Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#277 Jan 16 2013 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 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
****
7,546 posts
Armed guards in every home!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#279 Jan 16 2013 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 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
******
27,272 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
*****
13,369 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
*****
13,369 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
******
49,744 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
*****
16,594 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:
I lost my post
#288 Jan 16 2013 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 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
*****
13,369 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
*****
12,636 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
******
34,933 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!
*****
16,884 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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
#296 Jan 16 2013 at 7:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 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
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Are the lives of armed guards not valuable?
No. The only life that matters to gbaji is his own.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#298 Jan 16 2013 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 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
******
34,933 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 **** 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
******
34,933 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!
*****
16,884 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: 61 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (61)