[Silencer]

worrywort, on 10 January 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

A counterargument:
http://livewire.talk...ver-gun-control

And a very convincing one at that!


...wtf is wrong with people?


(Also, curious as to what the nutcase means by "one inch" in relation to the issue at hand...O.o)

[Shinrei]

@Tapper

In my opinion, the teachers had damn well better be speed bumps doing whatever they can to delay, distract and stop an attacker whether they are armed or not. It shouldn't have to be part of the job description, but if you're in a room full of children under your charge, and a crazy walks in, you had better not be the first one out the window.

[Silencer]

Shinrei, on 10 January 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

@Tapper

In my opinion, the teachers had damn well better be speed bumps doing whatever they can to delay, distract and stop an attacker whether they are armed or not. It shouldn't have to be part of the job description, but if you're in a room full of children under your charge, and a crazy walks in, you had better not be the first one out the window.

Well, in that sense, you can probably drop the "under your charge" thing, Shin. That's the ideal, isn't it? That any adult on the planet would readily put themselves between children and any significant threat?

[Khellendros]

Ornery Owl, on 09 January 2013 - 01:29 AM, said:

I'd probably pay money to see a redneck punch Piers Morgan in the face.

You know it's a crazy issue when Piers Morgan of all people comes out seeming the less dickheadish.

[Primateus]

worrywort, on 10 January 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

A counterargument:
http://livewire.talk...ver-gun-control

Quote

If this goes one inch further I'm going to start killing people

No he won't, and he knows he won't, exactly like the people who's always threatening to move to another country. (Unless he's actually mentally unstable and not "haha you're batshit crazy" unstable, but that he actually has severe mental issues.)

[Tapper]

Shinrei, on 10 January 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

@Tapper

In my opinion, the teachers had damn well better be speed bumps doing whatever they can to delay, distract and stop an attacker whether they are armed or not. It shouldn't have to be part of the job description, but if you're in a room full of children under your charge, and a crazy walks in, you had better not be the first one out the window.

Can you demand it of people? Because essentially, that is what you're asking, job description or not. You can't know how people will react in such a situation. A buff guy can become a frozen statue, a tiny nervous little woman could become a lioness with mother instinct.

I'll agree that teachers should do what they can to get pupils out, but if those pupils are better served by the teacher opening the door and letting them out rather than throwing him/herself at the gunman, then informing the authorities on the situation, I'd want them to do that. What we're talking about speed bump wise, is basically saying that if there's a school shooting, the teacher ought to die with their pupils, and they did a bad job if they survive but some pupils didn't.
That's not something I'd want - the teacher is as much a victim (of the circumstances) as anyone else in that room. We don't demand the same of firemen or SWAT agents trying to free a hostage, for example. Teachers =/= bodyguards.

As for how logical it is: how often are by-standers trying to break up a fight, or calling the police, instead of using their phones to film it?

[Khellendros]

Has this been posted already?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-20975608

Teacher talks student out of school shooting. Student came in with a shotgun, shot and injured one person before the teacher intervened and got him to put the gun down. Yes, it could have gone tragically wrong, but this to me is far better than arming a teacher, having them rush in and start blasting away at the student.

This post has been edited by Khellendros: 11 January 2013 - 03:26 PM

[worry]

This segment on Maddow right now is brutal. First, coverage of the press conference from some Sandy Hook parents. Right now, an interview with David and Francine Wheeler who had one son shot to death and one son survive the massacre without physical injury. Definitely worth a watch when it goes up.

[worry]

Press conference video: http://www.msnbc.msn...15908/#50464224 and you can see the interview stuff displayed to the left.

[Silencer]

Briar King, on 17 January 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

What...the...fuck? People are posting now saying that the shooting was a plot by the Gov to help with gun control and these kids are being hidden from their parents!

Well, it was bound to happen eventually. This is the country with an Amendment to their Bill of Rights that apparently only exists to allow the population to keep guns to fight off tyrants when they crop up and start oppressing the populace - is there no wonder America is a hotbed of paranoid conspiracy theorists? It's practically founded on suspicion of government. I'm sorry, but I've honestly moved from "What the fuck is wrong with you people!" to "Meh, how predictable and depressing." in regards to any crap like this that comes out of the States these days.

At least it's just a vocal minority, but I still feel sorry for you guys...

[worry]

"No harm, no foul" after school hires armed guard/firearm instructor who promptly accidentally leaves his loaded gun in the boys bathroom:
http://www.rawstory....udent-bathroom/

[Tsundoku]

True story.

Attached File(s)

•  batman with guns.jpg (806.5K)
  Number of downloads: 0

[worry]

How dare you! You foreigners should have more respect for our National Gun Appreciation Day.

http://thinkprogress...preciation-day/

[Nicodimas]

An oldie..but some very valid logical points.

[Silencer]

I didn't really see any valid logical points, actually, except the part where she objected to saying guns don't have sporting or hunting purposes.

Then again! You don't actually need to own your own gun to go target shooting, nor to go hunting. Gun license? OK, you can rent a gun to go hunting provided you submit a full request form with details like where, when, for how long, you're going to be hunting.

Obviously exceptions exist in the form of different classes of license for those who actually have some claim to owning a gun for those purposes like people living in isolated areas or who are professionals, but for casual hunters and target shooters, you really don't need your own gun in the house, do you?



And why does everyone seem to think that just because someone can reload it invalidates the argument over magazine capacity? One second, she said? FUCK YES I would rather have him busy with a one-second reload every 7 rounds than firing endlessly for the whole thing. That intermittent second could be the difference between life and death for someone. Worth it? Absofuckinglutely.

[Nicodimas]

Quote

you really don't need your own gun in the house, do you?

what?? no no no you need a gun to defend yourself against the person that invades your house that has a gun. When the economy collapses, or the government collapses you REALLY need a gun. Please stop living in fantasy land people.

Its your choice to die. not defend yourself..kinda like not pursuing medical care when you know you need medicine..but not agreeing with it because well 300 years ago they didn't have such levels of care...you realize you are giving your right to DEFEND yourselves up and giving it up to a stranger? They don't give a shit about you, they earn a check and show up minutes later. When seconds count.

In the future , very near to you all everything is going to change..Its going to be rough.

Give your power up and die. True story.

300 people will die due to Assault weapons 196000 will die due medical malpractice....Choose your WAR.. Big Pharma..or a random tool. You are being programmed.

[Nicodimas]

323 people die to assault weapons
496 people were killed by a hammer last year.

106,000 died because of prescription drugs
195,000 died to medical malpractice.

Why are you all so focused on guns? when big pharma...is clearly the bigger issue...Weird.

[worry]

Why are you so focused on the post-apocalypse, when that's imaginary?

[Silencer]

Nicodimas, on 27 January 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Quote

you really don't need your own gun in the house, do you?

what?? no no no you need a gun to defend yourself against the person that invades your house that has a gun. When the economy collapses, or the government collapses you REALLY need a gun. Please stop living in fantasy land people.

You see, Nic, in *my* country, the people that invade houses don't have guns. Do you know why? Because guns are not easy enough to obtain that every criminal in the nation can get one with their eyes closed. Why is that? Because we don't have something as absurd as a Right to Bear Arms of any kind, and it actually requires people to pass some fairly stringent tests before they're allowed to own a firearms license.

Moreover, I have to wonder who is living in the fantasy land here - the person who is living in a relatively safe country with little to no chance of apocalyptic governmental collapse, or the person preparing for said eventuality - at which point in time, I hate to break it to you, but guns will not save you. Because there will be SO MANY people with guns, that almost everyone will be shooting at each other. Personally I would rather face that sort of scenario in a country where there aren't enough guns for it turn into an all-out free-for-all deathmatch.


Besides which, don't chop my post up to selectively reply to one part of it - if we are grounding ourselves in reality for the moment - my point was that in regards to the nice lady from the video mentioning that guns do have hunting or sporting uses, she is correct: but that this point does not then infer the need of people to *own* guns. I.e. just because guns have a valid use as a hunting or sporting tool does not mean that people *need* to own one in their house.

Your counter-point is completely different and is arguing something I wasn't talking about. Granted what you're arguing is a paranoid end-of-the-world scenario (which should not be in the rational person's contemplation in a responsible society, any more than the Mayan doomsday prophecy should have been), but I'll let that slide.

Speaking of which, Nic, have you ever heard the terms "Mutually Assured Destruction" or "excessive use of force"? You see, in a civilised, rational country, the view that because criminals have guns mean people should have guns is generally looked at with scepticism - because it either means that you are planning on pulling a gun on another human being and then shooting them (generally speaking the crime of home invasion/robbery does not justify the death penalty, correct?) - this is call excessive force, because it means the person is likely to die.
Now, I'm not a fan of criminals. I probably wouldn't shed much of a tear if I'd heard a criminal had been killed in the course of a crime. But that's different to advocating the use of deadly force in response to every single possible offence against your person.
Next comes the theory of MAD. You see, your scenario envisages the outcome where either, if you are lacking a gun (presumably instantaneously accessible for argument's sake - though this should neither be the case, nor would I like to live in a country where I'm so afraid of being robbed that I feel the need to keep a gun on me/to hand 24/7 in my own home...I mean, da fuck?) you WILL be shot by a gun-wielding criminal, OR if you are not lacking a gun you WILL shoot the gun-wielding criminal. This is a flawed setup.
Lacking a gun you are more likely to be let go by the criminal. Putting up a fight against them (like by drawing a gun) is MORE LIKELY to end in you getting shot than you just letting them rob your house and go on their merry way then calling the cops. Not only that but by proliferating guns you make it more likely that would-be criminals can obtain guns through theft (because you won't always shoot them before they get to you) and therefore increase the threat of armed robbery or home invasion, which by your logic should lead to more weapons to defend against this scenario - you see why it is called "mutually assured" destruction?

Quote

Its your choice to die. not defend yourself..kinda like not pursuing medical care when you know you need medicine..but not agreeing with it because well 300 years ago they didn't have such levels of care...you realize you are giving your right to DEFEND yourselves up and giving it up to a stranger? They don't give a shit about you, they earn a check and show up minutes later. When seconds count.

In the future , very near to you all everything is going to change..Its going to be rough.

Give your power up and die. True story.

300 people will die due to Assault weapons 196000 will die due medical malpractice....Choose your WAR.. Big Pharma..or a random tool. You are being programmed.

Well, yes, it is someone's choice to die. It's also insane to think that having a gun is a complete defence against other people with guns. You know what that's called on a large scale? War. You know how in war, BOTH SIDES suffer casualties? Yeah.

And oddly enough, I'm still entitled to defend myself from assault by another - it's called reasonable force, and it entails things that aren't highly likely to kill the other person. There's also the fact that in general crime is less rampant than you seem to think it is - even in the States, which have atrocious levels of crime statistics.

And I'm failing to see how Big Pharma is relevant to this discussion. You can, after all, fight against both gun massacres and lack of industry regulation?

[worry]

Actually, you might be surprised, but the last couple decades saw a pretty sharp downward trend in violent crime here in the US (I know you were speaking in relative international terms, but still). Things were going in the right direction. You perhaps will be less surprised to learn that this trend had a notable reversal over 2011-2012...not coincidentally IMO, in tandem with the Republican presidential campaign. Also not coincidentally, the prison-industrial complex amping up alternate revenue streams like drug possession convictions and sentence lengths. The government is part of the problem for sure, but only insofar as its practices mirror private enterprises, or aid and abet their crimes. Who is profiting from the delusions and paranoia that Nico is opening his wallet to fend off, like swatting cartoon birds from around his noggin?

In the meantime, can't wait to see this: