Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#402 Jan 21 2013 at 2:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
We already do.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#403 Jan 21 2013 at 2:42 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
Also, procreation permits. Seriously.

Alternatively, retroactive abortion.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#404 Jan 21 2013 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira wrote:
How about a big *** guy who likes to dress in drag?

Screenshot
No, he's just French, not ***.
____________________________
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.
#405 Jan 21 2013 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
I'd go with De Niro for King of America.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#406 Jan 21 2013 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"image"

I'm not sure I could support a king who uses the same fabric for his clothes as he does his furniture.

Edited, Jan 21st 2013 4:20pm by Allegory
#407 Jan 21 2013 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
Belkira wrote:
So in your hypothetical situation, there is an armed shooter roaming the halls, and the teacher with his gun in the teachers lounge is able to sprint to the lounge, get into his/her locker, and get back to the shooter all without bein shot him/herself? I mean, come on.


There have been cases of faculty sprinting up to a quarter mile away from the school to their car where they could legally store their weapons, then sprinting back and engaging and stopping a shooter. So yeah. It's possible. Certainly, it's more possible than if they aren't allowed to have their guns anywhere near the school at all, right? We're talking about probabilities here, not absolutes. Will someone be able to do this in every case? Of course not. Are they more able to do so if they are able to store their weapons on campus rather than being barred from doing so? Absolutely.

Quote:
This only works if the teachers classroom and the lounge are close to each other but nowhere near the shoote, and the shooter doesn't know that there is a weapon in the lounge.


Let's change "teacher" to "faculty". You get that not everyone who works at a school is a teacher, right? By using the word "teacher" you shrink the set to those most likely to be in classrooms teaching at the time of a shooting, which unfairly skews the issue. A faculty member could be in the lounge at the time the shooting starts. They could be on a prep period, or the shooting could start during lunch, assembly, etc. The typical teacher is only actually in a classroom in front of students about 50% of the total school day, and not all faculty are teachers. Again, this is about odds, not absolutes.

Quote:
Under your hypothetical, the odds of the shooter knowing about the weapon in the lounge is pretty great, since one of your legs of your argument is that if the shooter know there is an armed person in the school, he's less likely to show up.


No. My argument is based on the fact that the potential shooter will have no clue if some of the faculty have firearms on campus, which faculty might if any do, and where said firearms would be stored if that was the case. Those unknowns will present a disincentive for the shooter *and* if the shooter chooses to go forward with the shooting, makes it harder for him to plan his shooting to avoid those unknowns. He wont know which teachers to make sure are in class when he starts shooting. He wont know which if any of the office staff might have a firearm. He therefore cannot ensure that he can maximize the time he has to commit his crime before someone shows up to stop him.


Which is exactly the point.

Quote:
Not that I am in any way advocating this, but your scenario works much better if the teacher has his/her weapon in the classroom with him/her. Which, lets face it, is just an assinine idea.


Yes. It would work better that way. But I agree it would open the door for far more problems than it would solve. Again, you start dealing with odds here. What are the odds that a firearm on a teacher in the classroom will result in a shooting (accidental or otherwise) by itself? Unruly student grabs the gun. Teacher over-reacts and uses the gun. Lots of scenarios puts this in the "probably a bad idea" category. That's why I suggested what I suggested. Let the school and/or district decide how they want to manage legal possession of firearms on their campuses. I'm just suggesting that if we're already even entertaining the idea of putting armed security in schools, why not save the expense and simply remove the legal restrictions when it comes to faculty/staff at the schools? Let the schools decide how to do this safely, but remove the federal and state restrictions currently in place so that they can actually do this in the first place.

Right now, under existing law the only way to have armed resistance to a potential shooter is to have actual law enforcement (including licensed security) employed at the school. That's expensive, and as Columbine taught us, not necessarily effective.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#408 Jan 21 2013 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Great post, gbaji. Great fucking post. You champion, you beast, you posting master. This will go down in history as your finest fucking work.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#409 Jan 21 2013 at 6:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
Jophiel wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Listening to local news, I heard that there were a couple bills being brought in front of lawmakers here in Michigan to make any Federal gun controls law invalid for guns and ammunition manufactured and sold inside Michigan.

It must make you sad to know that the lawmakers in MI have no idea how our tiered legislative system works.


Or happy that they know exactly how our judicial system works.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#410 Jan 21 2013 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not really since they could file suit even without silly "We're not gonna do it!" laws on the books.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#411 Jan 21 2013 at 6:49 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Yeah, you suck, gbaji. Stop sucking so much, you great big sucker.

P.S. You suck.

P.P.S. You tell 'im, Jophiel!!
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#412 Jan 21 2013 at 6:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
When did a faculty member sprint to their car, get a gun, and stop a mass shooting? I find it difficult to just take your word on this one.

I'm going to have to say that the odds of this helping more than harming are slim to none. Not only do the stars have to align just so to have this hypothetical go off as planned, but I also would not feel terribly comfortable knowing that the creepy janitor at my kids school might be packing heat while my child is in attendance. Thinking back to my school days, I can think of maybe one or two faculty members that I might have trusted to handle a gun around the students. If your harebrained scheme were to be in any way effective, there would have to be mandatory gun training involved for all faculty, and if you're going to start expecting these faculty members to play Rambo, you definitely need to pay them at least double what they're making now.

Its just not a good idea on so many fronts, IMHO.
#413 Jan 21 2013 at 6:54 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Could you maybe throw a couple of puerile insults in there, Belkira? It's for the greater good.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#414 Jan 21 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You okay there, Kavekk? Feeling ignored?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#415 Jan 21 2013 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one working on our relationship.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#416 Jan 21 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Not really since they could file suit even without silly "We're not gonna do it!" laws on the books.


Irrelevant. It's a matter of who "they" are. An individual could sue claiming that a federal assault weapon ban (whatever that means) violates their 2nd amendment right. But a state could not. By passing a law which directly contradicts such a ban, it allows the states themselves to make a separate challenge (that pesky 10th amendment) on the issue. Doubly relevant given the restrictions (made/sold within the state). What right does the federal government have to limit non-interstate commerce of firearms? Clear 10th amendment issue, even leaving off the whole firearms aspect of it.

When a state and federal law directly contradict each other, it's also a lot faster/easier for said case to get to the Supreme Court level. Again, this is an indication of these legislatures having a good grasp of our our judicial system works. If they don't pass a law at the state level which contradicts the federal law, they can't make a claim that the federal law unfairly infringes on their state's right to pass their own laws. It's a standing issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#417 Jan 21 2013 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uh huh. Not really but I'm glad you're willing to go balls out to defend any stupid state legislative action that suits your agenda. Have fun with that Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#418 Jan 21 2013 at 7:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
Belkira wrote:
When did a faculty member sprint to their car, get a gun, and stop a mass shooting? I find it difficult to just take your word on this one.


Ended a shooting (again, "stop" can also mean "prevent", which is not what I'm talking about). Go look up the Pearl High School Shooting. Of course, unless you really look, you'll just read that the assistant principle stopped the shooter with his pistol as the shooter was attempting to leave the scene. What you wont read, unless you look for more detail, is that the reason he wasn't able to intervene earlier was because he had to run to his vehicle to retrieve his weapon:

Quote:
The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.


and

Quote:
Myrick is as much of a hero as the law would allow. He was only seconds away from the shootings, yet the law had him far away from his gun. Federal law precludes anyone but a cop from having a weapon in or near a school. The modern spree of school shootings began sometime shortly after this law was enacted. In most places, state and local laws needlessly duplicate the federal law, serving only to accommodate political grandstanding.


How many fewer shots would the shooter have gotten off if he had only need to run to his office, or lounge to retrieve his gun instead of the federally mandated distance from the edge of the campus?

Quote:
I'm going to have to say that the odds of this helping more than harming are slim to none.


And yet, there are nearly as many stories of individual armed civilians intervening in a shooting (and potentially preventing it from becoming a mass shooting in the first place) as there are stories of mass shootings themselves. For every Aurora Theater Shooting, there's a New Destiny Church shooting (also in Aurora just 3 months prior) which never became a mass shooting because one person happened to be there with a concealed weapon and ended the shooting.

Remember that the odds of being in such a shooting in the first place are "slim to none", yet they do happen.

Quote:
Not only do the stars have to align just so to have this hypothetical go off as planned, but I also would not feel terribly comfortable knowing that the creepy janitor at my kids school might be packing heat while my child is in attendance. Thinking back to my school days, I can think of maybe one or two faculty members that I might have trusted to handle a gun around the students. If your harebrained scheme were to be in any way effective, there would have to be mandatory gun training involved for all faculty, and if you're going to start expecting these faculty members to play Rambo, you definitely need to pay them at least double what they're making now.


Most people who own firearms legally are capable users of them (yes, there are exceptions). Doubly so those who apply for and obtain concealed carry permits. Presumably triply those who are also employees at a school (and already have a whole bunch of requirements and responsibilities when it comes to the kids in their care). And my suggestion does not preclude a school deciding who can or can't carry weapons on their campus. If they decide that the janitor isn't sufficiently responsible or trusted, they can exclude janitorial staff if they wish. They can also require that anyone who wants to bring a weapon to work must pass a safety class (or place any other restriction they want). The point is that without removing the current federal and state laws regarding this, we can't allow *anyone* other than on duty police and security to legally have firearms on or near a school campus, whether the school, the district, or the parents would want them to or not.

Quote:
Its just not a good idea on so many fronts, IMHO.


Because it's unlikely to reduce the number of deaths when a shooting occurs? But "unlikely" is still greater odds than currently exist. And even under the current restrictions there have been rare cases where it's happened anyway. So higher probability of reducing the number of dead children isn't worth it? Why not?


What's strange is that we can say with some degree of certainty that the statistical number of deaths from such shootings will be greater over time with those laws in place than with them not. So by keeping them in place we are killing school children. We don't know which ones, or how many, but we are increasing the total number who will be (and have been) killed over any given period of time by keeping those laws in place. So you're basically supporting a course of action which will result in more dead kids purely because.... why? A knee jerk assumption that guns are bad and should be banned wherever we can? I just don't get it. I'm sure for the hard core long term anti-gun crowd increased deaths among students is a price worth paying for the goal of more gun control, but is this something more "normal" people agree with? If you could pass a law that would ensure that 10 more children were killed in gun violence each year, but that by doing so you'd increase awareness of gun violence and increase the odds of passing some kind of sweeping gun control, would you do it? Would the end goal of gun control be worth a statistically increased number of deaths of children?


To me, that's what we're looking at here. It's a law that seems designed to make schools nice fat targets for potential mass shooters. It's designed to maximize the number of kids who will die when such shootings do occur. Now maybe that's just unintended side effects of a well meaning law, or maybe it's a sinister plot to intentionally create as many helpless child victims of guns as possible as part of a longer term gun control push. I can't say for sure, but in either case, shouldn't any rational person oppose the law? I think so. Unless you want more kids to die in these kinds of shootings, that is.

Edited, Jan 21st 2013 5:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#419 Jan 21 2013 at 7:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uh huh. Not really but I'm glad you're willing to go balls out to defend any stupid state legislative action that suits your agenda. Have fun with that Smiley: laugh


It's not about my agenda Joph. Why do *you* think they passed the law? I mean, it screams "10th amendment challenge" as loud as can be. How much more blatant do they need to be?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#420 Jan 21 2013 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
How many fewer shots would the shooter have gotten off if he had only need to run to his office, or lounge to retrieve his gun instead of the federally mandated distance from the edge of the campus?
First, nice opinion editorial link. I went ahead and looked up the story itself instead of the dong-gobbling your link provided. You're welcome. Considering he was stopped while leaving the school meaning the shooting was already stopped, to answer your question I'd go with none. He specifically targeted his ex-girlfriend so she'd be dead regardless, the other girl was in the vicinity so she'd be dead too, and I'm not finding further details but I kind of doubt he just wandered around to injure the seven other people so I imagine they were in the same range as the two dead girls as well. If he saw the rifle while Luke was entering the school (Luke was wearing a trench coat, but all indications say he wasn't trying too hard to hide the 30-30) he'd still have to go to where the gun was stored, unlock it, and hope he ran to the right place to stop those shootings. I'd say that'd take at least thirty seconds depending on the lock and distance to and from the incident and stored weapon, as opposed to the minute plus to get to his truck (and we're assuming the truck was at the legal distance, and he didn't just have the gun illegally stored. Nothing in any story I've read said the truck was legally 1,320ft away from the school grounds. World record quarter mile is 45s, and I don't think you'll argue that the VP of a high school was also an Olympic runner.) and get lucky Luke was leaving anyway.

Now, maybe if the VP's office happened to overlook the main entrance that Luke came through, and if he was paying close enough attention to a student walking in through the door and saw the rifle, and if the gun was stored in the Joe's office anyway, and if Luke didn't decide to start shooting anyway after seeing Joe's gun then Joe could have prevented the whole thing and you'd be right. However, and this is a big however, this is just playing the "if" game until all the details of your hypothetical line up perfectly to suit you. The problem is that the actual details of what happened don't make the odds all that much favorable for having the gun in the school in the hands of any Pep Streebek wannabe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#421 Jan 21 2013 at 9:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How many fewer shots would the shooter have gotten off if he had only need to run to his office, or lounge to retrieve his gun instead of the federally mandated distance from the edge of the campus?
First, nice opinion editorial link. I went ahead and looked up the story itself instead of the dong-gobbling your link provided. You're welcome. Considering he was stopped while leaving the school meaning the shooting was already stopped, to answer your question I'd go with none. He specifically targeted his ex-girlfriend so she'd be dead regardless, the other girl was in the vicinity so she'd be dead too, and I'm not finding further details but I kind of doubt he just wandered around to injure the seven other people so I imagine they were in the same range as the two dead girls as well.


Except:

Quote:
Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up.


He wasn't heading off to give up. He was getting into his car to head to another school to shoot more people. You can question the particular article I linked, but I've run across several different sources which have stated this.

Quote:
If he saw the rifle while Luke was entering the school (Luke was wearing a trench coat, but all indications say he wasn't trying too hard to hide the 30-30) he'd still have to go to where the gun was stored, unlock it, and hope he ran to the right place to stop those shootings.


Yes. Exactly what he had to do anyway. Except that said firearm would be closer. Closer means faster. Faster means shooter has less time to kill people. Which means fewer dead people.

Quote:
I'd say that'd take at least thirty seconds depending on the lock and distance to and from the incident and stored weapon, as opposed to the minute plus to get to his truck (and we're assuming the truck was at the legal distance, and he didn't just have the gun illegally stored. Nothing in any story I've read said the truck was legally 1,320ft away from the school grounds. World record quarter mile is 45s, and I don't think you'll argue that the VP of a high school was also an Olympic runner.) and get lucky Luke was leaving anyway.


It doesn't matter how long it would take. It will take less time if his gun is closer than if it is farther away. Everything else staying the same, if it's possible to save any lives at all, you will save more if the firearm is closer than if it is farther. It's about relative statistical outcomes.

It's just strange how people's brains seem to turn to mush when certain subjects come up. If we were talking about a first aid kit you'd never argue that distance doesn't matter so there's no reason to make sure they're as close as possible to where people might get hurt. But in this case it suddenly doesn't matter how far away a person's gun is because you'll just assume they could never get to it in time anyway? Isn't that silly? Of course it matters.


If we accept the fact that it's possible for armed civilians to intervene in a shooting and save lives (which me must because we know it's happened) then it's absurd to argue that how far we require said civilian to keep his gun from his person doesn't impact his ability to potentially save lives. Everything else staying the same, the more time it takes a civilian who is attempting armed intervention during a shooting to arm themselves, the more lives will be lost. That's very straightforward logic.

Quote:
Now, maybe if the VP's office happened to overlook the main entrance that Luke came through, and if he was paying close enough attention to a student walking in through the door and saw the rifle, and if the gun was stored in the Joe's office anyway, and if Luke didn't decide to start shooting anyway after seeing Joe's gun then Joe could have prevented the whole thing and you'd be right. However, and this is a big however, this is just playing the "if" game until all the details of your hypothetical line up perfectly to suit you. The problem is that the actual details of what happened don't make the odds all that much favorable for having the gun in the school in the hands of any Pep Streebek wannabe.


You're inventing scenarios to justify your position. The fact is that in that case the vice principle did see the shooter, he did run off to get his gun, and his gun was far enough away that by the time he got back he wasn't able to do more than apprehend the shooter and hold him for police. We can't make absolute conclusions about the specific outcome had he had his pistol locked in his office instead of his truck, but assuming that his office was closer than his truck, then he would have been able to intervene sooner. Whether that would have prevented the fatalities in that case is unknown, but it might have. It certainly had better odds of doing so than otherwise.

There's just no logic to your argument. We can sit here and play scenario games all day long, but at the end of that day, the fact is that everything else staying the same, if it's possible at all for a civilian to intervene in a shooting and save lives, he will be more likely to do so if he's armed. And the sooner he can be armed and arrive where the shooter is, the sooner he may intervene. And the sooner he intervenes and ends the shooting, the greater the odds that fewer people will die.

Logic alone gives us every reason to conclude that our current gun free zone laws are resulting in increased school shooting deaths. And that's even if we didn't have the statistical data to back it up. Since the mid 90s when we passed that federal law (1996 IIRC), we've seen the number of mass shootings at schools spike. We went from nearly never having such things happen to having them happen every year or so. At what point do we take seriously the speculation that perhaps this law is why we're seeing these types of shootings happen so frequently? We've told any yahoo who wants to take his anger out on the world in a grand display of violence exactly the best location to do so. And the best location? Our schools.

Sorry, but I think that's nuts. We're killing kids in the name of gun control. It's ridiculous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#422 Jan 21 2013 at 9:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not about my agenda Joph. Why do *you* think they passed the law?

Adorable that you think this was anything more than a *****-stroking sop to the NRA "Obama is a Fascist Monster!!!" set.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#423 Jan 21 2013 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
If we were talking about a first aid kit you'd never argue that distance doesn't matter so there's no reason to make sure they're as close as possible to where people might get hurt.
Except there are more than one first aid kits throughout a school, and at least one individual whose job is to be there in emergency situations which is almost 100% contradictory to your "one gun in the school will absolutely save lives" argument.
gbaji wrote:
He wasn't heading off to give up.
He was heading off from the original shooting. Those nine shots weren't stopped by Joe and his gun in the truck, and the facts are against him to have been able to prevent them if the gun was closer. Those are the facts of the story, no matter how much you want to try to distort them to favor your hypothetical. I know you like to change the question when the answer isn't to your liking, but there you have it. Reality.
gbaji wrote:
The fact is that in that case the vice principle did see the shooter,
your own article wrote:
The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck.
So what you're saying is Joe saw the gun and just let him go? He didn't give a flying fuck that he saw a kid with a rifle just walking in and ignored him? That must have been some pretty **** awesome coffee he was drinking. And this is the kind of monster you want in our schools? One that just lets kids with guns walk around the halls until the bloodshed?

Who is "inventing scenarios" to "justify their position" here?

Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 12:45am 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.
#424 Jan 21 2013 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
**
493 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
When did a faculty member sprint to their car, get a gun, and stop a mass shooting? I find it difficult to just take your word on this one.


Ended a shooting (again, "stop" can also mean "prevent", which is not what I'm talking about). Go look up the Pearl High School Shooting. Of course, unless you really look, you'll just read that the assistant principle stopped the shooter with his pistol as the shooter was attempting to leave the scene. What you wont read, unless you look for more detail, is that the reason he wasn't able to intervene earlier was because he had to run to his vehicle to retrieve his weapon:

Quote:
The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.


and

Quote:
Myrick is as much of a hero as the law would allow. He was only seconds away from the shootings, yet the law had him far away from his gun. Federal law precludes anyone but a cop from having a weapon in or near a school. The modern spree of school shootings began sometime shortly after this law was enacted. In most places, state and local laws needlessly duplicate the federal law, serving only to accommodate political grandstanding.

Is any mention of him
gbaji wrote:
sprinting up to a quarter mile away from the school to their car where they could legally store their weapons, then sprinting back and engaging and stopping a shooter

So, do you have a link for your quarter mile statement or will you just gloss over that? Because you said there have been cases.
#425 Jan 22 2013 at 3:49 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
God bless them law abiding citizens with their firearms, keeping us all safe.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#426 Jan 22 2013 at 4:05 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
Gun control won't end crime, obviously. We have gun control, but organized criminals still run around with them. Organized criminals are less likely to go shoot up a school, though. School shootings seem to be a spur of the moment thing by troubled kids, enabled by the kids' easy access to guns.

Gun control would have prevented the assistant principal from getting his gun in the truck, yes, but it likely also would have prevented the 16-year-old gunman from getting a rifle. It's kind of silly to argue that easy access to guns prevents crimes enabled by easy access to guns.

Now, if the assistant principal had stopped organized criminals (say, terrorists) from carrying out organized crime, that would have been a better argument.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (52)