Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, Shoot (Connecticut)Follow

#127 Dec 17 2012 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's meaningless though. It only becomes a "mass shooting" if it *isn't* stopped.

Which isn't to say any shooting becomes a mass shooting if not stopped.

the rest of your post is you saying "Nuh UH!" so I'm just going to skip playing the "Let's make up hypotheticals" games.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128gbaji, Posted: Dec 17 2012 at 6:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And not every cut will get infected if you don't clean it properly. So there's no reason to clean cuts properly?
#129 Dec 17 2012 at 7:03 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:

And not every cut will get infected if you don't clean it properly. So there's no reason to clean cuts properly?
There's a difference between a cut and an amputation.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#130 Dec 17 2012 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,732 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And not every cut will get infected if you don't clean it properly. So there's no reason to clean cuts properly?
There's a difference between a cut and an amputation.
Not for Purple Hearts.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#131 Dec 17 2012 at 7:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Belkira wrote:
Is gbaji seriously advocating guns in elementary schools...?


Yes. Get past your knee jerk opposition to the idea and think about it. Do you think someone intending to kill a bunch of school kids will be deterred by the fact that he's also breaking the law regarding guns within a given radius of a school? All we accomplish with those laws is to ensure that when someone decides to go kill a bunch of helpless people, schools become the really obvious target because everyone will be a helpless target. There *can't* be any armed person on or near the campus of the school.


I'm not saying arm the kids, or allow teachers to have loaded guns in their desks. But heaven forbid the campus security have firearms, or some of the administrative staff. If just one person had been so armed at that school last Friday it's almost certain most or all of those children would be alive today. I can't think of a single reasonable restriction that the gun control folks could create that would accomplish the same thing. Restrictions on types of guns wont work. Even the most basic types clearly protected under the 2nd amendment would be sufficient for large scale killing in an environment where no one has any firearms to oppose the killer.


I know that it's sometimes hard, but think with your head and not your heart.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#132 Dec 17 2012 at 7:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
gbaji wrote:

And not every cut will get infected if you don't clean it properly. So there's no reason to clean cuts properly?
There's a difference between a cut and an amputation.


If the amputation occurred as a result of an infection brought on by not cleaning a cut, what then? Boy would you feel silly that you didn't clean that cut because it wasn't an amputation.


Clever little comments aside, anything which can actually prevent shootings from becoming mass shootings are worth doing, even if not all shootings will become mass shootings. Again, what's the downside? We might stop a guy who only intends on killing a few people? Not seeing the problem here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Dec 17 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
anything which can actually prevent shootings from becoming mass shootings are worth doing


If everyone kills themselves now, they won't be a mass shooting victim!

____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#134 Dec 17 2012 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Is gbaji seriously advocating guns in elementary schools...?


Yes. Get past your knee jerk opposition to the idea and think about it. Do you think someone intending to kill a bunch of school kids will be deterred by the fact that he's also breaking the law regarding guns within a given radius of a school? All we accomplish with those laws is to ensure that when someone decides to go kill a bunch of helpless people, schools become the really obvious target because everyone will be a helpless target. There *can't* be any armed person on or near the campus of the school.


I'm not saying arm the kids, or allow teachers to have loaded guns in their desks. But heaven forbid the campus security have firearms, or some of the administrative staff. If just one person had been so armed at that school last Friday it's almost certain most or all of those children would be alive today. I can't think of a single reasonable restriction that the gun control folks could create that would accomplish the same thing. Restrictions on types of guns wont work. Even the most basic types clearly protected under the 2nd amendment would be sufficient for large scale killing in an environment where no one has any firearms to oppose the killer.


I know that it's sometimes hard, but think with your head and not your heart.


Yeah, thinking with my head, I can still see how that's a bad idea. Incidences of mass shootings at schools might decrease in your scenario, but I can see how other gun violence would go up.
#135gbaji, Posted: Dec 17 2012 at 7:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'd say "could" and not "would". It would only go up if you assume that people working in current gun-free zones who might obtain CCW permits and have their guns with them in those locations would be more inclined towards inciting gun violence if they had those permits and the ability to carry them in current gun-free zones. I'm not sure how that could be much of a factor though. Unless you assume that the only thing preventing the asst principle at the local elementary school from getting drunk in a bar and shooting someone is that he can't bring his CCW onto school grounds (or doesn't have a CCW permit because he can't bring his weapon onto school grounds), that is.
#136 Dec 17 2012 at 7:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Let me present this another way: Imagine a state where CCW permits are already allowed, but they are not allowed to be carried in a school zone. So overall gun crime as a result of CCW permits is not a factor. We're just looking at whether schools should be "gun free zones". What are the benefits of having that gun free zone around the school compared to eliminating it? To me, the zone does nothing to protect the children in the school (which was the whole point), and does nothing with regard to gun crime elsewhere, but it does ensure that no one can act effectively to prevent a mass shooting at the school.

That's it. It's literally the only effect such laws have. I mean, who do you think is loitering around a school with a firearm such that they might be caught violating such a law? The only people affected by such laws are otherwise law abiding citizens who might carry a firearm with them for any of a number of reasons, but who now have to leave those firearms home (or in their car) when entering such a zone. Anyone actually intending some kind of violence with their guns isn't going to be stopped by the law. Only those who might stop him will be.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Dec 17 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Other people with guns seems to be the only thing that prevents shootings...? That seems a bit odd considering the countries with much lower gun violence than ours who have a ban on guns.

Personally, I think the real answer is addressing mental health issues. Look at Canada. They don't ban guns, but they don't have mass shootings every other year either. I personally think its because everyone there has access to a mental health professional and the means to pay for it (universal healthcare).

But hey, maybe it's really hat every single man woman and child in Canada carries a concealed weapon and that's why gun violence is less prevelent there.
#138 Dec 17 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
hey, USA only has 4.2 homicides per 100,000 people. That's really good by world standards. Of course, it's at least 4 times the amount of other OECD nations, which generally don't have cultures of gun carrying. Even most of the police don't carry as a matter of daily practise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

But you're doing REALLY REALLY well compared to Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and central Africa. Really, well done.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#139 Dec 17 2012 at 8:33 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,550 posts
Belkira wrote:
I personally think its because everyone there has access to a mental health professional and the means to pay for it (universal healthcare).


Psychology isn't covered by the government outside of special circumstances, you'd have to be referred. We have our share of crazies, but we have enough safety nets that those crazies don't hit rock bottom as often and the ones that do can't get automatic weapons and other assault gear.

We have pretty good gun control here. Need an FAC to purchase a gun, can only obtain specific types of weapons (hunting rifles, shotguns is pretty much the limit up here without some special permit), There are barrel length limitations etc.

Unless you deal with the military the average person will probably never see an automatic weapon in Canada outside of TV. It's a big deal to find a few handguns in a house here.
#140 Dec 17 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
gbaji wrote:
I can't think of a single reasonable restriction that the gun control folks could create that would accomplish the same thing.
Ban all metal from schools and have a giant ******* magnet at every entrance.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#141 Dec 17 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Belkira wrote:
Other people with guns seems to be the only thing that prevents shootings...?


Ask yourself why the shooter in this latest case stopped killing kids and turned his weapon on himself. It was the arrival of people with guns (the police). I think it's quite obvious that the only thing that stops such shooting is either running out of ammo, or other people with guns. It would therefore make sense that if we want to prevent the whole "running out of ammo" outcome, we might want to focus on getting other people with guns in the area as quickly as possible.

Quote:
That seems a bit odd considering the countries with much lower gun violence than ours who have a ban on guns.


Irrelevant to my point. I'm assuming that we aren't amending the constitution to remove the 2nd amendment anytime soon. So banning all guns isn't an option. Within that constraint, the current course of the anti-gun organizations seems either completely ineffective, or actually makes gun crime in the US worse.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#142gbaji, Posted: Dec 17 2012 at 9:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yeah. I meant to reply to that part as well. Gun control in Canada is about as close to outright banning as you can get without actually banning all guns. It's a degree of restriction that can't exist in the US under the 2nd amendment.
#143 Dec 17 2012 at 9:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
Let me present this another way: Imagine


No need to read futher. You are, as usual, going on hypotheticals. What I am seeing is could and should which mean nothing.

Stronger, firmer laws against guns could and should solve these issues, but it could also increase death tolls. Make it easier to obtain and conceal carry, it could scare the bad people enough not to shoot at anyone, it could also let loose some trigger happy idiot.

Edited, Dec 17th 2012 10:10pm by Zymunn

Edited, Dec 17th 2012 10:12pm by Zymunn
#144 Dec 17 2012 at 9:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,550 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's a degree of restriction that can't exist in the US under the 2nd amendment.


Hmm, funny that eh?
#145 Dec 17 2012 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obviously what we need is a militarized police state with soldiers in every classroom, shopping mall, church and daycare armed with machine guns. Ain't no one would try shooting then.

MOAR GUNZ!!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Dec 17 2012 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,882 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Obviously what we need is a militarized police state with soldiers in every classroom, shopping mall, church and daycare armed with machine guns. Ain't no one would try shooting then.

MOAR GUNZ!!!


Works for Israel! Posted by the same guy that posted that other 18 to 2.2 picture mentioned earlier.

____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#147 Dec 17 2012 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,861 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
hey, USA only has 4.2 homicides per 100,000 people. That's really good by world standards. Of course, it's at least 4 times the amount of other OECD nations, which generally don't have cultures of gun carrying. Even most of the police don't carry as a matter of daily practise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

But you're doing REALLY REALLY well compared to Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and central Africa. Really, well done.

Probably something you might want to consider, in the US at least, while gun ownership has increased, the homicide rate has also fallen. Kinda blows the whole, "more guns=more homicide" argument.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#148 Dec 17 2012 at 9:37 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
That's meaningless though. It only becomes a "mass shooting" if it *isn't* stopped.

That's true.

I think it's quite reasonable to assume that if even a single member of the school staff at Sandy Hook Elementary had been armed, that at least some lives would have been saved, and quite possibly most or all of the children given the order of events.

That's preposterously idiotic. The dynamics of people under tremendous stress aren't automatically improved by making sure more of those people can deliver lethal force easily. What is quite reasonable is that the rate of accidental shootings at schools would increase from zero to some non zero number as a result of armed staff on site.

I'm sure one of us has dedicated a large part of their life to studying this sort of thing, the application of violence against civilian populations, it's motivations, causes, and techniques to minimize negative effects. On the other hand, one of us is a know it all douchebag who makes wild guesses based on his hilariously limited anecdotal life experience. Let's set that aside, though.

The whole "If XYZgroup had guns...etc" argument is quaint and simplistic, so good for TV etc. It does have a few small problems. In the public sector there's the issue of the massively enormous cost of training, liability protection, etc. It would be billions. To accomplish what? To save 15 kids a year in the utopian fantasy best case? Most private schools probably aren't going to bother, at all. Dalton and St Paul's and other elite private schools already have armed security personnel, but random XYZ for profit charter school squeezing every penny out of $25k a year non union teachers isn't about to cut into the bottom line.

Gun control may or may not prevent this sort of thing from occurring as frequently, but it almost certainly would lower the overall homicide and severe injury rate in the US. There are valid arguments that there are potential negative consequences around selective enforcement, creating another source of revenue for criminal organizations, and many more. There's also the issue of the complete lack of complexity involved in manufacturing rudimentary firearms. Anyone with even a slight amount of mechanical aptitude and access to simple tools can smith a functional rudimentary semi-autmoatic in a day. The reductio ad absurdum argument against gun control is fairly compelling. Crazy ******** will make bombs instead. Unless you ban brass and springs and stock iron, millions of people will be able to manufacture completely unregulated largely untraceable weapons with increasing levels of sophistication as they acquire skills and proficiencies they didn't care about when they buy a Glock at Wal Mart.

None of that happened anywhere gun control was enacted, but none of those places are really very demographically similar to the US.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#149 Dec 17 2012 at 9:46 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

Probably something you might want to consider, in the US at least, while gun ownership has increased, the homicide rate has also fallen. Kinda blows the whole, "more guns=more homicide" argument.


Wow, no. Kind of blows the "incredibly complicated social trend can be distilled into one minute factor" argument, though. If 90% of people in a population smoke and then the next year 95% of people smoke but lung cancer rates decline, I guess that whole "more smoking means more lung cancer" thing is kinda blown.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#150 Dec 17 2012 at 9:50 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT

That photo fails to mention the compulsory military training. But then, none of the people here in the US saying that teachers should have guns are mentioning compulsory military training either so I guess it works out.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Dec 17 2012 at 10:12 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Belkira wrote:
Other people with guns seems to be the only thing that prevents shootings...? That seems a bit odd considering the countries with much lower gun violence than ours who have a ban on guns.

Personally, I think the real answer is addressing mental health issues. Look at Canada. They don't ban guns, but they don't have mass shootings every other year either. I personally think its because everyone there has access to a mental health professional and the means to pay for it (universal healthcare).

But hey, maybe it's really hat every single man woman and child in Canada carries a concealed weapon and that's why gun violence is less prevelent there.


If a Government routinely solves its problems by threatening and then more often than not using, violence, why is anyone surprised when its young, impressionable and socially inept citizens learn from their example?

Especially when that example is promoted ad nauseum by that countries film/television/advertising industry.

Mental health services availiable for everyone would maybe catch a few potential killers, but its really the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff 'solution', no?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 96 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Anonymous Guests (95)