taxes to pay for more police/security in schools. A win win for all freedom loving Americans everywhere.
I had a 20 gauge shotgun and 30-30 rifle in my closet by the time I was 14. I was quite experienced with both of them by that point.
My children, all 3 of them, will be introduced to firearms when I determine they're age appropriate for it. If they want, I will buy fire arms for their use as I also determine is appropriate.
Responsible parenting, something that I will be doing, and not something I appreciate your mockery on.
SilverMK2 wrote: Why aren't you arming your children? Stand up for their second amendment rights!
Plus it is private citizens looking out for their own protection and not having to raise taxes to pay for more police/security in schools. A win win for all freedom loving Americans everywhere.
I had a 20 gauge shotgun and 30-30 rifle in my closet by the time I was 14. I was quite experienced with both of them by that point.
My children, all 3 of them, will be introduced to firearms when I determine they're age appropriate for it. If they want, I will buy fire arms for their use as I also determine is appropriate.
Responsible parenting, something that I will be doing, and not something I appreciate your mockery on.
^This.
It's really not that different when teaching your kids to drive... it's an awesome resposibility... but, if they don't respect it, they can kill someone or themselves.
As always I do my best to bring you some more of the very best of crazy:
(snip garbage) Photoshop is of course a thing, and no I couldn't really be bothered to go through and check those exhaustively. Why? Because I don't wear tin foil and subsist only on spam and paranoia. I'm sure one of your internet sleuths will be able to blow this particular sack of crazy open, but till then... it is kinda odd innit?
In 2013, in the era of google and snopes, posting stuff like this is making a concious choice to be ignorant, and then posting it on dakka while shrugging your hands as if you are helpless in this; is just... ridiculous, really. You should probably couch this is a more "hey, look at these stupid people, lets laugh at them" tone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I had never heard of John Lott before your post, the guy you said was disreputable? I just looked him up, and.... wow, man. How does a clown like that even make it on the news? God, the media really is awful in this country.
sebster wrote: Everyone could, theoretically, be a target of violence. Simply noting a bad thing might happen and paying no consideration to the probability that it will leads to nonsense thinking...
What a cop out.
The point is, places that you have to send your children to, under penalty of law in some cases, should be more secure than they are. Yes, life is a risk. There are certain instances where it is reasonable to mitigate that as much as possible.
sebster wrote: Because the risk is still incredibly small. Just because a thing is shown on the news doesn't make it a thing that happens all the time..
So why use this incident as a catalyst for gun control? You know, since it's such a remote probability of it happening and all.
sebster wrote: Because the risk is still incredibly small. Just because a thing is shown on the news doesn't make it a thing that happens all the time..
So why use this incident as a catalyst for gun control? You know, since it's such a remote probability of it happening and all.
Because the US has a much larger amount of gun related crimes in comparison to the rest of developed nations.
It's true, and it's bad, but you can't say that the odds of something happening are incredibly remote with the status quo and at the same time use that same incident as an excuse to push a political agenda.
That said, I don't have a real problem with Obama's proposals, other than the magazine and assault weapon bans. The NRA is being pretty stupid about that whole thing.
Gun Control isn't an overnight sensation, it has been building over time since the last bubble of interest burst. It wasn't like there haven't been calls for it for the last decade or so, but the recent events (not just Sandy Hook) has motivated more people out of apathy and into action, enough that actual political action is feasible on the side of those who think we can do more to decrease gen deaths. I think a lot of the ideas are good, such as better background checks and having more research into causes. I still doubt, though, that we want to really deal with other things, like blaming Hollywood while simultaneously giving them every reason to believe we want the content.
It's true, and it's bad, but you can't say that the odds of something happening are incredibly remote with the status quo and at the same time use that same incident as an excuse to push a political agenda.
OK that's true but still the government should show involvement with policies that could help reduce gun related crimes.
As always I do my best to bring you some more of the very best of crazy:
(snip garbage) Photoshop is of course a thing, and no I couldn't really be bothered to go through and check those exhaustively. Why? Because I don't wear tin foil and subsist only on spam and paranoia. I'm sure one of your internet sleuths will be able to blow this particular sack of crazy open, but till then... it is kinda odd innit?
In 2013, in the era of google and snopes, posting stuff like this is making a conscious choice to be ignorant, and then posting it on dakka while shrugging your hands as if you are helpless in this; is just... ridiculous, really. You should probably couch this is a more "hey, look at these stupid people, lets laugh at them" tone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I had never heard of John Lott before your post, the guy you said was disreputable? I just looked him up, and.... wow, man. How does a clown like that even make it on the news? God, the media really is awful in this country.
Sooo I post up some crazy conspiracy theory stuff that I saw and laughed at for the most part, point out a part that actually looked kinda compelling and say "This is nuts, but I don't give a damn enough to go through and /actually/ poke holes in it" thus I'm making a choice to be ignorant.
Cheesecat wrote: Because the US has a much larger amount of gun related crimes in comparison to the rest of developed nations.
Including Switzerland and Israel? Where the military takes their FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles home? And yet they still don't have anything close to the rate of gun crimes we do?
Sounds to me like the guns aren't the issue. It's something fundamentally wrong with American sociology.
Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).
Then you may find out that guns get used in the US, but other weapons get used in other Western countries, and that perhaps American sociology isn't as 'fundamentally wrong' as some folks like to make it out to be.
Grey Templar wrote: Well if they already have an armed guard thats great. This is for those that don't have a guard.
I figured out it shouldn't cost more than $1500 per security guard to get them a firearm, cleaning kit, and ammo. I would hope the school already does background checks on their employees. Then you have maybe a $500 fee to send the guard to a gunrange for a training course.
Then you have the guard go to the gun range each month for practice. Which is just a range fee plus ammo, maybe another $150 a month.
So ~$2000 up front and another ~$150 a month per security guard.
Hardly breaking the bank for the school, especially if they already have a security guard(s) that they are paying.
Can we really put a price on the safety of kids at schools? This is hardly a massivly expensive proposal. Given how much we spend on our education system, and that we have a rather poor one at that, there has to be waste somewhere that could easily be trimmed to pay for an armed guard(s).
Don't forget to raise the guard's salary by 20% minimum. Trained armed guards command a significantly higher salary than your run-of-the-mill unarmed guard.
CptJake wrote: Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).
Then you may find out that guns get used in the US, but other weapons get used in other Western countries, and that perhaps American sociology isn't as 'fundamentally wrong' as some folks like to make it out to be.
Except guns are faster at killing someone than knives and baseball bats plus they're ranged also if a country has a high amount of gun related crime in comparison to other countries the responsible thing for the government to do is to introduce policies that might reduce gun related crime
Cheesecat wrote: Because the US has a much larger amount of gun related crimes in comparison to the rest of developed nations.
Including Switzerland and Israel? Where the military takes their FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles home? And yet they still don't have anything close to the rate of gun crimes we do?
Sounds to me like the guns aren't the issue. It's something fundamentally wrong with American sociology.
Except the US has a much higher gun per capita than those nations and I would imagine that Israel and Switzerland have stricter regulations and laws on guns than the US.
CptJake wrote: Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).
And a handsaw is a tool that enables me to saw wood, but if I had a power saw I wouldn't need to expend so much effort in doing so. As such, I would be more inclined to sawing some wood.
CptJake wrote: Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).
And a handsaw is a tool that enables me to saw wood, but if I had a power saw I wouldn't need to expend so much effort in doing so. As such, I would be more inclined to sawing some wood.
That comparison is rather weak. It implies that the very presence of a gun makes you more likely to kill someone, which is demonstrably false.
The presense of a power saw doesn't make me inclined to saw wood. The presense of an oven in my kitchen doesn't make me any more likely to cook something.
It's true, and it's bad, but you can't say that the odds of something happening are incredibly remote with the status quo and at the same time use that same incident as an excuse to push a political agenda.
OK that's true but still the government should show involvement with policies that could help reduce gun related crimes.
Gun control is not a policy that could help reduce gun-related crimes.
FBI crime statistics are pretty conclusive on this point. Areas with strict gun control laws or even outright gun bans do not see a significant change in the rate of gun crimes, not when compared to similar areas without strict gun control laws, and not whe compared to the same area previous to the ban.
This is true of every area where strict gun control laws have been enacted. But don't take my word for it, please, go check for yourself. You'll have to research where strict gun control laws have been enacted, then check the FBI's crime statistics on those areas before and after the ban, and look for similar areas where there isn't a ban. But the information is there... just far too involved to post.
There is an interesting correlation I've heard about. Apparently the rate of gun crime in an area is directly linked to the percentage of people in that area living under the poverty level. Where the poverty rate is low, the rate of gun crimes is also low. Where the poverty rate is high, the gun crime rate is also high. And as poverty rates change over time, so does the gun crime rate, right alongside it.
Perhaps instead of banning guns, we should be banning poverty?
CptJake wrote: Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).
And a handsaw is a tool that enables me to saw wood, but if I had a power saw I wouldn't need to expend so much effort in doing so. As such, I would be more inclined to sawing some wood.
And I could saw much more wood with much greater speed.
CptJake wrote: Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).
And a handsaw is a tool that enables me to saw wood, but if I had a power saw I wouldn't need to expend so much effort in doing so. As such, I would be more inclined to sawing some wood.
And I could saw much more wood with much greater speed.
It wouldn't make me any more likely to saw the wood. If I have no reason to saw wood I'm not going to just go saw wood because I have a shiny power saw.
CptJake wrote: Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).
And a handsaw is a tool that enables me to saw wood, but if I had a power saw I wouldn't need to expend so much effort in doing so. As such, I would be more inclined to sawing some wood.
And I could saw much more wood with much greater speed.
It wouldn't make me any more likely to saw the wood. If I have no reason to saw wood I'm not going to just go saw wood because I have a shiny power saw.
It's true, and it's bad, but you can't say that the odds of something happening are incredibly remote with the status quo and at the same time use that same incident as an excuse to push a political agenda.
OK that's true but still the government should show involvement with policies that could help reduce gun related crimes.
Gun control is not a policy that could help reduce gun-related crimes.
FBI crime statistics are pretty conclusive on this point. Areas with strict gun control laws or even outright gun bans do not see a significant change in the rate of gun crimes, not when compared to similar areas without strict gun control laws, and not whe compared to the same area previous to the ban.
This is true of every area where strict gun control laws have been enacted. But don't take my word for it, please, go check for yourself. You'll have to research where strict gun control laws have been enacted, then check the FBI's crime statistics on those areas before and after the ban, and look for similar areas where there isn't a ban. But the information is there... just far too involved to post.
There is an interesting correlation I've heard about. Apparently the rate of gun crime in an area is directly linked to the percentage of people in that area living under the poverty level. Where the poverty rate is low, the rate of gun crimes is also low. Where the poverty rate is high, the gun crime rate is also high. And as poverty rates change over time, so does the gun crime rate, right alongside it.
Perhaps instead of banning guns, we should be banning poverty?
You know the government showing involvement with policies that could help reduce gun related crimes doesn't just mean strict gun laws, it could mean a criminal justice system that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment, policies that make education more accessible to poorer
families, policies that increase social mobility for the poor, better services for the people with mental or physical disabilities, more in depth requirements for gun licenses (certain medical and mental conditions should prohibit you from using firearms), criminal background checks for
Cheesecat wrote: Because the US has a much larger amount of gun related crimes in comparison to the rest of developed nations.
Including Switzerland and Israel? Where the military takes their FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles home? And yet they still don't have anything close to the rate of gun crimes we do?
Sounds to me like the guns aren't the issue. It's something fundamentally wrong with American sociology.
The Yankee Marshal is a Blue State Democrat voting gun owner, and I think his points are quite valid here.
No, they're really not.
Why?
Because the vast majority of schools already have armed resource officers in the form of police officers assigned to the schools.
And that video was terrible. He keeps rambling about the NRA and how "he never thought he'd defend them" and how "he changed his mind from disliking the commercial".
The NRA commercial was pandering filth of the lowest caliber. It was aimed towards the individuals who already believe that Obama and his administration engage in elitist behavior and to play upon the emotional heartstrings of "His children have it. Why can't yours?".
KalashnikovMarine wrote: They do engage in elitist behavior. They're politicians. Dubya did it, Clinton did it before, him, etc.
I don't think you quite understand what "elitist" means when you simply lump it as "They're politicians".
SROs are exactly what the NRA's asking for from what I understand. So why not ensure it happens?
That's not what "the NRA is asking for".
The NRA is "asking" for teachers to be armed and trained to "defend children".
The NRA is "asking" for private security firms to be employed at schools.
They're using the whole thing as a way to divert from the issue at hand; which is that better firearms regulation could potentially play into preventing these kinds of events from happening again.
As continually gets pointed out time and time again, most of these shootings are not being performed by criminals. Most of these shootings are being performed by people who are legally able to obtain guns.
Oh, and by the way:
Where is the money for more SROs going to come from?
I certaintly think that if a Teacher desires to pack a gun to school they should be allowed to do it.
I would say that gun control advocates are using the emotions of these situations to ram through their political agenda and not address the real problems here.
What harm could possably come from allowing teachers to carry weapons in the event of a school shooting? The same for having armed security?
As for the cost for SROs, compared to other programs schools may be running I would assert the safety of children has higher importance. Music and Art programs would certaintly fall into this catagory. They're optional, safety shouldn't be.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: They do engage in elitist behavior. They're politicians. Dubya did it, Clinton did it before, him, etc.
I don't think you quite understand what "elitist" means when you simply lump it as "They're politicians".
SROs are exactly what the NRA's asking for from what I understand. So why not ensure it happens?
That's not what "the NRA is asking for".
The NRA is "asking" for teachers to be armed and trained to "defend children".
The NRA is "asking" for private security firms to be employed at schools.
They're using the whole thing as a way to divert from the issue at hand; which is that better firearms regulation could potentially play into preventing these kinds of events from happening again.
As continually gets pointed out time and time again, most of these shootings are not being performed by criminals. Most of these shootings are being performed by people who are legally able to obtain guns.
Oh, and by the way:
Where is the money for more SROs going to come from?
Just anecdotally, my public high school has a private security firm and we've never had a shooting. There are at least 6 officers in the school, one mobile unit (for truancy and what not), and the school has 2 entrances into the school. Every visitor needs to go in through the visitor's entrance and sign in. None of the security officers are armed. They maintain school safety through rigorous drills with the students from both city emergency officials and the security firm. Visitors are easily identified, and all students must visibly wear their student ID. All of these changes were tightened and revised after 2003 when a man from the local media walked into the school unannounced to interview students about something school related. As from where the money comes from? Not sure, I only ever payed 31 dollars a year for "instructional fees" And my city hates passing school levies because the majority of the city's population is elderly, and they don't like getting taxes raised to help kids when they don't have kids in the school.
Grey Templar wrote: I certaintly think that if a Teacher desires to pack a gun to school they should be allowed to do it.
Why?
No, seriously.
I would say that gun control advocates are using the emotions of these situations to ram through their political agenda and not address the real problems here.
Which are what?
Go on. Tell me what the "real problems" are here.
Because from my seat, the "real problems" seem to be that guns are being sold legally to individuals who are passing the current regulations. These same individuals then perform spree shootings.
Sound about right?
What harm could possibly come from allowing teachers to carry weapons in the event of a school shooting?
Panic fire potentially injuring more children than the shooter did and the encouragement of a "siege mentality" to the children under the care of the teachers and to the teachers themselves?
The same for having armed security?
Again:
Most schools have a School Resource Officer, who is armed on campus. The middle and high schools I went to had four officers assigned to it; with rotating shifts to ensure that two were on duty at any given time.
There is no amount of "having armed security" which can reasonably prevent these kinds of shootings from happening.
As for the cost for SROs, compared to other programs schools may be running I would assert the safety of children has higher importance. Music and Art programs would certaintly fall into this catagory. They're optional, safety shouldn't be.
I'm not surprised at all to see "Music and Art programs" put on the chopping block for SROs.
Why not cut down the bloated sports programs present at most schools?
Just anecdotally, my public high school has a private security firm and we've never had a shooting. There are at least 6 officers in the school, one mobile unit (for truancy and what not), and the school has 2 entrances into the school. Every visitor needs to go in through the visitor's entrance and sign in. None of the security officers are armed. They maintain school safety through rigorous drills with the students from both city emergency officials and the security firm. Visitors are easily identified, and all students must visibly wear their student ID. All of these changes were tightened and revised after 2003 when a man from the local media walked into the school unannounced to interview students about something school related. As from where the money comes from? Not sure, I only ever paid 31 dollars a year for "instructional fees" And my city hates passing school levies because the majority of the city's population is elderly, and they don't like getting taxes raised to help kids when they don't have kids in the school.
Fair point Alf.
Just as a note, the money for the private security firm likely comes from the revenue made by the school district's sports programs and a negotiated contract on the part of the security firm that grants them exclusivity in terms of private contracts within the district.
So Kan, tell me where the SROs were at these shootings?
Why?
No, seriously.
Because the teacher is in a perfect position to stop the situation and because the teacher has the right to be safe too.
The teacher may be the closest person to the shooter at the time the incident begins to occur.
its all about layered defenses. You have armed security that patrol the grounds, and you have teachers in the classroom itself.
Not that I think this should be a mandatory thing. Just optional. If the teacher wants to have a gun with them they should be able to do it. Provided they prove they legally own the gun and have proof of at least redumentary training with it. This would cost the school nothing and give the teachers options.
If I worked in a place that had a risk of a shooting I might want to be armed.
Gas Station, Convenience stores, Pawn shops... these places often have armed employees. It seems like a School has things that are worth protecting far more than the local 7-11 has.
Which are what?
Go on. Tell me what the "real problems" are here.
Because from my seat, the "real problems" seem to be that guns are being sold legally to individuals who are passing the current regulations. These same individuals then perform spree shootings.
The Sandy Hook shooter did not own the weapons he used. He stole them from his mother, who he killed.
I'm not surprised at all to see "Music and Art programs" put on the chopping block for SROs.
Why not cut down the bloated sports programs present at most schools?
We could do that too. I'd rank sports just above Music and Art in importance.
I'd love to know, but I would assume it comes down to the fact that you cannot accurately predict things like this.
It's also worth mentioning that it is far easier for a shooter to scout out a target than it is for security to shore up their defenses unless they've already had some kind of warning.
Why?
No, seriously.
Because the teacher is in a perfect position to stop the situation and because the teacher has the right to be safe too.
The teacher may be the closest person to the shooter at the time the incident begins to occur.
its all about layered defenses. You have armed security that patrol the grounds, and you have teachers in the classroom itself.
The fact that they are the "closest person to the shooter" does not necessarily mean that the teacher is going to be able to actually defend the students. That's what I keep trying to get across here.
Not that I think this should be a mandatory thing. Just optional. If the teacher wants to have a gun with them they should be able to do it. Provided they prove they legally own the gun and have proof of at least rudimentary training with it. This would cost the school nothing and give the teachers options.
If I worked in a place that had a risk of a shooting I might want to be armed.
Gas Station, Convenience stores, Pawn shops... these places often have armed employees. It seems like a School has things that are worth protecting far more than the local 7-11 has.
Most chain gas stations and convenience stores do not actually have armed employees. The employees are generally told to cooperate and empty the register.
Pawn shops and family owned places tend to be a bit different though.
Which are what?
Go on. Tell me what the "real problems" are here.
Because from my seat, the "real problems" seem to be that guns are being sold legally to individuals who are passing the current regulations. These same individuals then perform spree shootings.
The Sandy Hook shooter did not own the weapons he used. He stole them from his mother, who he killed.
Saying that he 'stole them from his mother' is a tad ridiculous in my opinion. They lived in the same house and he had access to the guns. From reports, she took him shooting.
I'm not surprised at all to see "Music and Art programs" put on the chopping block for SROs.
Why not cut down the bloated sports programs present at most schools?
We could do that too. I'd rank sports just above Music and Art in importance.
At least we agree on this.
Though to be fair, I don't think cutting sports entirely is the right way. Just cutting down on the bloat.
I'd love to know, but I would assume it comes down to the fact that you cannot predict things like this.
Yeah, you can't predict these things. hence why the security should be around all the time.
The fact that they are the "closest person to the shooter" does not necessarily mean that the teacher is going to be able to actually defend the students. That's what I keep trying to get across here.
I sort of agree, hence why I am only advocating it as a personal choice of the teacher, not something they would be required to do. I think if I am getting attacked there is nobody in a better position to defend me than me!
Most chain gas stations and convenience stores do not actually have armed employees. The employees are generally told to cooperate and empty the register.
Pawn shops and family owned places tend to be a bit different though.
True, but the reason is why. A robber is just after the cash, He's not gone there with the intent to kill. Although there are cases of the robber shooting a cooperating clerk without provocation. Assumedly to prevent identification of the culprit.
A school shooter on the other hand is there to kill.
Which brings us back to my point. If people working in stores can arm themselves, why shouldn't our teachers be allowed to as well?
Saying that he 'stole them from his mother' is a tad ridiculous in my opinion. They lived in the same house and he had access to the guns. From reports, she took him shooting.
This really just highlights his mother's stupidity. She was aware of his issues from what I gather, and she made the poor judgement call to allow him access.
If he had tried to get a gun legally he probably would have been denied.
This situation doesn't support your claim that many shooters get their guns legally. In this case he did not get those guns legally.
Living in the same house and having access is more of a failure of his mom then anything else. She was aware of his issues.
It wouldn't make me any more likely to saw the wood. If I have no reason to saw wood I'm not going to just go saw wood because I have a shiny power saw.
Really? Because lots of people seem quite excited to employ their new, shiny tool.
It wouldn't make me any more likely to saw the wood. If I have no reason to saw wood I'm not going to just go saw wood because I have a shiny power saw.
Really? Because lots of people seem quite excited to employ their new, shiny tool.
GW army updates are a great example of this. "Oh look at this new shiny unit, I GOT TO PLAY THIS."
The presense of a power saw doesn't make me inclined to saw wood. The presense of an oven in my kitchen doesn't make me any more likely to cook something.
Of course it does, you have one of the tools necessary to cook something. Therefore you are more likely to cook if you have an oven, than if you do not have one.
I don't like the idea of teachers being armed simply because there is the potential in my mind for more to go wrong than right.
Based off the teachers I had in my early years, I wouldn't trust them to find their own ass with both hands and a map let alone handle a gun with any degree of skill in a high stress situation around paniced children.
There is also a better potential for an angry student to wrestle a gun away from them and start using it.
So by your logic every law abiding gun owner is just a ticking timebomb that could go off at any moment.
If I own a gun the only thing that makes me more likely to do is spend a day at the gun range or go hunting. It does not predispose me to violence, being human is what makes me that.
What we have here is a case of Correlation =/= Causation. But people love to target the easy scapegoat so they can look like they are fixing the problem, get a medal, and feel good about it.
The fact is, guns are here to stay. The criminal element has all the guns they would ever need out there, so taking guns away from law abiding citizens only makes them a target. Guns are our way of keeping the Government honest and ensuring it doesn't overstep its bounds, which seems to have failed as people have kept trying to restrict gun ownership. To the point where the citizens are now throughly outgunned.
The government is not your friend, its a necessary evil put in place because there are evil people. Yet it itself is also capable of evil, and must in turn be watched.
Grey Templar wrote: So by your logic every law abiding gun owner is just a ticking timebomb that could go off at any moment.
Potentially, yes. Most spree shooters are not hardened career criminals. They are usually "law abiding citizens", right up until they enter a public place and start shooting.
I'm not particularly pro or anti gun, I just think it is disingenuous to pretend a gun is a just another tool, like a saw or a hammer. I mean yes, it is technically a "tool" but one which sole purpose is to kill or maim.
Grey Templar wrote: So by your logic every law abiding gun owner is just a ticking timebomb that could go off at any moment.
No, by my "logic" people with access to the means of violence are more likely to use the means of violence. It doesn't matter if said means is a gun, a knife, or a certain degree of physical fitness; having that access creates a predisposition.
Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't blatantly put words in my mouth. That behavior annoys me.
If I own a gun the only thing that makes me more likely to do is spend a day at the gun range or go hunting. It does not predispose me to violence, being human is what makes me that.
Grey Templar wrote: So by your logic every law abiding gun owner is just a ticking timebomb that could go off at any moment.
Potentially, yes. Most spree shooters are not hardened career criminals. They are usually "law abiding citizens", right up until they enter a public place and start shooting.
I'm not particularly pro or anti gun, I just think it is disingenuous to pretend a gun is a just another tool, like a saw or a hammer. I mean yes, it is technically a "tool" but one which sole purpose is to kill or maim.
Hmm, odd. Because most of the perpetrators of these shootings seem to have either been career criminals and/or (extremely) disturbed individuals.
None of them have been your typical upstanding citizen with a happy marriage, a couple kids, 9-5 job, etc...
If I own a gun the only thing that makes me more likely to do is spend a day at the gun range or go hunting. It does not predispose me to violence, being human is what makes me that.
So it disposes you towards the use of a gun?
A gun has uses beyond killing people. It can be recreational equipment, a hunting impliment, or a personal defense tool. It can also be a murder weapon.
Its the small mind that just thinks guns are for killing people.
Hmm, odd. Because most of the perpetrators of these shootings seem to have either been career criminals and/or (extremely) disturbed individuals.
Really? I am under the impression that Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Ecole Polytechnique, etc, were committed by (otherwise) ordinary people. Correct me if I'm wrong.
A gun has uses beyond killing people. It can be recreational equipment, a hunting impliment, or a personal defense tool. It can also be a murder weapon.
Its the small mind that just thinks guns are for killing people.
So guns are tools for practice killing, animal killing, and stop-or-I-will-kill-you. Also murder. Thanks for supporting my point.
Why don't you leave the insults out of it, okay? I'm not judging anyone for owning a gun. I just take issue with the "Guns are only tools" line of thinking. I work with tools everyday, I would have to seriously misuse one of my tools to kill something. If I used a gun to kill something, I would simply be using it.
It's true, and it's bad, but you can't say that the odds of something happening are incredibly remote with the status quo and at the same time use that same incident as an excuse to push a political agenda.
That said, I don't have a real problem with Obama's proposals, other than the magazine and assault weapon bans. The NRA is being pretty stupid about that whole thing.
Actually, the NRA is doing exactly what I, as someone who's given them a fair amount of cash recently, want them to do. You can't compromise with emotionally-driven political agendas.
Actually, the NRA is doing exactly what I, as someone who's given them a fair amount of cash recently, want them to do. You can't compromise with emotionally-driven political agendas.
Seaward wrote: Actually, the NRA is doing exactly what I, as someone who's given them a fair amount of cash recently, want them to do.
You want them to be belligerent, avoid all compromise, and come across as donkey-caves? Seems an odd thing to give money to, but then, their purpose (at this point anyway) isn't to solve any problems, but to keep the issue alive and hot so that people will give them 'a fair amount of cash'.
Seaward wrote: You can't compromise with emotionally-driven political agendas.
This is odd to me. You recognize that the NRA won't compromise, which is rarely a good sign, and that they are emotionally compromised, yet you want to fund them. In Starfleet if you become emotionally compromised you are removed from command.
Ahtman wrote: You want them to be belligerent, avoid all compromise, and come across as donkey-caves? Seems an odd thing to give money to, but then, their purpose (at this point anyway) isn't to solve any problems, but to keep the issue alive and hot so that people will give them 'a fair amount of cash'.
Compromise with the anti-gun side has been tried before. They're not interested in solving problems, they're interested in pushing agendas. More people were killed by hammers or bears last year than what they call "assault rifles," while tens of thousands were killed by handguns, but what are they pushing for? A ban on "assault rifles." It's legislation crafted by people who fundamentally don't know what they're talking about, and rather than choosing to learn, they've decided to let their ignorance dictate their position, because it serves their political agenda.
This is odd to me. You recognize that the NRA won't compromise, which is rarely a good sign, and that they are emotionally compromised, yet you want to fund them. In Starfleet if you become emotionally compromised you are removed from command.
Actually, I was referring to the anti-gun side as being ruled by emotion. Biden as much as admitted in one of his meetings that they don't have the time to prosecute people who lie on background check forms, yet they want to push new laws - which they probably won't be able to enforce any better - rather than actually seeing how current legislation works when it's actually taken seriously by the people in charge of it.
Teachers should be allowed guns in school, individual teachers can decide if they want them in their class? Where are they keeping them, in their desk? Was it only last week we had a story where a policeman in a school shot a kid with a taser? FFS, now we're talking about the merits of bringing more guns to school.
This is just crazy talk, part of the current pro-gun siege mentality. The solution to gun violence is more guns, more people carrying guns, more accessibility to guns in public places.
It's just not safe arming teachers and having guns in the classroom. I can just about accept having police in a school, and them being armed. Some people are forgetting what school is about, it's not conducive to an educational environment to have the atmosphere of an armed bunker. It's a sad enough day when you need metal detectors on the door of a school.
The potential for harm is massive if you arm teachers. They are far more likely to escalate a situation, they are far more likely to get people inadvertently injured and killed. And if you think it's safe to have a gun anywhere in a classroom then you clearly have never worked in a school. Anything in a classroom can be acquired by children at short notice, the moment you leave the room it's a hazard. If you're not going to leave them in unattended rooms, what are the teachers going to do, go out on lunch duty carrying the gun under their coat at all times? Even if they aren't taken from storage in the school, there's a chance they will be wrestled from the teacher. Or are you going to face the prospect of a gun being used every time there's a situation where a teacher gets into a physical struggle with a pupil? Because that happens in all schools, you gets kids fighting, or trying to throw things or hit the staff, and you have to intervene by placing your body in front of them and on some occasions, you have to use physical restraint. They aren't trying to kill anyone, they're just kids acting stupid, getting upset and angry and being rough, but when there are guns stored in the class or on the teacher, you don't know where its going to lead.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Teachers should be allowed guns in school, individual teachers can decide if they want them in their class? Where are they keeping them, in their desk? Was it only last week we had a story where a policeman in a school shot a kid with a taser? FFS, now we're talking about the merits of bringing more guns to school.
I carry a gun every day, and only the people who I've told know I'm carrying it. Drop the cover garment and no one's the wiser.
This is just crazy talk, part of the current pro-gun siege mentality. The solution to gun violence is more guns, more people carrying guns, more accessibility to guns in public places.
The solution is certainly not politely asking murderers to play by the rules.
Hmm, odd. Because most of the perpetrators of these shootings seem to have either been career criminals and/or (extremely) disturbed individuals.
Really? I am under the impression that Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Ecole Polytechnique, etc, were committed by (otherwise) ordinary people. Correct me if I'm wrong.
He did say emotionaly disturbed people. The way you are using the term "otherwise ordinary people" is akin to saying, "Other than that one incident", Mrs. Lincoln,"How did you enjoy the play?"
You want them to be belligerent, avoid all compromise, and come across as donkey-caves? Seems an odd thing to give money to, but then, their purpose (at this point anyway) isn't to solve any problems, but to keep the issue alive and hot so that people will give them 'a fair amount of cash'.
They aren't at all reasonable, like the anti gun people who say those who support the NRA aren't human, or publish lists of gun owners, so criminals know who to target.
d-usa wrote: We should just get rid of drink driving laws as well, because people who are going to drive drunk will not follow the law anyway.
You're at least getting a little closer, so there's hope yet.
We should realize that laws are going to be broken, and don't serve all that well as deterrents. There are other, more effective ways of preventing behavior we find objectionable. Drunk driving isn't on the decline because of drunk driving laws, it's on the decline because of widespread education efforts and social stigma.
Do you want to actually try and prevent gun violence, or do you just want to have a few more charges to throw at people who commit it?
Relapse wrote: They aren't at all reasonable, like the anti gun people who say those who support the NRA aren't human, or publish lists of gun owners, so criminals know who to target.
The actual list of things that could be done that was put forward by the administration didn't include any of these things. Nuts on one side don't control the debate or the outcome, unless it is the NRA. The sad thing is that the vast majority of people in the NRA are good, decent people, who out of misguided fear, and being sold a bad bill of goods, support an insane leadership that is more interested in getting donations than finding tenable solutions.
Kilkrazy wrote: Police, soldiers and air marshals have accidents with guns despite a good level of safety training.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: if you think the average cop or even the average soldier is extensively trained with their firearm, you'd be pretty shocked at the reality.
Seaward wrote: More people were killed by hammers or bears last year than what they call "assault rifles," while tens of thousands were killed by handguns, but what are they pushing for? A ban on "assault rifles."
Should have gone with bees instead of bears. Bears have killed less then 10 people in the last 3 years, whereas an AR-15 has killed at least 28 people in the last 3 months.
Kilkrazy wrote: Police, soldiers and air marshals have accidents with guns despite a good level of safety training.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: if you think the average cop or even the average soldier is extensively trained with their firearm, you'd be pretty shocked at the reality.
He didn't say extensively, you did. He said "good"; which compared to Joe Civilian is almost certainly true.
d-usa wrote: We should just get rid of drink driving laws as well, because people who are going to drive drunk will not follow the law anyway.
Which drunk driving laws restrict access to certain types of cars or limit the consumption of alcohol? Oh wait, they don't. They quantify an allowed blood alcohol level and levy a punishment on those who choose to go over that limit, and often cover increased punishments for repeat offenders. NONE of them are preventive except in that the threat of punishment may deter the undesired behavior.
So, since it seems using a gun to commit a crime is already illegal, what is your point?
d-usa wrote: We should just get rid of drink driving laws as well, because people who are going to drive drunk will not follow the law anyway.
Which drunk driving laws restrict access to certain types of cars or limit the consumption of alcohol? Oh wait, they don't. They quantify an allowed blood alcohol level and levy a punishment on those who choose to go over that limit, and often cover increased punishments for repeat offenders. NONE of them are preventive except in that the threat of punishment may deter the undesired behavior.
So, since it seems using a gun to commit a crime is already illegal, what is your point?
Interlock devices limit access to certain cars by drunk people. So they are preventive.
d-usa wrote: We should just get rid of drink driving laws as well, because people who are going to drive drunk will not follow the law anyway.
The trouble with the those laws are that they don't get enforced as they should. If you had someone in front of a judge with 2 arrests for endangerment with firearms, chances are they'd be gone for at least a couple years. People with multiple drunk driving convictions either get fined or very light, if any jail time.
Ouze wrote: Should have gone with bees instead of bears. Bears have killed less then 10 people in the last 3 years, whereas an AR-15 has killed at least 28 people in the last 3 months.
Bees it is, then.
How many have handguns killed in the same time frame?
He didn't say extensively, you did. He said "good"; which compared to Joe Civilian is almost certainly true.
Good training is extensive training. Either way, it is neither good nor extensive, on average, outside of specialist units.
d-usa wrote: We should just get rid of drink driving laws as well, because people who are going to drive drunk will not follow the law anyway.
You're at least getting a little closer, so there's hope yet.
We should realize that laws are going to be broken, and don't serve all that well as deterrents. There are other, more effective ways of preventing behavior we find objectionable. Drunk driving isn't on the decline because of drunk driving laws, it's on the decline because of widespread education efforts and social stigma.
Do you want to actually try and prevent gun violence, or do you just want to have a few more charges to throw at people who commit it?
I want a comprehensive mix that approaches the problem from multiple angles without sticking our fingers in our ears every time gun laws are mentioned while going "lalalalala not going to work lalalalala"
I for one would be comfortable with a ban on bees. I'd even be OK with extending it to centipedes, which I don't believe have caused any human fatalities, but totally freak me out anyway.
d-usa wrote: I want a comprehensive mix that approaches the problem from multiple angles without sticking our fingers in our ears every time gun laws are mentioned while going "lalalalala not going to work lalalalala"
The problem with that is that we have ten years' worth of proof that the laws being proposed - at least the ones that I have problems with - do not, in fact, work.
I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it doesn't make your position any more credible.
Well if they already have an armed guard thats great. This is for those that don't have a guard.
I figured out it shouldn't cost more than $1500 per security guard to get them a firearm, cleaning kit, and ammo. I would hope the school already does background checks on their employees. Then you have maybe a $500 fee to send the guard to a gunrange for a training course.
Then you have the guard go to the gun range each month for practice. Which is just a range fee plus ammo, maybe another $150 a month.
So ~$2000 up front and another ~$150 a month per security guard.
Hardly breaking the bank for the school, especially if they already have a security guard(s) that they are paying.
Can we really put a price on the safety of kids at schools? This is hardly a massively expensive proposal. Given how much we spend on our education system, and that we have a rather poor one at that, there has to be waste somewhere that could easily be trimmed to pay for an armed guard(s).
Says someone who has no knowledge of the system of how many schools have to budget. My wife teaches at a school where the (two!) custodians are part-time employees because they can't afford to pay full-time, and my wife had to get a special order to buy $600 of stuff so her yearbook class could actually have more than one camera to spread between all 16 students for the year. They couldn't afford 2,000 to outfit a security guard, much less hire a new staff member to fit that position.
--------------------------------------
Other topics:
-A Security guard roaming the halls does nothing to stop me from sitting in the woods across the road with a scoped rifle and shooting kids as they get on/off the bus. Or killing 30 kids before the security guard can get across the campus to stop me.
-Completely banning guns is just as dumb as giving everyone them. Where there's a will there's a way when you're dealing with crazy people. You could completely ban all types of weapons in the country, and someone will murder people in a crowd with a metal fence post.
-The operative word in "random act of violence" is "random". You can't stop everything, and being on guard 24/7 is no way to live a life.
I wouldn't. As soon as you submit to a licensing regime you are saying it is no longer a right but instead something the gov't may allow at their choosing.
What sickens me is that Obama and the rest of his cronies use the tragedy for political gain. If you've seen V for Vendetta, it's the same thing. they use it to pass unConstitutional laws against law-abiding citizens that have guns. They aren't interested in solving the problem, all they want is more power. Criminals will get guns no matter and the Federal Government will use whatever manufactured event they can to get more power. Look up organizations called Black Flag and the 13 families.
Black Flag is the Federal Government's secret terrorist organization that manufactures attacks and makes it look like some crazed muslim organization perpetrated the crime. I wouldn't put it past the Feds to come up with something like this to keep themselves in office. For a little bit of "security" they'll gladly take the Power from The People.
What's really going to flip your lid is that George W. Bush Jr.'s grand daddy sold the Nazis the oven and shower equipment for their concentration camps. It's what the Bush Family Legacy is built upon. They had to pass a new Law to stop the creep, but they let him keep the money.
It's all about Power and Money and that's what the 13 families are. They're also known as the Bilderburg Group and they want to put a chip inside you to keep tabs on you "for your own safety." Right, whatever. They control 95% of the money in the world and one of their number, George Sorouse ( think that's the spelling) has already bankrupted a dozen or so countries, turning them into hellhole 3rd world debter states.
Sandy Hook was just another power grab by the Establishment. And it's all Treasonous according to the Constitution and from what I remember reading in that most Hallowed of documents, Treason is punishable by hanging...I say burn the lot like the Heretics they are!
dogma wrote: This isn't like a typo. The error you made was one of concept. Extension and quality are not at all the same thing.
Nor was I saying they were. I was, instead, saying that good firearms training is, by necessity, extensive. Unable to refute the argument, you took refuge in being deliberately obtuse.
Now all we need is for someone to come in and shriek about strawmen before posting a textbook example, and we've basically got all of OT in a nutshell.
Kilkrazy wrote: Seaward, would you support a well organised licensing regime for pistols?
Define "well organized."
I would rather let you define it. I agree with you that it is silly to licence assault rifles and not pistols, given that pistols are responsible for much more wounding.
I am assuming you are arguing in a spirit of good faith, and would support a sensible licensing protocol if one could be created.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would rather let you define it. I agree with you that it is silly to licence assault rifles and not pistols, given that pistols are responsible for much more wounding.
I am assuming you are arguing in a spirit of good faith, and would support a sensible licensing protocol if one could be created.
The problem you run into there is that it would be unconstitutional. Get the Second altered, make your licensing scheme "shall issue" rather than "may issue," and we can talk.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would rather let you define it. I agree with you that it is silly to licence assault rifles and not pistols, given that pistols are responsible for much more wounding.
I am assuming you are arguing in a spirit of good faith, and would support a sensible licensing protocol if one could be created.
The problem you run into there is that it would be unconstitutional. Get the Second altered, make your licensing scheme "shall issue" rather than "may issue," and we can talk.
Excuse me, but where in the Constitution does it say that licensing is forbidden?
The Constitutional argument does not fly. There are already "well-regulated militias".
It's called the National Guard.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would rather let you define it. I agree with you that it is silly to licence assault rifles and not pistols, given that pistols are responsible for much more wounding.
I am assuming you are arguing in a spirit of good faith, and would support a sensible licensing protocol if one could be created.
The problem you run into there is that it would be unconstitutional. Get the Second altered, make your licensing scheme "shall issue" rather than "may issue," and we can talk.
If that's your opinion, then what's with the Lucy-grabbing-the-ball-away nonsense you did earlier on the page?
Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: Seaward, would you support a well organised licensing regime for pistols?
Define "well organized."
Obviously, KK saw this for the ruse it was, but I feel shenanigans should be called nonetheless. Shenanigans, I say
It's easy to say that there is no proof that gun laws will do anything when you spend the last two decades outlawing studies regarding gun ownership.
Feth it, wrap yourself in your little blankets of "gun laws will never do any good". The NRA will do to gun rights what the Tea Party did to the Republican Party.
Kanluwen wrote: Excuse me, but where in the Constitution does it say that licensing is forbidden?
The Constitutional argument does not fly. There are already "well-regulated militias".
It's called the National Guard.
Your reading comprehension's too decent to believe the Second Amendment requires membership in a well-regulated militia in order to keep and bear arms instead of explaining the basis for the general right to keep and bear arms not being infringed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: It's easy to say that there is no proof that gun laws will do anything when you spend the last two decades outlawing studies regarding gun ownership.
No, it's easy to say there's no proof gun laws will do anything when you have the period from 1994 to 2004 as proof of the opposite.
Feth it, wrap yourself in your little blankets of "gun laws will never do any good". The NRA will do to gun rights what the Tea Party did to the Republican Party.
Why are you acting like the NRA has suddenly taken these positions? Are you under 20 or something? It's been what you would call "radical" for a couple of decades now, and remains one of the more influential lobbies out there.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would rather let you define it. I agree with you that it is silly to licence assault rifles and not pistols, given that pistols are responsible for much more wounding.
I am assuming you are arguing in a spirit of good faith, and would support a sensible licensing protocol if one could be created.
The problem you run into there is that it would be unconstitutional. Get the Second altered, make your licensing scheme "shall issue" rather than "may issue," and we can talk.
Let's assume that an Amendment has been done. What might a properly worked out scheme look like?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Teachers should be allowed guns in school, individual teachers can decide if they want them in their class? Where are they keeping them, in their desk? Was it only last week we had a story where a policeman in a school shot a kid with a taser? FFS, now we're talking about the merits of bringing more guns to school.
I carry a gun every day, and only the people who I've told know I'm carrying it. Drop the cover garment and no one's the wiser.
That doesn't really answer anything I said... at all, other than make a glib response. The reality of schooling with guns around is not what you think it would be. Do you have much experience teaching in schools?
You don't seem interested in actually reading or responding to a lot of things, just shooting from the hip, so to speak in threads. Only in another thread I mentioned the news story about the boy shooting himself at a fair with an uzi and you immediately responded as good as saying 'I don't believe that, it breaks the laws of physics'. A mere ten second pause just to check google before mouthing off would have shown otherwise. That's pretty much sums up the problem with your attempts to debate things.
Howard A Treesong wrote: That doesn't really answer anything I said... at all, other than make a glib response. The reality of schooling with guns around is not what you think it would be. Do you have much experience teaching in schools?
You don't seem interested in actually reading or responding to a lot of things, just shooting from the hip, so to speak in threads.
I'll post the uninformed portions of your initial comment that I was responding to.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Teachers should be allowed guns in school, individual teachers can decide if they want them in their class? Where are they keeping them, in their desk?
...
And if you think it's safe to have a gun anywhere in a classroom then you clearly have never worked in a school. Anything in a classroom can be acquired by children at short notice, the moment you leave the room it's a hazard. If you're not going to leave them in unattended rooms, what are the teachers going to do, go out on lunch duty carrying the gun under their coat at all times?
Only in another thread I mentioned the news story about the boy shooting himself at a fair with an uzi and you immediately responded as good as saying 'I don't believe that, it breaks the laws of physics'. A mere ten second pause just to check google before mouthing off would have shown otherwise. That's pretty much sums up the problem with your attempts to debate things.
Yes, and it turned out the medical examiner didn't understand how it possibly could have occurred, either.
Seaward wrote: [Yes, and it turned out the medical examiner didn't understand how it possibly could have occurred, either.
Lets put aside that this is the worst kind of misdirection for a second here (you claimed something wasn't possible, turned out it was true, you point out some random other person)... where are you seeing that the medican examiner didn't understand how it happened? It certainly wasn't mentioned in any of the 3 stories linked that I could see, nor elsewhere that I can find. I mean, it doesn't take a ballistics expert to figure out what happened here, so I'd like to see this medical examiner showing what a mystery it is.
Hmm, odd. Because most of the perpetrators of these shootings seem to have either been career criminals and/or (extremely) disturbed individuals.
Really? I am under the impression that Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Ecole Polytechnique, etc, were committed by (otherwise) ordinary people. Correct me if I'm wrong.
He did say emotionaly disturbed people. The way you are using the term "otherwise ordinary people" is akin to saying, "Other than that one incident", Mrs. Lincoln,"How did you enjoy the play?"
Without being glib, that is kind of what I am saying. Apart from the kids who post things like "I am going to shoot up the school tomorrow" on Facebook, there really isn't a lot to to show us who is going on a shooting spree before they actually do it. Obviously in hindsight spree shooters are not "ordinary people", but until that line is crossed what can we do? Lock up everyone with a Zoloft prescription?
Seaward wrote: [Yes, and it turned out the medical examiner didn't understand how it possibly could have occurred, either.
Lets put aside that this is the worst kind of misdirection for a second here (you claimed something wasn't possible, turned out it was true, you point out some random other person)... where are you seeing that the medican examiner didn't understand how it happened? It certainly wasn't mentioned in any of the 3 stories linked that I could see, nor elsewhere that I can find. I mean, it doesn't take a ballistics expert to figure out what happened here, so I'd like to see this medical examiner showing what a mystery it is.
It's in the Fox News article, actually.
And yes, I'm still rather confused as to how you can go from holding a pistol-sized firearm in front of you, to having the barrel pointed at your head, while still depressing the trigger, inadvertently. If it was a Micro-Uzi with a stock, it becomes even more inexplicable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Without being glib, that is kind of what I am saying. Apart from the kids who post things like "I am going to shoot up the school tomorrow" on Facebook, there really isn't a lot to to show us who is going on a shooting spree before they actually do it. Obviously in hindsight spree shooters are not "ordinary people", but until that line is crossed what can we do? Lock up everyone with a Zoloft prescription?
Well, in the case of the VT shooter, that guy actually would have failed a background check had the state/federal information been getting passed on properly. He'd hit the mental defectiveness threshold pretty thoroughly.
Seaward wrote: [Yes, and it turned out the medical examiner didn't understand how it possibly could have occurred, either.
Lets put aside that this is the worst kind of misdirection for a second here (you claimed something wasn't possible, turned out it was true, you point out some random other person)... where are you seeing that the medican examiner didn't understand how it happened? It certainly wasn't mentioned in any of the 3 stories linked that I could see, nor elsewhere that I can find. I mean, it doesn't take a ballistics expert to figure out what happened here, so I'd like to see this medical examiner showing what a mystery it is.
It's in the Fox News article, actually.
It is not. The phrase "medical examiner" does not appear in the Fox news article. What you are referring to is a single line from boy's father, who is a doctor - but not a medical examiner. I imagine if he had said he did understand how it happened, he would have been prosecuted - just as the police chief and other event organizers were. But I see where you got that from, anyway.
Also, this is well and truly offtopic now, so, sorry about that OP.
Ouze wrote: It is not. The phrase "medical examiner" does not appear in the Fox news article. What you are referring to is a single line from boy's father, who is a doctor - but not a medical examiner. I imagine if he had said he did understand how it happened, he would have been prosecuted - just as the police chief and other event organizers were. But I see where you got that from, anyway.
I was wrong about that, then. Fair enough.
I still have absolutely no idea how that could occur. Recoil would walk the muzzle up and over, not straight back, then ninety to a hundred and ten degrees up.
Seaward wrote: Actually, the NRA is doing exactly what I, as someone who's given them a fair amount of cash recently, want them to do.
They are doing more harm to this cause than good by pissing everyone off. They're making the same mistakes the "Occupy" movement did, IMHO.
Seaward wrote: You can't compromise with emotionally-driven political agendas.
Which is exactly what the other side is saying, and NRA leadership is giving them sterling examples to point to as to how moronic and out of touch they are.
Honestly, they way they are behaving I could almost see a case being made that they actually want these bans to pass.
Howard A Treesong wrote: That doesn't really answer anything I said... at all, other than make a glib response. The reality of schooling with guns around is not what you think it would be. Do you have much experience teaching in schools?
You don't seem interested in actually reading or responding to a lot of things, just shooting from the hip, so to speak in threads.
I'll post the uninformed portions of your initial comment that I was responding to.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Teachers should be allowed guns in school, individual teachers can decide if they want them in their class? Where are they keeping them, in their desk?
...
And if you think it's safe to have a gun anywhere in a classroom then you clearly have never worked in a school. Anything in a classroom can be acquired by children at short notice, the moment you leave the room it's a hazard. If you're not going to leave them in unattended rooms, what are the teachers going to do, go out on lunch duty carrying the gun under their coat at all times?
I think I described the issue with teachers having guns on their person should they need to physically intervene in any sort of situation involving a child's behaviour. Aside from it just being stolen, it's a distinct risk that it'll end up being taken or dropped during a minor struggle, or some form of escalation in violence will occur to prevent the gun being taken whereas if there is never the overriding fear of a gun falling into the wrong hands then a situation is more easily defused.
For example, if two kids are fighting and merely shouting at them doesn't work, you can separate them by stepping between them arms apart to be both effective but non-threatening. It's an everyday occurrence with teenagers in a school and confrontations with staff rarely go further. If you do end up going further and having to restrain a child you use the minimum force and try to calm the situation by not being overly threatening. You certainly don't hit school kids and wrestle them to the floor except in the most serious cases of self defence. But if you have a gun on you, you can't do that, you can't expose the gun by holding you arms open, you can't get into any sort of extended wrestle in which things could be dropped or taken, you have to be it always remains secure on your person. So how can you guarantee that... avoid any physical confrontation with pupils or use more force to physically restrain them as quickly as you can? A minor school yard scuffle is escalated very quickly because you're more worried about keeping the gun secure than just breaking up minor squabbles. It's just not necessary, in almost every school situation the gun will make things more difficult for the teacher not easier.
Do you have any experience working in schools then? You clearly believe I'm 'uninformed' on the matter, my impression is that you know very little about what does and doesn't work with kids in schools.
Monster Rain wrote: They are doing more harm to this cause than good by pissing everyone off. They're making the same mistakes the "Occupy" movement did, IMHO.
I disagree, simply because the NRA has been doing it for a very long time, and remain influential.
When they prove otherwise, my cash goes to the Second Amendment Foundation or somebody else. I'm not defending the NRA, simply their goals. If a better lobbyist comes along? So be it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I think I described the issue with teachers having guns on their person should they need to physically intervene in any sort of situation involving a child's behaviour. Aside from it just being stolen, it's a distinct risk that it'll end up being taken or dropped during a minor struggle, or some form of escalation in violence will occur to prevent the gun being taken whereas if there is never the overriding fear of a gun falling into the wrong hands then a situation is more easily defused.
Why are we assuming the kids are going to know their teacher's armed, and how he carries?
Do you have any experience working in schools then? You clearly believe I'm 'uninformed' on the matter, my impression is that you know very little about what does and doesn't work with kids in schools.
I have no experience working in schools. I do have quite a bit of experience with retention defense.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I think I described the issue with teachers having guns on their person should they need to physically intervene in any sort of situation involving a child's behaviour. Aside from it just being stolen, it's a distinct risk that it'll end up being taken or dropped during a minor struggle, or some form of escalation in violence will occur to prevent the gun being taken whereas if there is never the overriding fear of a gun falling into the wrong hands then a situation is more easily defused.
Why are we assuming the kids are going to know their teacher's armed, and how he carries?
Because they aren't quite as dumb as you want to believe. A teacher carrying a gun to school every day will become known and there's always the possibility that the gun could be taken in a struggle regardless of whether the pupil knew it was there before the confrontation.
Cheesecat wrote: Because the US has a much larger amount of gun related crimes in comparison to the rest of developed nations.
Including Switzerland and Israel? Where the military takes their FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles home? And yet they still don't have anything close to the rate of gun crimes we do?
Sounds to me like the guns aren't the issue. It's something fundamentally wrong with American sociology.
This man speaks the truth.
You all realize that Switzerland has an insanely tight control regimen for the sale of ammunition, right? These days they don't even get issued any ammo with their military-grade stuff, they're supposed to pick ammo up at the nearest armoury in case of emergency.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Because they aren't quite as dumb as you want to believe. A teacher carrying a gun to school every day will become known and there's always the possibility that the gun could be taken in a struggle regardless of whether the pupil knew it was there before the confrontation.
I think this may just be unfamiliarity with concealed carry talking. There are people I see almost every day, for hours at a time, and have for years now, who do not know I have had a gun on me every single second in their presence.
There are hundreds of thousands of concealed carry permits in America. If you've been over here, the chances are better that you were around someone carrying a gun and had no idea than not. It's not at all easy to spot unless you know exactly what you're looking for or the carrier is blatantly printing.
Seaward wrote: I'm not defending the NRA, simply their goals.
You support preying on peoples irrational fears to get them give you money? Seems an odd goal to support, unless like NRA management, you are one of the recipients of said largesse.
Ahtman wrote: You support preying on peoples irrational fears to get them give you money? Seems an odd goal to support, unless like NRA management, you are one of the recipients of said largesse.
No, I support their goal of fending off ridiculous and ineffective legislation that would be passed solely for the purpose of making people feel better.
Seaward wrote: I'm not defending the NRA, simply their goals.
You support preying on peoples irrational fears to get them give you money? Seems an odd goal to support, unless like NRA management, you are one of the recipients of said largesse.
So? Just about all these group preys on irrational fears...
Brady Campaign? PP? Environment Gorups? Heck... even churches.
Nor was I saying they were. I was, instead, saying that good firearms training is, by necessity, extensive. Unable to refute the argument, you took refuge in being deliberately obtuse.
I wasn't attempting to refute an argument. I was attempting to force you to collect the myriad content-devoid posts you make into a statement. The bold seems to indicate that I succeeded.
I still have absolutely no idea how that could occur. Recoil would walk the muzzle up and over, not straight back, then ninety to a hundred and ten degrees up.
Without delving into the fundamentals of physics, there is a reason that people complain about sore hands after a long day of shooting.
Allowing the things that are reasonable would be "compromise". That dirty word you and the NRA want no part of.
Neither side wants a part of it. For my part, I'd be happy to compromise with extending background checks to all sales, private or otherwise, provided the administration came up with a workable system that didn't involve forcing private parties to pay a local business just for the privilege of selling their guns. What do you think the anti-gun folks would be willing to drop?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Without delving into the fundamentals of physics, there is a reason that people complain about sore hands after a long day of shooting.
There seem to be rather a lot of videos on youtube of people hitting themselves in the face with guns they've fired though. Actually, some of the 'gun fail' videos on youtube are quite scary...
Twice, though I'm not certain how that's relevant to a physics problem. In its simplest form any firearm discharge can be expressed as a series of force vectors, with each discharge altering the path of recoil. The first discharge, assuming proper stance and an above-hand chamber position, will always push against and over the hand; placing the initial vector at roughly shoulder height. Any successive discharge will alter that vector such that the weapon continues to kick upwards, but also towards the ground. Ordinarily the strength of the shooter (and length of the weapon) compensates for this, but when that's absent * problems arise.
Howard A Treesong wrote: There seem to be rather a lot of videos on youtube of people hitting themselves in the face with guns they've fired though. Actually, some of the 'gun fail' videos on youtube are quite scary...
Getting hit with the back of the gun is quite a bit different than getting the barrel either completely turned around or under your chin with a finger still on the trigger. The closest YouTube videos come to even remotely showing such an occurrence is the infamous chick smacking herself in the forehead with the slide of a Desert Eagle.
dogma wrote: Twice, though I'm not certain how that's relevant to a physics problem. In its simplest form any firearm discharge can be expressed as a series of force vectors, with each discharge altering the path of recoil. The first discharge, assuming proper stance and an above-hand chamber position, will always push against and over the hand; placing the initial vector at roughly shoulder height. Any successive discharge will alter that vector such that the weapon continues to kick upwards, but also towards the ground. Ordinarily the strength of the shooter (and length of the weapon) compensates for this, but when that's absent * problems arise.
*Perhaps in the case of a small child.
There are also considerable problems involved with keeping a finger on the trigger when the barrel has rotated at least 110 degrees, to the point where I doubt it'd be possible.
The poor kid obviously got shot in the head, but as everyone at the scene was unable to explain how, and the physics lesson above doesn't do anything remotely close to explaining it, it shall have to remain a mystery.
My elbow is able to bend back towards my face while still being able to pull my fingers into a fist, it seems a fair assumption something similar to that could of happened
I think I described the issue with teachers having guns on their person should they need to physically intervene in any sort of situation involving a child's behaviour. Aside from it just being stolen, it's a distinct risk that it'll end up being taken or dropped during a minor struggle, or some form of escalation in violence will occur to prevent the gun being taken whereas if there is never the overriding fear of a gun falling into the wrong hands then a situation is more easily defused.
For example, if two kids are fighting and merely shouting at them doesn't work, you can separate them by stepping between them arms apart to be both effective but non-threatening. It's an everyday occurrence with teenagers in a school and confrontations with staff rarely go further. If you do end up going further and having to restrain a child you use the minimum force and try to calm the situation by not being overly threatening. You certainly don't hit school kids and wrestle them to the floor except in the most serious cases of self defence. But if you have a gun on you, you can't do that, you can't expose the gun by holding you arms open, you can't get into any sort of extended wrestle in which things could be dropped or taken, you have to be it always remains secure on your person. So how can you guarantee that... avoid any physical confrontation with pupils or use more force to physically restrain them as quickly as you can? A minor school yard scuffle is escalated very quickly because you're more worried about keeping the gun secure than just breaking up minor squabbles. It's just not necessary, in almost every school situation the gun will make things more difficult for the teacher not easier.
Do you have any experience working in schools then? You clearly believe I'm 'uninformed' on the matter, my impression is that you know very little about what does and doesn't work with kids in schools.
Thank god someone echoes my wife's opinion, who is a teacher, and contrary to what armchair "gun-professionals" claim, she actually in fact knows better than they do what the logistics of carrying a gun as a teacher would be.
-Keep it in their desk? Can't leave the room without it, then, ever- for it can be taken by a kid.
-Carry it on their person? Any big kid can attack her and then gain easy access to a gun. These things are frikking Lawgivers!- if a football player size kid knocks my wife down and takes a gun out of her holster, he/she now has the full ability to use it. Now they didn't even have to steal one and then sneak it into school!
-You can't even have pointed scissors in a Kindergarten class- you have to treat those little kids like convicts on work release. So now you want a GUN!?!?!?!
I take back what I said early about this uzi thing being off-topic. The fact we're debating whether or not something could happen that did happen in front of dozens of witnesses and was in fact caught on videotape actually goes really well with the thread's spirit, if not it's letter.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: My elbow is able to bend back towards my face while still being able to pull my fingers into a fist, it seems a fair assumption something similar to that could of happened
As is mine. A weak grip with a pistol, including a machine pistol, has the gun recoiling up and back, however, not straight back. I'd need a small child to experiment with to be sure, but my initial thought from years of seeing bad shooters is that even the weakest grip requisite to lift the gun is not going to change that equation into straight back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I take back what I said early about this uzi thing being off-topic. The fact we're debating whether or not something could happen that did happen in front of dozens of witnesses and was in fact caught on videotape actually goes really well with the thread's spirit, if not it's letter.
I'm not debating that it happened at all. It clearly did. I can't, for the life of me, understand how it did, and the usual suspects have decided that's a ludicrous statement and decided to jump in with the usual, "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night," stuff.
Edit: The video's interesting. I would've said it was even more improbable with a stock, but there you go. They keep saying it "backfired," with to me suggests he didn't so much get shot in the head as there was a kaboom.
Seaward wrote: I'd need a small child to experiment with to be sure, but my initial thought from years of seeing bad shooters is that even the weakest grip requisite to lift the gun is not going to change that equation into straight back
I've heard vans with "free candy" spray painted on the side work well.
Usually the gun will just jump back, but it's not challenging the physics of the known universe just to think on that particular occasion the gun turned back and discharged. If that sort of thing does result in blowing your brains out then they won't be on the funny youtube videos.
However mysterious the supposed 'physics' of the incident it clearly happened, the main issue though, is that an uzi was given to a child to fire and neither the parent nor the person supplying the gun thought it unwise. That's what should be questioned, not whether the laws of physics had to be bent for it to happen.
It says a lot about the pro-gun lobby that when something like this happens, they're rather call it a mystery and play on their disbelief over the bizarre physics of the situation, rather than just accept the simple fact that the guns were again owned by idiots that led to an easily preventable death.
There are also considerable problems involved with keeping a finger on the trigger when the barrel has rotated at least 110 degrees, to the point where I doubt it'd be possible.
If the only point of articulation was the wrist, then you would be correct. However the human arm has an elbow, and a shoulder; the cruel ball-and-socket joint mistress that she is.
The poor kid obviously got shot in the head, but as everyone at the scene was unable to explain how, and the physics lesson above doesn't do anything remotely close to explaining it, it shall have to remain a mystery.
I thought I did a decent job for someone that hasn't formally studied physics since high school. I'm sure I was well off on, if nothing else, terminology but how the poor kid got shot in the head is far from a mystery.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It says a lot about the pro-gun lobby that when something like this happens, they're rather call it a mystery and play on their disbelief over the bizarre physics of the situation, rather than just accept the simple fact that the guns were again owned by idiots that led to an easily preventable death.
I'm the pro-gun lobby now? I'm moving up in the world.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It says a lot about the pro-gun lobby that when something like this happens, they're rather call it a mystery and play on their disbelief over the bizarre physics of the situation, rather than just accept the simple fact that the guns were again owned by idiots that led to an easily preventable death.
I'm the pro-gun lobby now? I'm moving up in the world.
Having actually read his post I don't think he actually said that.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Usually the gun will just jump back, but it's not challenging the physics of the known universe just to think on that particular occasion the gun turned back and discharged. If that sort of thing does result in blowing your brains out then they won't be on the funny youtube videos.
It requires zero resistance to the recoil, as in, "I will not even be holding the gun up any longer as soon as I squeeze the trigger," which is...well, clearly possible, but just such a foreign concept I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around it, even seeing it.
However mysterious the supposed 'physics' of the incident it clearly happened, the main issue though, is that an uzi was given to a child to fire and neither the parent nor the person supplying the gun thought it unwise. That's what should be questioned, not whether the laws of physics had to be bent for it to happen.
The person supplying the gun was fifteen years old, and this whole thing was apparently being run by a former police chief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Having actually read his post I don't think he actually said that.
Then I have no idea who he's referring to, as I'm unable to find a statement from any of the major gun rights lobbies puzzling over the physics involved.
On the subject of arming teachers, keeping it in a desk is actually perfectly valid. Biolocked safes are a thing, stick that in a drawer, stick the gun in that before the kids get there for the day, say no more about it.
Unless the children are going to start a mass rebellion to hold the teacher down and force her finger tips on the unlock plate they aren't getting that sidearm, and if they are then we need to be talking about hiring prison guards to start handling American educational facilities with a proper dosage of taser and truncheons admitted to each hooliga... err student.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Usually the gun will just jump back, but it's not challenging the physics of the known universe just to think on that particular occasion the gun turned back and discharged. If that sort of thing does result in blowing your brains out then they won't be on the funny youtube videos.
It requires zero resistance to the recoil, as in, "I will not even be holding the gun up any longer as soon as I squeeze the trigger," which is...well, clearly possible, but just such a foreign concept I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around it, even seeing it.
At that level of recoil "resistance" I'd find it far more likely that the gun would be on the deck, not against someone's skull.
Seaward wrote: More people were killed by hammers or bears last year than what they call "assault rifles," while tens of thousands were killed by handguns, but what are they pushing for? A ban on "assault rifles."
Should have gone with bees instead of bears. Bears have killed less then 10 people in the last 3 years, whereas an AR-15 has killed at least 28 people in the last 3 months.
Without legislation to curtail that behavior that number would be triple according to the steadily declining rates of people being killed by such incidents. There is no reason we can't make steady decreases in the number of firearm related deaths as well through reasonable, considered legislation either.
Without legislation to curtail that behavior that number would be triple according to the steadily declining rates of people being killed by such incidents. There is no reason we can't make steady decreases in the number of firearm related deaths as well through reasonable, considered legislation either.
We already have steadily declining rates of violent crime in the US. Significantly so.
I say we limit the number of drinks a person has in a month coupled with a background check on their mental state and if they have been convicted of drunk driving offenses in the past.
Without legislation to curtail that behavior that number would be triple according to the steadily declining rates of people being killed by such incidents. There is no reason we can't make steady decreases in the number of firearm related deaths as well through reasonable, considered legislation either.
We already have steadily declining rates of violent crime in the US. Significantly so.
'Crime' encompasses far more things then just firearms, and doesn't take into account no criminal firearm injuries or fatalities either. I suppose it would be simpler to conflate the two, but it won't solve any problems. The other problem is that saying 'things are great, we shouldn't do anything' rarely works. Crime, as a generic term, is going down for a number of factors, including being pro-active legally on different issues.
Cheesecat wrote: You know the government showing involvement with policies that could help reduce gun related crimes doesn't just mean strict gun laws, it could mean a criminal justice system that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment, policies that make education more accessible to poorer
families, policies that increase social mobility for the poor, better services for the people with mental or physical disabilities, more in depth requirements for gun licenses (certain medical and mental conditions should prohibit you from using firearms), criminal background checks for
gun licenses, etc.
Indeed. There's a whole list of things that the government COULD try... and yet they always seem to reach for the one tool that has been proven NOT to do the job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: They're using the whole thing as a way to divert from the issue at hand; which is that better firearms regulation could potentially play into preventing these kinds of events from happening again.
As continually gets pointed out time and time again, most of these shootings are not being performed by criminals. Most of these shootings are being performed by people who are legally able to obtain guns.
Oh, and by the way:
Where is the money for more SROs going to come from?
No. Some, I'll grant you (the Aurora theater shooting comes to mind). But not most. For example :
The kid who shot up Sandy Hook was too young to own a gun, period. He killed his mother so he could steal her guns. He did not posess those guns legally.
Let's go back to the first one - Columbine. Again, those two kids were too young to own guns. The guns were stolen from a grandfather. Again, they did not posess those guns legally.
We can go back and repeat this ad infinitum if you wish.
Kanluwen wrote: They're using the whole thing as a way to divert from the issue at hand; which is that better firearms regulation could potentially play into preventing these kinds of events from happening again.
As continually gets pointed out time and time again, most of these shootings are not being performed by criminals. Most of these shootings are being performed by people who are legally able to obtain guns.
Oh, and by the way:
Where is the money for more SROs going to come from?
No. Some, I'll grant you (the Aurora theater shooting comes to mind). But not most. For example :
The kid who shot up Sandy Hook was too young to own a gun, period. He killed his mother so he could steal her guns. He did not possess those guns legally.
The "kid who shot up Sandy Hook" was not that young. He was 20 years old, which is old enough in many areas to buy and own a rifle.
He was also taken to the range quite often with the mother.
Let's go back to the first one - Columbine. Again, those two kids were too young to own guns. The guns were stolen from a grandfather. Again, they did not posess those guns legally.
We can go back and repeat this ad infinitum if you wish.
And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.
The presense of a power saw doesn't make me inclined to saw wood. The presense of an oven in my kitchen doesn't make me any more likely to cook something.
Of course it does, you have one of the tools necessary to cook something. Therefore you are more likely to cook if you have an oven, than if you do not have one.
So... if we ban the #1 weapon most often used in homicides, there will be fewer homicides?
d-usa wrote: I want a comprehensive mix that approaches the problem from multiple angles without sticking our fingers in our ears every time gun laws are mentioned while going "lalalalala not going to work lalalalala"
The problem with that is that we have ten years' worth of proof that the laws being proposed - at least the ones that I have problems with - do not, in fact, work.
I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it doesn't make your position any more credible.
More than ten years.
No area that has banned guns in America has EVER seen a significant decrease in the rate of gun crimes. This is demontrated in black and white in the FBI's crime reports. LA, Chicago, and NYC are all - theorectially - gun-free-zones, yet have some of the highest gun crime rates in the country - just like they did before guns were banned.
So if anyone is sticking their fingers in their ears and going lalalalala, it's the ones insisting that THIS TIME a gun ban will work... in spite of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.
The NRA needs to start hammering this point home. It's not about 2nd Amendment rights, it's about finding a solution that will ACTUALLY solve the problem.
And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.
In many cases where drunk drivers have killed people it has also been found out that they were raised around"responsible" drinkers. This is why I say we control alcohol just the way guns and who can get them are being proposed to be controlled by the anti gun crowd. Only by doing this will we prevent people from being killed on our nation's highways.
And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.
In many cases where drunk drivers have killed people it has also been found out that they were raised around"responsible" drinkers. This is why I say we control alcohol just the way guns and who can get them are being proposed to be controlled by the anti gun crowd. Only by doing this will we prevent people from being killed on our nation's highways.
And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.
In many cases where drunk drivers have killed people it has also been found out that they were raised around"responsible" drinkers. This is why I say we control alcohol just the way guns and who can get them are being proposed to be controlled by the anti gun crowd. Only by doing this will we prevent people from being killed on our nation's highways.
You see this?
This is a "strawman".
Not really, since it encompasses the same logic that is being used against guns. The only difference is what is being put on the spot. Otherwise as many or more people are killed by drunk drivers than criminals with guns.
And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.
In many cases where drunk drivers have killed people it has also been found out that they were raised around"responsible" drinkers. This is why I say we control alcohol just the way guns and who can get them are being proposed to be controlled by the anti gun crowd. Only by doing this will we prevent people from being killed on our nation's highways.
You see this?
This is a "strawman".
Not really, since it encompasses the same logic that is being used against guns. The only difference is what is being put on the spot. Otherwise as many or more people are killed by drunk drivers than criminals with guns.
I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about. It's okay though.
Of course you have more people killed by drunk drivers than criminals with guns. You have more people driving, and you have a varying threshold of what counts as "drunk driving". In some instances, any alcohol in your system while driving is "drunk driving".
Oh and way to throw in another strawman. We're not discussing "criminals with guns" killing people. We're discussing law abiding citizens who are able to legally obtain guns who then proceed to engage in mass shootings.
They're not "criminals" until after the shootings have already happened.
And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.
In many cases where drunk drivers have killed people it has also been found out that they were raised around"responsible" drinkers. This is why I say we control alcohol just the way guns and who can get them are being proposed to be controlled by the anti gun crowd. Only by doing this will we prevent people from being killed on our nation's highways.
You see this?
This is a "strawman".
Not really, since it encompasses the same logic that is being used against guns. The only difference is what is being put on the spot. Otherwise as many or more people are killed by drunk drivers than criminals with guns.
I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about. It's okay though.
Of course you have more people killed by drunk drivers than criminals with guns. You have more people driving, and you have a varying threshold of what counts as "drunk driving". In some instances, any alcohol in your system while driving is "drunk driving".
Oh and way to throw in another strawman. We're not discussing "criminals with guns" killing people. We're discussing law abiding citizens who are able to legally obtain guns who then proceed to engage in mass shootings.
They're not "criminals" until after the shootings have already happened.
A lot of people that buy alcohol are law abiding citizens until they become drunk drivers and kill people, such as the guy that ran his pickup into a bus and burned 27 children to death.
In Amorica do you legally have to keep your guns in a gunsafe? You have to here , i think it would go a long way to stopping kids stealing guns if you did.
Kanluwen wrote: You understand the difference between "negligence" and "malicious intent" right?
Drunk driving= negligence
Buying/acquiring a gun with the purpose of shooting up a school or other public gathering place= malicious intent
I've had this same conversation with alcoholics who tried to justify their drunk driving. They know what the consequences are for their actions, the same as a shooter does. The end result is the same when dealing with both types, people end up dead or maimed.
Bullockist wrote: In Amorica do you legally have to keep your guns in a gunsafe? You have to here , i think it would go a long way to stopping kids stealing guns if you did.
No such requirements here in the states that I know of... unless DC or New York has such requirements?
The questions till remains, why in the ol' U.S of A do these kind of massacres happen so frequently.
I don't think many other countries would compare on a per capita basis (maybe mexico) especially when it is a private individual doing the massacreing (not a govt.).
Why does it happen so often, and why is it that the response to people trying to do something about it "because the govt would DO THE TYRANNY". FFs that's a weak excuse.
Bullockist wrote: The questions till remains, why in the ol' U.S of A do these kind of massacres happen so frequently.
I don't think many other countries would compare on a per capita basis (maybe mexico) especially when it is a private individual doing the massacreing (not a govt.).
Why does it happen so often, and why is it that the response to people trying to do something about it "because the govt would DO THE TYRANNY". FFs that's a weak excuse.
When i think of a massacre i think of more than 5 victims. I think that may be the definition (not sure).
School massacres, normal massacres any is too many in a well ordered society.
I just find that when people try to help solve the issue (of gun control), the discussion gets taken onto weird tangents. There is a serious problem in the US , you either try and fix the problem or stick your head in the sand and claim govt. conspiracies.
If nothing is said or changed this will keep happening , personally i think if something like this happens there should be a complete media blackout on the offenders name, but then (sigh) that affects freedom of speech doesn't it. Remove the fame element and maybe you will reduce the number of instances.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh and way to throw in another strawman. We're not discussing "criminals with guns" killing people. We're discussing law abiding citizens who are able to legally obtain guns who then proceed to engage in mass shootings.
Why? The percentage of law-abiding citizens who legally obtain guns and then proceed to engage in mass shootings is astronomically low.
So... if we ban the #1 weapon most often used in homicides, there will be fewer homicides?
No.
If we ban weapon X we might see a derivation in homicide rates involving weapon X. If weapon X is very popular this might entail a decrease total homicide.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh and way to throw in another strawman. We're not discussing "criminals with guns" killing people. We're discussing law abiding citizens who are able to legally obtain guns who then proceed to engage in mass shootings.
Why? The percentage of law-abiding citizens who legally obtain guns and then proceed to engage in mass shootings is astronomically low.
For the record, the sandy hook shooter tried to acquire a weapon and was blocked. THEN he killed his mother for her guns.
Bullockist wrote: In Amorica do you legally have to keep your guns in a gunsafe? You have to here , i think it would go a long way to stopping kids stealing guns if you did.
Not in any venue I know of (though I'm not an all-encompassing expert).
That being said, all of the gun owners I personally know (6 or 7 I guess) keep theirs in a safe. My wife's ex has this giant one the size of an industrial fridge for his arsenal. He's a super big hunter, and he goes through several licenses a year, which I guess have a bag limit - after he uses his shotgun license, he uses a crossbow license, then a high power rifle license, etc - then he repeats the process with his non-hunting friends licenses he has them acquire.
But yeah, a safe is the way to go. I've been wanting to get a target pistol for a long time, and would get the safe before the gun.
I think the closest we came to mandating firearms storage was back in 1994 (or was it 96?) when we talked about mandating trigger locks.
whembly wrote: That's true... the recent NRA activities are simply baffling from a PR perspective.
Richard Feldman, formerly a member of the NRA and now chairman of the Independent Firearm Owners Association and strong critic of the NRA once said "the NRA would rather fight than win".
It was actually through reading a lot of his commentary that I started to see the differentiate between the balls out lunacy of the NRA and the actual beliefs of gun owners.
whembly wrote: That's true... the recent NRA activities are simply baffling from a PR perspective.
Richard Feldman, formerly a member of the NRA and now chairman of the Independent Firearm Owners Association and strong critic of the NRA once said "the NRA would rather fight than win".
It was actually through reading a lot of his commentary that I started to see the differentiate between the balls out lunacy of the NRA and the actual beliefs of gun owners.
So... if we ban the #1 weapon most often used in homicides, there will be fewer homicides?
No.
If we ban weapon X we might see a derivation in homicide rates involving weapon X. If weapon X is very popular this might entail a decrease total homicide.
Isn't that the same thing? I would assume the weapon most often used in homicide to be the 'most popular' choice; it IS the #1 choice after all.
And the whole point of your argument was 'having an efficient tool to undertake a task makes you more likely to actually undertake the task'...
SilverMK2 wrote: Why aren't you arming your children? Stand up for their second amendment rights!
Plus it is private citizens looking out for their own protection and not having to raise taxes to pay for more police/security in schools. A win win for all freedom loving Americans everywhere.
Hey my children are armed. Genghis Connie is a badass with an FS 92. All pumpkins fear her pumpkin destroying power.
Isn't that the same thing? I would assume the weapon most often used in homicide to be the 'most popular' choice; it IS the #1 choice after all.
No, we might ("might" is a key word here) see a reduction in the number of homicides if we banned a popular weapon, but we don't know that to be the case. We know that banning weapon X, assuming said ban is effective, will reduce the rate of homicides involving weapon X. This may dissuade people from carrying out homicide or it may not, but given that tools serve to enable action I would tend to believe a ban on a very effective tool would dissuade people from the activity the tool enables.
They have their fringe moments but they're vicious when they need to be, and produce a lot of solid educational materials
It's cool that there's a Jewish group for guns, but why is their website still in 1997?
The answer is in your sentence mate.
On a less Semitic note I think the actual reason is most of the founders (Rabbis and otherwise) are holocaust survivors and the next generation of their children. So this whole internet thing is new and confusing to them. We should applaud their great strides forward to fabled year of 1997.
For those who don't mind spending a little time on youtube. I'd strongly recommend their videos "No Guns For Negroes" and "2A Today" the former reveals that most gun control laws in the US were designed to keep blacks unarmed, and how black groups like the Deacons during the civil rights movement used firearms to protect communities and individuals from both groups like the Klan and from an oppressive and racist law enforcement community. (Another example of a "Battle of Athens" style use of the 2nd Amendment for it's actual purpose). The second's a nice overview. If you're already up on the situation you won't learn much but it's well done at least.
Isn't that the same thing? I would assume the weapon most often used in homicide to be the 'most popular' choice; it IS the #1 choice after all.
No, we might ("might" is a key word here) see a reduction in the number of homicides if we banned a popular weapon, but we don't know that to be the case. We know that banning weapon X, assuming said ban is effective, will reduce the rate of homicides involving weapon X. This may dissuade people from carrying out homicide or it may not, but given that tools serve to enable action I would tend to believe a ban on a very effective tool would dissuade people from the activity the tool enables.
But we DO know that banning guns does not reduce the rate of gun crimes. It is right there in black and white in the FBI's crime statistics.
So your whole case falls apart right there.
Besides, guns don't account for that large a portion of all murders. While they tend to be the most newsworthy weapons of murder, the humble baseball bat outperforms guns something like 5-1 in rate of total people killed per year.
So... why aren't we pushing a ban on baseball bats? After all, a baseball bat is just a tool that is optimised to deliver maximum kinetic impact to a target...
For those who don't mind spending a little time on youtube. I'd strongly recommend their videos "No Guns For Negroes" and "2A Today" the former reveals that most gun control laws in the US were designed to keep blacks unarmed, and how black groups like the Deacons during the civil rights movement used firearms to protect communities and individuals from both groups like the Klan and from an oppressive and racist law enforcement community. (Another example of a "Battle of Athens" style use of the 2nd Amendment for it's actual purpose). The second's a nice overview. If you're already up on the situation you won't learn much but it's well done at least.
It's... it's.... just a lot more complicated than that.
Without getting in to a whole other thing gun ownership correlates with political priviledge and power, not with political minority status. The idea that minorities can arm themselves and ensure equal power just doesn't grok with history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote: But we DO know that banning guns does not reduce the rate of gun crimes. It is right there in black and white in the FBI's crime statistics.
I read an interesting piece the other day about the NRA's misuse of statistics about Australia. Our banning of guns was a great test case, as the before and after positions were so clear that any trends would give great evidence.
The final evidence, of declines in murder rates, declines in property crimes, and massive declines in the use of firearms in murder and property crimes was, of course, exactly not what the NRA wanted to hear. So instead they lied in the stats they cited from Australia, picked out single year on year comparisons in specific locations (while ignoring the larger national trends).
It isn't an absolute rule, but it's a good rule of thumb that whenever a side is reduced to lying, their overall case is likely very weak.
Besides, guns don't account for that large a portion of all murders.
It's about 70% of all murders in the US, actually.
While they tend to be the most newsworthy weapons of murder, the humble baseball bat outperforms guns something like 5-1 in rate of total people killed per year.
Besides, guns don't account for that large a portion of all murders.
The FBI claims they accounted for 68% of them in 2007.
Come on Dogma, we're all products of the American Education system, we know that a 68% is a D-, which is below average *
*I am kidding of course.
Been quite the interesting debate, I like the graph Dogma posted, I would be interested in the specific crime stats of 2004 to 2008 based on that graph, and I'm wondering what the gang related number was. I know that they're far from "law abiding citizens", but even they could probably appreciate the ability to get their high powered guns legally... Though this is just me thinking out loud.
But we DO know that banning guns does not reduce the rate of gun crimes. It is right there in black and white in the FBI's crime statistics.
The AWB was passed in 1994, and expired in 2004.
Vulcan has a point that RIFLES don't account for much in the way of the murder rate. Cheap grey/black market hand guns though? That's a horse of a different color. The NIJ and CDC research on the '94 AWB, along with expert testimony to congress all game back at the very best inconclusive about the effectiveness of the '94 AWB in crime reduction. It's important to remember that the use of rifles in any kind in the perpetration of a crime in the United States is already a statistical minority.
“ ... we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun
violence.”
-Congressional testimony, Jimmy Trahin, Los Angeles Detective, Subcommittee on the Constitution of
the Committee on the Judiciary, May 5, 1989, 101st Congress, 1st Session, Washington, DC, US
Government Printing Office, May 5, 1989, p. 379
“... the weapons banned by this legislation [1994
Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”
-Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
“Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’
are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means
that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to
confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.”
-Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ, testimony - Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug
1993
Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an “assault weapon,” though less than 1% claimed to use these firearms when committing crimes.
-Firearm Use by Offenders , Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001
My thoughts on the matter: an "assault weapon" is almost useless to the average criminal on the streets. They are large, unweildy and are extremely difficult to conceal. Even misclassified pistols such as the "Draco" AK pistol or pistolized AR-15s are too large to conceal easily. This is detrimental to the criminal, who violates concealed carry laws with impunity any way, and doesn't feel the need to stick out for a fight with law enforcement, or any one else for that matter. Further thanks to the strong cartel prescence south of the border, I find it likely that any gang that wants serious fire power can get it in the form of actual automatic weapons as opposed to the semi automatic "assault weapons". Though again that is for the most part a non-issue in the United States. We do not see gangs machine gunning each other or using RPGs in the streets, because the benefit of such things is minimal even to the criminal. Back to just rifles in the United States if we jump back to the FBI's 2011 UCR we again find that rifles of any kind, including assault weapons were used in just 323 murders. Is that number acceptable? No there's never "just the right amount of murder" but as far as legislative priorties go, an AR-15 should be somewhere below a bill to determine what flavor of jello should be served in the congressional cafeteria for the next legislative session.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Vulcan has a point that RIFLES don't account for much in the way of the murder rate. Cheap grey/black market hand guns though? That's a horse of a different color. The NIJ and CDC research on the '94 AWB, along with expert testimony to congress all game back at the very best inconclusive about the effectiveness of the '94 AWB in crime reduction. It's important to remember that the use of rifles in any kind in the perpetration of a crime in the United States is already a statistical minority.
I think your point is a good one and made well, but you've done yourself a disservice by dropping it into the back end of a conversation in which another poster was being corrected on his misunderstandings of the use of guns overall.
I agree that 'assault weapons' aren't a major element in crime or gun murders. But I also think it is very important that people stop pretending about the prevalance of guns overall in crime and murder in the US, and how much the US murder rate varies to that overseas.
Unfortunately, and this has been my point throughout this debate in all the various dakka threads, is that the overall national debate is screwy. It has gun control advocates supporting a ban on weapons that just are hardly used in crime or murder but look scary. And then this is opposed by gun rights advocates who point out there's little point in banning those weapons... and while they're right on that point they then don't mention any kind of control on the weapons that do produce most of the killing , instead trying to ensure no reform occurs.
The end result of the failings of both sides is ineffective gun control. Weapons that aren't part of the problem get banned, and weapons that are part of the problem are still available.
I'm not though, I'm saying right there, and agreeing with hundreds of senior police officers and plenty of stats that the problem for most murders in this country are cheap black and grey market handguns.
That's the odd bit, handguns are the primary offensive and defensive weapon used in this country no matter who's getting shot by who. Whether it's a cop killing a bad guy, a bad guy killing a bad guy or a civilian killing an assailant. That's always the proof gun buybacks aren't working to me, whenever they show the "loot" from those programs it's always crap quality rifles and shotguns, very few handguns get taken off the streets.
Pistols are theoretically at least more controlled then rifles and shotguns. You have to be 21 to buy them for example, or buy ammunition for them. So this is where I disturbingly agree with the President, straw man sales and background checks need to be cracked down on and the latter needs to be made more stream lined, accurate and efficient.
Removing pistols completely? Not realistic given weapons trafficking over all and the whole right of the people to defend themselves thing. Going back to our DGU (Defensive Gun Use stats) the low number (federal survey) is roughly 100,000 per year. The high number I use is Dr. Gary Kleck's average calculated from thirteen separate which gives us 2.5 million DGUs yearly. Even if we take the low number, that's a lot of people defending themselves, and most of them are using a handgun as well. Where's the balance point that stops criminals from easily getting pistols from the legal economy and still ensures the law abiding can have one if they want one?
An interesting thought that one of my classmates had is you increase punishments when a firearm is used in a crime. So if I theoretically rob someone I'm looking at 10 years, if I rob someone at gun point now I'm doing 50. I'd agree to that, but want increased protection for defensive shooters to be codified into the legal system at the same time. At present the way a defensive weapon use is prosecuted in most areas is the same way you prosecute a murder, except you already have a confession that the defendant killed someone.
Why would you do that to me?
are! 
