Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#252 Jan 14 2013 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
That horse was asking for it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#253 Jan 14 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Belkira wrote:
I have tried before to guess a point that Alma has made. Almost every time, I get a, "Close, but you missed this..." response. I think it's pretty obvious that I can't understand him.


You're not giving yourself enough credit. When I say "almost but no dice", you conceptually understand my point, you were just off on a detail or two that prevented you from reciting it perfectly. If it were a pass or fail test, you would pass, at least in our most recent discussions.

Belkira wrote:
If I remember correctly, the last time someone asked him his stance on same-sex marriage, the answer was something along the lines of, "I oppose it for personal reasons that I won't divulge because it will muck up the current discussion."


This is a great example of what I wrote above. I DO have personal reasons against it, BUT I did state it on "page 14". When most recently asked by Omega, I directed him there because it's not only irrelevant to the discussion, but would completely derail the conversation into a different conversation. That would be similar to asking someone to explain why they follow a certain faith in a debate on if ID should be taught in schools.

Furthermore, I've also said that it's not the end result that I care about, but how it gets there. I care less of the removal of the ban, but more so on the logic used to lift it.

Belkira wrote:
He has said time and again that he is a "centrist." I am honestly not sure what that means.


That means that I'm in the "center" of politics. I favor both Republican and Democratic policies. Of course it's not perfectly even, but relatively speaking in terms of politics.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#254 Jan 14 2013 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:

This is a great example of what I wrote above. I DO have personal reasons against it, BUT I did state it on "page 14". When most recently asked by Omega, I directed him there because it's not only irrelevant to the discussion, but would completely derail the conversation into a different conversation. That would be similar to asking someone to explain why they follow a certain faith in a debate on if ID should be taught in schools.


Screenshot
.

Still a coward.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#255 Jan 14 2013 at 7:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Still got it! Smiley: lol
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#256 Jan 14 2013 at 7:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Put very simply, and I'm sure Gbaji will scramble to insist this wasn't the case, Gbaji tried to imply that "Armed guards in every school!" was some marginalized and minority opinion from a couple "idiot pundits".


My opposition to the idea that armed security in schools is a good answer to mass shootings at school has nothing to do with how many or how few other people happen to promote it.

Quote:
In reality, it's a majority opinion among the pro-gun sect.


Again. Irrelevant to what I said. While you may agree or disagree with something based on how many other people hold said position, I don't. Part of being a free thinker, I guess.

Quote:
One being promoted by one of the largest and most powerful lobbying organizations in the country. It's not some fringe idea or concept held by "idiots", it's what a whole lot of people promote.


Still wrong.

Quote:
In fact, when the NRA announced it, they tried to get ahead of the blowback with the usual ham-handed conservative remarks of "Oh, I know the media will say..." but then offered a full-throated defense of the idea including details about including armed volunteers and retired law-enforcement and military in every school. This is their plan.


Uh huh. Not seeing where the backpedaling on my part supposedly comes from.

Quote:
Gbaji almost certainly had no idea of this which is why he implied it was some fringe concept. Upon learning that the NRA is promoting it, he's trying to reframe it. That's fine but the initial posts speak for themselves.


No. You leaped ahead of the issue, made an assumption about how I would react, and then proceeded as though your assumption was true. You then interpreted everything I said after that point as though your assumption was true, even after I repeatedly told you it was not. If the NRA actually believes that putting armed security guards in schools is the only and best way to reduce the number of mass shootings, I disagree with them. Just as I disagree with pundits on the radio and TV who repeat just that one proposal as the one thing we should do. Happy?

The difference which you are conveniently skipping over is that the NRA did *not* propose this as the sole course of action. You are correct that I had not read (or even really been aware) of the NRA response, yet I was still more on target (haha!) than you. The first portion of their response:

Quote:
The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.


Huh. That's exactly what I was saying. A week before the NRA said it. Sure, they also talk about putting armed security in schools (and I'm not saying that's not a good idea for other reasons, just not "this is how to stop mass shootings"). And they also talk about violent video games and films too. I think that's the wrong direction as well. Point is that they talked about a lot of different aspect of the issue, but you choose to zero in on the one that I mentioned as though somehow because the NRA said it, I must change my position or something. If you recall, my response was that this wasn't the only thing they proposed. And when I said that, I had not yet read the transcript of their statement.

Amazing how I managed to correctly guess that this was the case. The point I was making, which you appear to have missed entirely in your haste to find some silly "gotcha" response, was that what made those conservative pundits idiots wasn't that they suggest putting armed guards in schools. As I've said several times, I have no problem with that since there are a number of good reasons for doing this. My statement was that it's idiotic when presented as the correct and only solution to the problem of mass shootings. As several people have pointed out (including myself, which is ironic given how many people have tried to use this as an argument against me), the mere presence of armed security at a school doesn't seem to affect the decision or outcome of a mass shooting much at all. Columbine had an armed security guard. They just choose to start shooting at a time/place where he wasn't.


My argument all through this thread (and the previous one) has been very consistent: The best way to prevent a potential mass shooting from becoming a mass shooting is if there are non-uniformed people in the area who are armed. Since it's not obvious to a potential shooter that they're armed (or capable of arming themselves quickly), he can't choose to avoid them prior to making his presence known. Thus, they will always have the best chance to stop a shooting in the very early stages. Certainly far far faster than any armed/uniformed response can occur. The only variable is the odds that there is such a person in the vicinity when the shooting starts. So I believe we should be looking at legal changes which maximize the odds of a non-uniformed person being armed and in the immediate vicinity of the start of a shooting. But what our current laws do is minimize those odds instead.

That's where our focus should be. Removing the gun-free zone restrictions around schools would be a great start. The degree to which someone argues for armed security guards in school in preference to this (or instead of this), I will absolutely label as "idiotic". And I've heard a number of conservative pundits doing just that. IMO, that just serves to distract the issue from what really needs to be done to a meaningless placebo. I get why they propose this (it's easier to argue for, and less likely to be opposed), but I don't think it'll actually solve the problem. Hence my disagreement with it.


BTW. I *also* think people who argue for increased gun control, including restrictions on cosmetic features of guns and magazine sizes, are idiotic. But I'll note that you didn't make any attempt to compare this to the NRA and make some broad conclusion about my motivations in that case. Bit selective, don't you think?

Edited, Jan 14th 2013 5:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#257 Jan 14 2013 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
It should be noted that the NRA released a free video game today, for ages 4 & up.

The AK47 will cost you $.99 though.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#258 Jan 14 2013 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji backpedaling while insisting with great walls of text that he's not backpedaling? Shocker!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#259 Jan 14 2013 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,598 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji backpedaling while insisting with great walls of text that he's not backpedaling? Shocker!


If he shifted into a higher gear, it wouldn't take so long for him to backpedal (but, he'd have to work a bit harder...)
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#260 Jan 14 2013 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
I heard on the radio this evening that gun sales of the particular gun that the asshole used to kill all of those people in Newtown are booming. I admit that the shooting didn't exactly reduce me to tears or anything, but that's just sick.

____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#261 Jan 15 2013 at 4:47 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,671 posts
Hey, it's obviously a good gun. Might as well get yourself one before they're banned!
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#262 Jan 15 2013 at 7:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You never know when twenty first-graders might try to break into your home and you'll need to kill them all.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#263 Jan 15 2013 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,671 posts
I hear that happens around once a year on average in America. Little buggers come to steal your sweets.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#264 Jan 15 2013 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,123 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I hear that happens around once a year on average in America. Little buggers come to steal your sweets.
I'm setting out M18s this year.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#265 Jan 15 2013 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Today I decided that Alma's 10k title should be "Cognitive Dissonance". It's really the only suitable option.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#266 Jan 15 2013 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Dissing cognizance
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#267 Jan 15 2013 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
post 213
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#268 Jan 15 2013 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,067 posts
My father in law called us last night, asking us to look up prices for that particular gun and its related ammo. He was disappointed that not only was the ammo not cheaper online, the ammo was also back ordered and unavailable at the websites we searched. Smiley: laugh And you can't buy guns online.

Edited, Jan 15th 2013 12:14pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#269 Jan 15 2013 at 4:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
My argument all through this thread (and the previous one) has been very consistent: The best way to prevent a potential mass shooting from becoming a mass shooting is if there are non-uniformed people in the area who are armed. Since it's not obvious to a potential shooter that they're armed (or capable of arming themselves quickly), he can't choose to avoid them prior to making his presence known. Thus, they will always have the best chance to stop a shooting in the very early stages. Certainly far far faster than any armed/uniformed response can occur. The only variable is the odds that there is such a person in the vicinity when the shooting starts. So I believe we should be looking at legal changes which maximize the odds of a non-uniformed person being armed and in the immediate vicinity of the start of a shooting. But what our current laws do is minimize those odds instead.


That might work in certain environments, but not in a school environment, unless you're strapping children. Obviously the adults will have the weapons. At that point, you just target the adults first, then the kids. I would assume that any serious shooter would have done that anyway. Therefore, not changing anything.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#270 Jan 15 2013 at 5:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We should just have guns chained to the walls in malls, theaters, schools, hospitals, churches, etc. Like fire extinguishers. Then no one would shoot anyone anywhere because anyone could just grab the nearest Safety Gun and shoot him down.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#271 Jan 15 2013 at 5:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Belkira wrote:
I heard on the radio this evening that gun sales of the particular gun that the asshole used to kill all of those people in Newtown are booming. I admit that the shooting didn't exactly reduce me to tears or anything, but that's just sick.


Why is it sick? It's already the most popular rifle in the US. It's sales were "booming" before the shooting. What do you suppose will happen when you get a bunch of knuckleheads knee-jerking their "ban the weapon" position all over the place? Sales will go up even more because people are afraid they might not be able to buy one if someone does manage to push some sort of ban through.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#272 Jan 15 2013 at 5:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
My argument all through this thread (and the previous one) has been very consistent: The best way to prevent a potential mass shooting from becoming a mass shooting is if there are non-uniformed people in the area who are armed. Since it's not obvious to a potential shooter that they're armed (or capable of arming themselves quickly), he can't choose to avoid them prior to making his presence known. Thus, they will always have the best chance to stop a shooting in the very early stages. Certainly far far faster than any armed/uniformed response can occur. The only variable is the odds that there is such a person in the vicinity when the shooting starts. So I believe we should be looking at legal changes which maximize the odds of a non-uniformed person being armed and in the immediate vicinity of the start of a shooting. But what our current laws do is minimize those odds instead.


That might work in certain environments, but not in a school environment, unless you're strapping children. Obviously the adults will have the weapons. At that point, you just target the adults first, then the kids. I would assume that any serious shooter would have done that anyway. Therefore, not changing anything.


Except perhaps that the shooter is now roaming the halls looking for armed faculty members instead of shooting at students trapped in classrooms with no way to escape. You're right! I can't see at all how that could reduce the number of children killed in such shootings. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#273 Jan 15 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
My argument all through this thread (and the previous one) has been very consistent: The best way to prevent a potential mass shooting from becoming a mass shooting is if there are non-uniformed people in the area who are armed. Since it's not obvious to a potential shooter that they're armed (or capable of arming themselves quickly), he can't choose to avoid them prior to making his presence known. Thus, they will always have the best chance to stop a shooting in the very early stages. Certainly far far faster than any armed/uniformed response can occur. The only variable is the odds that there is such a person in the vicinity when the shooting starts. So I believe we should be looking at legal changes which maximize the odds of a non-uniformed person being armed and in the immediate vicinity of the start of a shooting. But what our current laws do is minimize those odds instead.


That might work in certain environments, but not in a school environment, unless you're strapping children. Obviously the adults will have the weapons. At that point, you just target the adults first, then the kids. I would assume that any serious shooter would have done that anyway. Therefore, not changing anything.


Except perhaps that the shooter is now roaming the halls looking for armed faculty members instead of shooting at students trapped in classrooms with no way to escape. You're right! I can't see at all how that could reduce the number of children killed in such shootings. Smiley: oyvey


What? These people kill themselves after the fact. They are not afraid of dying, they just want to cause as much as harm before they die. Adults are more likely to prevent the shooter from total chaos.

If you're going to cause a mass killing, you don't do it in the "halls", you do it in a classroom, gym, or cafeteria. The adult student ratio is not in your plan's favor. So much so, the shooter can aim for the kids first and still kill a number before being stopped.

Look man. I gave you credit in some scenarios, but have the balls to admit to say that your plan simply wont change anything in grade school environment.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#274 Jan 15 2013 at 10:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except perhaps that the shooter is now roaming the halls looking for armed faculty members instead of shooting at students trapped in classrooms with no way to escape. You're right! I can't see at all how that could reduce the number of children killed in such shootings. Smiley: oyvey


What? These people kill themselves after the fact. They are not afraid of dying, they just want to cause as much as harm before they die. Adults are more likely to prevent the shooter from total chaos.


And? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Quote:
If you're going to cause a mass killing, you don't do it in the "halls", you do it in a classroom, gym, or cafeteria. The adult student ratio is not in your plan's favor. So much so, the shooter can aim for the kids first and still kill a number before being stopped.


Except you stated that the response a shooter would have to the potential of armed faculty in the area would be to shoot at the adults first. Which is it? He's either going to have to take out all the adults in the area and continually watch out for more who might show up to stop him *or* he's going to ignore them and just try to kill as many students as he can until someone does show up and shoots him. In either scenario, the total number of students he can kill will be fewer in direct proportion to the proximity and number of any armed faculty members. He's either tied up in a shootout with the armed folks showing up to stop him *or* he's easy to take out by those same armed folks showing up.

In either case, the total number of fatalities will be less than if we're relying on uniformed police to show up or even uniformed security because unless we've got them posted in every corner of the school, he'll start his shooting where they aren't (or start out by shooting them since he knows who they are). Any location of a school with students will also have faculty nearby. Therefore, there will always be the potential that said faculty members could arrive very quickly on the scene with a firearm and stop the shooting. Everything else being the same, this will result in fewer fatalities.

Quote:
Look man. I gave you credit in some scenarios, but have the balls to admit to say that your plan simply wont change anything in grade school environment.


Why? I'm not wrong. The absolute truth is that had even one faculty member at Sandyhook had a firearm available to them on campus, there would have been fewer dead kids, possibly even no dead kids. Instead, the faculty were helpless to prevent the deaths of those children. You can't possibly tell me that every single one of those teachers who died trying to shield their students with their bodies would not have been better able to protect them if they'd been armed. And you can't possibly tell me that teachers willing to put their bodies between a shooter and their students would not also have been willing to engage said shooter with a firearm. If only they had any ability to have one in the first place. And you can't possibly tell me that all the rest of the faculty at the school didn't feel helpless because they could not stop the shooter, despite presumably wanting to do so. If only one of them had had a gun in an office or locker in the school, how much quicker could the shooter have been stopped?

This is not a matter of absolutes. I can't say for sure what would have happened. But I can say that the number of deaths in a shooting like that is directly related to how long it takes an armed person to confront the shooter. Period. The statistics overwhelmingly show that once an armed person confronts a shooter, the deaths stop. The objective should be to get an armed person to confront the shooter as quickly as possible. I can't think of any better way to do that than to allow faculty to bring firearms to work "just in case". Let the schools figure out how to do this safely, but let them do it. Don't just outright bar them from this course of action by legislative fiat based on knee-jerk fear of guns. I'm not saying require them to do this either. Just remove the restrictions which prevent them from even having the option to.


I don't see how that's so much to ask.

Edited, Jan 15th 2013 8:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#275 Jan 16 2013 at 10:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
Looks like they're leaking the official response: Linky.

Quote:
President Barack Obama will unveil Wednesday a package of gun control proposals that, according to a source, will include universal background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.


No big surprises there, every gun nut in America would tell you they saw it coming. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess it doesn't make it past the house with all 3 of those things intact. I'd like to see universal background check thing though. I suppose we'll have to wait for the final draft, but I'm not seeing anything addressing mental health, or how to help keep crazy people away from other people's guns.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#276 Jan 16 2013 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,067 posts
The best way to keep crazy people away from other people's guns is for other people to take some damn responsibility and store the guns properly.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#277 Jan 16 2013 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
So how do we make that happen?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#278 Jan 16 2013 at 10:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Armed guards in every home!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#279 Jan 16 2013 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,123 posts
gbaji wrote:
The absolute truth is that had even one faculty member at Sandyhook had a firearm available to them on campus, there would have been fewer dead kids, possibly even no dead kids.
A best case scenario, maybe. Absolute truth? Too many variables to pretend there is any certainty. For one, that one faculty member would have to be extremely close to where the shooting took place, with their weapon ready. Then you'd have to account for the shooter not knowing about said faculty member. It's a pretty big building, after all. Multiple entrances, low windows.

Frankly, one mook pretending to be Dirty Harry most likely wouldn't have made much of a difference at all. That's as dumb as thinking that the shooter would have gone after the over glorified armed mall cop instead of just going in and doing what he did.

Edited, Jan 16th 2013 11:39am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#280 Jan 16 2013 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji lives for making up hypotheticals and calling them absolutes. The number of "absolutely", "it's a fact", "without question" and like phrases he sprinkles into his posts is pretty funny. He's dead-set on pretending to be an authority on any topic and his means of trying to convey that is through use of those terms (within the spray of word-vomit, of course). Sort of like Gingrich's attempt to come across as sagely and professorial on a topic by meaningless usage of "fundamentally", "profoundly", "deeply", etc. It's a verbal/written tic to make up for an internal inadequacy.

Obviously it's not "absolute truth" that an armed adult would have led to less deaths. The adult could have been immediately killed or fired, missed and hit other children. The adult could have just choked and never drew a weapon at all. The shooter seemingly chose the location for an emotional attachment, not because he feared schools that might have a teacher with a pistol.

Edited, Jan 16th 2013 11:03am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#281 Jan 16 2013 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,671 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
So how do we make that happen?
Shoot em first. They'll learn.





Or die, either way the problem's solved.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#282 Jan 16 2013 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
So how do we make that happen?
Shoot em first. They'll learn.





Or die, either way the problem's solved.

Sounds suspect, I don't want some gun-wielding zombie chasing me down.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#283 Jan 16 2013 at 1:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not too many gun-wielding zombies out there so the odds are in your favor. I can only think of the undead Marines from DOOM, the soldier zombies in Stalker and the only cinematic ones that jump to mind are the clockwork-zombie German soldiers from Suckerpunch.

What I'm getting from this is that you should be safe unless you're killing the military.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#284 Jan 16 2013 at 1:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
With as many sword-swinging zombies as I've met in forgotten ancient tombs I guess I just assumed they would simply grab the nearest weapon and attack relentlessly. I suppose it might be harder to pull a trigger as a zombie than simply hold a sword though. Since you need all those fine motor skills which some zombies seem to lack.

Not enough research devoted to undead dexterity issues; it's only going to come back to haunt us in the end. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#285 Jan 16 2013 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
There was the one from Land of the Dead. And the ones from the end of Survival of the Dead.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#286 Jan 16 2013 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I never saw any of the "...of the Dead" flicks after the second.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#287 Jan 16 2013 at 2:12 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
With as many sword-swinging zombies as I've met in forgotten ancient tombs I guess I just assumed they would simply grab the nearest weapon and attack relentlessly. I suppose it might be harder to pull a trigger as a zombie than simply hold a sword though. Since you need all those fine motor skills which some zombies seem to lack.

Not enough research devoted to undead dexterity issues; it's only going to come back to haunt us in the end. Smiley: disappointed

What kind of ancient tombs you been visiting? All the ones I've been to contain mummies.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#288 Jan 16 2013 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I never saw any of the "...of the Dead" flicks after the second.
The first second, or the second second?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#289 Jan 16 2013 at 2:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
Elinda wrote:
What kind of ancient tombs you been visiting? All the ones I've been to contain mummies.


Suppose that begs another question: what's the difference between a re-animated skeleton, zombie and mummy?


Edited, Jan 16th 2013 12:28pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#290 Jan 16 2013 at 2:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The original Night of the Living Dead (1968) and Dawn of the Dead (1978).

I saw the first in a high school film studies class.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#291 Jan 16 2013 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,551 posts

The 2004 Dawn of the Dead was great. I mean, not great cinema, but great relative to other zombie/horror movies.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#292 Jan 16 2013 at 6:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The absolute truth is that had even one faculty member at Sandyhook had a firearm available to them on campus, there would have been fewer dead kids, possibly even no dead kids.
A best case scenario, maybe. Absolute truth?


Yeah. I misswrote that. Put the word "likely" in between "there" and "would". Funny how I've been careful to express this as a probability issue all along, but you both leaped on the one time I forgot to put a word to indicate that this wasn't a guaranteed outcome.

Quote:
Too many variables to pretend there is any certainty.


Of course. Again, I've said repeatedly that everything else being the same, the odds are that fewer kids will die if there are armed non-uniformed people in the area of a shooting than if there are not. Of course there's no guarantee. This is something I've clearly stated multiple times. You just choose to quote the one time I forgot to make this clear.

What is "certain", however, is that we have better odds of fewer kids being killed if we have armed faculty members than if we don't.

Quote:
For one, that one faculty member would have to be extremely close to where the shooting took place, with their weapon ready. Then you'd have to account for the shooter not knowing about said faculty member. It's a pretty big building, after all. Multiple entrances, low windows.


It's a grade school. Have you been to a grade school since you attended one? They're not that big. Might take all of 30 seconds to run from one end to the other in most cases. Maybe a minute depending on the layout.

This is also irrelevant. Any such armed faculty member will almost certainly be much closer than the police. Probably much much closer. Even if it takes that person 5 minutes to retrieve their gun and confront the shooter, that's about 1/4th the time it took the police to arrive in this case. How many fewer kids will die in that case? I don't know. But a simplistic statistical guess would be 3/4ths fewer. So instead of 20 dead kids, you'd have 5. That seems worthwhile, doesn't it?

And that's assuming an even distribution of killings. But we know that the shooter first killed the principle in her office, then shot more faculty in the halls while heading towards the classroom. Then he shot the teachers in the classroom. Then he started shooting the kids. It's quite possible in this case that an armed response within 5 minutes would have occurred before he took his first shot at any children at all.

As you say, there are many variables, but everything else being the same, quicker armed response is better. And the best way to ensure a quicker response (without the ridiculous expense of paying armed guards to stand around every area of every school in America) is if faculty can be armed. Again, I'm not saying we should require this at all. I'm just saying that we should remove the current laws which prohibit this.

Quote:
Frankly, one mook pretending to be Dirty Harry most likely wouldn't have made much of a difference at all.


Most likely? Even if there was just a 5% chance of saving the life of one child, isn't that still worth it? What do we gain by prohibiting faculty (anyone really) from having guns in a school zone? There's zero cost here. Even if there's just a small gain, it's worth doing.

Quote:
That's as dumb as thinking that the shooter would have gone after the over glorified armed mall cop instead of just going in and doing what he did.


If there had been an armed security guard standing at the entryway of the school, you can bet that the shooter would have simply shot him first. Again, lots of variables here, but while most of these shooters may be insane, they are typically not stupid. Most mass shootings are well planned, well ahead of time. Remember that we need to deal not just with this last shooting, but with the next one. We need to look at what will do the most good in the most number of cases with the least amount of cost and infringement of our rights. Simply removing the prohibitions in place regarding guns in school zones is more or less free and gains us at least some increased chance of reducing the number of fatalities in a shooting.

To me, that makes it a good decision. Sadly, it likely will not even be considered because one side of our gun control debate has lost sight of the objective (reduce crime and killing) and substituted it with their assumed solution (get rid of guns). So they can't allow any solution which actually reduces restrictions on guns, even if it quite clearly would reduce the number of deaths in these types of shootings. The cause has lost its way.

Edited, Jan 16th 2013 4:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#293 Jan 16 2013 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The absolute truth is that there would have likely...?

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Ah, you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#294 Jan 16 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,598 posts
"Absolute" "Likely" same thing.

Just don't accuse him of backpedaling, cause that's not was it is, it was merely you misunderstanding what he meant.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#295 Jan 16 2013 at 6:49 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:

And? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.


An armed person will not deter a shooter from trying to shoot. An adult is more likely to interfere with a shooting, armed or not. So, therefore, having a concealed weapon wouldn't change anything. The shooter isn't trying not to be killed, but to kill as much as possible before getting killed.

Gbaji wrote:
Except you stated that the response a shooter would have to the potential of armed faculty in the area would be to shoot at the adults first. Which is it?


It's the same!! There is no difference, that's the point. Regardless if the adult is armed or not, any shooter serious about dealing mass damage will aim for the adult first. Except, they aren't aiming in the "halls", but in crowded areas such as classrooms where there are 20 + students and ONE adult.

You're creating a stupid scenario where a shooter is just busting caps down the hall as opposed to a crowded area such as a gym, cafeteria or classroom.

Gbaji wrote:
He's either going to have to take out all the adults in the area and continually watch out for more who might show up to stop him *or* he's going to ignore them and just try to kill as many students as he can until someone does show up and shoots him.


Neither, you shoot the ONE adult in the classroom and kill as many students as you can before other adults arrive.

Gbaji wrote:
In either scenario, the total number of students he can kill will be fewer in direct proportion to the proximity and number of any armed faculty members. He's either tied up in a shootout with the armed folks showing up to stop him *or* he's easy to take out by those same armed folks showing up.

In either case, the total number of fatalities will be less than if we're relying on uniformed police to show up or even uniformed security because unless we've got them posted in every corner of the school, he'll start his shooting where they aren't (or start out by shooting them since he knows who they are). Any location of a school with students will also have faculty nearby. Therefore, there will always be the potential that said faculty members could arrive very quickly on the scene with a firearm and stop the shooting. Everything else being the same, this will result in fewer fatalities.


No. Having metal detectors will help prevent people entering school premises with fire arms. An armed guard wont change anything. Everyone around President Regan was strapped and he was still shot at. You have to prevent the person from having access and opportunities to shoot in order to prevent the shooting. Unarmed guards is acting in reaction as opposed to be being proactive.

Are the lives of armed guards not valuable?

Gbaji wrote:
Why? I'm not wrong. The absolute truth is that had even one faculty member at Sandyhook had a firearm available to them on campus, there would have been fewer dead kids, possibly even no dead kids. Instead, the faculty were helpless to prevent the deaths of those children. You can't possibly tell me that every single one of those teachers who died trying to shield their students with their bodies would not have been better able to protect them if they'd been armed. And you can't possibly tell me that teachers willing to put their bodies between a shooter and their students would not also have been willing to engage said shooter with a firearm. If only they had any ability to have one in the first place. And you can't possibly tell me that all the rest of the faculty at the school didn't feel helpless because they could not stop the shooter, despite presumably wanting to do so. If only one of them had had a gun in an office or locker in the school, how much quicker could the shooter have been stopped?


By detecting the weapon at the entrance of the school with a detector. You can't get any quicker than that. Even then, he could have shot the guard at the door, hence the dislike of firearms. Of course having strapped teachers would have reduced the kill count, but to believe that no one would have died or gotten hurt is asinine.

1. There's only ONE teacher in a classroom. He could have easily taken out a class before being stopped.
2. Having a gun doesn't make you Clint Eastwood. This isn't Hollywood. When bullets fly off, people may/will react differently than what they think they would.
3. Not everyone (especially teachers) are instantly emotionally stable to kill (especially another child). I'm sure some will try to "talk it through" before attempting to shoot. While doing that, that adult can get killed.

Gbaji wrote:
This is not a matter of absolutes. I can't say for sure what would have happened. But I can say that the number of deaths in a shooting like that is directly related to how long it takes an armed person to confront the shooter. Period. The statistics overwhelmingly show that once an armed person confronts a shooter, the deaths stop. The objective should be to get an armed person to confront the shooter as quickly as possible. I can't think of any better way to do that than to allow faculty to bring firearms to work "just in case". Let the schools figure out how to do this safely, but let them do it. Don't just outright bar them from this course of action by legislative fiat based on knee-jerk fear of guns. I'm not saying require them to do this either. Just remove the restrictions which prevent them from even having the option to.


Except there is only ONE adult in a classroom. So, yes, you will stop the killer, but not before a dozen deaths.

Gbaji wrote:


I don't see how that's so much to ask.


It's not. It just doesn't solve the problem, which is stopping mass shootings. Your supposition would only affect the time to cease the killer.

Edited, Jan 17th 2013 3:40am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#296 Jan 16 2013 at 7:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The absolute truth is that there would have likely...?


Yes. I understand that most people have only a simplistic grasp of language, but that's a perfectly correct formulation. Absolute refers to truth. Likely refers to the odds of a given outcome.

It's like saying that it's absolutely true that a good diet and regular exercise will decrease your odds of getting heart disease. Does it guarantee that you wont? No. Does it guarantee that everyone who doesn't will? No. But everything else being the same, you're less likely to develop heart disease if you have a good diet and regular exercise than if you don't. That's an "absolute truth".


Of course, once again you'd prefer to argue semantics than the issue at hand. Are you arguing that we're worse off with regards to mass shootings by allowing faculty to bring firearms to the school if they wish? I would argue that we're worse off because we expressly prohibit faculty from having firearms while at the school (and have). How about actually arguing against my point instead of trying to find semantic errors? I know. Crazy thought!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#297 Jan 16 2013 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Are the lives of armed guards not valuable?
No. The only life that matters to gbaji is his own.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#298 Jan 16 2013 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
gbaji wrote:
How about actually arguing against my point instead of trying to find semantic errors? I know. Crazy thought!
You mean the semantic argument you started yourself when you tried to backpedal out from your absolute truth of how that lone gunman would have saved all those precious kids? Crazy indeed.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#299 Jan 16 2013 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

And? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.


An armed person will not deter a shooter from trying to shoot. An adult is more likely to interfere with a shooting, armed or not. So, therefore, having a concealed weapon wouldn't change anything. The shooter isn't trying not to be killed, but to kill as much as possible before getting killed.


Yes. But an armed adult has a much greater chance of killing the shooter sooner than if he's unarmed. Thus, decreasing the number of people the shooter can kill before he's stopped. How the hell does this not occur to you?


Quote:
Regardless if the adult is armed or not, any shooter serious about dealing mass damage will aim for the adult first. Except, they aren't aiming in the "halls", but in crowded areas such as classrooms where there are 20 + students and ONE adult.

You're creating a stupid scenario where a shooter is just busting caps down the hall as opposed to a crowded area such as a gym, cafeteria or classroom.


Except that the "stupid scenario" tends to happen more often than not. The shooter does not magically appear in the classroom. He tends to start near an entrance to the school, and shoots his way *to* a classroom. In the case of the newtown shooting, he went into the front office area first, shot the principle and a couple staff members, then went through the hallways of the school (presumably shooting at anyone in his way), until he got to the classroom he was targeting. Then he shot the teacher(s) in that classroom and their students.

Similarly, the Columbine shooting mostly occurred in the hallways, not in the classrooms themselves. They shot into classrooms, but did not just stay in one spot the whole time. The Virginia Tech shooter traveled between two different buildings, firing somewhat randomly at people he ran into in the halls and into classrooms as he passed them. In all of those cases, there were ample opportunities for an adult with a firearm to interfere with the shooting.

You're also forgetting that even if the shooter enters a single classroom and begins killing everyone there, there are other rooms, and other halls, and other members of the faculty. All of them well within distance to approach the shooter from behind while he's shooting folks in that one room. It's not like once he enters that room, the rest of the universe disappears. He goes into one room. Teacher down the hall hears the shooting. He runs to his office, gets his gun, runs to the classroom where the shooting is occurring, and kills the shooter. Everything else staying the same, he'll be able to do that far far faster than police will be able to arrive.

Quote:
Neither, you shoot the ONE adult in the classroom and kill as many students as you can before other adults arrive.


Ok. But if the other adults are not armed, they can't do anything about the shooting. That's what you're missing. If the adults who arrive are armed, they can stop the shooting. If they are not, then what? They yell at him to stop from the doorway and get shot? Do you understand that the best way to stop him is if those other adults are armed. It took about 20 minutes for police to arrive at Sandyhook elementary. He did not stop shooting until they arrived on the scene. Are you seriously trying to argue that in 20 minutes not a single other adult faculty member could have gone into the classroom where he was shooting?

Of course they could have. But they couldn't stop him because he was armed and they were not. See how that works? If they had been armed, they could have shot him and stopped the shooting, and likely saved the lives of many children.

Quote:
No. Having metal detectors will help prevent people entering school premises with fire arms.


That's the most moronic thing you've said. How? It will only stop someone if they stop when the detector goes off. I'm reasonably certain that someone who's decided to shoot a bunch of people isn't going to stop because he set off a metal detector.

Quote:
An armed guard wont change anything. Everyone around President Regan was strapped and he was still shot at. You have to prevent the person from having access and opportunities to shoot in order to prevent the shooting. Unarmed guards is acting in reaction as opposed to be being proactive.

Are the lives of armed guards not valuable?


That makes no sense at all. I'm talking about only one thing: Whether removing the current restrictions on allowing faculty at school to be armed would reduce the likely fatality rate in the event of an shooting incident at the school? You're tossing in completely unrelated things which have no bearing on what I'm saying.

Quote:
By detecting the weapon at the entrance of the school with a detector. You can't get any quicker than that.


Great! But someone has to stop the shooter. I'm not opposed to a metal detector at all. That would give the faculty members who brought guns to school even more time to get them and stop the shooter. But again, everything else staying the same the response time of those armed faculty members will be faster than the police. If it takes the police 20 minutes after the metal detector goes off to arrive, and an armed faculty member 5 minutes, then that's 3/4ths less time the shooter has to kill people.

Quote:
Even then, he could have shot the guard at the door, hence the dislike of firearms.


Yes. Which is why I said simply posting uniformed guards is of questionable value. They become obvious first targets. A shooter can make a plan to kill the one or two armed guards first, then know that everyone else is helpless. If he has no idea which of the 100 plus faculty members in the school may be armed, he can't make that kind of plan. That's why allowing those faculty members to be armed works.

Quote:
Of course having strapped teachers would have reduced the kill count, but to believe that no one would have died or gotten hurt is asinine.


I never once said no one would have died or gotten hurt. I said the number of fatalities would be lower. So you're basically acknowledging that I'm right, but then deciding to pretend I really said something else? Kinda silly.

Quote:
1. There's only ONE teacher in a classroom. He could have easily taken out a class before being stopped.


He can't kill at infinite speed. There's always a time element involved. And everything else staying the same, the faster you can get armed opposition to the shooter, the fewer people will die.

Quote:
2. Having a gun doesn't make you Clint Eastwood. This isn't Hollywood. When bullets fly off, people may/will react differently than what you think you would.


So? Worst case is that the person has a gun and chickens out and hides instead of confronting the shooter. Which is precisely what they'd do if they weren't armed. Not seeing the problem here.

Quote:
3. Not everyone (especially teachers) are instantly emotionally stable to kill (especially another child). I'm sure some will try to "talk it through" before attempting to shoot. While doing that, that adult can get killed.


So? An adult or child who would have died if the person hadn't been armed. You're failing to grasp how the statement "everything else being the same" works. The same person who would stop to talk it through with the shooter while armed will presumably take the same course of action if not armed. Not seeing the point you're making here. Being armed at least gives the other person more options to stop the shooter. Being disarmed decreases his options. Again, everything else being the same, the shooter is more likely to kill fewer victims if he's faced with armed opposition than not.

Quote:
Except there is only ONE adult in a classroom. So, yes, you will stop the killer, but not before a dozen deaths.


But maybe before 2 dozen? What part of "fewer fatalities" is confusing you?

I'm not sure why you're fixated on this "one adult in a classroom" thing. So what? There are many adults in the school. And every single one of them is closer to the shooting than the police. And most of them will be closer than an armed guard. So everything else being the same, if some of them are armed, they will be able to decrease the number of people who die.


[quote]It's not. It just doesn't solve the problem, stopping school shootings. Your supposition would only affect the time to cease the killer.[/quote]

I never said this would prevent school shootings (let's not use the word 'stop' because it can have at least two very different meanings here). What I have said, repeatedly, is that it would reduce the statistical number of fatalities from school shootings.

Let's remember that armed guards at the school also wont prevent school shootings. And armed police just a few miles away wont prevent school shootings. And gun control, short of eliminating the 2nd amendment wont stop school shootings (and probably wont even then). A proposal does not have to be perfect to still be better than other proposals. Allowing faculty members in schools the option of bringing firearms to school does not cost us anything, but has a great potential to reduce the number of deaths when school shootings occur. This does not preclude other actions as well, but this one doesn't prevent those other ones either. We can tighten restrictions on background checks, we can do more to prevent people with mental problems from obtaining firearms, we can put more security in our schools, and put metal detectors in, and all sorts of other things. But allowing faculty to be armed still reduces the likely fatality rate from shootings in schools in all of those cases on top of whatever other benefits they have themselves.


Hence, everything else being the same, it's a good idea to do this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#300 Jan 16 2013 at 8:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How about actually arguing against my point instead of trying to find semantic errors? I know. Crazy thought!
You mean the semantic argument you started yourself when you tried to backpedal out from your absolute truth of how that lone gunman would have saved all those precious kids? Crazy indeed.


Could have saved all those kids. Likely would have saved some of them at the very least. The shooter did not stop shooting until the police arrived. And armed faculty members could have intervened far far faster. Is this even a matter for debate? Or do you guys argue against it because it just doesn't fit into the knee-jerk "guns are bad" assumption you have?


Sorry, but that's crazy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#301 Jan 16 2013 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,598 posts
gbaji wrote:
Could Would have saved all those kids.


You shouldn't misquote yourself, it isn't becoming of you.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 80 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (80)