primary school shooting

[syaigh]

Hmmm. Not sure where you came up with that.

This is what I responded to:

Your original statement about my proposal rest upon three fallacies

1- I want all teachers armed
2- I want to force teachers to be armed
3- That I believe ANY solution is 100% fail safe

I made a statement about responsibility. The example of not being responsible was leaving AK's in the backyard. A bit of hyperbole to illustrate the point.

Well, I obviously know nothing about guns not used for fair hunting, but it was a lot of firepower. And quite frankly, you may be a reasonable person, but I don't like that there are a lot of unreasonable people with those same weapons.

You were asked to define these "unreasonable people"; there seems to be a lot of them. You have avoided this question and engaged in posts filled to brim with hyperbole.

Sorry, don't remember you asking. Do you not understand what unreasonable means?

Hyperbole is one of those ways one can get across to people who don't get subtle points.

Reasonable: Willing and able to recognize that one's actions do not occur in a vacuum and therefore actively try and minimize the negative impacts of such actions when not warranted.

There are lots of other ways to define reasonable. I usually go with "not stupid" and "not a selfish asshole". Or "not taking risks with other people's lives" and even "being responsible with dangerous things that can kill people".

You've taken a lot of things I've said personally. You shouldn't. They weren't directed at you.

Again, you agreed with me. And I'm not trying to take away anyone's gun rights. I just happen to think that if you want to be a gun owner, you should be a responsible gun owner. If you aren't willing to be responsible, you shouldn't own a gun.

Please note, I never said, in any way whatsoever, that your gun should be taken away. Or I want to push this as legislation. Its just a standard I have for people. That they not be stupid, and irresponsible with dangerous things.

Call me crazy.

[Yes, I'm drunk]

Seriously Gorby, it's been five months since the last horrific mass gunstrocity. Given an acceptable time for not discussing it and the holiday season, you could have easily squeezed in your views on gun control somewhere between October 14th and November 1st . Shit, except we had a presidential election going on so it might have been too divisive. I guess just keep your mouth shut, slave.

5 months? More like 5 days.....Oregon Mall Shooting: Gunman Opens Fire At Clackamas Town Center Mall In Portland, Kills 2, Self

But I'm not with Gorby on this one. I was turned a while back by Batboy's persuasive arguments on this matter: it is better, all things being equal, to have an armed populace than to not have one.

My penchant for conspiracy theories can't help thinking there's parallels here with the Dunblane massacre here in the UK. Plus there's this too:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB-LtHycKGk[/youtube]

[DARTH]

Nfod thinks Simo was smuck.

No, but I do think your preparing to run an insurgency against the government is like some fat chick carrying around pepper spray against rapists. You wish people wanted something you have.

While your MOS makes you an expert on large scale total air war and operations against another nation state ( and I respect your opinons so I'm not trying to start a flame war. with you, so take my commnets with the fact I respect you as I was raised by an ELINT dork.) I have heard many officers and enlisted men from the ground pounding combat arms have a very different opionon than your own on like subjects.

Some are about 3 steps away from doing something big. Purple lips might want to tread lightly with what he does because there are Preatorians in his midst and they are starting to look at him like Caligula without the great party's.

Number 1. Most in combat arms would not oppress the american people. They are warriors, take the Constitution seriously and know they were sworn to protect it ,even against the POTUS if he goes to far. (Actually as an Officer so where you I beleive) At least this is what the Training forums namesake told me, as did several marine officers and an aero swabbie like you. I say that with love man. )

We would not be dealing with the over all might of our military. Things go nuts and alot of soldiers would be siding with us. Why do you think Obama was talking about a National Police Force? Why do you think there is now a para military wing of FEMA? Because he wants a cop para military mentality to offset the Col. Killgore won't fire on a crowd of non commie, non hippie American's but Officer Friendly might and if he's a Fed he will with glee.

Number 2. Look at Northern Ireland, that is what it would more likely look like IF units of the military did not break with the POTUS. Those guys were never crushed. They never drove the Brits out but what they did did cause enough death, destruction and day to day dissruption to bring the Brits to the table. They got alot of what they wanted.

Number 3 It would not be a war of set peice battles, you would have many differnt groups and small cells all over the place. To bring that down the Feds will have to bomb neigborhoods and do all kinds of super heavy handed shit. Fuck there was a lack of politicol will to really do what should have been done in Iraq. They turned it into a gun v gun war.

Evertime your troops will slaughter a few of the ARA you will make more from those who watched, lost their homes/family.

As per the Northern Ireland example. It's not so much about tacking ground (allthough the election maps shows you something about the sanctuary situation.) but fucking things up so much that the goverment in power suffers politicol damage and possable revolt from with in.

Not easy or definate but doable.

Yes this is OP but the topic has taken us a few places.

Cops or armed security are about all we can really do. No one has the will to go back to treating nuts like broken toys and throwing them in the snake pit like institutions anymore, so I don't know where the mental health debate will take us?.
(You know the hights of mass killings was the mid 1920's?)

[Blaidd Drwg]

Darth,

You Magnificent Bastard, you are a national treasure.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax9SOup0054[/youtube]

[Gav]

Lewis, don't be stupid. How many of us got boxing gloves and toy guns for Xmas? They were the 'Call of Duty' of our times and none of us grew up to be psychos, apart from Darth and Batboy, of coarse.

A source for informed articles...

http://www.killology.com/article_teachkid.htm

How the military increases the killing rate of soldiers in combat is instructive, because our culture today is doing the same thing to our children. The training methods militaries use are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. I will explain these in the military context and show how these same factors are contributing to the phenomenal increase of violence in our culture.

and

On June 10th, 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a definitive study on the impact of TV violence. In nations, regions, or cities where television appears there is an immediate explosion of violence on the playground, and within 15 years there is a doubling of the murder rate. Why 15 years? That's how long it takes for a brutalized toddler to reach the “prime crime” years. That's how long it takes before you begin to reap what you sow when you traumatize and desensitize children. (Centerwall, 1992).

The JAMA concluded that, “the introduction of television in the 1950’s caused a subsequent doubling of the homicide rate, i.e., long-term childhood exposure to television is a causal factor behind approximately one half of the homicides committed in the United States, or approximately 10,000 homicides annually.” The study went on to state that “...if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there would today be 10,000 fewer homicides each year in the United states, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults” (Centerwall, 1992).

Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society is superior to that linking cancer and tobacco.

I stand corrected. Interesting stuff.

[Schlegel]

interesting quote from economist John Lott:

“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

[___________]

I'm not a religious man, but this seems fitting.


God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
As it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
If I surrender to His Will;
So that I may be reasonably happy in this life
And supremely happy with Him
Forever and ever in the next.
Amen.

[Protobuilder]

interesting quote from economist John Lott:

“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

I think that Forth Worth has a gun inside somewhere.

[johno]

Lewis, don't be stupid. How many of us got boxing gloves and toy guns for Xmas? They were the 'Call of Duty' of our times and none of us grew up to be psychos, apart from Darth and Batboy, of coarse.

A source for informed articles...

http://www.killology.com/article_teachkid.htm

Grossman and his killology are bullshit.

The JAMA concluded that, “the introduction of television in the 1950’s caused a subsequent doubling of the homicide rate, .

Yeah, I was a kid in the '50's. Leave It to Beaver, Dobie Gillis, Gilligan's Island. Horrific.

Now, excuse me. I have some body parts to dispose of.

[Batboy2/75]

interesting quote from economist John Lott:

“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

I think that Forth Worth has a gun inside somewhere.

Yeah, all locked up. Except for the MPs and those conducting live fire exercises out in remote ranges, military bases are huge Gun Free Zones.

Privately owned weapons are kept off base, in base housing, or in your units arms room. Plus, there is no concealed weapons permits.

[johno]

interesting quote from economist John Lott:

“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

I think that Forth Worth* has a gun inside somewhere.

military bases are huge Gun Free Zones.

Listen to the Ranger.




*i think you mean Ft. Hood.

[DARTH]

Darth,

You Magnificent Bastard, you are a national treasure.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax9SOup0054[/youtube]

Ahhh. A bit of the old Ludwig Van and some of the Ultra Violence.

[DARTH]

I'm not a religious man, but this seems fitting.


God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
As it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
If I surrender to His Will;
So that I may be reasonably happy in this life
And supremely happy with Him
Forever and ever in the next.
Amen.

Me neither but I have allways loved that prayer.

[Batboy2/75]

Seriously Gorby, it's been five months since the last horrific mass gunstrocity. Given an acceptable time for not discussing it and the holiday season, you could have easily squeezed in your views on gun control somewhere between October 14th and November 1st . Shit, except we had a presidential election going on so it might have been too divisive. I guess just keep your mouth shut, slave.

5 months? More like 5 days.....Oregon Mall Shooting: Gunman Opens Fire At Clackamas Town Center Mall In Portland, Kills 2, Self

But I'm not with Gorby on this one. I was turned a while back by Batboy's persuasive arguments on this matter: it is better, all things being equal, to have an armed populace than to not have one.

My penchant for conspiracy theories can't help thinking there's parallels here with the Dunblane massacre here in the UK. Plus there's this too:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB-LtHycKGk[/youtube]

The unreported aspect of the Oregon mall shooting is that a concealed weapons holder stopped the shooting. When the shooter was confronted by an armed citizen the gunman retreated to a stairway shot himself.

However, that doesn't fit the story our whore press has cooked up.

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-b ... ed-citizen

[Protobuilder]

interesting quote from economist John Lott:

“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

I think that Forth Worth has a gun inside somewhere.

Yeah, all locked up. Except for the MPs and those conducting live fire exercises out in remote ranges, military bases are huge Gun Free Zones.

Privately owned weapons are kept off base, in base housing, or in your units arms room. Plus, there is no concealed weapons permits.

So, outside of people's houses, their rooms, the firing ranges and the MPs who pack guns, not a gun in sight.

Got it.

The "gun-free" argument comes up every time there is a shooting. Schools are understandable but beyond that, name a few "gun zones"? Shootings in parking lots of malls? Gun free. Snipers shooting people on highways? Gun free. You really think that a person surfs the Internet for gun policy of a shopping mall before they go on a rampage, especially when they don't intend to walk out of the place alive?

Countries like Japan or Singapore are basically gun-free zones so why don't they have mass shootings? Is it the absence of guns or the fact that they aren't populated by small-town paranoid white Christians hopped up on Mountain Dew and too many cowboy movies?

[Batboy2/75]

interesting quote from economist John Lott:

“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

I think that Forth Worth has a gun inside somewhere.

Yeah, all locked up. Except for the MPs and those conducting live fire exercises out in remote ranges, military bases are huge Gun Free Zones.

Privately owned weapons are kept off base, in base housing, or in your units arms room. Plus, there is no concealed weapons permits.

So, outside of people's houses, their rooms, the firing ranges and the MPs who pack guns, not a gun in sight.

Got it.

The "gun-free" argument comes up every time there is a shooting. Schools are understandable but beyond that, name a few "gun zones"? Shootings in parking lots of malls? Gun free. Snipers shooting people on highways? Gun free. You really think that a person surfs the Internet for gun policy of a shopping mall before they go on a rampage, especially when they don't intend to walk out of the place alive?

Countries like Japan or Singapore are basically gun-free zones so why don't they have mass shootings? Is it the absence of guns or the fact that they aren't populated by small-town paranoid white Christians hopped up on Mountain Dew and too many cowboy movies?

You have absolute no idea what you are talking about in regards to military bases. There are no guns in people's rooms. If you live on base, your weapons are registered and kept in the arms room. I was mistaken about on base housing, that changed in the 1990s. All privately owned weapons re kept locked up. A range in military terms is not what you would think of as a firing range. Think hundreds of acres of land out in the sticks 10 to even 20 miles from base housing and installations. Even traditional ranges are in remote areas.

If any weapon can not be accounted for, entire units nd even he base are locked down.

In almost every bases installations, like medical clinics where the shooting took place., guns are not allowed. The only exception is MPs. By definition, it was a gun free zone.

You are free to move to the police states of Japan and Singapore.

[Protobuilder]

interesting quote from economist John Lott:

“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

I think that Forth Worth has a gun inside somewhere.

Yeah, all locked up. Except for the MPs and those conducting live fire exercises out in remote ranges, military bases are huge Gun Free Zones.

Privately owned weapons are kept off base, in base housing, or in your units arms room. Plus, there is no concealed weapons permits.

So, outside of people's houses, their rooms, the firing ranges and the MPs who pack guns, not a gun in sight.

Got it.

The "gun-free" argument comes up every time there is a shooting. Schools are understandable but beyond that, name a few "gun zones"? Shootings in parking lots of malls? Gun free. Snipers shooting people on highways? Gun free. You really think that a person surfs the Internet for gun policy of a shopping mall before they go on a rampage, especially when they don't intend to walk out of the place alive?

Countries like Japan or Singapore are basically gun-free zones so why don't they have mass shootings? Is it the absence of guns or the fact that they aren't populated by small-town paranoid white Christians hopped up on Mountain Dew and too many cowboy movies?

You have absolute no idea what you are talking about in regards to military bases. There are no guns in people's rooms. If you live on base, your weapons are registered and kept in the arms room. I was mistaken about on base housing, that changed in the 1990s. All privately owned weapons re kept locked up. A range in military terms is not what you would think of as a firing range. Think hundreds of acres of land out in the sticks 10 to even 20 miles from base housing and installations. Even traditional ranges are in remote areas.

If any weapon can not be accounted for, entire units nd even he base are locked down.

In almost every bases installations, like medical clinics where the shooting took place., guns are not allowed. The only exception is MPs. By definition, it was a gun free zone.

You are free to move to the police states of Japan and Singapore.

The "room" quote came from you saying that guns were kept "in base housing".

I also misspoke when I mentioned the 10k Americans killed by guns each year - it's 3X that number.

You aren't going to convince me that having every man, woman and child packing heat is a safer world any more than I am going to convince you that there isn't a black democrat terrorist hiding behind every corner ready to jump out and tickle you and make you eat organic food. I simply find it sad that so many people are so paranoid that they feel the need to surround themselves with such weapons - perhaps that is the only way to prevent such tragedies from happening again.

[Thatcher II]

Have reflected on this issue. Always helpful to try to articulate the other side's view even if you don't agree. So here goes.

Tyranny isn't remote. It's real and a possibility if we drop our guard. The government is not to be trusted. Look at the police and how they abuse their powers. An unarmed populace would be very vulnerable to state abuse on a much wider scale. Particularly where there is a major issue with our current system such that food supply, fractional reserve banking or energy supply are threatened or interrupted. The sort of anarchy that would prevail is only navigable if you can defend yourself so anyone taking guns off you now is setting you up to be a lamb to the slaughter later on whether they realise it or not. Plus criminals have guns and won't give them up so you're completely vulnerable to them too if the law is changed. Taking away your right to bear arms is tantamount to taking away your right to defend you and your family. It threatens your right to life and security.


I hope that's a fair summary.


Expressing the above, I hope, shows that I "get" the arguments in the other side of this. All I thae above still doesn't outweigh my own view that a society is, on the whole, vastly more safe for me and my kids where certain types of weapons (for me anything other than a licenses shotgun) are illegal for everyone. If having or carrying a gun other than that were a serious criminal offense, I'm happier about my kids going to school, the cinema, the mall etc. I'm happier that I can still defend my home. I'm happier that if I get into a traffic row, I'm not going to get shot.

If the government want to take me down, they'll do it. So I remain a committed member of society, voting and campaigning as I see fit. My police forces are subject to very strict standards of behavior. My rights are enshrined in a constitution with an independent judiciary watching over them. That's it. I take my chances with the criminals. With the State. It's a trade off I think is in MY best interest and that of my family. This view is shared by democracies in te UK, Scandinavia, Australia, mainland Europe and elsewhere. The US alone doesn't take that approach.

Hope that was a little more illuminating than shouting or "lecturing".

[Turdacious]

I also misspoke when I mentioned the 10k Americans killed by guns each year - it's 3X that number.

You aren't going to convince me that having every man, woman and child packing heat is a safer world any more than I am going to convince you that there isn't a black democrat terrorist hiding behind every corner ready to jump out and tickle you and make you eat organic food. I simply find it sad that so many people are so paranoid that they feel the need to surround themselves with such weapons - perhaps that is the only way to prevent such tragedies from happening again.

Irrelevant-- a significant portion of the gun violence is with unlicensed weapons, and in areas where guns are illegal.



And your characterization of legal gun owners is laughable.

[Lewis Medlock]

Lewis, don't be stupid. How many of us got boxing gloves and toy guns for Xmas? They were the 'Call of Duty' of our times and none of us grew up to be psychos, apart from Darth and Batboy, of coarse.

Sorry boxing gloves and toy guns are not the samething. But keep telling your self that.

[TerryB]

You really think that a person surfs the Internet for gun policy of a shopping mall before they go on a rampage, especially when they don't intend to walk out of the place alive?

Actually, they may. I heard a very convincing argument from a security/LEO veteran, who said guys like Lanza have two goals: (1) a high body count, and (b) suicide. So they choose soft targets with little resistance, and when confronted by armed resistance, they off themselves. If true, it's an argument for at least an armed guard on the premises, preferably in a very visible location. The guy suggested they be visible in the parking lot or outside the entrance so (a) the would-be shooter can see resistance up front, and (b) the guard/officer can identify the threat before it ever reaches the would-be victims. If you see a 20-year old man get out of a car with a long coat, a backpack, and a shotgun over his shoulder, maybe the officer could engage before any kids are shot.

[Schlegel]

You really think that a person surfs the Internet for gun policy of a shopping mall before they go on a rampage, especially when they don't intend to walk out of the place alive?

Looks like someone did. From the same article with Lott:

...the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

[cleaner464]

The 2nd amendment was written in light of the FF's beliefs that a large standing army was not healthy for the republic's morals nor for its finances. The well ordered militia was to be filled with an armed citizenry. THEY NEVER ASSUMED THAT WE WOULD BE ON A CONSTANT WAR FOOTING AND CREATE THE BEAST WE HAVE.

The military we have now would crush any number of well armed rednecks. The military you all worship, laughs at your "I'm not a slave!" horseshit. You are no more free than I am.

I trust none of you to have anything more than a BB gun at your disposal.

[VO2 maxed]

[quote="cleaner464"]The 2nd amendment was written in light of the FF's beliefs that a large standing army was not healthy for the republic's morals nor for its finances. The well ordered militia was to be filled with an armed citizenry. THEY NEVER ASSUMED THAT WE WOULD BE ON A CONSTANT WAR FOOTING AND CREATE THE BEAST WE HAVE.

The military we have now would crush any number of well armed rednecks. The military you all worship, laughs at your "I'm not a slave!" horseshit. You are no more free than I am.

Can't argue with that.

[Bobby]

Don`t forget that when they wrote the constitution people trotted around with these.