Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

Good training is extensive training.

No, that's wrong. One can have an extensive amount of bad training.

 dogma wrote:
No, that's wrong. One can have an extensive amount of bad training.

Might as well start pointing out typos if you're going to descend to that level, dude.

If you're really trying to argue the point that good firearms training is, by necessity, extensive, then we don't have anything to discuss.

Seaward, would you support a well organised licensing regime for pistols?

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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Seaward, would you support a well organised licensing regime for pistols?

Define "well organized."

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!

Gentlemen, we have a level 3 breach of Poe's Law.

I think.

To Greyskull:

*high worried voice* Uhhm....uh..er.....I hope your kidding?

*Nervous laughter* Yeah! Yeah! He's kidding, guys. No worries at all! We'll just laugh from a... uh...unassumingly safe distance, howzthat?

 Seaward wrote:

Might as well start pointing out typos if you're going to descend to that level, dude.

This isn't like a typo. The error you made was one of concept. Extension and quality are not at all the same thing.

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:
Gentlemen, we have a level 3 breach of Poe's Law.

I think.

I went to your link, read down and suddenly got Rick Rolled in the section where God talked to Noah,

Seaward wrote:

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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?

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

Relapse wrote:

feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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?

Relapse wrote:

They aren't at all reasonable, like the anti gun people who .... publish lists of gun owners, so criminals know who to target.

I thought gun ownership makes you safer?

 Ouze wrote:

 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:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Truthers are dumb, Sandy Hook or otherwise.