19 of 25
19
Gun control - again
Posted: 10 June 2013 04:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 271 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
TimB - 10 June 2013 09:40 AM

You say that “No gun is really “more effective” at killing humans.”  Really?  Wow, we should be arming our military with BB guns, as that would be so much more cost effective.  If you have further arguments on this, I suggest that you plead your case with a fencepost, as I have reached the end of my patience with the nonsense.

You are misunderstanding my post (though maybe I should have worded it better). I am not comparing gun to gun, I’m talking about with regards to animals. There are no guns that are really more effective at killing “humans” in comparison to “animals.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2013 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 272 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
VYAZMA - 10 June 2013 09:42 AM

Vyazma-Is that what the Second Amendment says a militia is for: “So one day the people can stand up and protect themselves as one unified force against an
overwhelmingly armed tyrannical govt.”  “Come on everybody, grab your guns, we’ll get more sophisticated weapons along the way!”

That was in our last exchange. 
You probably couldn’t see it in the rhetoric I’m throwing up around it.
I’m a fair debater, and honest.  You have shown me that you are not fair and are using a number of disingenuous techniques in this debate.

I haven’t used anything disingenuous. To answer your question, the Second Amendment is to protect one’s pre-existing natural right to keep and bear arms, which is for both individual self-defense and to serve as a check on a potentially tyrannical government.

So, I’m gonna get a little nasty.  The debate went out the window for me pages ago.
You’ve been bullheaded, uncompromising, you have refuted 99.9% of everything that everyone has said. Under the auspices that you’re here to “clear up mis-information”
You’ve deflected the issues into tertiary(or worse) sidebars which you did successfully at times.
And you have sprinkled it all with half-truths, unverifiable nuances, and useless semantic games.

Refuting 99.9% of everything everyone has said is bad? And because I disagree, this makes me “bullheaded?”

Case in point(and this is off the top of my head):  You brought up Cowboy Action Shooters, and how they can possibly shoot their levers or revolvers as fast
as a semi-automatic.
That’s an example of your failure to stay on point. Or you are just cleverly trying to steer the argument to make points that don’t matter in an attempt to look like you’re winning.
Lever actions or revolvers or pump shotguns don’t have magazine capacities of over 10 rounds!

Depends on the lever-action and the pump-action. Revolvers generally no, but you can have speed reloaders for them. What you are missing here is that, although it is gruesome to talk about, if you are talking about some maniac who is gunning down a classroom of little children (like with Newtown), all he has to do is have enough ammo to shoot the much smaller number of teachers, and then he can take as much time as he needs to shoot the children. With Newtown, the police took twenty or so minutes to arrive. So let’s say the shooter ends up with five to ten minutes to shoot the classroom of children. You think he can’t do that with a six-shot revolver? Or a pump-action or a lever-action? He could fire off dozens of shots in that time frame. So you are not going to stop a mass shooter. You will, however, affect the law-abiding citizen who seeks to protect themselves and/or their family.

So, by my standpoint in this debate that’s moot. You know my standpoint by now! Yet you wanted to drag that out for pages if you could.
So, by my standards, if someone can shoot a pump, or a revolver or a lever as fast or faster than a semi, I don’t care(and there ain’t many anyways who can shoot them that fast.)  I don’t see that as a problem.
Those guns hold between 5-10 rounds maximum. And it is relatively a pain in the ass to reload one compared to a box fed semi-auto.
That’s been the whole debate with you! It doesn’t look good for you from my perspective. It shows me you ain’t got much to stand on.
You got home defense…that’s ok.  You got the Second amendment, that’s ok. That’s your strong points.  They’re valid.
But there’s wiggle room for both of us there in those 2 points.
But you wanna sit there and go for a page and half trying to tell people the .223 is safe round and not powerful. The US Army’s main weapon caliber! FMJ’s go through car doors, walls, bullet proof vests, bricks, 1/4” steel plate within 100 yards at times.
Those are BS tactics you tried using here.  BS!

If you want to say that a pump or a lever action is different in terms of ammunition capacity or speed of reloading, that is fine, but as said, that isn’t going to do a whole lot to stop a determined mass shooter. It will do much to stop a person self-defense-wise. Regarding the .223, yes it is a safer round and no it is not powerful. You are not legally allowed to use it to hunt large game with even because it is not powerful enough to be able to kill the animal.

I already pointed out that the FBI’s Firearms Training Unit conducted extensive testing on this back in the 1990s and linked to an article on the subject as well. I also explained to you in some detail. To address your points:

1) That it is the U.S. Army’s main caliber is because it is less powerful. They adopted it because the military found that the rifles soldiers had were too powerful for the distances that infantry normally engage at. They wanted them to have a less-powerful rifle with a smaller form of projectile so that they could carry more ammunition into battle. This was also important for Cold War purposes as Warsaw Pact forces outnumbered NATO forces.

2) 30-06 and .308 are also military calibers, yet widely used by civilians. Plenty of ammunition used by civilians are military calibers. .223 is a common varmint hunting caliber.

3) Yes, .223 will go through car doors. Pretty much any bullet will. Yes, it will go through bulletproof Kevlar vests (heavier armored vests will stop it). But ALL rifle rounds will penetrate Kevlar vests worn by police officers. Those vests are meant to deal only with pistol rounds. You know what else will go through them? Any decent modern hunting arrow. You know, as in bow-and-arrow hunting, archery. Decent hunting arrows can penetrate those Kevlar vests as well.

4) .223 struggles with the walls of a home due to the walls being two layers spaced apart. The .223 expends all of its energy and fragments, which reduces its penetration ability greatly. Pistol rounds, which are larger and heavier, travel too slowly to fragment, so they just punch right through the walls. This principle is also used to help armor up certain armored vehicles against AR-15 fire, where they’ll have two layers of armoring spaced apart. The first layer, if penetrated, causes the .223/5.56 to fragment and expend its energy, and the second layer catches it and prevents it from reaching the occupants in the vehicle.

How projectiles penetrate is not as cut-and-dried as you might think. Many might think if a vest will stop a pistol round, then surely it would stop an arrow, but that is not necessarily the case. Or they might think that surely an AR-15 could blow a hole in a wall much moreso than any pistol, but again, that is not the case.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 04:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 273 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

I haven’t used anything disingenuous. To answer your question, the Second Amendment is to protect one’s pre-existing natural right to keep and bear arms, which is for both individual self-defense and to serve as a check on a potentially tyrannical government.

Is that what it says?  Lot’s of pre-existing rights get regulated. See automobile analogy.

Refuting 99.9% of everything everyone has said is bad?

Yes when you are refuting facts.

Depends on the lever-action and the pump-action.

Oh really, how many shotguns or lever actions have magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds?  No shotguns!  Maybe a few small caliber lever actions.

Revolvers generally no, but you can have speed reloaders for them.

What does that mean?  That’s not magazine capacity, and it is still 6 round max!

What you are missing here is that, although it is gruesome to talk about, if you are talking about some maniac who is gunning down a classroom of little children (like with Newtown), all he has to do is have enough ammo to shoot the much smaller number of teachers, and then he can take as much time as he needs to shoot the children.

You are despicable!
 

You think he can’t do that with a six-shot revolver? Or a pump-action or a lever-action?

No, I don’t.  All the mass shooters are using semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds. I don’t have to speculate what he could have done. He did it with a semi-automatic weapon that had a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds!  These weapons are empowering people. Emboldening
troubled people and criminals.  That’s why they are all using these type guns.


So you are not going to stop a mass shooter.

One has a better chance of stopping somebody with a revolver or pump shotgun than if they are armed with a semi-automatic weapon with multiple magazines that hold many rounds. A person could tackle the shooter, and the shooter can’t use suppression fire. These are facts.

You will, however, affect the law-abiding citizen who seeks to protect themselves and/or their family.

What a stupid double standard.  These type weapons are better for you to have a gunfight with.  But they make no tactical difference for a mass shooter!

f you want to say that a pump or a lever action is different in terms of ammunition capacity or speed of reloading, that is fine, but as said, that isn’t going to do a whole lot to stop a determined mass shooter. It will do much to stop a person self-defense-wise.

Right, what an ignorant double standard!  Semi-automatics with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds are better for you to fight with, but they make no difference for a determined mass shooter!

Regarding the .223, yes it is a safer round and no it is not powerful.

Yes it is powerful.  What is it safer than?  If a .223 can kill somebody from 500 meters away or from 3 ft away what is it safer than?
And like you said, in a mass shooter incident, because they are smaller than larger calibers, the mass shooter can carry more ammo!  Just like Aurora and Newtown!

You are not legally allowed to use it to hunt large game with even because it is not powerful enough to be able to kill the animal.

Yeah that’s friggin’ irrelevant.  The US Army and Marines have used the .223 to kill thousands and thousands of people. To say nothing of wounding people!

I already pointed out that the FBI’s Firearms Training Unit conducted extensive testing on this back in the 1990s and linked to an article on the subject as well. I also explained to you in some detail. To address your points:

Here we go..you just love to showcase your Rambo BS don’t you?

1) That it is the U.S. Army’s main caliber is because it is less powerful. They adopted it because the military found that the rifles soldiers had were too powerful for the distances that infantry normally engage at. They wanted them to have a less-powerful rifle with a smaller form of projectile so that they could carry more ammunition into battle. This was also important for Cold War purposes as Warsaw Pact forces outnumbered NATO forces.

Yup,  .223 kills people just fine and it allows the criminal or troubled person to carry more ammo.  This supports my argument just swell.

2) 30-06 and .308 are also military calibers, yet widely used by civilians. Plenty of ammunition used by civilians are military calibers. .223 is a common varmint hunting caliber.

What’s your point you waffler?  There are plenty of semi-auto’s with magazine capacities over 10 rounds that shoot those rounds too.  Those must be banned too!

3) Yes, .223 will go through car doors. Pretty much any bullet will. Yes, it will go through bulletproof Kevlar vests (heavier armored vests will stop it). But ALL rifle rounds will penetrate Kevlar vests worn by police officers. Those vests are meant to deal only with pistol rounds. You know what else will go through them? Any decent modern hunting arrow. You know, as in bow-and-arrow hunting, archery. Decent hunting arrows can penetrate those Kevlar vests as well.

What’s your point?  You waffler!

4) .223 struggles with the walls of a home due to the walls being two layers spaced apart. The .223 expends all of its energy and fragments, which reduces its penetration ability greatly. Pistol rounds, which are larger and heavier, travel too slowly to fragment, so they just punch right through the walls. This principle is also used to help armor up certain armored vehicles against AR-15 fire, where they’ll have two layers of armoring spaced apart. The first layer, if penetrated, causes the .223/5.56 to fragment and expend its energy, and the second layer catches it and prevents it from reaching the occupants in the vehicle.

As I already said, criminals, terrorists and troubled people aren’t out shooting walls. They are shooting people.  But I tell you what. You stand behind a household wall and have your buddy shoot at you through the wall…you waffler!!

How projectiles penetrate is not as cut-and-dried as you might think. Many might think if a vest will stop a pistol round, then surely it would stop an arrow, but that is not necessarily the case. Or they might think that surely an AR-15 could blow a hole in a wall much moreso than any pistol, but again, that is not the case.

You’re just a shut in somewhere aren’t you?  Thinkin’ maybe the people here would be happy to hear your goofy lectures on weapons and history?
That’s it. I know your type. You can go for hours extolling the virtues of weapons and their killing powers.  Big Military Channel watcher.
You certainly are.
I’m going to stop feeding you now.  I said that before, but this time it’s adios.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 07:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 274 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  346
Joined  2008-09-10
LogicMan - 10 June 2013 04:39 PM

Refuting 99.9% of everything everyone has said is bad?

You’re too modest.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 12:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 275 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
VYAZMA - 11 June 2013 04:20 AM

Is that what it says?  Lot’s of pre-existing rights get regulated. See automobile analogy.

And the right to keep and bear arms is already regulated. Automobiles, however, are not a pre-existing natural right. Driving is a privilege, one that the government can limit as they please.

Yes when you are refuting facts.

I’ve been refuting what are opinions, not facts.

Oh really, how many shotguns or lever actions have magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds?  No shotguns!  Maybe a few small caliber lever actions.

Revolvers generally no, but you can have speed reloaders for them.

What does that mean?  That’s not magazine capacity, and it is still 6 round max!

There are shotguns with detachable box magazines that can hold up to 30 shells. As for revolvers, there are different sized revolvers, some that hold more than six rounds. Six is just the most common. A speed reloader holds the rounds arrayed in a circular pattern so that you can reload the revolver very quickly. There are also speed reloaders for tube-magazine guns.

No, I don’t.  All the mass shooters are using semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds. I don’t have to speculate what he could have done. He did it with a semi-automatic weapon that had a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds!  These weapons are empowering people. Emboldening
troubled people and criminals.  That’s why they are all using these type guns.

And he could have just as much done it with non-semiautomatic weapons as well.

One has a better chance of stopping somebody with a revolver or pump shotgun than if they are armed with a semi-automatic weapon with multiple magazines that hold many rounds. A person could tackle the shooter, and the shooter can’t use suppression fire. These are facts.

One is going to have a hard time trying to tackle someone with a pump-action or a lever-action as well while they are shooting.

What a stupid double standard.  These type weapons are better for you to have a gunfight with.  But they make no tactical difference for a mass shooter!

I already explained the difference. With a mass shooter, you will fight on their terms. They will pre-plan things and take into account things like reloading and so forth. With a person protecting their home, there is no ability to be prepared in this sense. They don’t have time to put on a vest with magazine pouches or grab multiple guns or what have you. They have to grab the gun they can and make due with the amount of ammunition in the magazine of that gun.

So while lack of a detachable magazine can make things more difficult for a mass shooter, it doesn’t stop one that prepares in advance. It will affect the ability of ordinary people to protect their homes.

Right, what an ignorant double standard!  Semi-automatics with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds are better for you to fight with, but they make no difference for a determined mass shooter!

See above.

Yes it is powerful.  What is it safer than?  If a .223 can kill somebody from 500 meters away or from 3 ft away what is it safer than?
And like you said, in a mass shooter incident, because they are smaller than larger calibers, the mass shooter can carry more ammo!  Just like Aurora and Newtown!

So…you instead want the shooter to only carry large bullets? And we’re talking in terms of bullets here. .223 is not powerful by the standards of ammunition.

Yeah that’s friggin’ irrelevant.  The US Army and Marines have used the .223 to kill thousands and thousands of people. To say nothing of wounding people!

It is relevant when people are claiming that .223 is a “powerful” round.

Here we go..you just love to showcase your Rambo BS don’t you?

No, but I care about facts in this debate.

Yup,  .223 kills people just fine and it allows the criminal or troubled person to carry more ammo.  This supports my argument just swell.

And if the criminal used larger bullets, you’d claim they are carrying more powerful ammunition that has more ability to penetrate things.

2What’s your point you waffler?  There are plenty of semi-auto’s with magazine capacities over 10 rounds that shoot those rounds too.  Those must be banned too!

My point is that there is nothing out-of-the-ordinary about civilians using military ammunition.

What’s your point?  You waffler!

You make it sound as if the fact that .223 will go through certain things somehow makes it special as a projectile. I was pointing out that this is not the case.

As I already said, criminals, terrorists and troubled people aren’t out shooting walls. They are shooting people.  But I tell you what. You stand behind a household wall and have your buddy shoot at you through the wall…you waffler!!

You claim .223 is so powerful, so I’m just pointing out some of its limits.

You’re just a shut in somewhere aren’t you?  Thinkin’ maybe the people here would be happy to hear your goofy lectures on weapons and history?
That’s it. I know your type. You can go for hours extolling the virtues of weapons and their killing powers.  Big Military Channel watcher.
You certainly are.
I’m going to stop feeding you now.  I said that before, but this time it’s adios.

I do not watch the Military Channel.

[ Edited: 11 June 2013 12:03 PM by LogicMan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 01:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 276 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  346
Joined  2008-09-10
LogicMan - 11 June 2013 12:00 PM
VYAZMA - 11 June 2013 04:20 AM

Is that what it says?  Lot’s of pre-existing rights get regulated. See automobile analogy.

Automobiles, however, are not a pre-existing natural right. Driving is a privilege, one that the government can limit as they please.

Neither are guns a “pre-existing natural right” unless you mean by that a right which, somehow, existed before guns were created, which would be very odd indeed.  But perhaps you refer to some “pre-existing” right to bear arms, which has found its glorious expression in guns.

Now some might say that there is a “pre-existing” right to travel or right to freedom of movement.  In fact, the right to freedom of movement has been found in the Constitution by the Supreme Court, hidden away in the Privileges and Immunities Clause (though not quite as hidden as the right of privacy, which has also been recognized as a Constitutional right by the Supreme Court).  The right of freedom of movement, though, is regulated and enforced by the states.

Some might also say that cars are “protected” by the right of freedom of movement just as guns are protected by the right to bear arms, both being essential to the exercise of those rights, and it being silly to maintain that the right of freedom of movement is limited to walking, or the use of a horse and carriage.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2013 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 277 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
ciceronianus - 11 June 2013 01:50 PM

Neither are guns a “pre-existing natural right” unless you mean by that a right which, somehow, existed before guns were created, which would be very odd indeed.  But perhaps you refer to some “pre-existing” right to bear arms, which has found its glorious expression in guns.

Right to keep arms is tied to right to self-defense, which is a pre-existing natural right. As a side note, it’s one that Cicero also believed in. Arms are basic tools of war, just as swords, knives, axes, spears, etc…were in the past (and in a way, still are). Arguing that the right to keep arms doesn’t cover guns would be like saying right to free speech doesn’t cover a printing press, even one from the late 1700s.

Now some might say that there is a “pre-existing” right to travel or right to freedom of movement.  In fact, the right to freedom of movement has been found in the Constitution by the Supreme Court, hidden away in the Privileges and Immunities Clause (though not quite as hidden as the right of privacy, which has also been recognized as a Constitutional right by the Supreme Court).  The right of freedom of movement, though, is regulated and enforced by the states.

Some might also say that cars are “protected” by the right of freedom of movement just as guns are protected by the right to bear arms, both being essential to the exercise of those rights, and it being silly to maintain that the right of freedom of movement is limited to walking, or the use of a horse and carriage.

That is an interesting point. But I would say a few things about it:

1) Personally, I find the idea of requiring driver licenses silly. If they truly required people to really be qualified to drive, most would probably fail. I can see it for specialized vehicles though (tractor trailer trucks for example). Otherwise, driver licensing is mostly about keeping tabs on people.

2) You don’t need to be licensed to purchase a car, just to drive it, and even then, only on public property, not private property. Being licensed allows you to drive anybody’s car in any state. Imagine a gun license that was as simple to acquire as a driver’s license, but allowed the person to borrow pretty much any basic gun owned by anybody and the license was good for visiting any city/town in any state in the country. As it stands, you do need a license to carry a gun in public.

3) If many could, driving would probably be limited and/or curtailed to the same degree many want to curtail guns, it’s just that society would then cease to function if this was done. Similarly, if the carrying of guns by almost everybody was essential for society to function, we’d put up with it. But we have seen things like attempts to ban SUVs (California), and otherwise to tax such vehicles and tax the fuel to force people to buy smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles (like in Europe).

[ Edited: 12 June 2013 08:31 AM by LogicMan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2013 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 278 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

Something ironic just occurred to me.  You can buy any kind of gun and the most deadly ammunition almost anywhere with almost no restrictions but in some places, at least, you wouldn’t be able to get a plastic bag to carry them home in because plastic bags are bad for the environment!

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2013 06:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 279 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

This just in:  The 2nd Amendment has been declared the winner of the Bill of Rights.  All of the other amendments are now null and void.  (In retrospect this was to be expected as the 2nd Amendment was the only one with a gun.)  Source: The Daily Show

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 01:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 280 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  346
Joined  2008-09-10

Four more killed in St. Louis, it appears.

There is ony one solution.  Buy your gun, now!  If you don’t, you may be killed by somebody who already has one.  Don’t be the last one on your block to exercise your Second Amendment right.  Exercise it…or else.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 281 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
ciceronianus - 13 June 2013 01:15 PM

Four more killed in St. Louis, it appears.

There is ony one solution.  Buy your gun, now!  If you don’t, you may be killed by somebody who already has one.  Don’t be the last one on your block to exercise your Second Amendment right.  Exercise it…or else.

And if you have one you’re more likely to be killed with it either by someone who takes it from you or by your own stupidity—but oh, well.  I just continue with the empty hope that no one is killed in the crossfire, though many will be.  All for the right of every moron in the country to own and carry a gun.  They’re almost at 100% now, so I guess they’re getting ready for backups.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 04:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 282 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
Lois - 13 June 2013 01:36 PM
ciceronianus - 13 June 2013 01:15 PM

Four more killed in St. Louis, it appears.

There is ony one solution.  Buy your gun, now!  If you don’t, you may be killed by somebody who already has one.  Don’t be the last one on your block to exercise your Second Amendment right.  Exercise it…or else.

And if you have one you’re more likely to be killed with it either by someone who takes it from you or by your own stupidity—but oh, well.  I just continue with the empty hope that no one is killed in the crossfire, though many will be.  All for the right of every moron in the country to own and carry a gun.  They’re almost at 100% now, so I guess they’re getting ready for backups.

Lois

If someone decides to buy a gun without getting the necessary training to use it properly, and someone else kills them with it, it sounds more like “user error” than anything else.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 05:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 283 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26

One more example of people miscalculating risk and looking for a simple answer to a complex problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/us/missouri-school-trains-teachers-to-carry-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Teachers with guns in the classroom. Do we really need to enumerate all the ways this can end badly ( Teacher with gun becomes mentally unstable after failing to get tenure, student gets angry with teacher and grabs unsecured gun, teacher overreacts to angry student and pulls a gun, student starts shooting at an intruder in a crowded school hallway and hits innocent students.. and on and on).

So the way we respond to the occasional person who goes berserk and uses a gun, is to put more guns in the hands of thousands more people who cold potentially have a bad day and decide to make headlines. Makes sense to me.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 07:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 284 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Lois - 13 June 2013 01:36 PM

And if you have one you’re more likely to be killed with it either by someone who takes it from you or by your own stupidity—but oh, well.

That statistic was debunked long ago.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 08:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 285 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
macgyver - 13 June 2013 05:36 PM

One more example of people miscalculating risk and looking for a simple answer to a complex problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/us/missouri-school-trains-teachers-to-carry-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Teachers with guns in the classroom. Do we really need to enumerate all the ways this can end badly ( Teacher with gun becomes mentally unstable after failing to get tenure, student gets angry with teacher and grabs unsecured gun, teacher overreacts to angry student and pulls a gun, student starts shooting at an intruder in a crowded school hallway and hits innocent students.. and on and on).

Gun control proponents have been making claims like that for years about people carrying guns and it never pans out. The same things were said about concealed carry. If a teacher becomes mentally unstable after failing to get tenure, they can go and get a gun and bring it to the school. As for a student grabbing the gun, the gun should be in a secured location where the student cannot get it. As for a teacher “over-reaction” to a student, that would be one heck of an overreaction. As said, the same things have been said about concealed carry, but it doesn’t happen.

As for the person shooting at an intruder in a crowded school hallway and hits innocent students, this one baffles me. If the intruder is shooting students, it’s a lot better to have someone shooting back then for the shooter to have free reign to just gun down everyone.

Why is it that teachers supposedly can’t be trusted with carrying a gun but yet people have no problem with police officers being armed and/or police officers in schools? Do you think the mental aptitude to be a police officer is any more rigorous than that to be a teacher? And police officers put up with lots of crap everyday from the public and criminals, but you don’t see people saying, “Police carrying guns, now that’s dangerous. All it takes is for a cop to over-react to someone for a speeding stop and shoot them…”

It is odd as usually it’s the right-wing that criticizes teachers as being way over-paid and under-qualified, and the left-wing that defends them. But when it is suggested to let them carry guns, then all of a sudden the left start acting as if teachers are completely untrustworthy.

So the way we respond to the occasional person who goes berserk and uses a gun, is to put more guns in the hands of thousands more people who cold potentially have a bad day and decide to make headlines. Makes sense to me.

We do it with police officers who have a bad day plenty of the time, but rarely do you see cops going on shooting sprees (if ever, minus that one in California recently). And having teachers armed is a much smarter solution than these “gun free zones” and seeking to ban “assault weapons” and so forth.

Profile
 
 
   
19 of 25
19
 
‹‹ Korea      Rand Paul at Howard U. ››