A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

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.



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.



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.

Still got it!

It should be noted that the NRA released a free video game today, for ages 4 & up.

The AK47 will cost you $.99 though.

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...)

Hey, it's obviously a good gun. Might as well get yourself one before they're banned!

I hear that happens around once a year on average in America. Little buggers come to steal your sweets.

Today I decided that Alma's 10k title should be "Cognitive Dissonance". It's really the only suitable option.

post 213

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.

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.

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.

Looks like they're leaking the official response: Linky.



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.

So how do we make that happen?

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

Shoot em first. They'll learn.





Or die, either way the problem's solved.

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.

There was the one from Land of the Dead. And the ones from the end of Survival of the Dead.

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

The 2004 Dawn of the Dead was great. I mean, not great cinema, but great relative to other zombie/horror movies.

The absolute truth is that there would have likely...?



Ah, you.

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.



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.



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



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?



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.



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



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

No. The only life that matters to gbaji is his own.

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




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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

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