Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#302 Jan 16 2013 at 8:48 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
gbaji wrote:

Could have saved all those kids. Likely would have saved some of them at the very least.

Except for all those times that it hasn't.

Quote:
Sorry, but that's crazy.


Why yes, what you just said is pretty crazy.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#303 Jan 16 2013 at 9:10 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,733 posts
gbaji wrote:
Likely would have saved some of them at the very least.
Not even likely, as you keep ignoring. "In a best case scenario" he could have saved some of them. ****, I'll up it and say that best case scenario he could have saved all of them, but it isn't realistic. A more likely outcome of a single gun in a building that size is the same outcome. Twenty plus dead. You're ignoring that just because the shooter stopped for police dogs, police tactical units, a bomb squad, and a state police helicopter, he might not feel that intimidated by a fourth grade teacher or Paul Blart with a single 9mm and questionable training, and I'm being highly generous with the caliber for you on this one, because let's face facts in that there will never, eeeeeeeeeeeever, be a higher caliber weapon in a school just out of fear of piercing walls and causing more damage to the people they're meant to protect. You'll never get a .44. That is an example of an absolute truth. You're also assuming that if there was a gun on the premises that everything else would have played out exactly the same. I highly doubt that if there was a gun, the little creep would have gone through the front door, which would pretty much be where you stationed a guard. A roaming guard is only good if you've got multiple guards to cover a large portion of the area, and one in the middle makes him useless in all directions. Realistically, if there was an element of danger, he'd probably have had to think more thoroughly about it and most likely there would have been more blood shed, not less. Kid might have been mentally unsound, but I've yet to read anything where he was stupid. He was an honor student.

If you want to argue that when you say "likely" you now actually mean "in the best case scenario where everything lines up perfectly," then go ahead. But the likely outcome is that a single gun in Larry Daley's hands would have been pretty useless in Sandy Hook, or any similar sized facility.

Edited, Jan 16th 2013 10:13pm 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.
#304 Jan 16 2013 at 9:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Could Would have saved all those kids.


You shouldn't misquote yourself, it isn't becoming of you.


Funny, given that you misquoted me in the first place:

Quote:
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.


I never said it "would have saved all those kids". I said there would have been "fewer dead kids, possibly even no dead kids". If you're going to make a semantic argument, at least get the **** words right. I've acknowledged that I should have put the word "likely" in there, since we can't guarantee that any kids would have been saved. But that really misses the point. There would not have been more dead kids, but a possibility of fewer dead kids.

Isn't that worth doing?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#305 Jan 16 2013 at 10:24 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,883 posts
gbaji wrote:
There would not have been more dead kids,


Says you? How do you know that someone else having a gun during the ordeal would not have provoked the gunner further and made him more aggressive? Or that the addition of the other gun causes someone to get hit by an added bullet fire (cause even the most trained people can make mistakes under pressure)? If we are going to play the what if game with the added guns, why ignore the negative possibilities (other than, it makes your point of view seem better).
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#306 Jan 16 2013 at 10:58 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

My roughly-sketched idea:
You need an ATF-issued license to own a gun, which entails passing background and mental health checks, and also passing a written and/or demonstrated safety exam. You have to go to an ATF-run facility every 3-5 years to renew your gun ownership license, which may involve retesting or re-background checking. And you have to bring your registered guns with you. If you don't show up, or don't produce all your guns, you lose your license, and a warrant can be issued to confiscate your guns. You can only resell to strictly-licensed gun dealers (not every corner pawn shop), and all sales must be registered or you and the buyer both lose your license. The government will always buy back your gun at market value. If you report too many guns as "lost" or "stolen," you lose your license.

As for the guns themselves, I'd like to see technology knocked back like 100 years. Handguns have to be revolvers, rifles have to be bolt- or lever-action, shotguns have to be pumped. No type can hold more than 6 rounds.

/end pipe dream
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#307 Jan 16 2013 at 11:27 PM Rating: Good
******
49,733 posts
trickybeck wrote:
Handguns have to be revolvers, rifles have to be bolt- or lever-action, shotguns have to be pumped.
Like the .44 Magnum, or the M40, and pump action shotguns tend to not have trigger disconnectors, so accidental (and rapid) discharge there. Granted, none of my examples are hundred year old, but I think the overall point that they're not any less lethal than modern tech is still valid.

Just to add, I prefer revolvers and bolt action rifles for the very reason that they're much more reliable weapons.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#308 Jan 16 2013 at 11:34 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
Handguns have to be revolvers, rifles have to be bolt- or lever-action, shotguns have to be pumped.
Like the .44 Magnum, or the M40, and pump action shotguns tend to not have trigger disconnectors, so accidental (and rapid) discharge there. Granted, none of my examples are hundred year old, but I think the overall point that they're not any less lethal than modern tech is still valid.

Just to add, I prefer revolvers and bolt action rifles for the very reason that they're much more reliable weapons.

Well sure, add whatever trigger disconnectors or safeties modern technology affords. I'm no expert. My only intent was to slow down the rate of fire.

And of course, slowing the rate of fire is an action to mitigate mass shootings, when as I've stated before, the bigger problem is the thousands of "mundane" shootings. And many mundane shootings would be as deadly with a six-shooter as with an uzi, but it will still mitigate those to some degree as well. Harder to hit a bystander with a stray bullet in a gang shooting when there's less bullets flying around.


Edited, Jan 16th 2013 11:39pm by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#309 Jan 16 2013 at 11:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The absolute truth is that there would have likely...?
Yes. I understand that most people have only a simplistic grasp of language

Got that right. See your posts for Exhibit A.
Quote:
It's like saying that it's absolutely true that a good diet and regular exercise will decrease your odds of getting heart disease.

No, it's like saying "The absolute truth is that a good diet & regular exercise will likely stop heart disease." A much different statement and one no one would say unless they just wanted to be laughed at. As you know which is why you changed your example to not include your own language.
Quote:
Of course, once again you'd prefer to argue semantics than the issue at hand

Sure, why not? You're just going to pout and huff and recite the party line anyway ("Idiots will claim... wait, what? The NRA said that? No, I never said idiots!...") so why not have fun mocking your self-important puffery instead? If I wanted to read some dipshit reciting rote stock excuses for firearms, I'd read the NRA's press releases.

Edited, Jan 16th 2013 11:44pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#310 Jan 16 2013 at 11:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trickybeck wrote:
As for the guns themselves, I'd like to see technology knocked back like 100 years. Handguns have to be revolvers, rifles have to be bolt- or lever-action, shotguns have to be pumped.

I made the same point way back in the dawn of this thread. Rather than trying to chase the tail of banning classifications (which makes the "assault weapon" ban such a mess), I think we'd be better served to just lay out what parameters are legal.
someproteinguy wrote:
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.

The Hill wrote:
President Obama's plan to reduce gun violence calls for long-awaited rules requiring insurance companies to cover mental health services.

Obama said his administration would finalize rules on mental health parity, the requiring of mental healthcare to be covered the same way as physical healthcare. The regulations have languished since 2008, and Senate Democrats had called on Obama to push the rules forward as part of his gun-control recommendations.
[...]
The White House plan calls for bolstering access to mental health services in schools and encouraging teachers to intervene early when they believe a student needs counseling.


Edited, Jan 16th 2013 11:56pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#311 Jan 17 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
gbaji wrote:
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".


No, that is not how English works.
#312 Jan 17 2013 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Quote:
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.

'Absolute' is redundant adjective with 'truth'. Something is true or it isn't - you know, like being pregnant, or dead.

Beyond that there is no evidence to support your statement. Had even one staff person had a gun, there 'might' have been more bullets flying around, the staff persons gun 'may' have never come out of the locker/drawer/holster, the armed staffer may have added to the body count, and yes it's even 'possible' that the staff person may have disable the shooter before he killed all 26 people. There is no truth or absolute in speculation.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#313 Jan 17 2013 at 8:20 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts


I never said it "would have saved all those kids". I said there would have been "fewer dead kids, possibly even no dead kids"


No indication either approaches anything near reality, so it's sort of a moot point which one you meant. If you meant "it's within the realm of possibility that having armed teachers may or may not have lead to fewer death or injuries" that's pretty accurate. What you've actually stated is unprovable, untestable, unfalsifiable and useless. May as well have said "if more angles had been flying over the school that day, they would have caused that wicked gunman to accidentally shoot himself, saving countless lives"
____________________________
Disclaimer:

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

#314 Jan 17 2013 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,883 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
May as well have said "if more angles had been flying over the school that day, they would have caused that wicked gunman to accidentally shoot himself, saving countless lives"


Now you are just being obtuse.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#315 Jan 17 2013 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo wrote:


I never said it "would have saved all those kids". I said there would have been "fewer dead kids, possibly even no dead kids"


No indication either approaches anything near reality, so it's sort of a moot point which one you meant. If you meant "it's within the realm of possibility that having armed teachers may or may not have lead to fewer death or injuries" that's pretty accurate. What you've actually stated is unprovable, untestable, unfalsifiable and useless. May as well have said "if more angles had been flying over the school that day, they would have caused that wicked gunman to accidentally shoot himself, saving countless lives"

What about, and I know this is wild, but say the school had made a trap where a lot of spaghetti fell on the shooter and knocked him out? That would have completely eliminated the threat.
____________________________
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
#316 Jan 17 2013 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
What about, and I know this is wild, but say the school had made a trap where a lot of spaghetti fell on the shooter and knocked him out? That would have completely eliminated the threat

WHY AREN'T WE DOING THIS??????
____________________________
Disclaimer:

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

#317 Jan 17 2013 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:

What about, and I know this is wild, but say the school had made a trap where a lot of spaghetti fell on the shooter and knocked him out? That would have completely eliminated the threat.

We don't allow religion in public schools.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#318 Jan 17 2013 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
If every student had a small explosive charge embedded deep in their brain then any student shooter could be quickly eliminated with minimum collateral damage.

If someone who wasn't a student shot up the school then the charges could give the children a quick, painless death instead.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#319 Jan 17 2013 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Bullet proof school uniforms are starting to seem practical.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#320 Jan 17 2013 at 9:16 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

If every student had a small explosive charge embedded deep in their brain then any student shooter could be quickly eliminated with minimum collateral damage.

If someone who wasn't a student shot up the school then the charges could give the children a quick, painless death instead.


And depending on size, also take out the shooter. Sure, there would be collateral damage, but aren't 15 dead children better than 100 dead children?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

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

#321 Jan 17 2013 at 9:25 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
The Hill wrote:
President Obama's plan to reduce gun violence calls for long-awaited rules requiring insurance companies to cover mental health services.

Obama said his administration would finalize rules on mental health parity, the requiring of mental healthcare to be covered the same way as physical healthcare. The regulations have languished since 2008, and Senate Democrats had called on Obama to push the rules forward as part of his gun-control recommendations.
[...]
The White House plan calls for bolstering access to mental health services in schools and encouraging teachers to intervene early when they believe a student needs counseling.


Smiley: clap

Now gemme my happy pills.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#322 Jan 17 2013 at 9:30 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,733 posts
Elinda wrote:
Beyond that there is no evidence to support your statement.
Why start now?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#323 Jan 17 2013 at 10:18 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Now gemme my happy pills.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/January/17/public-health-obama-gun-violence-proposal.aspx

There's a bunch of assorted articles if you're so inclined.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#324 Jan 17 2013 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
There's a bunch of assorted articles if you're so inclined.


Smiley: thumbsup

Because I didn't know what they were...

Quote:
11. Nominate an ATF director.


Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#325 Jan 17 2013 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Most of those things are so common sense I'm surprised they weren't already being done.

E.g. "Allow federal officials to perform a background check before returning a seized gun."

I think there is no director of ATF because it's one of the many nominations that have been stalled in the Senate.
____________________________
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
#326 Jan 17 2013 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Oh yeah, one other thing I'd like to see. Raise taxes on gun sales. By a lot. Use revenue to pay for all the beefed up administrative costs, background checking, statistical research, etc. And allocate money proportionally to cities/neighborhoods most afflicted by gun violence for some kind of community programs or extra police presence or whatever is deemed to help.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 88 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (88)