|
An opinion on gun control
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:28:19 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote: "Doug" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:17:51 -0600, " Attila Iskander" wrote: "Doug" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Dec 22, 11:39 pm, Doug wrote: On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander" wrote: "Tony Hwang" wrote in message ... Hmmm, Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine or drum? "Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934 (They are machine guns don't ya know...) You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local police and pay a $200 tax before you can get one. If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot to single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like a bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while changing NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their performance. Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you would only use for fun but not for serious shooting They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments. Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power in short time. And ??? What ?? All I need is just one shot to stop them And then what ? I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. LOL Are you really this ****ing stupid ? IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but let's just ban firearms And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another, how many owners are like that? Just about most who own them The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than car drivers with all the training and licensing they go through... Let's see Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents a year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as to be negligible. Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries in the millions and property damage in the Billions Maybe you should worry more about car owners. Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger? If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains. IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks no gun for me or my family. Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia. I feel sorry for your defenseless family. Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours. You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of all gun purchases are done this way. If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed teachers. But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other places with less resistance. I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians can get whatever guns they want. Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference in crime rates, murder rates, etc. Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm they say .... "Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other studies say it went lower. Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say "taking no action is not the solution". You really are quite the village idiot. No you are. Guns are not drugs. Really ? At least you figured that much out So let's try it again STUDIES show that gun-control has NO EFFECT because the results are INCONCLUSIVE No not ineffective, just INCONCLUSIVE. See my earlier reference to the CDC. If you spend money and effort for 30+ years and yet get NO POSITIVE DEMONSTRATABLE RESULTS, only a fool would not consider that a failure and argue to keep doing the same all over again. Are you a fool ?? I'm beginning to think he's a highly placed official in the War on Drugs. |
An opinion on gun control
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:09:14 -0800 (PST), marco
wrote: 300 million guns in the country young, or immature people do stupid things [i was young once, and did some pretty stupid things, so i should know] kids bringing guns to elementary school! what's going on? come on people, hasn't gotten out of control? this it nuts! i suspect will are going to see more of this type of thing, simply because of copycats, or for who knows what reason, but i hope i'm wrong marc The solution to copykats is to start licensing and regulating ALL media outlets. The safety of ourselves,and especially our children, is just too important to let media outlets continue to operate their vast networks of information delivery without proper oversight and control by the gvt. You might object that it would violate the second amendment but our founders never envisioned a day when a few media giants would have control over everything the average citizen sees and hears. So in the context of today's world we must have licensing and control of all media. It's for the benefit of everyone. Anyone who objects to this simply has no regard for human life. |
An opinion on gun control
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:33:00 -0500, Arms and the Man
wrote: KR Williams ) wrote: I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students. Possible but an incredibly expensive solution. I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential problems with this idea. What problems? Teachers are citizens, too. You are incapable of understanding human-factors, ergonomics and probabilities. Think of the thousands of hours, hundreds of thousands of hours per week that teachers are in classrooms, interacting with students. Now imagine that some fraction (some HIGH fraction according to the wishes of some people) of those teachers bring guns into the classroom. Now imagine what can happen because people are people and kids are kids. Imagine what can happen when guns fall out of a holsters or waistbands. Imagine what can happen when guns are absent-mindedly left somewhere - in a lunch room or washroom or a desk. Imagine what can happen when a gun is grabbed by a student. Imagine what can happen when a chalk-board eraser falls to the ground or a delinquent in the playground fires a pellet gun or throws a rock at the window and the teacher mistakes that for a gun-shot - and reaches for their gun and fumbles and the gun is discharged. Imagine what can happen when a teacher is stressed out and at the end of their rope in a classroom full of noisy, bratty kids. I know that you, KR Williams, lives in an alternate universe where nothing ever goes wrong, but think a moment about this universe and how real people act and function. What a nice country to live in. Everyone armed - and on edge. Those are all the same tired old arguments the anti-gunners trot out every time an effort was mounted to allow citizens the right to carry weapons. Eventually many states allowed it anyway. And guess what.. NONE of those ridiculous "what ifs" happens. To hear you anti gunners tell it, every person in the world is just a hairs width away from going insane and killing everyone within a 50 mile radius. What you need to realize is that every day you are out and about you undoubtedly are within shooting distance of someone who's not a criminal carrying a gun and guess what, nothing happens. You want to disarm 350 million people because of the possibly of an average of perhaps one person out of those 350 million people might go crazy and start a mass shooting. It's completely irrational to think as you do. You have far more chance of being struck by lightening yet I bet you don't have lightening rods on your house and I bet you go out in the rain anyway if you have a desire to. |
An opinion on gun control
On Dec 23, 11:12*am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote: On 12/23/2012 3:34 AM, harry wrote: On Dec 23, 6:42 am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky- finger.net wrote: On 12/22/2012 11:25 PM, Homo Gay wrote: Ed Pawlowski wrote: Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to lose (from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT make / announce that their property is a "gun-free" zone. Rarely have I seen such an announcement in any business. Do some / many / most / all public schools in the US have signage declaring they are a gun-free zone? We know that many public-sector facilities (schools, libraries, gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc) are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such. Have you ever been to one of those places? *I've seen some rather strong armament at airports, especially in Europe. *Courts and many government buildings have armed guards. I wasn't counting any "duly-deputized" members of the law-enforcement community, nor anyone hired as armed security in those places (airports, courts and gov't buildings). We are talking about civilians carrying personal firearms in public in this thread. The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social networks or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement or make him famous. You think killing 26 people they would not put his name in the paper? He wasn't even carrying his own ID at the time. Did he kill those kids because he wanted to be famous (or infamous) ? Or did he kill them *regardless* the media coverage that would result? I know a lot of right-wing AM-radio talking heads have put forward the idea that the liberal media is facilitating and fostering these mass-murders because their coverage of the event is showing the next mass-murderer how he can be famous, but I don't buy that argument, and I'm sure a lot of other sane, rational people don't either. Clinically-sane, rational people (which, by the way, includes right-wing AM-radio talking heads) are be definition incapable to know what drives insane, irrational people to do what they do. *We are applying our own idea of why we might want to commit such acts (mass murder = become famous). He did not have to leave a Facebook message to get notoriety. As I said above, we can't even pretend to know why he killed those kids. *It's a foregone conclusion that when something shocking and disturbing happens, that the media is going to report it. If he was driven by a voice in his head that told him to kill those kids - do you think he gave any consideration to this so-called "fame" that you keep talking about? The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in laws that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor in laws that govern how consumers handle them. That is part of the solution. *We also have to find what causes this type of behavior. *Fifty years ago no one was shooting up schools that I'm aware of. Fifty (even 10 or 20) years ago, divorced single women with kids also probably didn't own an arsenal of guns like this woman did. I'm sure there were troubled boys 50 years ago. *The difference being their moms pantry didn't double as an armory. Homo Gay, typical of Liberal morons to use the word "arsenal" to describe a small number of firearms owned by a civilian. I imagine if the woman owned a bag of wheat sitting in a 50gal drum, those of your ilk would describe it as a grain silo. If you understood history at all, you would know that there is a generation of kids emerging into adulthood who have been loaded with behavior modifying drugs since they were small children at the behest of the Liberal infested educational system. Little boys are drugged because they behave like little boys and they grow up to become psychotic adults. That didn't happen 50 years ago when firearms were more likely to be handled by children under adult supervision and approval. 50 years ago, even in cities which now have severe restrictions on people's right to own firearms, there would be a rifle team in many of the high schools where children were exposed to those evil guns and taught how to fire them. The damage done to a population by drug use is best demonstrated by the morons they vote into office who are drug addled themselves. O_o TDD Funny (not ha ha) non of these things happen in the UK. You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games now circulating. Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis They affect the brains of the simple minded. We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these weapons. Are British schoolchildren pumped full of Ritalin to control their behavior or have the more Conservative humans kept control of the government run schools? O_o TDD I don't see the connection. |
An opinion on gun control
On Dec 23, 12:39*pm, Dean Hoffman "
wrote: On 12/23/12 3:11 AM, harry wrote: Think of it more like an area/country inhabited by gun nuts is a danger to the surrounding area/whole world. Since the Connecticut massacre, 500 more Americans have died by gunshot. By accident or design. Happy Christmas for a lot of people. What a nation of whinging cowards you are. * * Probably a hundred Americans die per day in traffic accidents. About 2 five year olds die per day just in the normal course of events in the U.S. * It was/is a terrible thing for those involved but not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. * * *The commentary from Correia is awfully long. * Did you see his comments on the Mumbai, India attack by the ten terrorists? Quote: Let’s take a look at what happens when a country finally succeeds in utterly stamping out its gun culture. Mumbai, 2008. Ten armed jihadi terrorists simply walked into town and started shooting people. It was a rather direct, straight forward, ham fisted, simple terrorist attack. They killed over 150 and wounded over 300. India has incredibly strict gun laws, but once again, criminals didn’t care. That’s not my point this time however, I want to look at the response. These ten men shut down an entire massive city and struck fear into the hearts of millions for THREE DAYS. Depending on where this happened in America it would have been over in three minutes or three hours. The Indian police responded, but their tactics sucked. The marksmanship sucked. Their leadership sucked. Their response utterly and completely fell apart. In talking afterwards with some individuals from a small agency of our government who were involved in the clean-up and investigation, all of whom are well trained, well practiced, gun nuts, they told me the problem was that the Indian police had no clue what to do because they’d never been taught what to do. Their leadership hated and feared the gun so much that they stamped out the ability for any of their men to actually master the tool. When you kill your gun culture, you kill off your instructors, and those who can pass down the information necessary to do the job. So if there had been others carrying guns they would a Have fled. (As in the Arizona shootup when a little old unarmed lady took the shooters gun) b Shot a few more innocent people. c Shot the non-terrorist/armed citzens by mistake. You are living in the Hollywood ****head fantasy world where the good guy/gun toting hero rescues the fair maiden(s) These are fairytales from Lala land. You need to get real. |
An opinion on gun control
On Dec 23, 1:43*pm, "Meanie" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message ... Funny (not ha ha) non of these things happen in the UK. You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games now circulating. Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis They affect the brains of the simple minded. We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these weapons. ...and yet again, the UK is ranked number two in world crime and here you are still envious of US. *LMFAO! Er we are discussing gun crime. |
An opinion on gun control
On Dec 23, 1:55*pm, "
wrote: On Dec 22, 11:39*pm, Doug * wrote: On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander" wrote: "Tony Hwang" wrote in message ... Hmmm, Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine or drum? "Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934 * *(They are machine guns don't ya know...) You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local police and pay a $200 tax before you can get one. If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot to single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like a bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while changing NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their performance. Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you would only use for fun but not for serious shooting They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments. Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power in short time. And ??? What ?? All I need is just one shot to stop them * *And then what ? I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. LOL Are you really this ****ing stupid ? IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but let's just ban firearms And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another, *how many owners are like that? Just about most who own them The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than car drivers with all the training and licensing they go through... Let's see Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents a year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as to be negligible. Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries in the millions and property damage in the Billions Maybe you should worry more about car owners. Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger? If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard * *It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains. IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks no gun for me or my family. Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia. * *I feel sorry for your defenseless family. Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours. You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of all gun purchases are done this way. If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. *I like the idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed teachers. * But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other places with less resistance. I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless they already own them. *In other words, I don't want military or police to be out gunned by civilians. *If they satisfy this, civilians can get whatever guns they want. Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. *Study after study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference in crime rates, murder rates, etc. So, either: A: *You know so little that you don't realize the above B: You do, but want to do it again, even though it's proven not to work. Further, I learned that some other countries have very tight gun control and the mass killings are few or none but if that means to remove guns from owners, I do not support that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The list here by geography says you're wrong again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers Interesting list that. Pity you never read it. It is incomplete (stated in the first paragraph) It covers murders not by firearms. Most murders are by firearms Only one is from the UK (at a time when handguns were legal) So one is forced to conclude that a complete ban on hand guns is effective. |
An opinion on gun control
On Dec 23, 1:59*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:34:17 -0800 (PST), harry wrote: Funny (not ha ha) non of these things happen in the UK. You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games now circulating. Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis They affect the brains of the simple minded. We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these weapons. You are full of crap. *It happens there too. The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952), entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 2010 Cumbria shootings, it remains one of the deadliest criminal acts involving firearms in the history of the United Kingdom. But none since handguns were banned. Note that both of these massacres were carried out by legal owners of handguns. Which just goes to show that gun owners are mentally unbalanced. |
An opinion on gun control
On Dec 23, 3:54*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:11:21 -0800 (PST), harry wrote: On Dec 23, 1:25*am, Dean Hoffman " wrote: * Not mine. * *This is from Larry Correia. *New York Times bestselling author, firearm instructor and former gun shop owner. * * *http://tinyurl.com/catntyr * The link leads to Monster Hunter Nation. * *He has trained some Utah teachers and wants them to be armed at school if they want to be. * *Part of his comment on gun free zones: Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period. Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back. In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that. Think of it more like an area/country inhabited by gun nuts is a danger to the surrounding area/whole world. Since the Connecticut massacre, 500 more Americans have died by gunshot. By accident or design. Happy Christmas for a lot of people. What a nation of whinging cowards you are. After Newtown, another 20 kids were killed in cars by the following Tuesday but I don't see anyone banning cars. It didn't even make the news You don't see because you are stupid. The ones killed in cars was by accident. Newtown was deliberate. |
An opinion on gun control
On Dec 23, 4:47*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Doug wrote: Further, I learned that some other countries have very tight gun control and the mass killings are few or none but if that means to remove guns from owners, I do not support that. You mean like Mexico? Laxity of gun control has little to do with mayhem caused by firearms. For every country with lax gun control and many deaths, I can respond with a country with lax control and few deaths. Likewise, the reverse. Well go ahead then. How about...Japan? |
An opinion on gun control
On Dec 23, 8:05*pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote: "Doug" wrote in message ... You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of all gun purchases are done this way. And Most of the transactions that way are still between law-abiding people We know that restrictions do NOT curtail criminal transactions Just look at England, now awash with "illegal" handguns since they have been banned There are more of them than before.. If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. *I like the idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed teachers. Why not armed teachers They would not be armed to act as guards The would be armed to defend themselves and automatically defend their charges Do you think that having disarmed staff make Sandy Hook staff safer or less safe ? But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other places with less resistance. There is that. So once again we're back to what the NRA has to say Armed bad guys are stopped by armed good guys * * The great, great, great majority of citizens are the "good guys" Remember that armed citizens shoot more than DOUBLE the number of bad guys than police do. * * Why are people trying to ignore the elephant in the room ?? I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless they already own them. *In other words, I don't want military or police to be out gunned by civilians. *If they satisfy this, civilians can get whatever guns they want. Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police and military They are SUPPOSED to be UNABLE to outgun the citizens as a protectio against tryranny imposed with the use of police and/or military Just take a look at EVERY SINGLE dictatorship in the world * * Guess who is outgunned and who has all the guns You need to rethink this. Further, I learned that some other countries have very tight gun control and the mass killings are few or none but if that means to remove guns from owners, I do not support that. Well at least you got that part right * * No go back and rethink who should outgun whom... Heh Heh. You really are a half wit. You have been enslaved and robbed by you wealthy classes/bankers. How has owning a gun helped there? Sitting in your ******** (if you haven't been foreclosed on) and playing with your pistol. |
An opinion on gun control
On Dec 23, 10:15*pm, Arms and the Man wrote:
Oren wrote: Ask to the comment about the NRA being unreasonable, ask the wife if Clinton was wrong to add armed patrols in our schools... If mass murder performed on your children is not too high of a cost for your american society to pay just so it can crow and brag that it has the right to keep and bear arms (and maintain the intellectual farce that it NEEDS that right) - then what exactly would be too high a price. *? You've already given up many things to the gov't. *Any right or ability you had (or thought you had, or wish you had) to conduct anonymous commerce, travel and communications within your own country for a start. *You don't seem to care about losing those aspects of civilian life that the founding fathers and early americans enjoyed. Everything in society is balanced between cost and benefit. *Risk and reward. Every product, every service. Cars, cutlery, toasters. *The design and cost of all retail products and services is a balance - overwhelmingly in favor of benefit, making great efforts to reduce risk. *Personal firearms exist outside this balance - forever given idiosyncratic exception to their cost, their toll, their liability upon society. Nothing can be more insane, illogical, ugly or monstrous as when a society gives itself the right to own and wield dangerous weapons AGAINST ITSELF in order to protect itself. Do you really think _We the People_ *have no right to remove a tyrannical government? Even with force if necessary? Do you really believe that at any point in the history of your country, and especially now, that US citizens could organize and fight against the US Military and win, thereby overthrowing a so-called tyrannical gov't? Do you really believe that some simple, feeble words on a dusty piece of paper would really give you some magical ability to be the hero and overthrow a tyranical gov't? Do you really believe that as a last resort, your gov't and the military it controls wouldn't use it's significant chemical and biological weapons against you - "the people" ? The civillian right to own and bear arms is a hollow promise. *It will never be able to rescue you from a tyranical, beligerant government. But you are paying, and will continue to pay a heavy price for that false, inconsequential, ineffective "right". Well said. But these people are brainwashed by Hollywood. They are physical and moral cowards. Guns are like a child's dummy'pacifier to them. They draw false comfort from them. They are too old to change, their brains are set in concrete. |
An opinion on gun control
On 12/24/2012 1:42 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 23, 11:12 am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky- finger.net wrote: On 12/23/2012 3:34 AM, harry wrote: On Dec 23, 6:42 am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky- finger.net wrote: On 12/22/2012 11:25 PM, Homo Gay wrote: Ed Pawlowski wrote: Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to lose (from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT make / announce that their property is a "gun-free" zone. Rarely have I seen such an announcement in any business. Do some / many / most / all public schools in the US have signage declaring they are a gun-free zone? We know that many public-sector facilities (schools, libraries, gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc) are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such. Have you ever been to one of those places? I've seen some rather strong armament at airports, especially in Europe. Courts and many government buildings have armed guards. I wasn't counting any "duly-deputized" members of the law-enforcement community, nor anyone hired as armed security in those places (airports, courts and gov't buildings). We are talking about civilians carrying personal firearms in public in this thread. The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social networks or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement or make him famous. You think killing 26 people they would not put his name in the paper? He wasn't even carrying his own ID at the time. Did he kill those kids because he wanted to be famous (or infamous) ? Or did he kill them *regardless* the media coverage that would result? I know a lot of right-wing AM-radio talking heads have put forward the idea that the liberal media is facilitating and fostering these mass-murders because their coverage of the event is showing the next mass-murderer how he can be famous, but I don't buy that argument, and I'm sure a lot of other sane, rational people don't either. Clinically-sane, rational people (which, by the way, includes right-wing AM-radio talking heads) are be definition incapable to know what drives insane, irrational people to do what they do. We are applying our own idea of why we might want to commit such acts (mass murder = become famous). He did not have to leave a Facebook message to get notoriety. As I said above, we can't even pretend to know why he killed those kids. It's a foregone conclusion that when something shocking and disturbing happens, that the media is going to report it. If he was driven by a voice in his head that told him to kill those kids - do you think he gave any consideration to this so-called "fame" that you keep talking about? The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in laws that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor in laws that govern how consumers handle them. That is part of the solution. We also have to find what causes this type of behavior. Fifty years ago no one was shooting up schools that I'm aware of. Fifty (even 10 or 20) years ago, divorced single women with kids also probably didn't own an arsenal of guns like this woman did. I'm sure there were troubled boys 50 years ago. The difference being their moms pantry didn't double as an armory. Homo Gay, typical of Liberal morons to use the word "arsenal" to describe a small number of firearms owned by a civilian. I imagine if the woman owned a bag of wheat sitting in a 50gal drum, those of your ilk would describe it as a grain silo. If you understood history at all, you would know that there is a generation of kids emerging into adulthood who have been loaded with behavior modifying drugs since they were small children at the behest of the Liberal infested educational system. Little boys are drugged because they behave like little boys and they grow up to become psychotic adults. That didn't happen 50 years ago when firearms were more likely to be handled by children under adult supervision and approval. 50 years ago, even in cities which now have severe restrictions on people's right to own firearms, there would be a rifle team in many of the high schools where children were exposed to those evil guns and taught how to fire them. The damage done to a population by drug use is best demonstrated by the morons they vote into office who are drug addled themselves. O_o TDD Funny (not ha ha) non of these things happen in the UK. You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games now circulating. Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis They affect the brains of the simple minded. We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these weapons. Are British schoolchildren pumped full of Ritalin to control their behavior or have the more Conservative humans kept control of the government run schools? O_o TDD I don't see the connection. That's the whole point my friend, you don't see. I do feel sorry for you. O_o TDD |
One thing I think we can all agree on is that the NRA is being a bit underhanded in calling for a list of "mentally disturbed" people be made up so that they can be barred from buying a gun.
People that have mental problems are no more prone to violence than anyone else, and by this token, even President Ronald Reagan would have been prohibited from purchasing a gun in the latter years of his life. (He died from Alzheimer's disease.) The reason the US government doesn't want to compile such a list is that it would be unfair to presume people with mental illnesses are more prone to act violently or commit murder than anyone else. There are very many different kinds of mental illness, and having a mental illness doesn't make a person violent or prone to become a mass murderer. In my judgement, this proposed "list" the NRA wants to make up is really underhanded because no mentally disturbed person is going to want to speak out against that proposal for fear of their mental illness being found out by others, including co-workers, supervisors and employees. |
An opinion on gun control
|
An opinion on gun control
In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote: The solution to copykats is to start licensing and regulating ALL media outlets. The safety of ourselves,and especially our children, is just too important to let media outlets continue to operate their vast networks of information delivery without proper oversight and control by the gvt. You might object that it would violate the second amendment but our founders never envisioned a day when a few media giants would have control over everything the average citizen sees and hears. So in the context of today's world we must have licensing and control of all media. It's for the benefit of everyone. Anyone who objects to this simply has no regard for human life. Except, of course, for the single page broadsheets printed on hand-run presses such as were around when the Founders wrote the Constitution. (Never have had any kind of answer of why the 2nd has to be limited in such a manner but the 1st (for example) doesn't. -- America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe |
An opinion on gun control
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:50:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:33:00 -0500, Arms and the Man wrote: KR Williams ) wrote: I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students. Possible but an incredibly expensive solution. I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential problems with this idea. What problems? Teachers are citizens, too. You are incapable of understanding human-factors, ergonomics and probabilities. Think of the thousands of hours, hundreds of thousands of hours per week that teachers are in classrooms, interacting with students. Now imagine that some fraction (some HIGH fraction according to the wishes of some people) of those teachers bring guns into the classroom. Now imagine what can happen because people are people and kids are kids. Imagine what can happen when guns fall out of a holsters or waistbands. Imagine what can happen when guns are absent-mindedly left somewhere - in a lunch room or washroom or a desk. Imagine what can happen when a gun is grabbed by a student. Imagine what can happen when a chalk-board eraser falls to the ground or a delinquent in the playground fires a pellet gun or throws a rock at the window and the teacher mistakes that for a gun-shot - and reaches for their gun and fumbles and the gun is discharged. Imagine what can happen when a teacher is stressed out and at the end of their rope in a classroom full of noisy, bratty kids. I know that you, KR Williams, lives in an alternate universe where nothing ever goes wrong, but think a moment about this universe and how real people act and function. What a nice country to live in. Everyone armed - and on edge. Those are all the same tired old arguments the anti-gunners trot out every time an effort was mounted to allow citizens the right to carry weapons. Eventually many states allowed it anyway. And guess what.. NONE of those ridiculous "what ifs" happens. To hear you anti gunners tell it, every person in the world is just a hairs width away from going insane and killing everyone within a 50 mile radius. What you need to realize is that every day you are out and about you undoubtedly are within shooting distance of someone who's not a criminal carrying a gun and guess what, nothing happens. You want to disarm 350 million people because of the possibly of an average of perhaps one person out of those 350 million people might go crazy and start a mass shooting. It's completely irrational to think as you do. You have far more chance of being struck by lightening yet I bet you don't have lightening rods on your house and I bet you go out in the rain anyway if you have a desire to. I can't speak for a true "anti" gunner but speaking for myself, I just want better limitations on the use of guns with grandfathered rights. I don't feel people with guns have the rights to ANY guns in order to protect themselves. Maybe we need to scrap all the gun laws and start over ??? |
An opinion on gun control
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:37:41 -0800 (PST), harry wrote: On Dec 23, 8:48 am, Ashton Crusher wrote: On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:54:37 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote: Attila Iskander wrote: "Tony Hwang" wrote in message ... Hmmm, Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine or drum? "Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934 (They are machine guns don't ya know...) You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local police and pay a $200 tax before you can get one. If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot to single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like a bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while changing NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their performance. Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you would only use for fun but not for serious shooting They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments. Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power in short time. And ??? What ?? All I need is just one shot to stop them And then what ? I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. LOL Are you really this ****ing stupid ? IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but let's just ban firearms And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another, how many owners are like that? Just about most who own them The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than car drivers with all the training and licensing they go through... Let's see Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents a year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as to be negligible. Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries in the millions and property damage in the Billions Maybe you should worry more about car owners. Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger? If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains. IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks no gun for me or my family. Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia. I feel sorry for your defenseless family. Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours. Empty cart rattles most!!! In my 55 years driving, I never had road accident. i handled so many different weapons light and heavy in the service. Trained as sniper, sharp shooter in boot camp. Never missed assigned target, never had fire arm accident. When I was done working overdes, I did not choose to live in the states for obvious reason. I never regret that decision yet. Good people can defend themselithout using weapons. Only cowards needs weapons.(they are usually mentally unsecure, that is why) Illogical debates produce nothing progressive. Like the dead Principal defended herself without a weapon? The outcome would have been the same, perhaps worse. Or, 20 kids might still be alive. For the gun (control) nuts, the outcome "could ALWAYS have been worse" even though 1) statistics prove otherwise 2) The FBI analysis of outcomes CLEARLY concluded that being armed is BY FAR THE BEST WAY to avoid death or serious injury in a criminal encounter. But the gun (control) nuts IGNORE ANY AND ALL of the "inconvenient truths" |
An opinion on gun control
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:47:41 -0600, Doug wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Dec 22, 11:39 pm, Doug wrote: On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander" wrote: "Tony Hwang" wrote in message ... Hmmm, Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine or drum? "Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934 (They are machine guns don't ya know...) You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local police and pay a $200 tax before you can get one. If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot to single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like a bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while changing NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their performance. Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you would only use for fun but not for serious shooting They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments. Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power in short time. And ??? What ?? All I need is just one shot to stop them And then what ? I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. LOL Are you really this ****ing stupid ? IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but let's just ban firearms And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another, how many owners are like that? Just about most who own them The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than car drivers with all the training and licensing they go through... Let's see Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents a year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as to be negligible. Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries in the millions and property damage in the Billions Maybe you should worry more about car owners. Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger? If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains. IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks no gun for me or my family. Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia. I feel sorry for your defenseless family. Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours. You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of all gun purchases are done this way. If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like the idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed teachers. But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other places with less resistance. I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this, civilians can get whatever guns they want. Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference in crime rates, murder rates, etc. Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm they say .... "Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other studies say it went lower. Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no action is NOT the solution. That's a dumb as saying "we can't be sure making all bullets pink won't be a solution so I say pass a law making them pink". It's worse than that. It's "After 30 years of multiple studies that showed NO EVIDENCE that pink bullets are a solution, let's make the bullets MORE pink..." Magical thinking at it's best. |
An opinion on gun control
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:57:31 -0600, Doug
wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:22:30 -0500, z wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:26:44 -0500, z wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:43:52 -0800, Oren wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote: I think teachers should just teach. That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it. School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with Mexico. I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students. Possible but an incredibly expensive solution. Not really if the schedules are well managed. $100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US? I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential problems with this idea. What problems? Teachers are citizens, too. ... and have a right to carry Exactly the point. It costs nothing to allow them to do what they have the right to do without doing anything. Having rights doesn't supersede common sense or making better use of weapons. WTF do you know about common sense? You've certainly demonstrated none of it here. Ever. No doubt teachers could be trained but I think the problems and logistics of teachers having guns on the job is complex and it would be simpler to use armed guards who could be better qualified than using teachers. It's not complex at all. Let them carry as they would to the grocery store. In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead guard than a dead teacher. Why? In CT we had several dead teachers who were not allowed to defend themselves or their charges. Evidently that's good enough for you. "Carry on." Obviously you aren't stable. Obviously you shouldn't be a net-shrink. Turn in your Lucy card now. I hate the thought that you are packing. You just made my day. |
An opinion on gun control
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:51:19 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote: In article , z wrote: Not really if the schedules are well managed. $100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US? That is awful expensive for an armed guard. You're going to need at least two (vacations, sick time, etc.) and figure an employee costs about 2x direct compensation, particularly a school employee. FWIW, you would not need two per school. One full time and one rover for every X number of schools to cover the above. You assume one is sufficient. ...and if he's shot? There are dozens of teachers every school. AIUI, there was a guard for the CT school but he wasn't on campus at the time. I wouldn't argue too much. Give them all the training they want and all the free range time they can use. Easy. Which is another incidental expense that would have to be figured into the costs. Police ranges can be reused or expanded. Sure it's an expense. Arming teachers isn't, unless you demand more training than they would normally have for CC. |
An opinion on gun control
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:55:44 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote: In article , Ashton Crusher wrote: The solution to copykats is to start licensing and regulating ALL media outlets. The safety of ourselves,and especially our children, is just too important to let media outlets continue to operate their vast networks of information delivery without proper oversight and control by the gvt. You might object that it would violate the second amendment but our founders never envisioned a day when a few media giants would have control over everything the average citizen sees and hears. So in the context of today's world we must have licensing and control of all media. It's for the benefit of everyone. Anyone who objects to this simply has no regard for human life. Except, of course, for the single page broadsheets printed on hand-run presses such as were around when the Founders wrote the Constitution. (Never have had any kind of answer of why the 2nd has to be limited in such a manner but the 1st (for example) doesn't. ....when in fact the first doesn't say "shall not be infringed". |
An opinion on gun control
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:35:21 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:47:41 -0600, Doug wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Dec 22, 11:39*pm, Doug wrote: On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander" wrote: "Tony Hwang" wrote in message ... Hmmm, Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine or drum? "Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934 * *(They are machine guns don't ya know...) You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and local police and pay a $200 tax before you can get one. If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about "assault weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single shot to single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features like a bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while changing NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their performance. Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that you would only use for fun but not for serious shooting They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments. Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use normally You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power in short time. And ??? What ?? All I need is just one shot to stop them * *And then what ? I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. LOL Are you really this ****ing stupid ? IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms but let's just ban firearms And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another, *how many owners are like that? Just about most who own them The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly than car drivers with all the training and licensing they go through... Let's see Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly accidents a year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so low as to be negligible. Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths, injuries in the millions and property damage in the Billions Maybe you should worry more about car owners. Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger? If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard * *It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains. IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks no gun for me or my family. Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia. * *I feel sorry for your defenseless family. Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours. You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40% of all gun purchases are done this way. If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. *I like the idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed teachers. * But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or other places with less resistance. I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands but I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians to have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless they already own them. *In other words, I don't want military or police to be out gunned by civilians. *If they satisfy this, civilians can get whatever guns they want. Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference in crime rates, murder rates, etc. Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm they say .... "Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other studies say it went lower. Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no action is NOT the solution. That's a dumb as saying "we can't be sure making all bullets pink won't be a solution so I say pass a law making them pink". Were the CT kids shot with pink bullets? Has anyone? See! |
An opinion on gun control
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:12:40 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote: On 12-23-2012 23:59, Doug wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:23:11 -0500, z wrote: You're just illiterate, obviously. That answers it all. Obviously not. Je typed the post you quoted. I wish you wouldn't trim context. No, he is obviously illiterate; impenetrable. And you have the brains of a 1st grader. When the argument degenerates to this kind of stupidity, you're both acting like first-graders. |
An opinion on gun control
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:07:05 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:25:02 -0500, z wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:23:43 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:03:19 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote: Most lawyers would advise that a legal holder of a gun would be in less trouble for shooting someone than a guy who beat someone to death. When I catch someone in my place and that miscreant throws a brick at my face, no jury would convict me of murder for beating the gremlin to death. ^_^ Don't count on it. A good friend of mine did 7 years in a maryland pen for beating an intruder to death in his apartment. They said, one punch, OK and run away but at some point he had the opportunity to escape and he had the obligation to do it. I'm sure that varies *widely* by jurisdiction, just as self defense by gun varies widely (run and hide vs. SYG) We are still waiting to see how that works out for George Zimmerman in the state that invented SYG. and circumstances that look like a slam dunk self defense case. Sure, but that's an obvious case of prosecutorial overreach, if not outright criminal fraud. We'll see if the prosecutors come away jobless or perhaps doing time themselves. ...and GZ will own a few networks. There was also the issue about when the imminent threat was gone. The prosecution demonstrated that after the threat was gone, he hit the guy again. It was not defense anymore. Temporary insanity. That is a great TV defense but in real life you have to be a Kennedy to get away with it. Not really. There are many cases of people being pushed "over the edge" who couldn't get back to the right side as fast as one would hope. Many domestic violence (retaliation) cases end up not being prosecuted, TI, or nullified. Kennedys don't even get charged. |
An opinion on gun control
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:42:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote: On 12/24/2012 12:05 AM, Attila Iskander wrote: "The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ... On 12/23/2012 7:38 PM, wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:09:14 -0800, Oren wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:34:44 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote: Pennsylvania might need to consider banning "high capacity assault shovels". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252172/Woman-charged-threatening-kill-elementary-school-children-bus-stop-shovel.html I darn near killed a burglar with my bare hands, should we have fist control laws? O_o TDD Can't you register your hands as deadly weapons? And buy insurance on them? Most lawyers would advise that a legal holder of a gun would be in less trouble for shooting someone than a guy who beat someone to death. When I catch someone in my place and that miscreant throws a brick at my face, no jury would convict me of murder for beating the gremlin to death. ^_^ That sounds like a lot of work. A couple of bullets to the head is far quicker and more humane. I haven't owned a gun in years, I wish I hadn't sold my Browning Hi-Power. I'm in the market for a good 380 pistol now, double tap to the mouth will stop anything. ^_^ At the last gun show I went to, I bought a Walther PPK (S&W made). It's a nice pocket gun. |
An opinion on gun control
In article , z
wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:51:19 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , z wrote: Not really if the schedules are well managed. $100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US? That is awful expensive for an armed guard. You're going to need at least two (vacations, sick time, etc.) and figure an employee costs about 2x direct compensation, particularly a school employee. FWIW, you would not need two per school. One full time and one rover for every X number of schools to cover the above. You assume one is sufficient. ...and if he's shot? There are dozens of teachers every school. I am not assuming anything. You made the statement that you are going to need at least two per school to cover the school and the vacations, sick time, etc., I was merely pointing out that you could do one and a rover (or for that matter two with rovers, or three or whatever). You don't need another FTE solely to cover the ects. -- America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe |
An opinion on gun control
|
An opinion on gun control
|
An opinion on gun control
I Guy wrote:
You can't force anyone to even own a gun, let alone have them take it to their workplace. Every day. Does anyone even know how the gun ownership-rate of public school staff compares to the general population? Is everyone aware that the vast majority of teachers, principals and other staff in *primary* schools is female - and that gun ownership among females as a group is much lower than males? |
An opinion on gun control
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:01:08 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote: "Doug" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:26:44 -0500, z wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:43:52 -0800, Oren wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote: I think teachers should just teach. That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it. School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with Mexico. I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students. Possible but an incredibly expensive solution. Not really if the schedules are well managed. $100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US? I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential problems with this idea. What problems? Teachers are citizens, too. ... and have a right to carry Exactly the point. It costs nothing to allow them to do what they have the right to do without doing anything. Having rights doesn't supersede common sense or making better use of weapons. No doubt teachers could be trained but I think the problems and logistics of teachers having guns on the job is complex 1) There are ALREADY many teachers who are experienced shooters 2) There are ALREADY many teachers who have carry permits 3) There are NO "problems and logistics" to allow teachers, school staff, volunteers and parents to be armed in schools 4) It only takes a rule change by the school board that says "we encourage our staff and parents" to get their carry permits and help keep the schools their children attend safer Problem solved and it would be simpler to use armed guards who could be better qualified than using teachers. 1) In actual fact it would be more complex and FAR MORE expensive. 2) The teachers know both staff and most students at their schools They would have no problems identifying either a shooter or stranger at the school 3) As to better qualified, that is highly doubtfull In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead guard than a dead teacher. At Red Lake (Mn) High school, they had to replace a dead guard, (who sadly proved useless) AND a number of teacher and students Your arguments fails on so many counts, it's not even funny. You don't make sense but I'm not going to waste time and talk to a wall any longer. |
An opinion on gun control
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:02:22 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote: "Doug" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:24:20 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote: Doug wrote in : I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential problems with this idea. And you *don't* see *actual* problems with the status quo? Why does anyone think that laws declaring schools to be "gun free zones" will magically prevent criminals from bringing guns into schools? If someone is willing to violate the law prohibiting murder, why doesn anyone think he would *obey* a law that prohibits him from bringing a gun into a school? Please note my careful choice of verbs in the preceding paragraph. Laws *prohibit* bad behavior. They do NOT *prevent* it. That's why I think armed guards should be used vs. status quo. Too bad your arguments for that (in other post) don't hold much water We'll see. |
An opinion on gun control
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:14:26 -0500, Home Guy wrote:
wrote: Sure it's an expense. Arming teachers isn't, unless you demand more training than they would normally have for CC. You can't force anyone to even own a gun, let alone have them take it to their workplace. Certainly you can. It's common for police to own their firearm. In this case, you're just playing with strawmen, again. No one said they should be forced to carry, though it would certainly be possible. Every day. Police carry their weapons, every day. And teacher's unions would bargain for an increase in salary for any teachers that the schools were counting on to double as "security guards". Screw the teacher's union. They should be busted anyway. And I'd like to know how the whole idea of insurance (both for the teachers and the schools) would work out if school boards allowed (and even encouraged, and even paid extra) for teachers to bring their guns into the classrooms. Liability insurance would almost certainly go up for schools boards, and hence so would your taxes. Zip. Nada. It's a recipe for disaster, because over time there would be more negative incidents of injury and death caused by guns in schools than positive, protective incidents. Only in your dreams. It doesn't happen. |
An opinion on gun control
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:20:27 -0500, Home Guy wrote:
I Guy wrote: You can't force anyone to even own a gun, let alone have them take it to their workplace. Every day. Does anyone even know how the gun ownership-rate of public school staff compares to the general population? Does anyone care? Is everyone aware that the vast majority of teachers, principals and other staff in *primary* schools is female - and that gun ownership among females as a group is much lower than males? Lower but rising very quickly. Females don't like to be defenseless, either. |
An opinion on gun control
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote: "Doug" wrote in message .. . I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential problems with this idea. Go ahead and list them If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought it was intuitive. |
An opinion on gun control
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:26:17 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote: "Doug" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:14:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander" wrote: "Doug" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference in crime rates, murder rates, etc. Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm they say .... "Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other studies say it went lower. DOH ! 1) The CDC has a history of being pro gun-control 2) The CC has had it's knuckles rapped by Congress because they got caught at it 3) They studied more than 30 years of studies, and all they could come up with is that ? HELLO ? How long do you want to study something before you go.. Hmmm No evidence to support this theory after 30 years of studies Maybe it's time to come up with a different theory This is not "global warming" with a planet that operates by millenia This is simple social issues that operate a MUCH, MUCH SHORTER scale Try 5-10 years to have meaninfull data Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no action is NOT the solution. Fine But since it's INCONCLUSIVE after 30 years, then intelligent people are NOT going to go back and do the same old, same old that has proven inconclusive after all this time SMART people are going to try something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. How about trying to do what the Israeli did to protect their schools after the palestinian terrorists decided to target their schools They have nearly 40 years of NO MORE attacks on schools, while we with our "Gun Free Zones" have 30+ years of school attacks being repeated over and over... HELLO ?? I have no problem with trying DIFFERENT so we may agree on that point but I bet we'll disagree after that. Then we can only hope that you do continue your "research" on not only the 2nd Amendment, but other subjects as well, so that you can come back and argue more out of knowledge than ignorance. I think you guys are really scared of research. |
An opinion on gun control
Doug wrote:
My wife usually doesn't say much but about 1/2 hour ago she said outa the clear blue to me, "the NRA is being unreasonable". I agree with the NRA for armed guards in the school. I don't like the idea of armed teachers but neither of these ideas will solve the mass killings. The killers will just go elsewhere. Right. They will go to a movie theatre. Or a posted mall. Or the city council chambers. In fact, EVERY mass shooting (4 or more dead) since 1950 has taken place in a "gun-free" zone - with one exception. Jared Laughner did his nasty business in a shopping center parking lot - but he was subdued by a concealed handgun carrier (with help from others). The obvious fix, then, is to eliminate "gun-free" zones. |
An opinion on gun control
Ashton Crusher wrote:
Those are all the same tired old arguments the anti-gunners trot out every time an effort was mounted to allow citizens the right to carry weapons. Eventually many states allowed it anyway. And guess what.. NONE of those ridiculous "what ifs" happens. To hear you anti gunners tell it, every person in the world is just a hairs width away from going insane and killing everyone within a 50 mile radius. What you need to realize is that every day you are out and about you undoubtedly are within shooting distance of someone who's not a criminal carrying a gun and guess what, nothing happens. You want to disarm 350 million people because of the possibly of an average of perhaps one person out of those 350 million people might go crazy and start a mass shooting. It's completely irrational to think as you do. You have far more chance of being struck by lightening yet I bet you don't have lightening rods on your house and I bet you go out in the rain anyway if you have a desire to. It's called "projection." The anti-gunners sincerely believe that everybody would react to a given situation the same way they would if faced with similar circumstances. For example, your typical anti-gunner believes that, if he had a gun, he'd fix the son-of-a-bitch who cut him off in traffic and, ipso facto, those that carry guns will. Of course that there are probably thousands are "cut off in traffic" every day with no disastrous results simply doesn't register as a fact on the true believer. If this true believer is personally urged to kill the ****er, he is quite correct in not having a gun. But he shouldn't attribute that reaction to the planet at large. Regrettably, he does. |
An opinion on gun control
harry wrote:
On Dec 23, 4:47 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: Doug wrote: Further, I learned that some other countries have very tight gun control and the mass killings are few or none but if that means to remove guns from owners, I do not support that. You mean like Mexico? Laxity of gun control has little to do with mayhem caused by firearms. For every country with lax gun control and many deaths, I can respond with a country with lax control and few deaths. Likewise, the reverse. Well go ahead then. How about...Japan? Jamaica? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter