Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#252 Jan 14 2013 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
******
49,740 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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-*** 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.
#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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Still got it! Smiley: lol
#256 Jan 14 2013 at 7:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 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!
*****
16,884 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
******
30,646 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.

#261 Jan 15 2013 at 4:47 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 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
******
27,272 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
******
49,740 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
****
6,471 posts
Today I decided that Alma's 10k title should be "Cognitive Dissonance". It's really the only suitable option.
#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
*****
13,369 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
******
21,262 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: Retired December 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 and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#269 Jan 15 2013 at 4:01 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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
******
34,933 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
******
34,933 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#274 Jan 15 2013 at 10:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 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
*****
13,369 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
******
21,262 posts
The best way to keep crazy people away from other people's guns is for other people to take some **** responsibility and store the guns properly.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 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 and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 61 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (61)