An OUTRAGEOUS Solution to School Shootings - Page 8

DJW · 19th December 2012, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Cars =/= guns.

Cars are used to transport people or equipment, guns are used to kill people.

Glad I could straighten out your confusion.

Confusing vehicles with weapons seems to be a problem for some, I wonder if someone who suffers from such a cognitive problem should be allowed to own a gun.

Guns are used for other things, which you've been told about a number of times. Willful ignorance is not part of the solution.

Bob001 · 19th December 2012, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

What makes the Second Amendment so unique and special as to be exempt from all the other "yes, but" restrictions that are and have been placed on pretty much every single other constitutional right listed in that document in order to actually create a functional, working society?

But there ARE numerous federal, state and local laws restricting the sale, purchase, possession and use of firearms. The NRA (admittedly not an objective source) claims that there are 20,000 gun laws in the U.S. The assault weapons ban was flawed for a lot of reasons, but it limited capacity of new magazines to 10 rounds and prohibited "assault weapons" (which, regrettably, it defined largely by appearance rather than mechanism). An improved law along those lines would probably get a lot of support. The Constitution does not prohibit reasonable restrictions on firearms. But unless you are prepared to argue that no civilians should ever possess firearms, the fact is that there will be firearms in our society, and sometimes they will be misused and abused, just like cars, just like alcohol, just like cold medication. And responsible, law-abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves against those who would do them harm.

How many laws did the Connecticut killer violate?
http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1251&q=254198

ANTPogo · 19th December 2012, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

It gets mentioned on occasion, but never seems to "stick" in the anti-gun mindset, but some of us are already subject to pretty tough gun control legislation.

And some of us aren't.

Where I live, it took me half an hour to buy my pistol at a sporting goods store and walk out to my car with it. If I want a concealed carry permit, I can fill out an application online and mail in $20 to the local county sheriff's office to get one, and since Alabama has reciprocity agreements with a number of other states, that permit would be just as valid in each of them.

tsig · 19th December 2012, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Oh I already addressed that part in the bottom of my post. Training would just about cut down on all of this. Also if the school implemented, proper lockdown drills and students laying on the floor, crossfire would be negligible.

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Who said this?

What's a little crossfire among kids?

seycyrus · 19th December 2012, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

And some of us aren't.

Where I live, it took me half an hour to buy my pistol at a sporting goods store and walk out to my car with it. If I want a concealed carry permit, I can fill out an application online and mail in $20 to the local county sheriff's office to get one, and since Alabama has reciprocity agreements with a number of other states, that permit would be just as valid in each of them.

And how does your crime rate compare to those areas with a much more restrictive environment, Chicago for example?

ANTPogo · 19th December 2012, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

The Constitution does not prohibit reasonable restrictions on firearms.

And yet Zeggman is apparently under the impression that "requiring gun owners to pass a written and practical test for a license to carry" (not to own, just to carry) would violate the Constitution, which is what I was responding to with my specific question.

DJW · 19th December 2012, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

And some of us aren't.

Where I live, it took me half an hour to buy my pistol at a sporting goods store and walk out to my car with it. If I want a concealed carry permit, I can fill out an application online and mail in $20 to the local county sheriff's office to get one, and since Alabama has reciprocity agreements with a number of other states, that permit would be just as valid in each of them.

The killings occurred in CT which has similar laws to MA. How is Alabama doing wrt spree killings at schools?

DJW · 19th December 2012, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

What's a little crossfire among kids?

Nevermind the crosstalk amongst skeptics!

ANTPogo · 19th December 2012, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by seycyrus

And how does your crime rate compare to those areas with a much more restrictive environment, Chicago for example?

We were tied for third place last year in the cities with the highest overall crime rate, were number 7 in the list of Most Dangerous Cities this year (though still in the top 5 for forcible rape and property crimes), and we just finally managed to drop out of the top 10 cities for worst homicide rate this year (we're now 11th per capita for murders, behind New Orleans, Flint, Detroit, St. Louis, Newark, Baltimore, Jackson, Baton Rouge, Oakland and New Haven).

ANTPogo · 19th December 2012, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

The killings occurred in CT which has similar laws to MA. How is Alabama doing wrt spree killings at schools?

Not too bad, though this just happened here a few days ago, right down the street from where I work.

zeggman · 19th December 2012, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Cars =/= guns.

Cars are used to transport people or equipment, guns are used to kill people.

Glad I could straighten out your confusion.

Confusing vehicles with weapons seems to be a problem for some, I wonder if someone who suffers from such a cognitive problem should be allowed to own a gun.

Guns are used as paperweights, to provide food, and to protect settlers from wild beasts and marauding gangs.

If you're willing to accept thousands of deaths every year for the sake of transporting people or equipment, I guess you must not care very much about the people who die, or the loved ones who mourn them.

I wonder if someone who suffers from such callousness should be allowed to own a car.

Quad4_72 · 19th December 2012, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

What's a little crossfire among kids?

Good try. No.

joesixpack · 19th December 2012, 08:45 AM

So on Friday, when my sons came home from school, the subject of the school shooting was broached. We talked about the shooting a bit and we talked about their fears (of which they seemed to have very few). Then I asked "what would be a good way to deal with this issue?" My oldest said "they should have an exterior exit door on every classroom". That got me thinking, why do they keep the kids indoors? Why do they make them huddle in a classroom? Why not gtfo of there? So they can keep track of them all? The best response to being shot at is to make every effort not to be in front of the shooter, and if you have to be in front of him, be as far away as possible. Teachers should put the kids out of the windows and tell them to run (on the first floor, obviously). In fact, the more directions the kids are running the better. I'd rather my kids take their chances with the non-shooting population at large rather than the crazy shooter in the school.

I'm not certain if this has been addressed or not because I haven't read through all 8 pages, so sorry if it's been talked to death already/

zeggman · 19th December 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

You need one to drive it away from wherever you bought it.

Yes, driving is a privilege which requires a license; owning a car is not. Justin Bieber can buy a car and hire a chauffeur without violating the law.

I'm not a gun owner myself, but if I'm not mistaken a gun owner must still get a hunting license to go hunting. Maybe that's comparable to a driver's license.

If you're not driving on public streets, you still don't need a driver's license. Children on farms can drive tractors (and presumably cars) on private property, even if they're unlicensed. Maybe that's comparable to sport shooting at a private gun range.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Who said anything about a license to carry? You don't need a license to own and use a gun period. Unlike a car.

I've already mentioned hunting licenses. I think there are also restrictions on concealed carry.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

What makes the Second Amendment so unique and special as to be exempt from all the other "yes, but" restrictions that are and have been placed on pretty much every single other constitutional right listed in that document in order to actually create a functional, working society?

It isn't. It says gun ownership is a right, just like freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a right. I don't get a license to say things I couldn't otherwise say, or engage in religious practices like bigamy or human sacrifice which are otherwise illegal.

My point was simply that one doesn't license rights. It is my right to own a gun. It is not my right to point it at you and make threats. There are already restrictions defined for this right, but "requiring a license to own a gun" would probably be unconstitutional.

ETA: I just re-read the exchange, and I did say "License to carry" which implies carrying in public. After reflection, I don't think such a license would be unconstitutional, and apologize for my confusion.

DJW · 19th December 2012, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Not too bad, though this just happened here a few days ago, right down the street from where I work.

Four people were shot and one was killed around the corner from me a few months ago, link. No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it. Should we even compare the two incidents? How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting?

Do these laws even have an affect?

ANTPogo · 19th December 2012, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it.

After he shot three other people, who were lucky to just be wounded, and not killed. And yes, a trained LEO put a stop to it, not a concealed carrier bystander.

Quote:

Should we even compare the two incidents?

I don't know, but I can certainly find you other shootings in Birmingham that resemble your example more, if you like. I simply selected that one because it was both extremely recent and extremely close to me.

Quote:

How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting?

It might have kept the guns out of the hands of the shooters. The easy availability of both guns and concealed carry permits here in Alabama certainly didn't seem to help any.

Quote:

Do these laws even have an affect?

Well, going by the relative crime and per-capita murder rates in the two cities, it seems that Birmingham is far less safe than Boston for having such lax gun laws.

Nessie · 19th December 2012, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

Four people were shot and one was killed around the corner from me a few months ago, link. No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it. Should we even compare the two incidents? How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting?

Do these laws even have an affect?

This map showing gun massacres has a pretty even distribution across the USA, with some clusters in densely populated areas rather than a specific state. So there is no sign of differences in gun control making a difference to the number of massacres.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-shootings-map

So the conclusion is no they do not. The USA will not be able to change the law and make the massacres go away.

P.J. Denyer · 19th December 2012, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

So on Friday, when my sons came home from school, the subject of the school shooting was broached. We talked about the shooting a bit and we talked about their fears (of which they seemed to have very few). Then I asked "what would be a good way to deal with this issue?" My oldest said "they should have an exterior exit door on every classroom". That got me thinking, why do they keep the kids indoors? Why do they make them huddle in a classroom? Why not gtfo of there? So they can keep track of them all? The best response to being shot at is to make every effort not to be in front of the shooter, and if you have to be in front of him, be as far away as possible. Teachers should put the kids out of the windows and tell them to run (on the first floor, obviously). In fact, the more directions the kids are running the better. I'd rather my kids take their chances with the non-shooting population at large rather than the crazy shooter in the school.

I'm not certain if this has been addressed or not because I haven't read through all 8 pages, so sorry if it's been talked to death already/

Concern that they would be easier targets while out in the open fleeing the school perhaps, or of deaths and injuries while escaping if panic takes hold. Maybe kids running off and getting lost, running into roads etc. The teacher's instinct is going to be to stay close and try to protect them rather than 'let them run and fend for themselves' even if scattering might be the best option.

DJW · 19th December 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

After he shot three other people, who were lucky to just be wounded, and not killed. And yes, a trained LEO put a stop to it, not a concealed carrier bystander.

But we can dig up lots of example where a CCW is used beneficially. In just about every gun thread, someone posts about "Armed Citizen", in the NRA publications, which gives examples gleaned from local newspapers every month. I think arguing using examples isn't really helpful.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I don't know, but I can certainly find you other shootings in Birmingham that resemble your example more, if you like. I simply selected that one because it was both extremely recent and extremely close to me.

Argument by anecdote, right?

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

It might have kept the guns out of the hands of the shooters. The easy availability of both guns and concealed carry permits here in Alabama certainly didn't seem to help any.

But do they hurt? BenBurch posted a link to CCW's involved in killing (including suicides). I think the total was about 600 in five years.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Well, going by the relative crime and per-capita murder rates in the two cities, it seems that Birmingham is far less safe than Boston for having such lax gun laws.

It may be the tbi, but statistics start causing my eyes to glaze over. Not because I'm not interested AND concerned about actual data, but because the gun debate is littered with the correlation does not equal causation fallacy amongst others.

Don't think that the people who pay for the evidence gathering seem to be agenda driven?

Btw--I shouldn't make light of my tbi, but it does impact my life every day and makes it difficult to be concise and clear, so I self deprecate. I apologize for that upfront, and will try to clear anything up that you wish. I just hope that you realize that I appreciate the oportunity to have the discussion.

joesixpack · 19th December 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Concern that they would be easier targets while out in the open fleeing the school perhaps, or of deaths and injuries while escaping if panic takes hold. Maybe kids running off and getting lost, running into roads etc. The teacher's instinct is going to be to stay close and try to protect them rather than 'let them run and fend for themselves' even if scattering might be the best option.

Teacher's instinct be damned. Huddled groups are easier targets than scattered and running kids. I think the schools should really examine what the best policy is for student safety, not convenience for roll taking purposes. My kids are old enough to find their own way home. Younger kids will have a better chance of finding safety outside of the school building than inside of it.

Bob001 · 19th December 2012, 09:45 AM

Let's broaden the discussion.

Here is the full text of the Second Amendment:

Quote:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

So:

1/ How would this right be "well regulated?"
2/ Who or what is the "Militia?"
3/ "Security of a free state" against whom or what?
4/ Who is/are "the people?"
5/ Does "keep and bear arms" mean store, possess, carry, use or what, and if it includes use, against whom or what, under what circumstances?
6/ What are "arms?"
7/ What would "infringe" this right?

Discuss.

tsig · 19th December 2012, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Good try. No.

If you don't think your right to own a gun is superior to the children's right to life then why are you arguing so vehemently?

tsig · 19th December 2012, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by zeggman

Guns are used as paperweights, to provide food, and to protect settlers from wild beasts and marauding gangs.

If you're willing to accept thousands of deaths every year for the sake of transporting people or equipment, I guess you must not care very much about the people who die, or the loved ones who mourn them.

I wonder if someone who suffers from such callousness should be allowed to own a car.

Since we can get our food at the supermarket and wild beasts and marauding gangs are rather scarce here then you must agree that guns are useless, unless you have dire need of a deadly paperweight.

DJW · 19th December 2012, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Let's broaden the discussion.

Here is the full text of the Second Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

So:

1/ How would this right be "well regulated?"
2/ Who or what is the "Militia?"
3/ "Security of a free state" against whom or what?
4/ Who is/are "the people?"
5/ Does "keep and bear arms" mean store, possess, carry, use or what, and if it includes use, against whom or what, under what circumstances?
6/ What are "arms?"
7/ What would "infringe" this right?

Discuss.

I think the SCOTUS decision (Heller) and the recent Illinois circuit (7th???) have explored the history and made some decisions wrt your list. We should probably discuss from at least a basic understanding of the law from there.

W.D.Clinger · 19th December 2012, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

Four people were shot and one was killed around the corner from me a few months ago, link. No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it. Should we even compare the two incidents? How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting?

Do these laws even have an affect?

That's hard to say, but it's fairly easy to look up the murder rates.

In 2010, among US cities with populations of 250000 or more, Boston ranked 23rd with about 11.3 murders per 100000 population.

Alabama's a state, not a city, but Mobile ranked 26th, not far behind Boston, with about 9.8 murders per 100000 population. Birmingham didn't make that list because its population was less than 250000, but its murder rate was 8.9 per 100000.

In 2011, two thirds of Massachusetts's 183 murders were committed by firearm, and the percentage for Alabama was almost exactly the same (65.5%).

Looking only at these numbers, it would be hard to argue that Boston's more restrictive gun laws had much effect on the number of people shot (compared to Mobile or Birmingham).

On the other hand, any serious attempt to find empirical support for correlations between murder rates and gun control would have to look at more than two or three cities and would have to examine many other factors. Serious attempts have been made, by many people, but the results of those studies have been surprisingly equivocal.

Originally Posted by DJW

I think arguing using examples isn't really helpful.

...snip...

It may be the tbi, but statistics start causing my eyes to glaze over.

Sorry.

If both anecdotal and statistical evidence are excluded from the conversation, then what's left? Emotion?

rikzilla · 19th December 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

I think the SCOTUS decision (Heller) and the recent Illinois circuit (7th???) have explored the history and made some decisions wrt your list. We should probably discuss from at least a basic understanding of the law from there.

Would that be the same SCOTUS who gave us Bush v Gore and Citizens United? I'd like to remind folks we have a POTUS who will not be appointing RW justices in these remaining 4 years of his term...and looking at the shambles of the Republican Party I could be forgiven for suggesting that they might never get another chance to stack the court.

Before the NRA went from sportsman, hunter, and gun safety promoter to Political Action Comittee in the 70's there were wide disparities in what folks thought the 2nd meant. If looked at in the context of the time in which it was written, there were actual regulated state militias....and no one had yet invented even a rifled barrel.

-z

DJW · 19th December 2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

snip

Sorry.

If both anecdotal and statistical evidence are excluded from the conversation, then what's left? Emotion?

If I hadn't used my own anecdotes without making outrageous claims or apologized for caring but having a hard time understanding statistics (which are frequently being manipulated by the agenda driven), then yeah, emotion would be what is left.

DJW · 19th December 2012, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by rikzilla

Would that be the same SCOTUS who gave us Bush v Gore and Citizens United? I'd like to remind folks we have a POTUS who will not be appointing RW justices in these remaining 4 years of his term...and looking at the shambles of the Republican Party I could be forgiven for suggesting that they might never get another chance to stack the court.

Before the NRA went from sportsman, hunter, and gun safety promoter to Political Action Comittee in the 70's there were wide disparities in what folks thought the 2nd meant. If looked at in the context of the time in which it was written, there were actual regulated state militias....and no one had yet invented even a rifled barrel.

-z

Your idea then is to wait for President Obama to reset the court so that Heller et al will be overturned such that the 2nd is no longer an individual right.

Is the SCOTUS that decided Bush v Gore the same one that decided Heller and McDonald? Who selected the 7th circuit? Does it matter? Should it matter? The law provides a foundation for any discussion like the one we're having. It has to.

Again, we're left with the fact that we're going to have to amend the 2nd amendment if we're to make radical changes to gun ownership.

iknownothing · 19th December 2012, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Teacher's instinct be damned. Huddled groups are easier targets than scattered and running kids. I think the schools should really examine what the best policy is for student safety, not convenience for roll taking purposes.

Huddled kids out in the open, yeah. But huddled kids in a safe room with the police on their way are a lot safer than kids out in an open field making easy targets.

Also, remember that lock downs don't just happen when there's a mass murderer in the school. Most lock downs don't turn into that. So do you drill the kids on 2 strategies (run for your life AND stay in a safe room)? Sounds like a prescription for mass confusion. And do you want administrators having to decide whether to tell the kids to hide or flee? Because if they say "flee" at the wrong time and you have 6 year olds racing off in every direction, that's not going to go well.

IDB87 · 19th December 2012, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by zeggman

If you're willing to accept thousands of deaths every year for the sake of transporting people or equipment, I guess you must not care very much about the people who die, or the loved ones who mourn them.

Without mass motorized transportation civilization as we know it comes to an end.

Without the ability to purchase AR-15s or AK47s you lose the ability to entertain yourself and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That's about the extent of it.

DavidJames · 19th December 2012, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by IDB87

Without mass motorized transportation civilization as we know it comes to an end.

Without the ability to purchase AR-15s or AK47s you lose the ability to entertain yourself and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That's about the extent of it.

In fairness, lacking a coherent, intellectually honest argument, they need to resort to those bizarre comparisons.

Sorry, back to lurker mode

ANTPogo · 19th December 2012, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Birmingham didn't make that list because its population was less than 250000, but its murder rate was 8.9 per 100000.

That's for the whole Metropolitan Statistical Area.

In 2010, Birmingham didn't get reported because of a missed deadline, but in 2009 our murder rate was 28.6 per 100,000 (9.3 in the MSA). In 2011, the MSA murder rate per 100,000 was the 8.9 listed above, but Birmingham's murder rate per 100,000 was 25.3.

Per the same 2011 FBI report, the Boston MSA murder rate per 100,000 was 2.8, while the murder rate per 100,000 for Boston itself was 10.14.

Bob001 · 19th December 2012, 11:02 AM

A useful perspective on the idea of a "militia" resisting an oppressive government:
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/guns...ever_saved_us/

DJW · 19th December 2012, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

That's for the whole Metropolitan Statistical Area.

In 2010, Birmingham didn't get reported because of a missed deadline, but in 2009 our murder rate was 28.6 per 100,000 (9.3 in the MSA). In 2011, the MSA murder rate per 100,000 was the 8.9 listed above, but Birmingham's murder rate per 100,000 was 25.3.

Per the same 2011 FBI report, the Boston MSA murder rate per 100,000 was 2.8, while the murder rate per 100,000 for Boston itself was 10.14.

Boston is heavily populated by college students. Last I checked, every weekday, Boston's population more than triples during the day. Sometimes the crime in the suburbs (Roslindale, Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, West Roxbury, etc...) is counted, sometimes not. There are a lot of confounding factors in the gun debate. Where has it gotten us?

Don't you feel a bit like a dog chasing its tail when you start looking at the numbers? I know I do.

DJW · 19th December 2012, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

In fairness, lacking a coherent, intellectually honest argument, they need to resort to those bizarre comparisons.

Sorry, back to lurker mode

Sure, where the value of they equals practically everyone with an opinion.

Nessie · 19th December 2012, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Teacher's instinct be damned. Huddled groups are easier targets than scattered and running kids. I think the schools should really examine what the best policy is for student safety, not convenience for roll taking purposes. My kids are old enough to find their own way home. Younger kids will have a better chance of finding safety outside of the school building than inside of it.

Originally Posted by iknownothing

Huddled kids out in the open, yeah. But huddled kids in a safe room with the police on their way are a lot safer than kids out in an open field making easy targets.

Also, remember that lock downs don't just happen when there's a mass murderer in the school. Most lock downs don't turn into that. So do you drill the kids on 2 strategies (run for your life AND stay in a safe room)? Sounds like a prescription for mass confusion. And do you want administrators having to decide whether to tell the kids to hide or flee? Because if they say "flee" at the wrong time and you have 6 year olds racing off in every direction, that's not going to go well.

You do know that the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and indeed numerous other countries have the answers to the USA's gun culture problem, and it does not involve implementing policies on mass shooters in schools.

joesixpack · 19th December 2012, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

You do know that the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and indeed numerous other countries have the answers to the USA's gun culture problem, and it does not involve implementing policies on mass shooters in schools.

Bully for you! Thanks for shouting down your remedies from your shining city on the hill.

Nessie · 19th December 2012, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

A useful perspective on the idea of a "militia" resisting an oppressive government:
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/guns...ever_saved_us/

"What does the evidence say about the theory that liberty and democracy depend on easy access to assault weapons by citizens?"

What follows is a brilliant article on how militias have done nothing to save the USA from any tyranny.

"George Washington’s army won the War of Independence with the aid of imported French weapons and supplies and money and French soldiers fighting on American soil. And his best soldiers tended to be well-trained regulars, many of them immigrant mercenaries who signed up for pay and land. The native farmers tended to drop out of the Continental Line to return to their farms."

"The state militias performed poorly in subsequent American wars, as well. In the Mexican War, undisciplined militias antagonized the Mexican population so much, by rape, plunder and murder, that General Winfield Scott sent them home."

"Neither side in the Civil War depended solely on state militias. Both the U.S. and Confederate governments resorted to a draft."

Then look at how tyrannies have actually formed and how armed citizens have never fought one off.

"Ordinary citizens armed with assault weapons or other arms useful in combat have the least chance of success in the very scenario that is invoked to justify their ownership — the remote prospect of a totalitarian tyranny in America."

"The claim that there is a link between individual ownership of assault weapons and political liberty, in the U.S. or anywhere, is not a legal claim. It is not a claim about values. It is a claim about fact. It is a political science theory. And as a political science theory it is an error — an error with fatal consequences for many American citizens who might be alive today, but for this mistaken idea."

The only way the USA can change its gun culture is to accept it is faulty and to then change it. No amount of tinkering with gun control will make any difference if the faulty culture is still intact.

DrDave · 19th December 2012, 12:14 PM

How about only having boarding schools

On the moon

Policed by ninja astronauts?

triforcharity · 19th December 2012, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

People aren't perfect.

I agree. however, taking a gun out of a safe for any other purpose but to shoot, is a cardinal sin of gun ownership.

*There's a few exceptions of course....

19th December 2012, 08:13 AM	#282
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 881	Originally Posted by ANTPogo What makes the Second Amendment so unique and special as to be exempt from all the other "yes, but" restrictions that are and have been placed on pretty much every single other constitutional right listed in that document in order to actually create a functional, working society? But there ARE numerous federal, state and local laws restricting the sale, purchase, possession and use of firearms. The NRA (admittedly not an objective source) claims that there are 20,000 gun laws in the U.S. The assault weapons ban was flawed for a lot of reasons, but it limited capacity of new magazines to 10 rounds and prohibited "assault weapons" (which, regrettably, it defined largely by appearance rather than mechanism). An improved law along those lines would probably get a lot of support. The Constitution does not prohibit reasonable restrictions on firearms. But unless you are prepared to argue that no civilians should ever possess firearms, the fact is that there will be firearms in our society, and sometimes they will be misused and abused, just like cars, just like alcohol, just like cold medication. And responsible, law-abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves against those who would do them harm. How many laws did the Connecticut killer violate? http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1251&q=254198
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 881

19th December 2012, 08:17 AM	#283
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,334	Originally Posted by DJW It gets mentioned on occasion, but never seems to "stick" in the anti-gun mindset, but some of us are already subject to pretty tough gun control legislation. And some of us aren't. Where I live, it took me half an hour to buy my pistol at a sporting goods store and walk out to my car with it. If I want a concealed carry permit, I can fill out an application online and mail in $20 to the local county sheriff's office to get one, and since Alabama has reciprocity agreements with a number of other states, that permit would be just as valid in each of them.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris Last edited by ANTPogo; 19th December 2012 at 08:18 AM.

19th December 2012, 08:20 AM	#285
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134	Originally Posted by ANTPogo And some of us aren't. Where I live, it took me half an hour to buy my pistol at a sporting goods store and walk out to my car with it. If I want a concealed carry permit, I can fill out an application online and mail in $20 to the local county sheriff's office to get one, and since Alabama has reciprocity agreements with a number of other states, that permit would be just as valid in each of them. And how does your crime rate compare to those areas with a much more restrictive environment, Chicago for example?
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134

19th December 2012, 08:20 AM	#286
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,334	Originally Posted by Bob001 The Constitution does not prohibit reasonable restrictions on firearms. And yet Zeggman is apparently under the impression that "requiring gun owners to pass a written and practical test for a license to carry" (not to own, just to carry) would violate the Constitution, which is what I was responding to with my specific question.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris Last edited by ANTPogo; 19th December 2012 at 08:41 AM.

19th December 2012, 08:22 AM	#287
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by ANTPogo And some of us aren't. Where I live, it took me half an hour to buy my pistol at a sporting goods store and walk out to my car with it. If I want a concealed carry permit, I can fill out an application online and mail in $20 to the local county sheriff's office to get one, and since Alabama has reciprocity agreements with a number of other states, that permit would be just as valid in each of them. The killings occurred in CT which has similar laws to MA. How is Alabama doing wrt spree killings at schools?
	Last edited by DJW; 19th December 2012 at 08:24 AM.

19th December 2012, 08:13 AM	#281
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by tsig Cars =/= guns. Cars are used to transport people or equipment, guns are used to kill people. Glad I could straighten out your confusion. Confusing vehicles with weapons seems to be a problem for some, I wonder if someone who suffers from such a cognitive problem should be allowed to own a gun. Guns are used for other things, which you've been told about a number of times. Willful ignorance is not part of the solution.

19th December 2012, 08:18 AM	#284
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,718	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Oh I already addressed that part in the bottom of my post. Training would just about cut down on all of this. Also if the school implemented, proper lockdown drills and students laying on the floor, crossfire would be negligible. Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Who said this? What's a little crossfire among kids?

19th December 2012, 08:23 AM	#288
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by tsig What's a little crossfire among kids? Nevermind the crosstalk amongst skeptics!

19th December 2012, 08:30 AM	#289
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,334	Originally Posted by seycyrus And how does your crime rate compare to those areas with a much more restrictive environment, Chicago for example? We were tied for third place last year in the cities with the highest overall crime rate, were number 7 in the list of Most Dangerous Cities this year (though still in the top 5 for forcible rape and property crimes), and we just finally managed to drop out of the top 10 cities for worst homicide rate this year (we're now 11th per capita for murders, behind New Orleans, Flint, Detroit, St. Louis, Newark, Baltimore, Jackson, Baton Rouge, Oakland and New Haven).
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris

19th December 2012, 08:35 AM	#290
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,334	Originally Posted by DJW The killings occurred in CT which has similar laws to MA. How is Alabama doing wrt spree killings at schools? Not too bad, though this just happened here a few days ago, right down the street from where I work.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris

19th December 2012, 08:35 AM	#291
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761	Originally Posted by tsig Cars =/= guns. Cars are used to transport people or equipment, guns are used to kill people. Glad I could straighten out your confusion. Confusing vehicles with weapons seems to be a problem for some, I wonder if someone who suffers from such a cognitive problem should be allowed to own a gun. Guns are used as paperweights, to provide food, and to protect settlers from wild beasts and marauding gangs. If you're willing to accept thousands of deaths every year for the sake of transporting people or equipment, I guess you must not care very much about the people who die, or the loved ones who mourn them. I wonder if someone who suffers from such callousness should be allowed to own a car.
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761

19th December 2012, 08:38 AM	#292
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by tsig What's a little crossfire among kids? Good try. No.
	__________________ 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

19th December 2012, 08:45 AM	#293
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,388	So on Friday, when my sons came home from school, the subject of the school shooting was broached. We talked about the shooting a bit and we talked about their fears (of which they seemed to have very few). Then I asked "what would be a good way to deal with this issue?" My oldest said "they should have an exterior exit door on every classroom". That got me thinking, why do they keep the kids indoors? Why do they make them huddle in a classroom? Why not gtfo of there? So they can keep track of them all? The best response to being shot at is to make every effort not to be in front of the shooter, and if you have to be in front of him, be as far away as possible. Teachers should put the kids out of the windows and tell them to run (on the first floor, obviously). In fact, the more directions the kids are running the better. I'd rather my kids take their chances with the non-shooting population at large rather than the crazy shooter in the school. I'm not certain if this has been addressed or not because I haven't read through all 8 pages, so sorry if it's been talked to death already/
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

19th December 2012, 08:53 AM	#294
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761	Originally Posted by ANTPogo You need one to drive it away from wherever you bought it. Yes, driving is a privilege which requires a license; owning a car is not. Justin Bieber can buy a car and hire a chauffeur without violating the law. I'm not a gun owner myself, but if I'm not mistaken a gun owner must still get a hunting license to go hunting. Maybe that's comparable to a driver's license. If you're not driving on public streets, you still don't need a driver's license. Children on farms can drive tractors (and presumably cars) on private property, even if they're unlicensed. Maybe that's comparable to sport shooting at a private gun range. Originally Posted by ANTPogo Who said anything about a license to carry? You don't need a license to own and use a gun period. Unlike a car. I've already mentioned hunting licenses. I think there are also restrictions on concealed carry. Originally Posted by ANTPogo What makes the Second Amendment so unique and special as to be exempt from all the other "yes, but" restrictions that are and have been placed on pretty much every single other constitutional right listed in that document in order to actually create a functional, working society? It isn't. It says gun ownership is a right, just like freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a right. I don't get a license to say things I couldn't otherwise say, or engage in religious practices like bigamy or human sacrifice which are otherwise illegal. My point was simply that one doesn't license rights. It is my right to own a gun. It is not my right to point it at you and make threats. There are already restrictions defined for this right, but "requiring a license to own a gun" would probably be unconstitutional. ETA: I just re-read the exchange, and I did say "License to carry" which implies carrying in public. After reflection, I don't think such a license would be unconstitutional, and apologize for my confusion.
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761	Last edited by zeggman; 19th December 2012 at 09:02 AM.

19th December 2012, 08:56 AM	#295
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by ANTPogo Not too bad, though this just happened here a few days ago, right down the street from where I work. Four people were shot and one was killed around the corner from me a few months ago, link. No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it. Should we even compare the two incidents? How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting? Do these laws even have an affect?

19th December 2012, 09:06 AM	#296
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,334	Originally Posted by DJW No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it. After he shot three other people, who were lucky to just be wounded, and not killed. And yes, a trained LEO put a stop to it, not a concealed carrier bystander. Quote: Should we even compare the two incidents? I don't know, but I can certainly find you other shootings in Birmingham that resemble your example more, if you like. I simply selected that one because it was both extremely recent and extremely close to me. Quote: How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting? It might have kept the guns out of the hands of the shooters. The easy availability of both guns and concealed carry permits here in Alabama certainly didn't seem to help any. Quote: Do these laws even have an affect? Well, going by the relative crime and per-capita murder rates in the two cities, it seems that Birmingham is far less safe than Boston for having such lax gun laws.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris Last edited by ANTPogo; 19th December 2012 at 09:09 AM. Reason: Rearranged my answer some

19th December 2012, 09:07 AM	#297
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,772	Originally Posted by DJW Four people were shot and one was killed around the corner from me a few months ago, link. No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it. Should we even compare the two incidents? How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting? Do these laws even have an affect? This map showing gun massacres has a pretty even distribution across the USA, with some clusters in densely populated areas rather than a specific state. So there is no sign of differences in gun control making a difference to the number of massacres. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-shootings-map So the conclusion is no they do not. The USA will not be able to change the law and make the massacres go away.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic Last edited by Nessie; 19th December 2012 at 09:09 AM.

19th December 2012, 09:14 AM	#298
P.J. Denyer Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,127	Originally Posted by joesixpack So on Friday, when my sons came home from school, the subject of the school shooting was broached. We talked about the shooting a bit and we talked about their fears (of which they seemed to have very few). Then I asked "what would be a good way to deal with this issue?" My oldest said "they should have an exterior exit door on every classroom". That got me thinking, why do they keep the kids indoors? Why do they make them huddle in a classroom? Why not gtfo of there? So they can keep track of them all? The best response to being shot at is to make every effort not to be in front of the shooter, and if you have to be in front of him, be as far away as possible. Teachers should put the kids out of the windows and tell them to run (on the first floor, obviously). In fact, the more directions the kids are running the better. I'd rather my kids take their chances with the non-shooting population at large rather than the crazy shooter in the school. I'm not certain if this has been addressed or not because I haven't read through all 8 pages, so sorry if it's been talked to death already/ Concern that they would be easier targets while out in the open fleeing the school perhaps, or of deaths and injuries while escaping if panic takes hold. Maybe kids running off and getting lost, running into roads etc. The teacher's instinct is going to be to stay close and try to protect them rather than 'let them run and fend for themselves' even if scattering might be the best option.

19th December 2012, 09:40 AM	#299
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by ANTPogo After he shot three other people, who were lucky to just be wounded, and not killed. And yes, a trained LEO put a stop to it, not a concealed carrier bystander. But we can dig up lots of example where a CCW is used beneficially. In just about every gun thread, someone posts about "Armed Citizen", in the NRA publications, which gives examples gleaned from local newspapers every month. I think arguing using examples isn't really helpful. Originally Posted by ANTPogo I don't know, but I can certainly find you other shootings in Birmingham that resemble your example more, if you like. I simply selected that one because it was both extremely recent and extremely close to me. Argument by anecdote, right? Originally Posted by ANTPogo It might have kept the guns out of the hands of the shooters. The easy availability of both guns and concealed carry permits here in Alabama certainly didn't seem to help any. But do they hurt? BenBurch posted a link to CCW's involved in killing (including suicides). I think the total was about 600 in five years. Originally Posted by ANTPogo Well, going by the relative crime and per-capita murder rates in the two cities, it seems that Birmingham is far less safe than Boston for having such lax gun laws. It may be the tbi, but statistics start causing my eyes to glaze over. Not because I'm not interested AND concerned about actual data, but because the gun debate is littered with the correlation does not equal causation fallacy amongst others. Don't think that the people who pay for the evidence gathering seem to be agenda driven? Btw--I shouldn't make light of my tbi, but it does impact my life every day and makes it difficult to be concise and clear, so I self deprecate. I apologize for that upfront, and will try to clear anything up that you wish. I just hope that you realize that I appreciate the oportunity to have the discussion.

19th December 2012, 09:40 AM	#300
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,388	Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer Concern that they would be easier targets while out in the open fleeing the school perhaps, or of deaths and injuries while escaping if panic takes hold. Maybe kids running off and getting lost, running into roads etc. The teacher's instinct is going to be to stay close and try to protect them rather than 'let them run and fend for themselves' even if scattering might be the best option. Teacher's instinct be damned. Huddled groups are easier targets than scattered and running kids. I think the schools should really examine what the best policy is for student safety, not convenience for roll taking purposes. My kids are old enough to find their own way home. Younger kids will have a better chance of finding safety outside of the school building than inside of it.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

19th December 2012, 09:45 AM	#301
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 881	Let's broaden the discussion. Here is the full text of the Second Amendment: Quote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution So: 1/ How would this right be "well regulated?" 2/ Who or what is the "Militia?" 3/ "Security of a free state" against whom or what? 4/ Who is/are "the people?" 5/ Does "keep and bear arms" mean store, possess, carry, use or what, and if it includes use, against whom or what, under what circumstances? 6/ What are "arms?" 7/ What would "infringe" this right? Discuss.
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 881	Last edited by Bob001; 19th December 2012 at 09:47 AM.

19th December 2012, 09:47 AM	#302
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,718	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Good try. No. If you don't think your right to own a gun is superior to the children's right to life then why are you arguing so vehemently?

19th December 2012, 09:51 AM	#303
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,718	Originally Posted by zeggman Guns are used as paperweights, to provide food, and to protect settlers from wild beasts and marauding gangs. If you're willing to accept thousands of deaths every year for the sake of transporting people or equipment, I guess you must not care very much about the people who die, or the loved ones who mourn them. I wonder if someone who suffers from such callousness should be allowed to own a car. Since we can get our food at the supermarket and wild beasts and marauding gangs are rather scarce here then you must agree that guns are useless, unless you have dire need of a deadly paperweight.

19th December 2012, 09:53 AM	#304
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by Bob001 Let's broaden the discussion. Here is the full text of the Second Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution So: 1/ How would this right be "well regulated?" 2/ Who or what is the "Militia?" 3/ "Security of a free state" against whom or what? 4/ Who is/are "the people?" 5/ Does "keep and bear arms" mean store, possess, carry, use or what, and if it includes use, against whom or what, under what circumstances? 6/ What are "arms?" 7/ What would "infringe" this right? Discuss. I think the SCOTUS decision (Heller) and the recent Illinois circuit (7th???) have explored the history and made some decisions wrt your list. We should probably discuss from at least a basic understanding of the law from there.

19th December 2012, 10:08 AM	#305
W.D.Clinger Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,441	Originally Posted by DJW Four people were shot and one was killed around the corner from me a few months ago, link. No one but the shooter died in your example, because a LEO put a stop to it. Should we even compare the two incidents? How would gun control change either situation? How does Alabama's decidedly lax gun control compared to Boston's strict gun laws affect the outcome of either shooting? Do these laws even have an affect? That's hard to say, but it's fairly easy to look up the murder rates. In 2010, among US cities with populations of 250000 or more, Boston ranked 23rd with about 11.3 murders per 100000 population. Alabama's a state, not a city, but Mobile ranked 26th, not far behind Boston, with about 9.8 murders per 100000 population. Birmingham didn't make that list because its population was less than 250000, but its murder rate was 8.9 per 100000. In 2011, two thirds of Massachusetts's 183 murders were committed by firearm, and the percentage for Alabama was almost exactly the same (65.5%). Looking only at these numbers, it would be hard to argue that Boston's more restrictive gun laws had much effect on the number of people shot (compared to Mobile or Birmingham). On the other hand, any serious attempt to find empirical support for correlations between murder rates and gun control would have to look at more than two or three cities and would have to examine many other factors. Serious attempts have been made, by many people, but the results of those studies have been surprisingly equivocal. Originally Posted by DJW I think arguing using examples isn't really helpful. ...snip... It may be the tbi, but statistics start causing my eyes to glaze over. Sorry. If both anecdotal and statistical evidence are excluded from the conversation, then what's left? Emotion?

19th December 2012, 10:11 AM	#306
rikzilla Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,001	Originally Posted by DJW I think the SCOTUS decision (Heller) and the recent Illinois circuit (7th???) have explored the history and made some decisions wrt your list. We should probably discuss from at least a basic understanding of the law from there. Would that be the same SCOTUS who gave us Bush v Gore and Citizens United? I'd like to remind folks we have a POTUS who will not be appointing RW justices in these remaining 4 years of his term...and looking at the shambles of the Republican Party I could be forgiven for suggesting that they might never get another chance to stack the court. Before the NRA went from sportsman, hunter, and gun safety promoter to Political Action Comittee in the 70's there were wide disparities in what folks thought the 2nd meant. If looked at in the context of the time in which it was written, there were actual regulated state militias....and no one had yet invented even a rifled barrel. -z
	__________________ "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." -Chancellor Gorkon "inside Mr .Skinny lives a big man" -pillory (18 Jan 2007) Last edited by rikzilla; 19th December 2012 at 10:11 AM. Reason: because

19th December 2012, 10:16 AM	#307
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger snip Sorry. If both anecdotal and statistical evidence are excluded from the conversation, then what's left? Emotion? If I hadn't used my own anecdotes without making outrageous claims or apologized for caring but having a hard time understanding statistics (which are frequently being manipulated by the agenda driven), then yeah, emotion would be what is left.

19th December 2012, 10:24 AM	#308
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by rikzilla Would that be the same SCOTUS who gave us Bush v Gore and Citizens United? I'd like to remind folks we have a POTUS who will not be appointing RW justices in these remaining 4 years of his term...and looking at the shambles of the Republican Party I could be forgiven for suggesting that they might never get another chance to stack the court. Before the NRA went from sportsman, hunter, and gun safety promoter to Political Action Comittee in the 70's there were wide disparities in what folks thought the 2nd meant. If looked at in the context of the time in which it was written, there were actual regulated state militias....and no one had yet invented even a rifled barrel. -z Your idea then is to wait for President Obama to reset the court so that Heller et al will be overturned such that the 2nd is no longer an individual right. Is the SCOTUS that decided Bush v Gore the same one that decided Heller and McDonald? Who selected the 7th circuit? Does it matter? Should it matter? The law provides a foundation for any discussion like the one we're having. It has to. Again, we're left with the fact that we're going to have to amend the 2nd amendment if we're to make radical changes to gun ownership.

19th December 2012, 10:33 AM	#309
iknownothing Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,148	Originally Posted by joesixpack Teacher's instinct be damned. Huddled groups are easier targets than scattered and running kids. I think the schools should really examine what the best policy is for student safety, not convenience for roll taking purposes. Huddled kids out in the open, yeah. But huddled kids in a safe room with the police on their way are a lot safer than kids out in an open field making easy targets. Also, remember that lock downs don't just happen when there's a mass murderer in the school. Most lock downs don't turn into that. So do you drill the kids on 2 strategies (run for your life AND stay in a safe room)? Sounds like a prescription for mass confusion. And do you want administrators having to decide whether to tell the kids to hide or flee? Because if they say "flee" at the wrong time and you have 6 year olds racing off in every direction, that's not going to go well.

19th December 2012, 10:39 AM	#310
IDB87 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: In the Grass Posts: 3,414	Originally Posted by zeggman If you're willing to accept thousands of deaths every year for the sake of transporting people or equipment, I guess you must not care very much about the people who die, or the loved ones who mourn them. Without mass motorized transportation civilization as we know it comes to an end. Without the ability to purchase AR-15s or AK47s you lose the ability to entertain yourself and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That's about the extent of it.
	__________________ It's guaranteed I'm overreacting. Last edited by IDB87; 19th December 2012 at 10:42 AM.

19th December 2012, 10:45 AM	#311
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,084	Originally Posted by IDB87 Without mass motorized transportation civilization as we know it comes to an end. Without the ability to purchase AR-15s or AK47s you lose the ability to entertain yourself and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That's about the extent of it. In fairness, lacking a coherent, intellectually honest argument, they need to resort to those bizarre comparisons. Sorry, back to lurker mode
	__________________ 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.

19th December 2012, 10:49 AM	#312
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,334	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Birmingham didn't make that list because its population was less than 250000, but its murder rate was 8.9 per 100000. That's for the whole Metropolitan Statistical Area. In 2010, Birmingham didn't get reported because of a missed deadline, but in 2009 our murder rate was 28.6 per 100,000 (9.3 in the MSA). In 2011, the MSA murder rate per 100,000 was the 8.9 listed above, but Birmingham's murder rate per 100,000 was 25.3. Per the same 2011 FBI report, the Boston MSA murder rate per 100,000 was 2.8, while the murder rate per 100,000 for Boston itself was 10.14.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris Last edited by ANTPogo; 19th December 2012 at 10:52 AM.

19th December 2012, 11:02 AM	#313
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 881	A useful perspective on the idea of a "militia" resisting an oppressive government: http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/guns...ever_saved_us/
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 881

19th December 2012, 11:39 AM	#314
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by ANTPogo That's for the whole Metropolitan Statistical Area. In 2010, Birmingham didn't get reported because of a missed deadline, but in 2009 our murder rate was 28.6 per 100,000 (9.3 in the MSA). In 2011, the MSA murder rate per 100,000 was the 8.9 listed above, but Birmingham's murder rate per 100,000 was 25.3. Per the same 2011 FBI report, the Boston MSA murder rate per 100,000 was 2.8, while the murder rate per 100,000 for Boston itself was 10.14. Boston is heavily populated by college students. Last I checked, every weekday, Boston's population more than triples during the day. Sometimes the crime in the suburbs (Roslindale, Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, West Roxbury, etc...) is counted, sometimes not. There are a lot of confounding factors in the gun debate. Where has it gotten us? Don't you feel a bit like a dog chasing its tail when you start looking at the numbers? I know I do.

19th December 2012, 11:41 AM	#315
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by DavidJames In fairness, lacking a coherent, intellectually honest argument, they need to resort to those bizarre comparisons. Sorry, back to lurker mode Sure, where the value of they equals practically everyone with an opinion.