JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 18th December 2012, 03:31 PM   #161
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 28,147
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
This is the kind of ridiculousness that is counter productive to any discussion regarding firearms. There are absolutely STUPID comparisons on both sides of the argument. This is probably one of the dumbest ones posted yet. Congrats if that's what you were going for. If you were serious, may FSM help you.
BenBurch's line was a legitimate use of reductio ad absurdum in respect to Bob001 initial argument.

If you want to make that argument you really need to include something of an assement as to right tool for the right job and health and safety issues.

To take an example away from guns any chemist saying "Methyl fluorosulfonate is a tool it has good uses and bad. Methylating stuff that is hard to methylate is a good use" could probably expect to be fired (the problem being that the stuff is rather good at methylating chemists). If you want to make a statement about the use of Methyl fluorosulfonate as a tool (or sythetic agent) you are expected to provide significant justification for its use (and will still probably be told no but thats how it goes).
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 03:46 PM   #162
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
Meanwhile, in the real world:



In other words, it's not that simple, even if you happen to be the bystander there with a gun ready and able to confront the killer. Meli confidently claims that the gunman committed suicide after he saw Meli had drawn his own weapon, but there is absolutely zero way of knowing if the gunman even saw Meli's weapon at all, much less had that fact influence his decision to shoot himself rather than shoot at Meli or continue his spree, and Meli certainly never opened fire on the gunman to try and stop him. And note that the main reason Meli gave for not firing is the exact same reason usually given by people who think random bystanders opening fire on gunmen in a spree-killing situation is a bad idea: the risk of hitting someone else.

I'm sorry but doesn't this actually support gun rights? I mean the argument I have always heard from the anti gun nutter crowd is that if you put a guy concealed carrying in a situation with a shooter, he is going to cause more harm then good and actually end up shooting hundreds of innocent bystanders. I always argued that a good concealed carry holder will not take the shot if he thinks he would hit innocent people. So this seems to enforce the point I have always argued.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 03:47 PM   #163
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,334
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Well it seems the usual characters have showed up to present nothing but irrationality to the thread. I predicted as much. But luckily there have been some pretty intelligent posts with some ideas that are actually pretty feasible. Much appreciated to those that intelligently presented flaws in my idea and presented some reasonable alternatives. To those that added ideas such as:

"I made it a point to unfriend the only person I ever knew that went out and bought a gun. I just don't want to know such people in real life. They scare me."

"A company is poisoning the water? Well the solution is to give everyone poison that they might use on the company employees!"

"How about roboguns that automatically pinpoint a gunshot and return fire? "

"Yeah that's the solution. Add more guns!"

Thanks for nothing.
Your 'arm the teachers' proposal is rational and reasonable but all others are irrational?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 03:51 PM   #164
DavidJames
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 8,172
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Your 'arm the teachers' proposal is rational and reasonable but all others are irrational?
What kind of logic do you expect from someone who proudly has a killing tool as an avatar.

Even the NRA was smart enough to not shove their guns in our faces for a few days after their toys were used to murder children.
__________________
I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars.
Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe
Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

Last edited by DavidJames; 18th December 2012 at 03:52 PM.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 03:59 PM   #165
A'isha
Unique
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 12,650
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Did he have permission to take those guns? Doubtful.

If not, they're stolen. Even if he lived there.
No, that is not what I would describe as a "stolen gun", nor is it what the vast majority of people would think about when hearing the words "stolen gun". It's a misleading description, deliberately used to try and distract the fact that the weapons were legally purchased and kept in the household the killer lived in by a family member of the killer, which gave him full access to them in a way that completely undercuts the "we don't need more regulations on guns, we just need to enforce the ones we have now, and that should be plenty" argument.

"Ban all guns" is just as much of an overreaction as "everyone should carry guns". But let's not pretend that that what happened here had anything to do with the (very real) problem of legitimately stolen guns being used by criminals, or that this tragedy could have been prevented if only the existing restrictions on gun availability and purchasing had been properly enforced.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The City of Light, by Jacob D'Ancona, translated and edited by David Selbourne
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:07 PM   #166
John Mekki
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 537
People get slaughtered and killed all the times..
Most of the times we are also directly or indirectly responsible.
I mean, thousands of people.
The vast majority of the people decide to do nothing.
Nothing at all, just sit on the sofa and look at their TV.
Why then the murder of 20 people should be seen as a problem that requires any kind of dramatic changes of the law?
My guess is that this noise, this fuss about the shootings and the pro – against gun control debate is just another way for people to spend their time somehow and fill the void of their boring lives..

John Mekki is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:15 PM   #167
A'isha
Unique
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 12,650
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
I'm sorry but doesn't this actually support gun rights?
No, it shows that the action-movie fantasy of the concealed carrying bystander to a spree shooting using his weapon to prevent or stop that shooting to be just that...a fantasy. You are not John McClain.

Quote:
I mean the argument I have always heard from the anti gun nutter crowd is that if you put a guy concealed carrying in a situation with a shooter, he is going to cause more harm then good and actually end up shooting hundreds of innocent bystanders. I always argued that a good concealed carry holder will not take the shot if he thinks he would hit innocent people. So this seems to enforce the point I have always argued.
No, because the alternative to not taking the shot and risking other innocent bystanders is to do what this guy did, which was to do nothing. And however much he tries to justify his possession of the weapon anyway by thinking that the killer totally committed suicide after seeing the gun (despite never being fired upon and having said concealed carrier run and hide from him behind a storefront), when it comes right down to it, the presence of this concealed carrier seems to have done not a single thing to help in that situation.

"Let people carry guns so they can be completely ineffective when they're caught in the middle of a spree shooting instead of merely inadvertently adding to the carnage" hardly seems to me like a ringing endorsement for the practice.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The City of Light, by Jacob D'Ancona, translated and edited by David Selbourne

Last edited by A'isha; 18th December 2012 at 04:16 PM.
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:25 PM   #168
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
No, it shows that the action-movie fantasy of the concealed carrying bystander to a spree shooting using his weapon to prevent or stop that shooting to be just that...a fantasy. You are not John McClain.
I still fail to see how it is just a fantasy. The only reason he didn't shoot is because he did not have a clear shot. If we change the scenario ever so slightly, and let's say he has a wall as a back drop within 5 feet of him and no one in his path, do his bullets not do any damage to the shooter because that only happens in movies?


Quote:
No, because the alternative to not taking the shot and risking other innocent bystanders is to do what this guy did, which was to do nothing. And however much he tries to justify his possession of the weapon anyway by thinking that the killer totally committed suicide after seeing the gun (despite never being fired upon and having said concealed carrier run and hide from him behind a storefront), when it comes right down to it, the presence of this concealed carrier seems to have done not a single thing to help in that situation.
Ah, I found the problem. You are completely ignorant of firearms and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It all makes sense now. So you say there are ONLY two possible options. Either take the shot and hit innocent bystanders, or do nothing. That is what we call a logical fallacy and a massive failure (And a bit embarrassing to be completely honest). And you are faulting him for hiding behind cover? Wow you truly, truly are ignorant. FYI, that is what all military and law enforcement officers are trained to do when bullets start flying. Find cover.
Quote:
"Let people carry guns so they can be completely ineffective when they're caught in the middle of a spree shooting instead of merely inadvertently adding to the carnage" hardly seems to me like a ringing endorsement for the practice.
Yikes. Probably best that you stop while you are, well not ahead obviously, but stop before you make any more ignorant statements. It's for the best.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:27 PM   #169
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Meh. Feel free to not post here if you are tired of talking about it. Those that would like to discuss a specific proposed solution, join in.
Well, the tiredness comes from hearing all the progressively more outrageous proposals to deal with something when the problem is pretty obvious. You may be right that there is no way that the elephant in the room is going to be addressed but it is still in the room and it takes up a lot of space and it stinks. We all know it is there but can't talk about it.

Instead, people are, apparently in all seriousness proposing

a) the legalization of marijuana
b) the banning of video games
c) juicing more people up on "meds"
d) that teachers and armed security be deployed to schools that are going to be done up like fortresses. In my humble opinion, when you do that then you've already thrown in the towel. Seriously, who wants to have their kids go miniature Green Zones where they have to go through metal detectors, show ID, walk into bullet-proofed classrooms with multiple locks, barbed wire, security cameras etc...?

It's also ironic that one person in favour of this keeps talking about how children don't die in fires in schools. Well they might if the whole place is constantly locked-down.

I think, in a way, the idea is naiive, anyway. I mean, I wonder what people's ideas of school classrooms are. Rows of precious angelic faces listening to a dutiful and wise teacher reading Little Women? Err...no. I think that in a lot of school environments introducing guns to the classroom could create more problems than they solve. As others have mentioned, rage killings very often happen at the workplaces of people. Having teachers flip out and shoot the kids who have been harassing her all year or having a teacher disarmed by a student who hates the teacher is surely not beyond the realms of probability.

And besides that, how are children supposed to travel to school? In armoured cars? What about school trips? What about non-school environments, shopping malls, cinemas, Sikh Temples, Holocaust museums, office blocks?

Some of these places already do have security and they still suffer from mass shootings.

Well, anyway. I hope that clarifies my point. I apologize if it seemed flippant.
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:28 PM   #170
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Your 'arm the teachers' proposal is rational and reasonable but all others are irrational?
I see you have not been following the thread. Go ahead and go back and read up a little bit. I have taken the suggestions of at least 2 or 3 other posters.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:31 PM   #171
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Ah, I found the problem. You are completely ignorant of firearms and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It all makes sense now. So you say there are ONLY two possible options. Either take the shot and hit innocent bystanders, or do nothing. That is what we call a logical fallacy and a massive failure (And a bit embarrassing to be completely honest). And you are faulting him for hiding behind cover? Wow you truly, truly are ignorant. FYI, that is what all military and law enforcement officers are trained to do when bullets start flying. Find cover.
Well, let's agree here and say ANTPogo and everyone who disagrees with your idea is ignorant about firearms. Let's say that being knowledgable about firearms is a skill that military and law enforcement have been trained in and that it is not as simple as riding a bike.

Okay, great. Now, why would you want such ignoramuses as teachers wondering around with firearms when they are not properly trained to use them?
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:35 PM   #172
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Well, let's agree here and say ANTPogo and everyone who disagrees with your idea is ignorant about firearms. Let's say that being knowledgable about firearms is a skill that military and law enforcement have been trained in and that it is not as simple as riding a bike.

Okay, great. Now, why would you want such ignoramuses as teachers wondering around with firearms when they are not properly trained to use them?
Sigh. Please go back and read the OP.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:38 PM   #173
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tuolumne City, CA
Posts: 20,298
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Well it seems the usual characters have showed up to present nothing but irrationality to the thread. I predicted as much. But luckily there have been some pretty intelligent posts with some ideas that are actually pretty feasible. Much appreciated to those that intelligently presented flaws in my idea and presented some reasonable alternatives. To those that added ideas such as:

"I made it a point to unfriend the only person I ever knew that went out and bought a gun. I just don't want to know such people in real life. They scare me."

"A company is poisoning the water? Well the solution is to give everyone poison that they might use on the company employees!"

"How about roboguns that automatically pinpoint a gunshot and return fire? "

"Yeah that's the solution. Add more guns!"

Thanks for nothing.
I thought my point about not trusting gun owners was valid. I just couldn't be around my friend after that. I always thought "what if he snaps just now? All he has to do is aim that gun my way and I'm dead."

I've been around too many people in my life that had psychotic breaks that resulted in horrible things. More guns around would have made all that so much worse as it did the one time a gun was present: the death of my brother.

Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
I'm sorry but doesn't this actually support gun rights? I mean the argument I have always heard from the anti gun nutter crowd is that if you put a guy concealed carrying in a situation with a shooter, he is going to cause more harm then good and actually end up shooting hundreds of innocent bystanders. I always argued that a good concealed carry holder will not take the shot if he thinks he would hit innocent people. So this seems to enforce the point I have always argued.
But if you arm everyone most will not be good with the guns they now possess.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com

Last edited by Travis; 18th December 2012 at 04:40 PM.
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:43 PM   #174
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
I thought my point about not trusting gun owners was valid. I just couldn't be around my friend after that. I always thought "what if he snaps just now? All he has to do is aim that gun my way and I'm dead."

I've been around too many people in my life that had psychotic breaks that resulted in horrible things. More guns around would have made all that so much worse as it did the one time a gun was present: the death of my brother.
Well I am sorry that you have been around so many irrational people, but as you claim all of us gun owners are paranoid, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror. Seems like I am not the one living in fear.


Quote:
But if you arm everyone most will not be good with the guns they now possess.
Please direct me to a single post in in my entire history on these forums where I have advocated arming the entire populace.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:44 PM   #175
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base
Posts: 11,496
Interesting article from September 7, 2007

One poster noted that it's like a fire triangle:

- Weapons
- Attacker
- Victims

Remove one and the issue dies.

I think that if everyone is honest, the horse bolted out the door on US guns decades ago. This means it is all but impossible to remove the first.

This means either removing the second or the third factor.

As has also been noted, the idea of removing the second factor by arming school admins, has a series of issues, the least of them being that it basically turns these roles into potential military-type positions. People do these jobs to help kids learn, not to have to train to and maybe kill someone.

That leaves the third option, removing the victims from the scenario. Now perhaps making it hard to get at them will just move the problem somewhere else, but isn't that exactly what would happen if you armed those in the school? Maybe it would mean they had to plan out their attacks more, but this may also mean that there is more chance to catch them before they start. Finally, perhaps slowing them down wouldn't stop them, but it certainly would give the victims time to escape or lock-down and wait for help to arrive.

Consider if this school had been equipped with a blast resistant foyer area with two security guards who were responsible for buzzing in people through the main doors which only opened from the inside, similar to a banks. To leave the foyer you need to go through a second set of doors that would lock tight if the school when into lock down, steel doors that couldn't be shot through or kicked down easily (just ask the local gang what type they installed to slow down the SWAT teams). With your guards able to activate a school wide lockdown at the press of a button, you have alarms sound that give kids 30 seconds to get into a classroom, then the system locks down the classrooms. Again outward opening encased hinge, steel doors with multiple bolts on each. Another 30 secs after the alarms start, steel fire doors close and lock up and down the hallways. In that 30secs any students and staff who didn't make it into a classroom can make their way to a safe room or office before they and the hallways get locked down.

At this point, well as soon as the lock down is pressed, the police have been alerted and are on their way. The main doors only have to hold out for 1 minute before the school is entirely locked down, 30 secs before most of the school is safe. By adding in an over-ride that can shortcut the time, if the gunman makes it into the school before that time, the full lockdown can go into effect.

It's all about slowing the bad guy down to the point it's not worth it.

Now yes that might just mean that gunmen wait till recess or home time to do it, but short of having walled schools and armed guards in towers, how do you stop that?

Passive security is just as effective as active, and doesn't need to rely on the human factor as much. As to arguments again, every single one can be made against having armed teachers or staff, plus that teachers and school admins tend to be some of the highest stressed jobs there are, dealing with unruly kids, and do the job to educate, not to kill.

In the end, passive security is the best way to deal with the issue, and while it is expensive retrofitting and redesigning the schools across the US, it should be a Federal task, just as they retrofitted and protected every single Federal Building in the US against bomb attacks after Oklahoma City.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:51 PM   #176
A'isha
Unique
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 12,650
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
I still fail to see how it is just a fantasy. The only reason he didn't shoot is because he did not have a clear shot. If we change the scenario ever so slightly, and let's say he has a wall as a back drop within 5 feet of him and no one in his path, do his bullets not do any damage to the shooter because that only happens in movies?
And if he were Steven Segal, he could have snuck up on the shooter and killed him with his own weapon before the shooter even knew he was there.

I'm pretty sure real life beats your hypothetical.

Quote:
Ah, I found the problem. You are completely ignorant of firearms and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
In college, my roommate's brother once took us shooting. A few years ago, scared and anxious after this happened in the apartment complex right next door to mine, I bought a small pistol that I keep in a dresser drawer in my bedroom. A coworker keeps promising to take me to a range to show me how to use it properly sometime.

I'm not against guns. I am, however, rather dubious about the idea that if guns are the problem, more guns must be the solution.

Quote:
It all makes sense now. So you say there are ONLY two possible options. Either take the shot and hit innocent bystanders, or do nothing. That is what we call a logical fallacy and a massive failure (And a bit embarrassing to be completely honest).
No, I'm saying that a bystander happening to be a concealed carrier is not, in fact, the magical solution to spree shootings, because even in situations where that happens, it's so chaotic and complex and confused (there's a reason why police are given specialized training that nevertheless still doesn't always prepare them for the real thing) that the likelihood of said concealed carrier being utterly useless at best and creating additional casualties at worst in that situation means maybe, just maybe, that perhaps we ought to look for an alternate solution to the problem.

Quote:
And you are faulting him for hiding behind cover? Wow you truly, truly are ignorant.
No, I'm faulting him for claiming credit for the shooter ending his spree by committing suicide, when all he actually did was hide behind cover (and then run and hide behind different cover).

Quote:
FYI, that is what all military and law enforcement officers are trained to do when bullets start flying. Find cover.
That is, however, not all they do. Which is another good reason why "I have a gun in my pocket" is not an adequate substitute for a trained police officer. And neither is "a teacher who's taken a few gun courses".
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The City of Light, by Jacob D'Ancona, translated and edited by David Selbourne

Last edited by A'isha; 18th December 2012 at 04:52 PM.
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 04:59 PM   #177
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,735
The suggestion from the OP would significantly reduce the number of victims killed in mass shootings.


It would substantially increase the number of deaths by accidental shootings.

And probably the number of murders as well.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:02 PM   #178
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
And if he were Steven Segal, he could have snuck up on the shooter and killed him with his own weapon before the shooter even knew he was there.

I'm pretty sure real life beats your hypothetical.



In college, my roommate's brother once took us shooting. A few years ago, scared and anxious after this happened in the apartment complex right next door to mine, I bought a small pistol that I keep in a dresser drawer in my bedroom. A coworker keeps promising to take me to a range to show me how to use it properly sometime.

I'm not against guns. I am, however, rather dubious about the idea that if guns are the problem, more guns must be the solution.



No, I'm saying that a bystander happening to be a concealed carrier is not, in fact, the magical solution to spree shootings, because even in situations where that happens, it's so chaotic and complex and confused (there's a reason why police are given specialized training that nevertheless still doesn't always prepare them for the real thing) that the likelihood of said concealed carrier being utterly useless at best and creating additional casualties at worst in that situation means maybe, just maybe, that perhaps we ought to look for an alternate solution to the problem.



No, I'm faulting him for claiming credit for the shooter ending his spree by committing suicide, when all he actually did was hide behind cover (and then run and hide behind different cover).



That is, however, not all they do. Which is another good reason why "I have a gun in my pocket" is not an adequate substitute for a trained police officer. And neither is "a teacher who's taken a few gun courses".
Ok but the only reason the guy said he didn't shoot is because he did not have a clear shot, which actually reinforces that idea that a concealed carrier is not going to shoot a bunch of innocent bystanders. If he had in fact had a clear shot, no it does not take an guy from an action movie to achieve a hit. Your story about you owning a handgun only reinforces my belief that you are completely ignorant of guns.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:03 PM   #179
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The suggestion from the OP would significantly reduce the number of victims killed in mass shootings.


It would substantially increase the number of deaths by accidental shootings.

And probably the number of murders as well.
How would these accidental shootings occur?
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:04 PM   #180
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Interesting article from September 7, 2007

One poster noted that it's like a fire triangle:

- Weapons
- Attacker
- Victims

Remove one and the issue dies.

I think that if everyone is honest, the horse bolted out the door on US guns decades ago. This means it is all but impossible to remove the first.

This means either removing the second or the third factor.

As has also been noted, the idea of removing the second factor by arming school admins, has a series of issues, the least of them being that it basically turns these roles into potential military-type positions. People do these jobs to help kids learn, not to have to train to and maybe kill someone.

That leaves the third option, removing the victims from the scenario. Now perhaps making it hard to get at them will just move the problem somewhere else, but isn't that exactly what would happen if you armed those in the school? Maybe it would mean they had to plan out their attacks more, but this may also mean that there is more chance to catch them before they start. Finally, perhaps slowing them down wouldn't stop them, but it certainly would give the victims time to escape or lock-down and wait for help to arrive.

Consider if this school had been equipped with a blast resistant foyer area with two security guards who were responsible for buzzing in people through the main doors which only opened from the inside, similar to a banks. To leave the foyer you need to go through a second set of doors that would lock tight if the school when into lock down, steel doors that couldn't be shot through or kicked down easily (just ask the local gang what type they installed to slow down the SWAT teams). With your guards able to activate a school wide lockdown at the press of a button, you have alarms sound that give kids 30 seconds to get into a classroom, then the system locks down the classrooms. Again outward opening encased hinge, steel doors with multiple bolts on each. Another 30 secs after the alarms start, steel fire doors close and lock up and down the hallways. In that 30secs any students and staff who didn't make it into a classroom can make their way to a safe room or office before they and the hallways get locked down.

At this point, well as soon as the lock down is pressed, the police have been alerted and are on their way. The main doors only have to hold out for 1 minute before the school is entirely locked down, 30 secs before most of the school is safe. By adding in an over-ride that can shortcut the time, if the gunman makes it into the school before that time, the full lockdown can go into effect.

It's all about slowing the bad guy down to the point it's not worth it.

Now yes that might just mean that gunmen wait till recess or home time to do it, but short of having walled schools and armed guards in towers, how do you stop that?

Passive security is just as effective as active, and doesn't need to rely on the human factor as much. As to arguments again, every single one can be made against having armed teachers or staff, plus that teachers and school admins tend to be some of the highest stressed jobs there are, dealing with unruly kids, and do the job to educate, not to kill.

In the end, passive security is the best way to deal with the issue, and while it is expensive retrofitting and redesigning the schools across the US, it should be a Federal task, just as they retrofitted and protected every single Federal Building in the US against bomb attacks after Oklahoma City.
I like this idea and it is very well laid out and detailed. Thank you for contributing to the discussion intelligently and maturely.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:07 PM   #181
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,735
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
How would these accidental shootings occur?
The same way they do everywhere else guns are present.

Look it up. If you own a gun, the most likely person to be killed by the gun is you. The next most likely person to be killed by the gun is someone who lives with you.

This isn't rocket science. Guns will work in schools the same way they work in homes.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:12 PM   #182
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The same way they do everywhere else guns are present.

Look it up. If you own a gun, the most likely person to be killed by the gun is you. The next most likely person to be killed by the gun is someone who lives with you.

This isn't rocket science. Guns will work in schools the same way they work in homes.
Yikes, another individual completely ignorant of guns. So how is this gun stored in a safe going to go on a shooting rampage all on its own?
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:18 PM   #183
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
No, that is not what I would describe as a "stolen gun", nor is it what the vast majority of people would think about when hearing the words "stolen gun".
According to the law, it would. Unless of course he did have legitimate permission to take the guns at his leisure, which then my point would be wrong.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
It's a misleading description, deliberately used to try and distract the fact that the weapons were legally purchased and kept in the household the killer lived in by a family member of the killer,
If he didn't have permission to use the guns at his leisure, then they were stolen, according to the law.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
which gave him full access to them in a way that completely undercuts the "we don't need more regulations on guns, we just need to enforce the ones we have now, and that should be plenty" argument.
What regulation that is currently, or proposed, would have prevented this, not including an outright ban?

Again, if he did not have permission to take them, they were stolen. Period. Nothing you can say can change that.

I have plenty of guns in my house. If my nephew (who doesn't have permission to go into my safe and take any) went into my safe and took guns out, they would be stolen, according to the law.

Even though he lives here.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
"Ban all guns" is just as much of an overreaction as "everyone should carry guns". But let's not pretend that that what happened here had anything to do with the (very real) problem of legitimately stolen guns being used by criminals, or that this tragedy could have been prevented if only the existing restrictions on gun availability and purchasing had been properly enforced.
It most certainly does, if in fact he didn't have permission to take them. If he didn't have the express consent from the owner of the weapons, he stole them. No matter how much you stomp up and down, throw yourself on the ground and having a fit, will not change it.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:19 PM   #184
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Yikes, another individual completely ignorant of guns. So how is this gun stored in a safe going to go on a shooting rampage all on its own?
It won't. It'll go off when someone stores it in a cupholder, or a teacher trained in firearms goes round the bend.
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:20 PM   #185
A'isha
Unique
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 12,650
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
So how is this gun stored in a safe going to go on a shooting rampage all on its own?
How long will it take for Assistant Principal Chow Yun Fat here to go to where the gun safe is, find the right key (or use the right combination) to unlock it, retrieve the gun, load it, and head out to confront the shooter?
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The City of Light, by Jacob D'Ancona, translated and edited by David Selbourne
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:21 PM   #186
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,763
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
I'm sorry but doesn't this actually support gun rights? I mean the argument I have always heard from the anti gun nutter crowd is that if you put a guy concealed carrying in a situation with a shooter, he is going to cause more harm then good and actually end up shooting hundreds of innocent bystanders. I always argued that a good concealed carry holder will not take the shot if he thinks he would hit innocent people. So this seems to enforce the point I have always argued.
He's going to possibly cause harm if he starts shooting back A bystander carrying a gun who doesn't shoot back at the assailant is a non-factor. It's essentially the same as not having a gun at all. That was the point of the example you cited, and it undercuts your assertion that throwing more guns in the mix would somehow make everything turn out okay.
__________________
Lost your faith in humanity?

Click here to have it restored.

Or here.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:22 PM   #187
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
How long will it take for Assistant Principal Chow Yun Fat here to go to where the gun safe is, find the right key (or use the right combination) to unlock it, retrieve the gun, load it, and head out to confront the shooter?
Nice Dodge!! Care to address his question?
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:26 PM   #188
A'isha
Unique
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 12,650
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
I have plenty of guns in my house. If my nephew (who doesn't have permission to go into my safe and take any) went into my safe and took guns out, they would be stolen, according to the law.

Even though he lives here.
If your nephew, who lives with you and who you have let drive your car before, takes the keys and drives it to the mall without your express permission, I assume you'd be on the phone with the cops posthaste to report your vehicle stolen and wanting to file a police report and criminal grand theft auto charges.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The City of Light, by Jacob D'Ancona, translated and edited by David Selbourne
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:26 PM   #189
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,661
Alexander Cockburn forwarded a way better idea in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre: "Put a gun glass case on each hallway: break in case of emergency." Before you say anything, it triggers the fire alarm. Even if some crazed killer grabs one of these guns, there will be, like, ten more in the building.

Cockburn also thought it was a good idea for colleges to have student militias. I don't see why we can't institute this idea for elementary schools. Before you say anything, no, I'm not suggesting we arm first graders. It'll be restricted to fifth graders.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:26 PM   #190
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base
Posts: 11,496
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
So you say there are ONLY two possible options. Either take the shot and potentially miss the target and hit innocent bystanders, or do nothing.
ftfy.

By the way, a study into NYPD officers over a ten year period found that of the times they were involved in shottings (77% of which were with only the officer(s) shooting) they missed their target 78% of the time. That's close to 4 in 5 shots missing when fired by trained police officers who a lot of the time are not being fired back at. Now looking at other departments, NY is actually a little low, but not by much. Most average between just 20-30% for hitting their target when they open fire. Studies have found that the greater the danger to the Officer, the worse his/her accuracy is as well.*

You are suggesting that an poorly trained school admin, or Joe off the street, should be able to do better while under fire.



*Hitting the Target (or Not): Comparing Characteristics of Fatal, Injurious, and Noninjurious Police Shootings (Michael D. White) Police Quarterly 2006; 9; 303 DOI: 10.1177/1098611105277199

http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/303
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:28 PM   #191
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
How long will it take for Assistant Principal Chow Yun Fat here to go to where the gun safe is, find the right key (or use the right combination) to unlock it, retrieve the gun, load it, and head out to confront the shooter?
Depends on the location of the shooter and the location of the individual with the gun in the safe when he is alerted to the presence of a shooter. You could not figure that formula out on your own?
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:28 PM   #192
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,735
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Yikes, another individual completely ignorant of guns. So how is this gun stored in a safe going to go on a shooting rampage all on its own?
Ignorant?

You think that all those guns will stay locked in their safes? You think those guns will never be accidentally discharged while showing them to another person? You think that no one will ever mistakenly fire at someone perceived to be a threat, but who in reality is playing a joke? You think that no child will ever manage to get at that safely secured gun because teachers will always follow proper procedures for use and storage of their guns?

Ignorant? Yes, there is at least one person in this thread who is completely ignorant about guns.

Well, not completely ignorant. I'm sure you know a great deal about guns. I'm sure you can describe their proper use, and how to load them and fire them. I'll bet you're a wealth of knowledge about how they can be used and how they should be used.

Unfortunately, you seem completely ignorant about how they actually are used, because the most likely person to be killed by your gun, is you. The next most likely is someone you live with. Sorry. It's not an opinion. It's statistics.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:30 PM   #193
A'isha
Unique
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 12,650
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Nice Dodge!! Care to address his question?
angrysoba already did that.

EDIT: Meadmaker too.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The City of Light, by Jacob D'Ancona, translated and edited by David Selbourne

Last edited by A'isha; 18th December 2012 at 05:32 PM.
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:33 PM   #194
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Sigh. Please go back and read the OP.
How much of a particular teacher's time do you recommend should be given over to firearms training?
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:34 PM   #195
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,173
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
This is the kind of ridiculousness that is counter productive to any discussion regarding firearms. There are absolutely STUPID comparisons on both sides of the argument. This is probably one of the dumbest ones posted yet. Congrats if that's what you were going for. If you were serious, may FSM help you.
If you can't see why it is a totally apt simile, you don't want to see it.

Just because something has a peaceful use, this does not make it something I want people to have.

I don't want you having Sarin gas, but you know it was originally a pesticide.

I simply know that we have a hecatomb on our streets every night to appease the god of second amendment rights.

I also know that we have a right to life.

And we have to balance our rights.

Now, I think of the probable times when a firearm in private hands might preserve a life, and that these appear to be quite small in number, and I then balance that against the wholesale slaughter we see every single day.

Which right do I value more? Guns? Or life?

Now, I don't think that we will ever choose to prohibit hunting rifles, at least not unless we manage to wipe out all the game, but why do we need handguns at all?

So, we talk about handguns for self-defense. The numbers seem to show that they rarely save life and often take life in accidents or anger.

Does that seem like something worth fighting for?
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?

Last edited by BenBurch; 18th December 2012 at 05:39 PM.
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:36 PM   #196
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Ignorant?

You think that all those guns will stay locked in their safes? You think those guns will never be accidentally discharged while showing them to another person? You think that no one will ever mistakenly fire at someone perceived to be a threat, but who in reality is playing a joke? You think that no child will ever manage to get at that safely secured gun because teachers will always follow proper procedures for use and storage of their guns?

Ignorant? Yes, there is at least one person in this thread who is completely ignorant about guns.

Well, not completely ignorant. I'm sure you know a great deal about guns. I'm sure you can describe their proper use, and how to load them and fire them. I'll bet you're a wealth of knowledge about how they can be used and how they should be used.

Unfortunately, you seem completely ignorant about how they actually are used, because the most likely person to be killed by your gun, is you. The next most likely is someone you live with. Sorry. It's not an opinion. It's statistics.
I copied your post and pasted it into Microsoft Word so I could see how many words there were. 186. 186 words strung together to make one of the most ignorant posts about guns that has been posted yet (Even worse then Bens I beleive). I believe congrats are in order. More accurately, I think the following emoticon is in order:
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

Last edited by Quad4_72; 18th December 2012 at 05:39 PM.
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:38 PM   #197
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base
Posts: 11,496
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The same way they do everywhere else guns are present.

Look it up. If you own a gun, the most likely person to be killed by the gun is you. The next most likely person to be killed by the gun is someone who lives with you.

This isn't rocket science. Guns will work in schools the same way they work in homes.
While technically true, removing Suicides does change these figures somewhat.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:39 PM   #198
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,583
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post

Now, I don't think that we will ever choose to prohibit hunting rifles, at least not unless we manage to wipe out all the game, but why do we need handguns at all?

So, we talk about handguns for self-defense. The numbers seem to show that they rarely save life and often take life in accidents or anger.

Does that seem like something worth fighting for?
I agree. I proper cost of handguns outweighs the self defence so-called benefit.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:39 PM   #199
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,735
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
I copied your post and pasted it into Microsoft Word so I could see how many words there were. 186. 186 words strung together to make one of the most ignorant posts about guns that has been posted yet. I believe congrats are in order. More accurately, I think the following emoticon is in order:
I believe you have managed to say absolutely nothing in this post. You have no facts about guns. You have no statistics about guns. You have nothing to say at all.

Which makes this post smarter than your average post.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2012, 05:41 PM   #200
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
How much of a particular teacher's time do you recommend should be given over to firearms training?
I honestly can't put an accurate number on that. I am somewhat abandoning the arming of teachers though in favor of either having LEOs or ex military volunteering their time or PhantomWolfs idea.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.