School Guard leaves gun in Student Bathroom

[Captain_Swoop]

Just a few weeks since Sandy and already an incident involving an armed guard at a school. Give it a few months to get a few thousand more armed guards in schools and someone is bound to end up dead.

It seems that qayak is right. Kids are staff are going to get shot to protect them from being shot.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I don't think it's a question of outlawing stupidity as much as simply finding the stupid people and taking steps to ensure their stupidity doesn't harm the rest of us.

Someone too stupid to drive a car safely eventually doesn't get to drive a car anymore. Someone too stupid to handle a gun safely should eventually have that gun taken away.

Agreed. However, it usually doesn't take just one incidence. Unless someone is killed, the chances of you losing your license is small.

Since, as far as we know, this is the first time this has happened, what should we do? Maybe a fine? I'm good with that.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

I know what we are being told. It's a message that resonates with the dumbest, least educated segment of the male population. It doesn't resonate with me. I think the US can and damn well should impose stringent gun controls, just as every other civilized country has done without detriment to civil liberties.

Can you back up the hilited claim? Or is that your non-factual opinion?

Quote:

Gun nuts are rallying today under the theme of "high noon." That is symptomatic of the problem. These knuckle-dragging bozos see themselves as Marshall Kane, but they're not, and this is not the wild west any more.

Really? You know, now that you put it that way, I see your point completely, and support you 100% in your revocation of my rights....

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by qayak

Hmmmmmm... not sure I agree with your take. If this guy was a bus driver and drove through a red light with a bus load of kids, or drove a bus load of kids while intoxicated, there would be serious repercussions on the first offense.

You mean like getting a fine? Spending one night in jail, losing a job due to no CDL, but being able to apply again later? Like those "serious" repercussions?

Originally Posted by qayak

I suggest that if gun owners were held responsible for their lapses just like everyone else, many senseless gun tragedies would be avoided and there would be no need to discuss gun bans or restrictions. Gun owners want it both ways. They want to own guns and not be responsible for their lapses of judgement and yet they would not accept that from anyone else.

So, when are we going to start holding everyone responsible for dumb **** they do?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by qayak

If by "not thinking they are a good comparison" you mean it doesn't support your argument, you are correct, but from a statistical point of view, it is a very accurate comparison.

No, not even close. To assume so is retarded logic.

Leaving your keys somewhere is done (I would guess, I wouldn't imagine there's many stats on this incident) millions of times a day.

However, leaving a firearm isn't. If millions of firearms were left carelessly at restaurants, bathrooms, and movie theaters, you might have a case. However, it's not, so you do not.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

This is probably one of the more disgusting and offensive posts I have seen on this forum in a long time. That includes the 9/11 twoofer nonsense posted as well. Very sick stuff.

i think it's a little extreme. however, it is a fact that children are much more at risk of getting shot if there is a gun the house .

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by qayak

Because you don't understand the statistics of the event and how it relates to the one under discussion doesn't make the evidence unimportant, or even more absurdly, wrong.

You're using an appeal to ignorance fallacy as evidence. Please stop.

Says the person using a false equivalance logical fallacy.....

(And yet, we're chided for comparing deaths by guns to deaths by other means..)
Hypocritical much?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Once a long time ago I was in a store, a KMart or something. There was a guy at the gun counter with a new bullet wound to the hand. He had been looking at a gun for sale and accidentally shot himself. He apologized for his mistake and said he was a cop and should have known better.

What is a loaded gun doing on the shelf at Wal Mart? Or any gun dealer for that matter?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

This is probably one of the more disgusting and offensive posts I have seen on this forum in a long time. That includes the 9/11 twoofer nonsense posted as well. Very sick stuff.

What I find amazing, is that since the recent push on gun control, I've added now 3 people to my ignore list. I haven't put a single truther there.

Agreed, disgusting. It just goes to show that even gun grabbers are dumber and more disgusting than truthers.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

What is a loaded gun doing on the shelf at Wal Mart? Or any gun dealer for that matter?

why is that a bad thing?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

i think it's a little extreme. however, it is a fact that children are much more at risk of getting shot if there is a gun the house .

A little? Are you *********** kidding me? A LITTLE? Yeah, and a sledgehammer is just a little hammer.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

why is that a bad thing?

Because uneducated people can pick up any weapon before purchase.

Do you not follow logic very well? Safe gun storage and handling 101.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Because uneducated people can pick up any weapon before purchase.

Do you not follow logic very well? Safe gun storage and handling 101.

Sounds like a good case for gun control laws.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Because uneducated people can pick up any weapon before purchase.

Do you not follow logic very well? Safe gun storage and handling 101.

It's an inanimate object. Why should anyone fear it? Do you fear the loaded gun on my K-Mart shelf?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

What is a loaded gun doing on the shelf at Wal Mart? Or any gun dealer for that matter?

It's amazing, but it happens.

You wouldn't believe how many firearms are found to have a live round in the chamber when the piece is inspected at entry at a gun show.

I've heard the urban legend that anti's bring live rounds to shows to slip into firearms on display as a tactic to impugn gun owners, but that's ******** afaik.

There's a reason that we have clearing receptacles in LEA's and in military installation where weapons are carried - you need to clear and inspect before the piece is truely safed.

Better to fire a round into the can and get teased for 10 or 20 years than make a mistake and kill or injure yourself or someone else.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

It's an inanimate object. Why should anyone fear it? Do you fear the loaded gun on my K-Mart shelf?

Anti's fear what I have secured in safes and vaults.

It's funny though.

I was actually told face-to-face by a strident anti that it was probaly OK for me to own firearms, but those other people shouldn't have them...

Asked for clarification, she finally admitted she thought the people "south of market" didn't need guns.

Latinos.

Looks like some anti's are a bit paranoid and racist themselves.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Anti's fear what I have secured in safes and vaults.

It's funny though.

I was actually told face-to-face by a strident anti that it was probaly OK for me to own firearms, but those other people shouldn't have them...

Asked for clarification, she finally admitted she thought the people "south of market" didn't need guns.

Latinos.

Looks like some anti's are a bit paranoid and racist themselves.

Well, that's one hell of an unsourced, untethered, and unproved assertion.

Wasn't the idea from you guys that broad brushes are bad?

For the record, most spree shooters are white, and certainly when I think "gun nut", I think "Tea Party Republican", which in case you don't watch the news, it almost totally white.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

What I find amazing, is that since the recent push on gun control, I've added now 3 people to my ignore list. I haven't put a single truther there.

Agreed, disgusting. It just goes to show that even gun grabbers are dumber and more disgusting than truthers.

It's important to ignore people you disagree with or who offend you, because it helps reassure us that our position is correct and just. There's a whole genre of books about this -- focusing on the positive and ignoring toxic, negative people. I believe they are called "psychic vampires" or something.

What's that thing about ignorance and bliss? I kinda wish I'd never heard about bacteria. Now my life is all icky, living in this soup of foreign invaders, these mindless destroyers of higher life forms. Oh well.

[geni]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Anti's fear what I have secured in safes and vaults.

It's funny though.

I was actually told face-to-face by a strident anti that it was probaly OK for me to own firearms, but those other people shouldn't have them...

Err thats a pretty common approach. Other than annoying eviromentalists most people would accept its okey for say an electroplating plant to have stocks of cadmium cyanide. The general population? Not so much.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Well, that's one hell of an unsourced, untethered, and unproved assertion.

Wasn't the idea from you guys that broad brushes are bad?

For the record, most spree shooters are white, and certainly when I think "gun nut", I think "Tea Party Republican", which in case you don't watch the news, it almost totally white.

What broad brush? I said "some."

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Sounds like a good case for gun control laws.

Sounds like it would be much smarter not to have a weapon that is for sale on the self, loaded. But, you go ahead and tear down your house the next time you see a cockroach. That's your kind of logical thinking.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by BStrong

What broad brush? I said "some."

When you should have said "one".

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

It's an inanimate object. Why should anyone fear it? Do you fear the loaded gun on my K-Mart shelf?

Nope, not one bit. I have a logical fear that someone not well versed in gun handling procedures might make a mistake and put his or her finger in the trigger guard.

I had my brother in law over this past weekend, and he had a question on one of my guns. Being as it is one that I keep in my safe loaded and cocked, before I handed it to him to inspect, I de-cocked it and unloaded the magazine and the round in the chamber, and double checked it to assure me, and him, that it was a safe firearm. He then went through the same process of clearing the chamber to assure himself that it was unloaded. We're smart like that.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Well, that's one hell of an unsourced, untethered, and unproved assertion.

Wasn't the idea from you guys that broad brushes are bad?

For the record, most spree shooters are white, and certainly when I think "gun nut", I think "Tea Party Republican", which in case you don't watch the news, it almost totally white.

That's my perception as well. Here's some footage from one of yesterday's rallies...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJWhlVxcm_0

"It's not just a handful of nut jobs," said one of the participants, in a sound bite that got me thinking about The Conversation, Coppola's meditation on text and context...

"It's not just a handful of nut jobs."

And then there's this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ef=mostpopular

YEE-HAW!!!

[qayak]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No, not even close. To assume so is retarded logic.

Leaving your keys somewhere is done (I would guess, I wouldn't imagine there's many stats on this incident) millions of times a day.

However, leaving a firearm isn't. If millions of firearms were left carelessly at restaurants, bathrooms, and movie theaters, you might have a case. However, it's not, so you do not.

First off, more people carry keys than carry guns so of course keys are left around more often.

NOTE: Your argument isn't countering the original argument the keys were meant to illustrate. That argument was not about keys per se, but about how people, when the most important thing for them to remember is a set of keys, will forget them anyway. Just like they will forget ANYTHING no matter how important it is, guns included. The argument was made to illustrate that gun owners claiming no one would ever forget about a gun they have, is false. As such, your words above illustrate the point further.

Second, what about the millions of guns in homes where children have easy, or even unrestricted, access to them? You conveniently overlook that little truth.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Her? Nope.

And I have 35 now. Including assault weapons and SNIPER weapons too!!

I am jealous! Thats 30 more then me. If you have the time, PM me a list of all of them.

[Irony]

Prediction: Within the next few years we will see a spike in accidental gun deaths in school.

Another prediction: The next spree killer at a school will be a guard.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by qayak

(snipped some)

Second, what about the millions of guns in homes where children have easy, or even unrestricted, access to them? You conveniently overlook that little truth.

Isn't this an argument for how safe things are now though? Millions of guns plus children not giving us a spate of accidental shootings?

What would be an acceptable level of risk, as measured by gun accidents with children?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

When you should have said "one".

You're assuming that's the only individual of that type.

She isn't.

I'd be very interested to see the NYC stats of how many well dressed white guys over 50 are stopped in the Stop & Frisk program v how many young black or brown guys are.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I don't see what the big deal is. If he misplaced something that was DESIGNED as a tool of death (like a car or a swimming pool) I'd be worried.

But a gun?

A gun with no human near it?

Totally harmless and people should just relax.

A gun with no human near it is harmless. Are you suggesting otherwise?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

But more guns mean more accidental shootings, of kids.

You'd think so, but the numbers have been going down for quite some time:



While millions more firearms entered commerce each year:

http://www.atf.gov/publications/fire...merce-2011.pdf

Exhibit 1. Firearms Manufactured (1986-2009)

Year Total Firearms
1986 3,040,934
1987 3,559,663
1988 3,963,877
1989 4,418,393
1990 3,959,968
1991 3,563,106
1992 4,175,836
1993 5,055,637
1994 5,173,217
1995 4,316,342
1996 3,854,439
1997 3,593,504
1998 3,713,590
1999 4,047,747
2000 3,793,541
2001 2,932,655
2002 3,366,895
2003 3,308,404
2004 3,099,025
2005 3,241,494
2006 3,653,324
2007 3,922,613
2008 4,498,944
2009 5,555,818

Source: ATF’s Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER).

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by BStrong

You're assuming that's the only individual of that type.

She isn't.

I'd be very interested to see the NYC stats of how many well dressed white guys over 50 are stopped in the Stop & Frisk program v how many young black or brown guys are.

I want the police to target their resources on areas and people most likely to commit violent crime when dealing with violence. Colour, age and dress sense should only come into it if the people who are most likely to be involved in violent crime are of a certain age, colour and dress sense.

If the most likely gun carriers and shooters are Asian women in their 50s who live in small villages, I want them targeted. If there are people who say that is wrong, then I would like to know how they will reduce Asian female middles aged rural shootings without stop search.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by BStrong

You'd think so, but the numbers have been going down for quite some time:

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/s...es/70_fig1.jpg

While millions more firearms entered commerce each year:

http://www.atf.gov/publications/fire...merce-2011.pdf

Exhibit 1. Firearms Manufactured (1986-2009)

Year Total Firearms
1986 3,040,934
1987 3,559,663
1988 3,963,877
1989 4,418,393
1990 3,959,968
1991 3,563,106
1992 4,175,836
1993 5,055,637
1994 5,173,217
1995 4,316,342
1996 3,854,439
1997 3,593,504
1998 3,713,590
1999 4,047,747
2000 3,793,541
2001 2,932,655
2002 3,366,895
2003 3,308,404
2004 3,099,025
2005 3,241,494
2006 3,653,324
2007 3,922,613
2008 4,498,944
2009 5,555,818

Source: ATF’s Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER).

What happened in 1994 that caused the rates to decrease?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by BStrong

You'd think so, but the numbers have been going down for quite some time:

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/s...es/70_fig1.jpg

While millions more firearms entered commerce each year:

http://www.atf.gov/publications/fire...merce-2011.pdf

Exhibit 1. Firearms Manufactured (1986-2009)

Year Total Firearms
1986 3,040,934
1987 3,559,663
1988 3,963,877
1989 4,418,393
1990 3,959,968
1991 3,563,106
1992 4,175,836
1993 5,055,637
1994 5,173,217
1995 4,316,342
1996 3,854,439
1997 3,593,504
1998 3,713,590
1999 4,047,747
2000 3,793,541
2001 2,932,655
2002 3,366,895
2003 3,308,404
2004 3,099,025
2005 3,241,494
2006 3,653,324
2007 3,922,613
2008 4,498,944
2009 5,555,818

Source: ATF’s Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER).

The 1994 date for the drop of all gun deaths is due to the decline in lead in the atmosphere. The same has been true all over Europe as violence has declined. Now the lead issue has been pretty much solved, what next to further reduce violence and gun deaths?

The one answer which has never been tackled by the USA is getting guns off criminals, nuts and youths.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The 1994 date for the drop of all gun deaths is due to the decline in lead in the atmosphere. The same has been true all over Europe as violence has declined. Now the lead issue has been pretty much solved, what next to further reduce violence and gun deaths?

The one answer which has never been tackled by the USA is getting guns off criminals, nuts and youths.

What? Now it's my turn. What's your source for the lead claim?

This link suggests a more plausible cause--the drop in cocaine price:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/job...ent-crime/474/

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

What? Now it's my turn. What's your source for the lead claim?

Maybe it's a clever way to say "less bullets in the air." Hehhe

The 1994 weapons ban?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

The point is that the increased risk of a gun owners child being shot is acceptable to gun owners.

I think this is true, but not very informative. No one buys a gun for the home with intention of having their kid shot, just as no one buys a table saw so they can lose a couple of fingers. The mental calculation isn't about risk -- we suck at that anyhow -- it's about imagining what may happen and doing what you can to prevent it. This is hardly different than anything else we have around our homes.

The disconnect is seeing a gun as inherently dangerous because of it's use, even though, as has been mentioned in this thread, guns are mostly used for target practice. But we already have things we do to protect our children from danger -- we put our medications out of reach, put a fence around the pool, put plugs in our electrical outlets and so on. And then we hope the big roulette wheel in the sky doesn't land on our number -- it is ever this way.

The error, if there is one, is thinking of guns as purposeless or evil all by themselves, as if they came with a manufactured taint. Obviously, some want to own guns. Are those people corrupt by association? I might not care to have a gun around, but I certainly have other dangerous stuff. Heck, I know very well that medications poison a lot of kids. I'd be miffed if I was seen as a bad person because I haven't eliminated every possible danger from my home.

[thaiboxerken]

It's introducing a risk that is more likely to harm the family than defend it.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

What? Now it's my turn. What's your source for the lead claim?

This link suggests a more plausible cause--the drop in cocaine price:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/job...ent-crime/474/

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...crime-linkfest

As lead has been taken out of the atmosphere at different times and different rates in different rates the level of violent crime has dropped accordingly, but it has always dropped. This is causal because we know already how lead poisoning and levels affect the brain in reducing IQ and raising aggression.

So pointing to dropping violent crime has nothing to do with gun numbers. The difference in the level of gun deaths in the USA compared to other similar countries is connected to gun numbers, but only the numbers of guns in the hands of criminals, nuts and youths.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Nessie

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...crime-linkfest

As lead has been taken out of the atmosphere at different times and different rates in different rates the level of violent crime has dropped accordingly, but it has always dropped. This is causal because we know already how lead poisoning and levels affect the brain in reducing IQ and raising aggression.

So pointing to dropping violent crime has nothing to do with gun numbers. The difference in the level of gun deaths in the USA compared to other similar countries is connected to gun numbers, but only the numbers of guns in the hands of criminals, nuts and youths.

I think that's still only a hypothesis and a shaky one at that. If it did turn out to be true it would be pretty amazing but I think it is worth remaining skeptical for now.