A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

Also, not to pick on the obvious, but Gbaji was the nimrod who brought Norway into the equation by pointing out a single incident and drawing comparisons between Norway and the US. Now that that went tits up for him, he's saying "They're different countries! Stop comparing them!!"

This is also ignoring the fact that, while folks have always tried to find ways to assist their fellow man in shuffling off his mortal coil, they are doing it much less frequently in Norway without firearms.

It's like saying people have always robbed banks. Sure, but if the police have Crown Victorias and the bank robbers have Appaloosas, the bank robbers are going to be a hell of a lot less successful even if they do still give it a go now and then (and even sometimes succeed).

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:01pm by Jophiel

Nothing I provide for you will be considered "proof" by you. I could link this article, if you want:



Or this article



Or this article



Or this one. Admittedly, the same site, so whatever.



Or this article




Obviously, I have no idea if those writing the articles were just making this up, or repeating something they heard, or what. But I didn't invent this, and the need to have this happen certainly seems to be supported by the restrictions of the law itself. What more do you want?

Which is meaningless without the context of how often it does so. So if you mean "I meant to say something completely meaningless" then congratulations, I guess.

why would you need a civilian Lolgaxe? Everyone knows each school comes equipped with a retired Green Beret teaching Freshman English.

It's meaningful within the context of idiots shouting about how we must pass strict gun control in order to prevent mass shootings. Which was the exact context in which I made the comment. Since you've already acknowledged that strict gun control doesn't ensure a nation free of mass shootings, I'll consider my point made and won. Let's move on, ok?

No no no no no, Smash. What gbaji says is that if the secretary is allowed to carry her .17 that she'll for certain stop someone from killing everyone on the other side of the school. Sure, some of those kids are as good as dead, but sure as shootin' not all of them.

In your head, perhaps. You asked me to provide sources that in this particular case, the assistant principle had to run a quarter mile to get to his gun. I provided multiple sources. Again. What more do you want?



Now you're going to quibble over what is meant by civilian? As a member of the US Army Reserves, does this guy have any more legal right to carry a weapon in a school zone than any one else? No? Civilian in the context means anyone who is not an on duty law enforcement officer acting within his legal jurisdiction and therefore allowed to legally carry a firearm under the LEO exception in the statute in question.

We're talking about a change in the law. The law currently prohibits him from carrying a weapon while on campus. Whatever we want to call him, that's the relevant point. Way to miss the forest for one really stupid tree though.



WTF difference does that make? Really? That's what you're going to argue about? Who cares if he saw or heard the shooting start. At some point he became aware of a shooting, decided to intervene, but because his weapon had to be kept in his car 1000 feet off school grounds, he had to run "a quarter mile" to get to it, then run back, and then confront the shooter. You're arguing over irrelevant details. The important ones are that the law made it take longer for him to confront the shooter with his own weapon.



Why does this matter for the point I'm making? WTF is wrong with you? You've lost the argument so you've chosen to try to make it about every damn thing except the actual point of contention. I don't recall any part of my argument hinging on what kind of weapon the shooter was using.



The law treats him as someone not authorized to carry a weapon in a school zone. When not on duty, he is a civilian. WTF? Did stupid just jump in your brain today?


Edited, Jan 24th 2013 12:12pm by gbaji

Or are you going to argue now that somehow I wrote what I didn't want and you just happen to know better? Go on. No but he clearly has more training which I've been pointing out that you've been ignoring like the happy little shitstain that you are, but again cry and change your argument when it suits you. Like no one saw that coming. Better than manning up and saying you made a mistake, or even better finding actual proof. But then again, considering how often you tend to say: - every time a pesky "detail" completely annihilates your argument it really is no surprise at all. You can't just say "here's proof that what I'm saying is correct!" and then cry that the details don't match up and call those irrelevant..You did when you brought it up as proof of your stance, and by your stance I mean the party line. Again, an amusing massive error on your behalf that you stated as a fact to bolster your claims. You're falsifying information to "get your point across," and I'm simply correcting you time and again, and you're crying over it. It really is that simple. Every time you post.

So you're going to cry, or you going to get to it and find proof of what you claim?

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 3:21pm by lolgaxe

Since you're frantic to stop talking about the success of nations with strict gun control, I'll consider your point made as well

Why? Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training. They're excluded from carrying their weapons (while off duty) in these areas, just like anyone else. So why exclude them? Several people made snarky remarks about how a faculty member at a school isn't going to be qualified to deal with a shooter even if armed, complete with jokes about Rambo, yet now we discount the guy who was reserve army because... why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative?



Your average secretary isn't likely to have a concealed weapons permit. The law prevents those who do from being able to carry them in school zones, even those who are off duty police, and members of our military. It's a bit ridiculous to insist that allowing them to do so would just hand guns to untrained folks in our schools while simultaneously insisting that those who do have training somehow don't count when looking at cases where civilians have intervened in shootings. If we excluded everyone who has received any sort of training from the discussion, we're excluding a large portion of the very group we're talking about.



Your post was far more to the point though.

Because it is the complete opposite of what you claimed as fact.

When off duty a member of the military (and the police for that matter) is a civilian legally. Certainly, he's treated as such in the context of the gun free zones we're talking about.