Tall Paul wrote:

XregnaR wrote:

[i hate my source]
If you care to peruse the first few pages of any NRA magazine, they provide dozens of easily verifiable stories monthly where people use guns to prevent harm coming to themselves or others.  Oddly, most are from newspapers.
[/i hate my source]

I know how you feel. Fox News has hours devoted to the War On Christmas and Karl Rove can still prove that Romney won Ohio. I'm sure fnord has magazines that has pages chock-full of tales of nigger woe in decent neighborhoods. Do those NRA rags also have data about how many accidental shootings, family murders and suicides occur per legitimate defense? If so I'd like to see them.

XregnaR wrote:

Now what I'd really like to see is the NRA lobbyists start pushing for immediate action to rebuild a national mental health infrastructure that could help prevent people who shouldn't get guns from doing so.

Now we have something to agree on. We have been around this dance before so you know I don't want to ban guns, I would just like a few common sense regulations in place. In a country where you can't drive a car without examination and licensing, where marrying anyone you'd like to is considered a direct assault on the Constitution, why are unlicensed concealed automatic weapons that you can hose anyone with so long as you 'feel threatened' such a fetish?

I doubt anyone has paid enough attention to your lame assed postings to know or care about your wants and dis-wants.

XregnaR wrote:

Like I said, we've already danced to this.

XregnaR wrote:

You and I have danced to this song before, so we know where the other stands.

Tall Paul wrote:

Now we have something to agree on. We have been around this dance before....

Get a room, ya queers.

I doubt arming school personnel would work.  The gun would have to be locked up most of the time, I assume, unless you want a teacher or administrator wearing a holster in crowded hallways and classrooms.  I also doubt that they could be trained as well as police officers.  The possibility of mishap would be very high.

We can try to put an armed guard in every school, but then the perpetrators would just go to another venue, wouldn't they? 

I hate seeing the discussion of policy options get diffused into so many different areas.  We should start with access to guns, the types of guns and ammunition that are available, and to whom and under what conditions they can be acquired.  We have already dug an awfully deep hole with the proliferation of guns that are designed to kill people rapidly and in great numbers, so I am under no illusion that it will be immediately effective.  Trying nothing, however, is just weakness.

phreddy wrote:

I have a question for those who argue against arming some of the school personnel.  Would you agree to having an armed policeman stationed your child's school?  I assume your answer is yes.  So, why not arm one or more school personnel after they are properly trained in police tactics?  Just because someone is not wearing a uniform and a badge does not mean that person cannot manage proper judgment and markmanship.  And, who else would be better prepared to know the difference between a teacher and an outsider running through the halls?

C'mon Phreddy that's just asinine, that armed person (Cop or not) would be just like the armed guard at a bank robbery:  the first body to hit the floor. 

Every time this happens we learn that the dude walked in with an assault rifle and multiple magazines and the proceeded to shoot anything that moved.  If nothing else let's look at the Colorado incident, he popped gas before he opened up - what good is your 9mm then?  He's got his weapon out and is pumped full of adreniline and ready to go, you get 3 rounds in your torso while you're trying to understand what the fuck is happening; you'll never get the gun out before you die.  The guy had an AR-15 (derivative) for christ's fucking sake, what do propose - give the principal an AT-4 to counter?

These people are nutters, guns are no defense against crazy; the only defense against crazy is treatment and sequesture.   

Sequesture being the most important.

Last edited by Emmeran (2012-12-17 13:41:12)

Em wrote:

These people are nutters, guns are no defense against crazy; the only defense against crazy is treatment and sequesture.   

Sequesture being the most important.

I agree with you on the sequester plan.  Unfortunately, it is impossible to ferret out all of them.

I also believe one or more armed personnel at a school could divert the shooter's attention at a minimum.  I don't care if you are carrying an AR, taking fire from one or more shooters has got to fuck with your murderous plan.  Assuming the armed teachers are not killed in the first volley, these cowards won't know how to handle an armed and trained adversary.  Right now, all our schools are nothing but soft targets for anyone, nuts or not, to walk in and kill indiscriminately.  This cannot continue.

Democrats are so fucking hot to pass restrictions on the second amendment, but they pass on real legislation which might prevent nutters from running loose.

Connecticut Senate Bill 452 was proposed in February “to enhance the care and treatment of persons with psychiatric disabilities in both inpatient and outpatient settings.” But the bill was defeated in March, with opposition calling it “outrageously discriminatory.” The ACLU said the bill would “infringe on patients’ privacy rights by expanding [the circle of] who can medicate individuals without their consent.”

Most Americans don't want to live in a society where everyone is armed and afraid of everyone else. Die Hard was fictional, you know.

It's amazing the degree to which we're willing to evade the central issue of guns in favor of secondary solutions. It's not the guns, it's the mental health system/lack of TSA-style patdowns at every public space/bad parenting/whatever. IT IS THE GODDAMN GUNS. It's not a feel good law; if that weapon was illegal to buy, I can guarantee you that this Lanza lady wouldn't have gone to the local Russian mafioso to get one.

Also, does anybody get the sense that the CT police don't know what they're doing? They just said they'll have to close the school down for months--what could they possibly need to find out that would take months to ascertain?

phreddy wrote:

So, you would risk your child's life on the bet that the kid would have said to himself, "Oh, damn, AR-15s are illegal, and I only have access to a shotgun and a couple of handguns, so I guess I'll pass on killing a bunch of kids today".  You are a Polyanna of the first degree.  Your second statement proves the point that cops are not there to prevent crimes, they are there to solve them and catch the criminals.

This is a difficult case Phredd, you do realize that this particular school was hardened and you had to be buzzed in to access the offices and then buzzed in again to get to the hallways?  This asshole just shot the locks off.  He came through so fast no one had time to think or react; he didn't utter any great one-liners, just re-loaded and kept squeezing that trigger.  Unless we plan on putting up guard towers we can't stop this.


Perhaps then we should look to history for guidance?  After the Civil War weapons were rampant and easily acquired, most soldiers were allowed to keep their firearms as a form of severance pay. Guns went from being hugely expensive to McDonalds type fare.  So after a brief period (call it a decade) of Wild West bullshit almost every town or city in the nation/territories banned carrying firearms within the city limits; the accidental/alcohol fueled shootings got old for the citizens.  In our most famous Wild West town, Dodge City, gun control was the rule not the exception.  Anyone could get a weapon and everyone, together, decided/realized it was a very bad idea for anyone person to have them just because they wanted to.

Also I should point out that in the recent Oregon shootings our shooter stole the weapon from his friend.  We all realize that the cows are already out of the barn and that there are more firearms in this world than people; now we just have to figure out what to do about it.  Dude, shit like this has now gotten very, very old.

And it was kindergartners this time Phredd, this asshole shot-up 20 babies and from all reports he double-tapped each and every one...

Em and others on this thread, read about this Harvard study:

Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

If you really want the facts and not just hysterical rhetoric, check out this website.

phreddy wrote:

Em and others on this thread, read about this Harvard study:

Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

If you really want the facts and not just hysterical rhetoric, check out this website.

Gun ownership decreases suicide, HOW?

Bigcat wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Em and others on this thread, read about this Harvard study:

Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

If you really want the facts and not just hysterical rhetoric, check out this website.

Gun ownership decreases suicide, HOW?

IS TRUE

Also, did u no that gas explosions are more likely in homes with electric heat and stoves?

IS TRUE

Saying more guns reduces gun violence is like saying driving faster reduces traffic deaths.

To find an answer, let's look to the islamic terrorists for a teachable moment.  Why can no one stop terrorists?  Because they are not afraid to die.  If you are afraid to die, they have an advantage over you.  No laws or customs can stop them.

Aban on guns will not stop the crazies, but it will make it more difficult for themthe to get a high body count.

phreddy wrote:

Em and others on this thread, read about this Harvard study:

Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

If you really want the facts and not just hysterical rhetoric, check out this website.

No one has suggested a ban, stop it with that noise.  As I said we all know the cows are out of the barn so there is now point in passing a law to try and keep the cows in the barn.


But here we are with 20 babies dead, any suggestions? 

Arm everyone?

Haven't we been there already?

Emmeran wrote:

But here we are with 20 babies dead, any suggestions? 

Arm everyone?

Haven't we been there already?

The worst aspect of this problem is that there may not be a solution.  Limiting access to guns certainly won't do it.  The worst school massacre in U.S. history was a bombing, in 1927. 

On May 18, 1927, 55-year-old farmer and school board member Andrew Kehoe dynamited the new consolidated school in Bath, Michigan. When the dust settled, 45 people—mostly children—were dead, and many more were injured. Before the day was over, Kehoe also killed his wife and destroyed his farm, animals and crops. He then killed himself and the school superintendent with a suicide car bomb.

Htom Sirveaux wrote:

I would rather this happen once a century than once a month.

You don't get it.  Ban guns and this is what you would get.  You cannot stop the crazies from trying.  Laws will not protect you.  You can only defend yourself, your family, and your schools by whatever means are available.

Htom Sirveaux wrote:

Since massacres could happen anyway, we should do nothing to impede them? That argument infuriates me.

Horse shit.  "Let's do something, even if it only makes us feel better."  In this case, making you feel better infringes upon my rights.  I'm sorry you feel terrible about this murderous act, and so do I, but I refuse to give in to anti-gun advocates who would use the deaths of 20 children to further their political agenda.

phreddy wrote:

Htom Sirveaux wrote:

I would rather this happen once a century than once a month.

You don't get it.  Ban guns and this is what you would get.  You cannot stop the crazies from trying.  Laws will not protect you.  You can only defend yourself, your family, and your schools by whatever means are available.

My point exactly.   

If I decide to come for you and your family Phredd what makes you think you would even have half a chance when I dropped in out of the blue?  You can't defend for that and that's the flat out truth, you can try to deny it but at the bottom of your heart you know that you are wrong.  If I surprise you in a day to day situation you will die and so will your people.  I don't care how many guns you have, I know I'm coming and you don't: game over.  You cannot defend against crazy.

Then we should ask the first question: who has proposed banning guns??  Almost all of that talk has come from the gun fanaticts, so stop being so reactionary you are only insulting yourself.

So then let's discuss solutions, do you propose we arm everyone at the age of 5?   And if so what do we arm them with?

What is your end game?  Answers not rhetoric boy and reply to the real issues; we can all read the Lib/Con speaking points & rants elsewhere.  Give us something.....

fnord wrote:

Lip shitz wrote:

Saying more guns reduces gun violence is like saying driving faster reduces traffic deaths.

To find an answer, let's look to the islamic terrorists for a teachable moment.  Why can no one stop terrorists?  Because they are not afraid to die.  If you are afraid to die, they have an advantage over you.  No laws or customs can stop them.

Aban on guns will not stop the crazies, but it will make it more difficult for themthe to get a high body count.

You posted this twice; you must be watching porn and masturbating like a sex-starved monkey!

Yes, i always pleasure myself while discussing important issues.  It's normally not a problem, although i banned from all future PTA meetings.....

But that's not important. 

My 'people watching' fetish meter is pegging out.  This Conn. shooting incident is somehow different, I don't know exactly how to define it.  The idea that an incompetent can get a semi-automatic weapon and shoot innocent babies....fuck!  to add insult to injury he made sure he shot them all multiple times.  Who knows what the shooter thought he was doing, it appeared like he was going for maximum prejudice. 

every parent in america is consulting his own feelings for his own child.  I know, it's what i feel and it seems like everybody else feels that way too.     

This whole thing is a gut-punch to the flabby and out-of-shape mid-section of democratic philosophy.  And it caused democracy to almost shit it's pants.  American Democracy has been sick lately anyway, ya know, since the corporations took control of the gov't in 2008.

The problem with 'gun control' is that; 1)it's a huge business, 2) everyone is looking for a 'one size fits all' solution and it won't work.  While I may not need a .50 cal rifle in houston, It may be an invaluable tool in montana.

None of that too-soon shit, where are all the thin-the-herd-sweepstake misanthropes among us? Is this Christmas, or what?

choad wrote:

None of that too-soon shit, where are all the thin-the-herd-sweepstake misanthropes among us? Is this Christmas, or what?

Misanthropes are uncomfortable when the are proven correct...... 

But no fear, wilber threw the palestinians out there, and you what's next?  Yep, a jew argument and that always leads to a fist fight about small penises.

choad wrote:

None of that too-soon shit, where are all the thin-the-herd-sweepstake misanthropes among us? Is this Christmas, or what?

You all know which portions of the herd I want to see thinned.  They're making a good effort, give them credit.  They're busy shooting each other, aborting their sprogs, ODing on crappy drugs, and giving each other AIDS.  The only reason anybody gives a shit about this shooting is because most of dead sprogs were White.

fnord wrote:

choad wrote:

None of that too-soon shit, where are all the thin-the-herd-sweepstake misanthropes among us? Is this Christmas, or what?

You all know which portions of the herd I want to see thinned.  They're making a good effort, give them credit.  They're busy shooting each other, aborting their sprogs, ODing on crappy drugs, and giving each other AIDS.  The only reason anybody gives a shit about this shooting is because most of dead sprogs were White.

That's just totally bullshit.

I wonder when somebody will blow up the racist fags?

That's exactly what I'm talking about... they are not toys. You already live in a fortified Green Zone, you just are not aware of it. And you are deluding yourself if you think AR-15s, or their equivalents, are going away anytime soon.

Htom Sirveaux wrote:

Seriously, I don't want you saying my kids have to learn about guns because you don't want to get rid of AR-15s. I don't want to be told that I have to wear a gun if I'm going to be a teacher because you don't want to get rid of your AR-15s. I don't want to live in a fortified Green Zone just because you won't let go of your toys.

All I ever owned was a Bolt Action, without a scope.  Served me well enough.  If ya need a scope, you aren't skilled enough to get up on your deer.  If you need more than one shot, go home.

I see my initial impression, that folks on this site were pretty intelligent, may have been a bit premature.

Some of you guys are so fucked in the head that sarah palin seems like the voice of reason and intellect by comparison.