NRA: Put a Gun in every school, Media to blame for shootings

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States' most powerful pro-gun lobbying group demanded Friday that armed police be deployed to every school in the country following a mass shooting that left 20 young children dead.

The National Rifle Association, which defends what it sees as US citizens' constitutional right to bear arms, had been under pressure to respond in the wake of last week's massacre in a Connecticut elementary school.

Even as the NRA leaders made their combative and determined appearance another four people died in Pennsylvania in America's latest shooting spree. But the lobbyists ceded no ground to those calling for tougher gun laws.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," declared NRA vice-president Wayne LaPierre, in the group's first reaction since the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

"I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation," he said, in a lengthy statement. He took no questions from reporters.

LaPierre said the NRA was ready to help train security teams for schools and work with teachers and parents to improve security measures, and accused the media and the political class of demonizing gun owners.

Last Friday, a troubled 20-year-old man burst into the Sandy Hook school and gunned down 20 six- and seven-year-old children and six staff members trying to protect them, before taking his own life.

Then a week later, even as LaPierre and his allies were on stage in Washington, police in Pennsylvania shot dead a man who had shot dead three people and wounded "several" state troopers.

These deaths were only the latest in a series of mass shootings in the United States this year, and prompted President Barack Obama to throw his weight behind plans to revive a ban on assault weapons.

America has suffered an epidemic of gun violence over the last three decades including 62 mass shooting incidents since 1982. The vast majority of weapons used have been semi-automatic weapons obtained legally by the killers.

There were an estimated 310 million non-military firearms in the United States in 2009, roughly one per citizen, and people in America are 20 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in another developed country.

But LaPierre insisted gun ownership was not the problem.

"You know, five years ago after the Virginia Tech tragedy when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy," he said, referring to a 2007 campus shooting that left 32 people dead.

"But what if, what if when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday he'd been confronted by qualified armed security?" he demanded.

"Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 little kids, that 26 innocent lives might have been spared that day? Is it so abhorrent to you that you'd rather continue to risk the alternative?"

The statement did not impress Chris Murphy, the congressman who represents the district that includes the school.

"Walking out of another funeral and was handed the NRA transcript. The most revolting, tone deaf statement I've ever seen," he said, on Twitter.

And the statement immediately drew criticism from supporters of tougher gun control, who are pushing to ban semi-automatic assault weapons like the .223 Bushmaster rifle that Lanza used in Friday's shooting.

"The NRA leadership's drive to fill our schools with more deadly guns and ammo is wildly out of touch with responsible gun owners and the American public," New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg said.

The protesters that attempted to drown out LaPierre's statement were more blunt. One bore a banner reading "NRA kills our kids," the other "NRA has blood on its hands." They were led away by security.

But LaPierre ploughed on, warning that more killers are actively plotting to attack schools.

And he slammed and attacked media conglomerates, denouncing violent video games, music videos that celebrate crime and Hollywood movies that glamorize violence.

"Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?" he demanded.
"Too many in the national media, their corporate owners and their stockholders act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize gun owners."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/15696877/us-gun-lobby-urges-armed-police-in-every-school/

So in the wake of a wave of gun violence, the NRA is doubling down and rejecting any form of gun control while suggesting that America needs an armed security officer in every school. While the theory isn't outright stupid, who the fuck is going to foot the bill for it? Considering the size of some schools you would need at least two or three officers per school to cover all the entrances between them, and you'd need to pay them enough since if a gunman does show up they're the ones you want to risk their lives first. So at least two or three for each school in the country is going to add up, and schools don't get the best amount of funding as is.

But seriously, fuck LaPierre for the overdone "blame Video Games" routine. Instead of trying to take any other course of actions avaliable to try and solve the problem without banning guns (like funding better mental health services for example) he's doubling down, saying that the US needs more guns and is painting Hollywood and Video Games as being the devil for showing that guns are good. Nevermind his entire organisation exists to push that point.

Hmm, so selling assault weapons should be allowed, but violent video games should be banned? Because the latter is definitely more dangerous then the former.

Hopefully the absurdity of his argument will weaken the pro gun group and make it easier for gun control legislation to pass. Yet with the current state of the political system it is highly unlikely that the republicans will let anything pass through the house(or indeed the senate unless the filibuster is abolished).

Legalizing concealed carry for teachers and admin at public schools should do it. I think the additional costs would be minimal. Stigmatizing the media is stupid. Like guns, millions watch movies, play games and they aren't nuts.

Krauthammer does state today in www.nationalreview.com that he used to comit those who seemed dangerous to themselves and others. Now that is very difficult.

That's bad for society, and bad for the mentally ill as well.

Shaoken:
So in the wake of a wave of gun violence, the NRA is doubling down and rejecting any form of gun control while suggesting that America needs an armed security officer in every school.

LaPierre stated clearly that he wants better mental health screening and sharing of info.

But seriously, fuck LaPierre for the overdone "blame Video Games" routine. Instead of trying to take any other course of actions avaliable to try and solve the problem without banning guns (like funding better mental health services for example) he's doubling down, saying that the US needs more guns and is painting Hollywood and Video Games as being the devil for showing that guns are good.

What? He blames a violent media atmosphere of violence. That is a very common idea. It is not right but many gun control activists say the same goddamn thing. But he only mentioned that. His major point against the media is the glorification of the shooter and the resulting perpetuation of violence. That is a true statement.

Nevermind his entire organisation exists to push that point.

Bull-mother-fucking-shit.

The NRA has a $300 million dollar war chest and takes in over $160 million dollars per year. Do you know how much the NRA-ILA takes from that? Around $30 million. And that includes lawyers, buildings, lobbying, etc. The NRA-ILA was not even formed until the 1960s. The vast majority of the NRAs funds are used on the same thing the NRA has been doing since the 1870s. That is promoting marksmanship and training.

farson135:

Shaoken:
So in the wake of a wave of gun violence, the NRA is doubling down and rejecting any form of gun control while suggesting that America needs an armed security officer in every school.

LaPierre stated clearly that he wants better mental health screening and sharing of info.

I'm sorry I missed that amongst the bullshit of the "a security officer in every school" idea as being THE solution (his statement was pretty clear that in his mind it is literally the only way to stop future massacres).

But seriously, fuck LaPierre for the overdone "blame Video Games" routine. Instead of trying to take any other course of actions avaliable to try and solve the problem without banning guns (like funding better mental health services for example) he's doubling down, saying that the US needs more guns and is painting Hollywood and Video Games as being the devil for showing that guns are good.

What? He blames a violent media atmosphere of violence. That is a very common idea. It is not right but many gun control activists say the same goddamn thing. But he only mentioned that. His major point against the media is the glorification of the shooter and the resulting perpetuation of violence. That is a true statement.

What glorification of the shooter? None in this case. Unless you mean the glorification of the shooter in films/games/TV which is still bullshit; it's no different now than it was in the 50s and 60s with Cowboys being glorified, cops being glorified, etc. etc. etc. etc. And there have been just as many demonisations of the shooter in the media.

No matter what, he's trying to deflect blame to a scapegoat.

Nevermind his entire organisation exists to push that point.

Bull-mother-fucking-shit.

The NRA has a $300 million dollar war chest and takes in over $160 million dollars per year. Do you know how much the NRA-ILA takes from that? Around $30 million. And that includes lawyers, buildings, lobbying, etc. The NRA-ILA was not even formed until the 1960s. The vast majority of the NRAs funds are used on the same thing the NRA has been doing since the 1870s. That is promoting marksmanship and training.

And what the fuck does that have to do with the price of Tea in China?

I said his whole organisation exists to promote the idea that guns are a good thing. Because that is what his whole organisation exists to do; promote the idea that it's good to have a gun. The very thing he's demonising the media for.

So I have no fucking idea why you're assuming I'm talking about the amount of money they're making wen the context was clear that I was critising him for condemning the media for portraying people owning guns as a good thing when that is exactly what the NRA is there for.

Gorfias:
Legalizing concealed carry for teachers and admin at public schools should do it. I think the additional costs would be minimal. Stigmatizing the media is stupid. Like guns, millions watch movies, play games and they aren't nuts.

Krauthammer does state today in www.nationalreview.com that he used to comit those who seemed dangerous to themselves and others. Now that is very difficult.

That's bad for society, and bad for the mentally ill as well.

That plan, while it may sound good in theory, is just a school shooting waiting to happen in practice. First, we have to assume the teachers would even want to have guns with them at school, then we would have to train all of them. Unless of course we want a large group of staff with guns who know absolutely nothing about them, because that is not going to end well for anyone. Then, we have to assume that under no circumstance will they ever mentally break, or become so frustrated that they pull the gun out. Teaching is a stressful job, and even people who seem perfectly qualified can break under the pressure, and believe me, you don't want to give someone in that position a gun, the risks far outweigh any positives.

farson135:
What? He blames a violent media atmosphere of violence. That is a very common idea. It is not right but many gun control activists say the same goddamn thing. But he only mentioned that. His major point against the media is the glorification of the shooter and the resulting perpetuation of violence. That is a true statement.

It's not right and it's a true statement.

What?

Gorfias:
Legalizing concealed carry for teachers and admin at public schools should do it. I think the additional costs would be minimal.

Sorry Gorf, but that's a stupid idea.

Teacherss and Principles are there to teach and administrate, they have to go through years of training just to do that. It takes up a substational amount of their time, not enough to get them trained enough to actually be useful in a school situation; believe it or not people are predispositioned to not killing people, that's why military training has to spend the time to break that down so they won't freeze on the battlefield. Teachers, nine times out of ten, will freeze when it comes time to actually kill someone, and chances are whoever is behind the shooting wont have that same hesitation, then look! He's got another gun and more ammo to further his rampage (and that's assuming that a teacher doesn't panic and ends up killing a kid because they were startled and confused).

And it doesn't stop there, it's a fucking retarded idea to put more guns in reach of students. So teachers are carrying guns on their person at all times. All good, until two kids on campus decide to renact Columbine and jump the teacher, take their gun and start shooting. Or the teacher gets in close to observe a student's work and they take that chance to grab the gun. And that's assuming a teacher will carry with it all the time instead of leaving it in their desk for someone to steal.

Sure you could get gun safes, but your beloved Republican party has been cutting school funding for the past decade, how the fuck are they going to afford all these gun safes? And that's assuming that teachers use them instead of taking the easier method of putting it in their desk for a moment.

Hell let's take a look at some rough stats from the '04 census there were 6.4 Million Teachers in the United States. I have no idea what a basic handgun gun safe would cost, so I'm using this as a guide to it's rought price:

http://www.crazysales.com.au/electronic-personal-safe-box-small.html?utm_campaign=Safes&utm_term=T25E&utm_source=getprice&utm_medium=cpc&aid=5

So times that by 6.4 million and you get $416,000,000. Almost half a billion to make sure that kids won't be able to grab ahold of the gun. That's about half-a-billion reasons why your idea sucks.

Seriously, I've yet to see a single instance where throwing more guns in to solve gun violence actually made things better.

I didn't find it all that bad of a presentation beyond the video game bit and how slow he spoke. Armed Guards/Police really isn't all that odd. There was a Deputy at my middle school (scary lookin' guy but he was cool) and theres one at my high school more often then not. Its not that much of a burden if you consider that all it really has to be is one police officer/deputy stationed at a school during the day. You also don't need one for every door or anything. One is enough unless its a positively huge campus. The officer isn't meant to be there at the very beginning but to be on hand to respond quickly.

As for arming teachers/admins its not that odd of an idea either; with discretion. Obviously not every teacher needs to be packing heat but that need not make it impossible for any to keep a concealed pistol. There are former military, police, reservist, national guard, and practiced civilians in most schools that could easily be allowed to carry within a school. If the actions of the teachers in our most recent school shooting are any indication I don't think its that far fetched that there are teachers willing to kill to protect students. The idea isn't stupid, it just needs to be done intelligently.

Shaoken:
I'm sorry I missed that amongst the bullshit of the "a security officer in every school" idea as being THE solution (his statement was pretty clear that in his mind it is literally the only way to stop future massacres).

Really? From what I heard he stated that we are willing to protect our banks with security guards but not our schools which house something even more important. He proposed it as A solution.

What glorification of the shooter? None in this case.

What is the shooters name?

He will be remembered for decades. In other words, y'all have given him exactly what he wanted.

Unless you mean the glorification of the shooter in films/games/TV which is still bullshit; it's no different now than it was in the 50s and 60s with Cowboys being glorified, cops being glorified, etc. etc. etc. etc.

There is a very big difference between the Lone Ranger and the Punisher.

And there have been just as many demonisations of the shooter in the media.

And in the process you have made him a legend. There are many ways to glorify a person when not all people share your views of glory.

No matter what, he's trying to deflect blame to a scapegoat.

Actually many experts agree with him. In fact the idea that we should not glorify the killer is a concept that goes at least as far back as the Romans. You see, when a person did something so horrendous or disgusting that the Roman government had to get involved they did not just execute the man. They removed his name from ALL records, they destroyed his death mask, and they even forced his children to change their names so that his lineage will completely die off. The state also put out restrictions against even speaking that person's name. He and everything he was would be completely forgotten within a generation. Juxtapose that with the current situation.

I said his whole organisation exists to promote the idea that guns are a good thing. Because that is what his whole organisation exists to do; promote the idea that it's good to have a gun.

Once again, that is the NRA-ILA not the whole NRA. The NRA itself is not a lobbying firm. The NRA-ILA is.

Shaoken:
Teacherss and Principles are there to teach and administrate, they have to go through years of training just to do that. It takes up a substational amount of their time, not enough to get them trained enough to actually be useful in a school situation; believe it or not people are predispositioned to not killing people, that's why military training has to spend the time to break that down so they won't freeze on the battlefield. Teachers, nine times out of ten, will freeze when it comes time to actually kill someone, and chances are whoever is behind the shooting wont have that same hesitation, then look! He's got another gun and more ammo to further his rampage (and that's assuming that a teacher doesn't panic and ends up killing a kid because they were startled and confused).

First of all, the vast majority of teachers who carry guns anyway are not going to freeze. And you have no proof whatsoever to back up you "9 times out of 10" idea.

Second of all, another gun and more ammo? Really, that is your argument? When is the last time a school shooter ran out of ammo?

And it doesn't stop there, it's a fucking retarded idea to put more guns in reach of students. So teachers are carrying guns on their person at all times. All good, until two kids on campus decide to renact Columbine and jump the teacher, take their gun and start shooting. Or the teacher gets in close to observe a student's work and they take that chance to grab the gun. And that's assuming a teacher will carry with it all the time instead of leaving it in their desk for someone to steal.

Right, because students now have x-ray vision and can see a concealed firearm. Also, name all of the occasions that a concealed carry firearm has been taken away from a CHL. Finally, name every occasion that a school shooting has occurred after a kid took away a security guards firearm.

Seriously, I've yet to see a single instance where throwing more guns in to solve gun violence actually made things better.

Except for police. You are all for them throwing more guns into a bad situation. And soldiers. In fact the government can put as many guns as it wants anywhere any you seem to be fine with it.

dharmaBum0:

farson135:
What? He blames a violent media atmosphere of violence. That is a very common idea. It is not right but many gun control activists say the same goddamn thing. But he only mentioned that. His major point against the media is the glorification of the shooter and the resulting perpetuation of violence. That is a true statement.

It's not right and it's a true statement.

What?

Two different points. One right and one wrong.

The NRA speaking on school shootings and how to solve them is like Marc Dutroux speaking on how to raise children, and about as reprehensible too.

That guy needs to eat his socks in shame and keep quiet. It shows of a shameless disregard for the relatives of the children killed in that school shooting that he just blames videogames, and then proposes that bringing firearms violence into every classroom will solve that.

Kids just died because of that. Even if they believe more violence in classrooms is better they should know when to shut up and show some respect.

farson135:
His major point against the media is the glorification of the shooter and the resulting perpetuation of violence.

I'm yet to run across the first glorification of that guy. Quite frankly I think that anyone who seriously believes that should have their head examined; there has to be something wired wrong up there if they were able to miss the huge outcry over the violence.

In fact, the only ones glorifying violence are the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby.

While I support the NRA I would said just put a police officer in every school, and that was also want of the things you did not list that the NRA advise to do. Their are always going to be insane people who kill, a weapon is a tool just like a hammer, or a crowbar, in fact more people die from drowning vs gun violence. Also handguns murder more people than assasult rifles, and if you ban them the economy would be further weaken, and that won't help us as America is going off the fiscal cliff. People need to view it from both sides.

Gergar12:
While I support the NRA I would said just put a police officer in every school, and that was also want of the things you did not list that the NRA advise to do. Their are always going to be insane people who kill, a weapon is a tool just like a hammer, or a crowbar, in fact more people die from drowning vs gun violence. Also handguns murder more people than assasult rifles, and if you ban them the economy would be further weaken, and that won't help us as America is going off the fiscal cliff. People need to view it from both sides.

...
That argument doesn't make sense at all. Maybe handguns kill more people because they're prevalent. Don't even get me started on the economy part.

I find that this is going for the problem the wrong way, since it's setting up a situation that will explode in the face of people. Why don't have you a security check or someone in front so people can't just walk in? It seems to me a slightly more realistic and intelligent solution.

Then again it's the NRA. Their solution for everything is more guns

Damn broke my pledge to not talk about this at all. Well these arguments are getting more and more surreal. It's enough to make you laugh if it didn't make you cry.

Frission:

Gergar12:
While I support the NRA I would said just put a police officer in every school, and that was also want of the things you did not list that the NRA advise to do. Their are always going to be insane people who kill, a weapon is a tool just like a hammer, or a crowbar, in fact more people die from drowning vs gun violence. Also handguns murder more people than assault rifles, and if you ban them the economy would be further weaken, and that won't help us as America is going off the fiscal cliff. People need to view it from both sides.

...
That argument doesn't make sense at all. Maybe handguns kill more people because they're prevalent. Don't even get me started on the economy part.

I find that this is going for the problem the wrong way, since it's setting up a situation that will explode in the face of people. Why don't have you a security check or someone in front so people can't just walk in? It seems to me a slightly more realistic and intelligent solution.

Then again it's the NRA. Their solution for everything is more guns

Damn broke my pledge to not talk about this at all. Well these arguments are getting more and more surreal. It's enough to make you laugh if it didn't make you cry.

My solution was a police officer at every school. What so hard to understand about that. It would also give lots of ex military jobs, and create more jobs. Plus why not a police officer you never answer that question bullet proof glass cost alot more than one police officer who serves as both a role model, and protector

Gergar12:

Frission:

Gergar12:
While I support the NRA I would said just put a police officer in every school, and that was also want of the things you did not list that the NRA advise to do. Their are always going to be insane people who kill, a weapon is a tool just like a hammer, or a crowbar, in fact more people die from drowning vs gun violence. Also handguns murder more people than assault rifles, and if you ban them the economy would be further weaken, and that won't help us as America is going off the fiscal cliff. People need to view it from both sides.

...
That argument doesn't make sense at all. Maybe handguns kill more people because they're prevalent. Don't even get me started on the economy part.

I find that this is going for the problem the wrong way, since it's setting up a situation that will explode in the face of people. Why don't have you a security check or someone in front so people can't just walk in? It seems to me a slightly more realistic and intelligent solution.

Then again it's the NRA. Their solution for everything is more guns

Damn broke my pledge to not talk about this at all. Well these arguments are getting more and more surreal. It's enough to make you laugh if it didn't make you cry.

My solution was a police officer at every school. What so hard to understand about that. It would also give lots of ex military jobs, and create more jobs. Plus why not a police officer you never answer that question bullet proof glass cost alot more than one police officer who serves as both a role model, and protector

That's actually pretty good. I find the notion of arming teachers to be rather wrongheaded. Competent Police officers? That works.

EDIT: I also find the rest of your argument rather puzzling. The first part though? It's all good.

farson135:

Shaoken:
I'm sorry I missed that amongst the bullshit of the "a security officer in every school" idea as being THE solution (his statement was pretty clear that in his mind it is literally the only way to stop future massacres).

Really? From what I heard he stated that we are willing to protect our banks with security guards but not our schools which house something even more important. He proposed it as A solution.

Money isn't liable to grab guns off of a guard, money doesn't get paranoid about people with guns being at the front door.

You'd also be the only first world country to have secrutiy guards at every school in the country. Even Israel only has armed personnel around and in schools that are in what amounts to war zones.

As for him proposing it as A solution instead of the solution;

"I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation,"

That sounds like a demand, not a call to discuss the issue.

What glorification of the shooter? None in this case.

What is the shooters name?

He will be remembered for decades. In other words, y'all have given him exactly what he wanted.

And how the fuck do you know what he wanted? Are you a mind reader? Do you ahve information we don't? Because last time I checked nobody knows what sparked things. And what else do you want the media to do? Refuse to cover news? You want them to supress the truth because it goes against what you think is right? How the fuck is reporting the facts glorifying anything?

Unless you mean the glorification of the shooter in films/games/TV which is still bullshit; it's no different now than it was in the 50s and 60s with Cowboys being glorified, cops being glorified, etc. etc. etc. etc.

There is a very big difference between the Lone Ranger and the Punisher.

As someone who has followed the Punisher for years I can tell you that he's not glorified in the vast majority of comics. Even in his best comics he's depicted as causing more problems than he solves, and they had to tone down his gun-happy ways in other comics.

Hardly glorification.

And there have been just as many demonisations of the shooter in the media.

And in the process you have made him a legend. There are many ways to glorify a person when not all people share your views of glory.

So what, suppress facts? And how the fuck have the media made him a legend? Tell me do you remember the name of hte last mass shooter before him? What about the one before that? Can you tell me off the top of your head who was behind Virgina Tech, who planned Columbine, who the DC snipers were?

Give it 6 months and nobody will be able to remember his name without looking it up. Some Legend.

No matter what, he's trying to deflect blame to a scapegoat.

Actually many experts agree with him. In fact the idea that we should not glorify the killer is a concept that goes at least as far back as the Romans. You see, when a person did something so horrendous or disgusting that the Roman government had to get involved they did not just execute the man. They removed his name from ALL records, they destroyed his death mask, and they even forced his children to change their names so that his lineage will completely die off. The state also put out restrictions against even speaking that person's name. He and everything he was would be completely forgotten within a generation. Juxtapose that with the current situation.

First, the Romans didn't do that to Mass Murders, they did that to someone who pissed off the Ceaser of the day and murdered people just to make sure. And this was in a day and age where going from one city to the next was difficult enough. Now days I can talk to someone on the opposite side of the world instantly and news travels as fast as thought. So I don't think we should be taking examples from an ancient empire whose standard method of dealing with people was to nail them to crosses so they would take days to die.

I said his whole organisation exists to promote the idea that guns are a good thing. Because that is what his whole organisation exists to do; promote the idea that it's good to have a gun.

Once again, that is the NRA-ILA not the whole NRA. The NRA itself is not a lobbying firm. The NRA-ILA is.

Honestly, you're the only one here who cares about the distinction.

Shaoken:
Teacherss and Principles are there to teach and administrate, they have to go through years of training just to do that. It takes up a substational amount of their time, not enough to get them trained enough to actually be useful in a school situation; believe it or not people are predispositioned to not killing people, that's why military training has to spend the time to break that down so they won't freeze on the battlefield. Teachers, nine times out of ten, will freeze when it comes time to actually kill someone, and chances are whoever is behind the shooting wont have that same hesitation, then look! He's got another gun and more ammo to further his rampage (and that's assuming that a teacher doesn't panic and ends up killing a kid because they were startled and confused).

First of all, the vast majority of teachers who carry guns anyway are not going to freeze. And you have no proof whatsoever to back up you "9 times out of 10" idea.

And you have no proof to the contrary, but there is a reason why Police and Soldiers need training to break down the resistence to killing people, and to operate in a high stress environment. Teachers don't have that training. And there's enough evidence out there of people freezing like a deer in headlights in high-stress situations.

Second of all, another gun and more ammo? Really, that is your argument? When is the last time a school shooter ran out of ammo?

No need to make it easy on them. What, do you think they'd just leave weapons on the ground? Fuck this massacre started when he murdered someone else and stole their guns.

And it doesn't stop there, it's a fucking retarded idea to put more guns in reach of students. So teachers are carrying guns on their person at all times. All good, until two kids on campus decide to renact Columbine and jump the teacher, take their gun and start shooting. Or the teacher gets in close to observe a student's work and they take that chance to grab the gun. And that's assuming a teacher will carry with it all the time instead of leaving it in their desk for someone to steal.

Right, because students now have x-ray vision and can see a concealed firearm. Also, name all of the occasions that a concealed carry firearm has been taken away from a CHL. Finally, name every occasion that a school shooting has occurred after a kid took away a security guards firearm.

Concealed doesn't equal invisible, you can notice someone carrying a concealed weapon if it's not hidden enough or you know what to look for. And if you're witnessing someone carry one five days a week, you'll be able to find a pattern. And if every teacher has a gun like some people are suggesting, well then finding one won't be that hard.

Also, no kid has took a gun away from a security officer and their school because most people are smart enough to know that putting security officers at schools in a first world country is a retarded idea. A-Fucking-Gain, if America implemented this they would be the only first world country in the world to do so. Since you ignored it in the last thread, even countries like Israel only have teachers carrying guns if that school happens to be inside what amounts to a war zone, and even then it's not comparable to US conceal carry laws.

Seriously, I've yet to see a single instance where throwing more guns in to solve gun violence actually made things better.

Except for police. You are all for them throwing more guns into a bad situation. And soldiers. In fact the government can put as many guns as it wants anywhere any you seem to be fine with it.

I was talking about civillians. Although police and soldiers weren't given guns to deal with gun violence.

farson135:

There is a very big difference between the Lone Ranger and the Punisher.

But is there that much of a difference between The Punisher and the Dirty Harry/Death Wish movies?

OT: Gotta say, his statements are pretty inane. He is just trying to deflect blame from the gun lobby to some other source. Basically, he is assisting many in the media in the creation of a scapegoat so they can keep on selling assault rifles. -_-

I just read an article over at Kotaku on the NRA condemning Video Games and one of the comments struck me; if you add Security Officers to Schools, where does it stop? People start shooting up malls, do you add Security Officers to every mall in America? People start shooting up parks, do you add armed security officers to every Park in America? Does it end when everyone in America takes a gun everywhere they go?

I'm sorry, I can't see how adding more guns to the country is the way to go when the US already has more guns than cars. For the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world, having such a problem with gun violence that you're resorting to armed guards outside schools shows just how fucked up the situation has gotten, especially since (and I'll keep hammering this point in until people get it) no other first world country has resorted to such extreme measures. Not even Israel, who are surronded on all sides with people who have invaded them at one point or another and has long-standing problems with terrorism, have gone to the extreme of putting armed guards in every school. The worst they got was when they allowed Teachers in schools that were essentially in war zones to carry guns. Last time I checked nowhere in the US was close to being a warzone, yet LaPierre wants to put armed guards everywhere.

EDIT: Some relevant statistics on the use of weapons in murder cases:

For 2009;

Assault (homicide)............... (*U01-*U02,X85-Y09,Y87.1)
16,799
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms .....(*U01.4,X93-X95)
11,493
Assault (homicide) by other and unspecified means and
their sequelae .......... (*U01.0-*U01.3,*U01.5-*U01.9,*U02,
X85-X92,X96-Y09,Y87.1)
5,306

Source - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf (Page 39 Table 10)

Overall:

[quote]Homicides by Weapon Type

Year, Handgun, Other gun, Knife, Blunt object, Other


1976 8,651 3,328 3,343 912 2,546
1977 8,563 3,391 3,648 900 2,618
1978 8,879 3,569 3,685 937 2,490
1979 9,858 3,732 4,121 1,039 2,710
1980 10,552 3,834 4,439 1,153 3,061
1981 10,324 3,740 4,364 1,166 2,927
1982 9,137 3,501 4,383 1,032 2,957
1983 8,472 2,794 4,214 1,098 2,731
1984 8,183 2,835 3,956 1,090 2,626
1985 8,165 2,973 3,996 1,051 2,794
1986 9,054 3,126 4,235 1,176 3,018
1987 8,781 3,094 4,076 1,169 2,980
1988 9,375 3,162 3,978 1,296 2,869
1989 10,225 3,197 3,923 1,279 2,877
1990 11,677 3,395 4,077 1,254 3,037
1991 13,101 3,277 3,909 1,252 3,161
1992 13,158 3,043 3,447 1,088 3,024
1993 13,981 3,094 3,140 1,082 3,233
1994 13,496 2,840 2,960 963 3,071
1995 12,050 2,679 2,731 981 3,169
1996 10,731 2,533 2,691 917 2,777
1997 9,705 2,631 2,363 833 2,678
1998 8,844 2,168 2,257 896 2,805
1999 7,943 2,174 2,042 902 2,461
2000 7,985 2,218 2,099 727 2,556
2001 7,900 2,239 2,090 776 3,032
2002 8,286 2,538 2,018 773 2,588
2003 8,830 2,223 2,085 745 2,645
2004 8,304 2,357 2,133 759 2,595
2005 8,478 2,868 2,147 671 2,528

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm - That one goes up to 2005.

As a full supporter of gun rights, here's my problem with the interview they did: They had all the facts on their side regarding an AWB and gun free zones with the recent Sandy shooting. But instead they chose to scapegoat it to violent media. Nevermind the fact that crimes have been dropping for 19 years now, neither guns nor media have anything to do with people murdering other people. Its something that has always happened. It will always happen. Guns and entertainment are just scapegoats.

And the part about putting guards in school, that seems a little extreme. I believe we should just get rid of gun free zones, allow teachers, who volunteer and have gone through training, to be allowed to carry in schools. I would not like to see schools become like a prison.

CaptainChip:
As a full supporter of gun rights, here's my problem with the interview they did: They had all the facts on their side regarding an AWB and gun free zones with the recent Sandy shooting. But instead they chose to scapegoat it to violent media. Nevermind the fact that crimes have been dropping for 19 years now, neither guns nor media have anything to do with people murdering other people. Its something that has always happened. It will always happen. Guns and entertainment are just scapegoats.

And the part about putting guards in school, that seems a little extreme. I believe we should just get rid of gun free zones, allow teachers, who volunteer and have gone through training, to be allowed to carry in schools. I would not like to see schools become like a prison.

I have a question: how do you respond to the fact that in Australia and the UK they have restricted guns to a much further degree than the US has, and subsequently the amount of gun homicides dropped significantly and the death toll of rampages dropped?

Yes murders still happen in these countries, but the death toll of rampages has clearly and unquestionably dropped in these countries. None of these countries require armed teachers in schools; even Israel, which again has long-standing problems with terrorism, only allows guns in schools in the most extreme situations. Why are guns even needed in schools if guns aren't a problem in the US? No army is going to invade anytime in this decade, terrorist actions on US soil are overwhelmingly rare, yet somehow the answer to "school massacres" is "arm teachers" instead of "stop people from going on gun massacres."

Blablahb:
That guy needs to eat his socks in shame and keep quiet. It shows of a shameless disregard for the relatives of the children killed in that school shooting that he just blames videogames, and then proposes that bringing firearms violence into every classroom will solve that.

Kids just died because of that. Even if they believe more violence in classrooms is better they should know when to shut up and show some respect.

Coming from the guy who politicizes every tragedy and ignores the real issues at work.

I'm yet to run across the first glorification of that guy. Quite frankly I think that anyone who seriously believes that should have their head examined; there has to be something wired wrong up there if they were able to miss the huge outcry over the violence.

What is the shooters name? He will live on through his name and y'all are perpetuating it.

In fact, the only ones glorifying violence are the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby.

Coming from the guy who admits to assaulting his co-worker over a joke.

Shaoken:
Money isn't liable to grab guns off of a guard, money doesn't get paranoid about people with guns being at the front door.

So you are going to pretend that banks are staffed solely with money.

As for him proposing it as A solution instead of the solution;

"I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation,"

That sounds like a demand, not a call to discuss the issue.

So calling to do something means that there is only one solution. Do you actually believe that?

And how the fuck do you know what he wanted? Are you a mind reader? Do you ahve information we don't? Because last time I checked nobody knows what sparked things.

I have a gift for pattern recognition.

And what else do you want the media to do? Refuse to cover news? You want them to supress the truth because it goes against what you think is right?

No, actually I want them to do what many experts have recommended. Say what happened but do not dwell on it. Do not show elaborate scenes and spend hours discussing every little detail. Do not show the killers picture regularly but instead concentrate on the victims. Try not to even mention the killer's name. And on.

How the fuck is reporting the facts glorifying anything?

Glory: praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent.

You will remember his face and his name for decades to come. That is one hell of a distinction for someone who few had even heard of two weeks ago.

As someone who has followed the Punisher for years I can tell you that he's not glorified in the vast majority of comics. Even in his best comics he's depicted as causing more problems than he solves, and they had to tone down his gun-happy ways in other comics.

Hardly glorification.

Glory: praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent

So what, suppress facts?

No, shift the narrative.

And how the fuck have the media made him a legend?

What he has done will be remembered and he will be a model from which other will follow.

Tell me do you remember the name of hte last mass shooter before him? What about the one before that? Can you tell me off the top of your head who was behind Virgina Tech, who planned Columbine, who the DC snipers were?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Give it 6 months and nobody will be able to remember his name without looking it up. Some Legend.

Right. YOU may want to believe that but those of us in the real world know that Klebold and Harris as well as Cho are still remembered.

First, the Romans didn't do that to Mass Murders

They did to mass murderers.

they did that to someone who pissed off the Ceaser of the day and murdered people just to make sure. And this was in a day and age where going from one city to the next was difficult enough. Now days I can talk to someone on the opposite side of the world instantly and news travels as fast as thought. So I don't think we should be taking examples from an ancient empire whose standard method of dealing with people was to nail them to crosses so they would take days to die.

I was making the point that we make sure that these killers are remembered. They did not.

Honestly, you're the only one here who cares about the distinction.

In your opinion. If you care so much about facts then maybe you should start using some instead of just spouting lies that suit your narrative.

And you have no proof to the contrary

Actually I do. If you watch the video below you will see a video from 20/20 called "If Only I had A Gun". It is an unbelievably biased report that does everything it can to discredit the idea behind self defense. It takes three students, arms them with a paint pistol, and sticks them in a room without telling them what is going on. They have a simulated shooting where a police RSO walks in and start shooting. Problem, the students are all sitting in the same exact location each and every time. So the officer knows where they are. Also, the first two students know virtually nothing about firearms. The third one does know quite a bit but they decide to fuck him and put a second guy immediately behind him. In other words, they were given absolutely no chance of success and put into a situation where no one could have reasonably expected to have succeeded. So why do I bring this up?

All three fought back.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540

but there is a reason why Police and Soldiers need training to break down the resistence to killing people, and to operate in a high stress environment. Teachers don't have that training.

That only matters AFTER the shot is fired. Soldiers are trained to deal with the after affects. Killing a human when your life is in immediate appreciable danger is instinctive. We would be a failure as a species if it was not.

And there's enough evidence out there of people freezing like a deer in headlights in high-stress situations.

And there is more than enough evidence showing that when your life is in immediate appreciable danger you will react.

Fuck this massacre started when he murdered someone else and stole their guns.

Didn't happen in a school.

Concealed doesn't equal invisible, you can notice someone carrying a concealed weapon if it's not hidden enough or you know what to look for. And if you're witnessing someone carry one five days a week, you'll be able to find a pattern. And if every teacher has a gun like some people are suggesting, well then finding one won't be that hard.

Really? Can you spot a CHL? I can because I see it every day. You on the other hand are likely talking out of your ass. Can you name every form of concealed carry on the open market? Go for it. If you cannot then you cannot identify if a person is concealed carrying because you do not even know where to look.

Also, no kid has took a gun away from a security officer and their school because most people are smart enough to know that putting security officers at schools in a first world country is a retarded idea.

It already happens.

A-Fucking-Gain, if America implemented this they would be the only first world country in the world to do so.

No, many schools add security officers.

Since you ignored it in the last thread, even countries like Israel only have teachers carrying guns if that school happens to be inside what amounts to a war zone, and even then it's not comparable to US conceal carry laws.

Did I ignore that or are you just making shit up (hint: the latter).

I was talking about civillians.

That is exactly what I said.

Although police and soldiers weren't given guns to deal with gun violence.

Really? Do you actually believe even half of what you wrote in this post?

Shaoken:
I have a question: how do you respond to the fact that in Australia and the UK they have restricted guns to a much further degree than the US has, and subsequently the amount of gun homicides dropped significantly and the death toll of rampages dropped?

Significantly? The amount of homicides in the US has also dropped significantly while the gun ownership rate has risen.

Yes murders still happen in these countries, but the death toll of rampages has clearly and unquestionably dropped in these countries.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/quakers-hill-home-fire-toll-tops-20-20120214-1t49v.html

And those are just the two that I know of.

yet somehow the answer to "school massacres" is "arm teachers" instead of "stop people from going on gun massacres."

You view those areas as mutually exclusive. That is your failing.

BreakfastMan:
But is there that much of a difference between The Punisher and the Dirty Harry/Death Wish movies?

Don't know. I probably have not seen those two movies in more than a decade. I do not even remember the plot.

He is just trying to deflect blame from the gun lobby to some other source.

Media perpetuates violence by glorifying violence. That is a common idea.

Basically, he is assisting many in the media in the creation of a scapegoat so they can keep on selling assault rifles. -_-

Assault rifles? The NRA generally does not care about assault rifles and most people do not really care about them anyway because legally purchased assault rifles are never used in crime by civilians in the US.

Shaoken:

CaptainChip:
As a full supporter of gun rights, here's my problem with the interview they did: They had all the facts on their side regarding an AWB and gun free zones with the recent Sandy shooting. But instead they chose to scapegoat it to violent media. Nevermind the fact that crimes have been dropping for 19 years now, neither guns nor media have anything to do with people murdering other people. Its something that has always happened. It will always happen. Guns and entertainment are just scapegoats.

And the part about putting guards in school, that seems a little extreme. I believe we should just get rid of gun free zones, allow teachers, who volunteer and have gone through training, to be allowed to carry in schools. I would not like to see schools become like a prison.

I have a question: how do you respond to the fact that in Australia and the UK they have restricted guns to a much further degree than the US has, and subsequently the amount of gun homicides dropped significantly and the death toll of rampages dropped?

First of all, never just account for gun homicides. Always account for total homicides. Because if the same amount of people are just getting stabbed instead of shot, then you've solved absolutely nothing. Secondly, in those countries, when guns were banned, crimes shot up. The UK has the most violent crimes in the EU, and even more than the US. Australia also had their crime rate go up as well.

Yes murders still happen in these countries, but the death toll of rampages has clearly and unquestionably dropped in these countries. None of these countries require armed teachers in schools; even Israel, which again has long-standing problems with terrorism, only allows guns in schools in the most extreme situations. Why are guns even needed in schools if guns aren't a problem in the US? No army is going to invade anytime in this decade, terrorist actions on US soil are overwhelmingly rare, yet somehow the answer to "school massacres" is "arm teachers" instead of "stop people from going on gun massacres."

Well, the record for most kills from a single solo spree killer is the Norway shootings from 2011, and Norway has really strict gun laws. And Czech Republic, who have extremely lax guns laws, have a 1.7 homicide rate. When you compare countries you have to understand that other countries aren't just America but without guns, there are a metric shit-ton of differences between the US and EU to compare shootings with. Poverty rates, health rates, history, etc. And also, I'm not saying "guns should be required in schools". I'm saying teachers and principals should be allowed to volunteer to have guns in schools. I remember like, a year ago, some kid tried to shoot up a school, and a principal had a shotgun in his room, and shoot the kid before he could kill anyone. I'll try to find a link for you if I can.

So, what do you propose that would stop shootings?

This is where the big government authoritarianism right wingers are so in favour of comes in again. Instead of regulating things properly and leaving people alone to live their lives in peace, they want to introduce guards, watchmen, overseers everywhere and militarize people. Let me guess, the next step is to give guards vaginal probing rights to determine virginal status of the girls. I have nothing but hatred for the NRA, they don't represent the people, they don't represent their own members, they only represent gun manufacturers and moralistic authoritarian big government right wing politicians.

farson135:

Blablahb:
That guy needs to eat his socks in shame and keep quiet. It shows of a shameless disregard for the relatives of the children killed in that school shooting that he just blames videogames, and then proposes that bringing firearms violence into every classroom will solve that.

Kids just died because of that. Even if they believe more violence in classrooms is better they should know when to shut up and show some respect.

Coming from the guy who politicizes every tragedy and ignores the real issues at work.

I'm yet to run across the first glorification of that guy. Quite frankly I think that anyone who seriously believes that should have their head examined; there has to be something wired wrong up there if they were able to miss the huge outcry over the violence.

What is the shooters name? He will live on through his name and y'all are perpetuating it.

In fact, the only ones glorifying violence are the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby.

Coming from the guy who admits to assaulting his co-worker over a joke.

Two Ad Honimum attacks (going after the speaker and not his argumet) and aruging against a strawman (has anyone in this thread even typed out the man's name?). Yep, you're sticking to your intellectual dishonesty well and true.

Shaoken:
Money isn't liable to grab guns off of a guard, money doesn't get paranoid about people with guns being at the front door.

So you are going to pretend that banks are staffed solely with money.

Last time I checked men don't hold up banks to kill people, they hold up banks to steal it's contents.

Apples and orranges. A bank is not a school which is not a military bases.

As for him proposing it as A solution instead of the solution;

"I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation,"

That sounds like a demand, not a call to discuss the issue.

So calling to do something means that there is only one solution. Do you actually believe that?

He's not calling on them to discuss the issue, he's calling on them to implement his solution. He's the one who propossed the solution and said that anyone oppossed to it is risking the lives of children. That is a pretty big indiciation that he only thinks his solution is the right one and wants that one implemented, since he outright said "if you listened to be in 2007 there's a good chance those 26 people would be alive."

And how the fuck do you know what he wanted? Are you a mind reader? Do you ahve information we don't? Because last time I checked nobody knows what sparked things.

I have a gift for pattern recognition.

And for dishonesty. Most people don't murder others for the fame.

And what else do you want the media to do? Refuse to cover news? You want them to supress the truth because it goes against what you think is right?

No, actually I want them to do what many experts have recommended. Say what happened but do not dwell on it. Do not show elaborate scenes and spend hours discussing every little detail. Do not show the killers picture regularly but instead concentrate on the victims. Try not to even mention the killer's name. And on.

26 people are dead in a school shooting but you don't want them to dwell on it? Don't spend hours discussing a tragedy that happened...do you even know how human beings react to tragedy to begin with? Suppress the killers identity because they [i]might[/b] be after the fame, despite the public having a right to know? How the fuck does that make a difference? Will school massacres stop if mentally deranged people realise that their name will only be mentioned some times and not all the time?

How the fuck is reporting the facts glorifying anything?

Glory: praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent.

Nobody is praising him, nobody is honouring him, nobody but you is giving him any distinctions.

You will remember his face and his name for decades to come. That is one hell of a distinction for someone who few had even heard of two weeks ago.

Prove it. Because I can barely remember what the V-Tech killer's face looked like and that was only 5 years ago, I've seen Bowling for Columbine three times, read the TV Tropes page on the massacre this year and I couldn't tell you the name or faces of the two killers, I have no idea who the hell was behind Fort Hood, The Port Arthur Massacre was 15 years ago and a lot closer than anything that happened in the States yet the only reason why I can remember the killer's first name was William was because I wiked it an hour ago.

Yeah, your argument is bullshit. This si what, the fourth case this year of a mass shooting? Tell me, what was the name of the guy who shot up that movie theatre, the guy calling himself the Joker? Tell me without looking. Because apparantly I'll remember this guy's name and face for decades (even though I don't know his name or his face), so logically you'd know that man's name and face.

And your argument is entirely invalid ayway since the police do have to release the suspects name and picture in their inquiry of the crime. What, do you want the media to ignore that too? Would you like them to ignore anything else while you're at it?

As someone who has followed the Punisher for years I can tell you that he's not glorified in the vast majority of comics. Even in his best comics he's depicted as causing more problems than he solves, and they had to tone down his gun-happy ways in other comics.

Hardly glorification.

Glory: praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent

Good for you, you know how to use a dictionary. Now try using some critical thinking and explain and prove with evidence your arguments instead of using strawmen and ad honimum arguments.

So what, suppress facts?

No, shift the narrative.

Manipulate the narrative. So suppress facts. Nice doublespeak.

And how the fuck have the media made him a legend?

What he has done will be remembered and he will be a model from which other will follow.

No more than any other mass murdered in American history. You yanks have quite the number to chose from, what you average a gun massacre a year or six months or something?

Tell me do you remember the name of hte last mass shooter before him? What about the one before that? Can you tell me off the top of your head who was behind Virgina Tech, who planned Columbine, who the DC snipers were?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Bullshit. Because if you did, you would have listed them.

So again, without cheating, who was the one behind the movie theatre shooting, whoever the guy before him was, the guy who tried to kill that Senator, the man behind Fort Hood, V-Tech, Columbine, the name of the two DC snipers, etc. etc. etc.

Face it, nobody cares who the fuck they were. They were a novelty for a month, another American psychopath. And then they were forgotten about and ignored by the media when people got their fill of that tragedy. They're barely worth trivia questions.

Give it 6 months and nobody will be able to remember his name without looking it up. Some Legend.

Right. YOU may want to believe that but those of us in the real world know that Klebold and Harris as well as Cho are still remembered.

Ah, so you did know. Tell me, did you go and look it up wikipedia? Do you know what Cho's first or last name is?

I'm sorry (well not really), but I think you're a liar.

First, the Romans didn't do that to Mass Murders

They did to mass murderers.

How would you know, plenty of mass murderers from that time made it to the modern day. And since they erased that person from history (through means to primiative for our modern world) how would you even know what they did?

they did that to someone who pissed off the Ceaser of the day and murdered people just to make sure. And this was in a day and age where going from one city to the next was difficult enough. Now days I can talk to someone on the opposite side of the world instantly and news travels as fast as thought. So I don't think we should be taking examples from an ancient empire whose standard method of dealing with people was to nail them to crosses so they would take days to die.

I was making the point that we make sure that these killers are remembered. They did not.

Except for that murderer whom was placed next to Jesus and was freed instead of him. That guy's in a best selling book.

And you can't really make that point because how many individual Romans do we know of who weren't Ceasers or generals or important figures of the day?

Honestly, you're the only one here who cares about the distinction.

In your opinion. If you care so much about facts then maybe you should start using some instead of just spouting lies that suit your narrative.

And the pot is calling the kettle black. The same man who does not care about the distinction between Israeli gun policy and American gun policy, only that some Israeli teachers carry guns therefore it's a perfectly okay idea.

And you have no proof to the contrary

Actually I do. If you watch the video below you will see a video from 20/20 called "If Only I had A Gun". It is an unbelievably biased report that does everything it can to discredit the idea behind self defense. It takes three students, arms them with a paint pistol, and sticks them in a room without telling them what is going on. They have a simulated shooting where a police RSO walks in and start shooting. Problem, the students are all sitting in the same exact location each and every time. So the officer knows where they are. Also, the first two students know virtually nothing about firearms. The third one does know quite a bit but they decide to fuck him and put a second guy immediately behind him. In other words, they were given absolutely no chance of success and put into a situation where no one could have reasonably expected to have succeeded. So why do I bring this up?

All three fought back.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540

So you're saying a controlled test where there was no actual threat of death or danger, no life or death, none of those highly stressful factors that are so troublesome, some students fought back?

Following that logic those three should be given real guns and thrown straight into Afganistan, they're clearly capable of surviving in that environment.

Furthermore, why would you give a student a paint pistol? What possible reasons could there be to use it? Those students knew ahead of time what was going on because duh, why else would someone give them paint pistols? To sit in class and do absolutely nothing out of the ordinary?

You really don't understand what this evidence thing is.

but there is a reason why Police and Soldiers need training to break down the resistence to killing people, and to operate in a high stress environment. Teachers don't have that training.

That only matters AFTER the shot is fired. Soldiers are trained to deal with the after affects. Killing a human when your life is in immediate appreciable danger is instinctive. We would be a failure as a species if it was not.

Society at large has made the practice of actually killing someone yourself such a taboo it's against our nature. We don't need to kill anyone, it's not a natural state for us. So again, a man walks into a room with a gun drawn, that first teacher is dead on account of not being able to pull out a gun fast enough. Most people will either freeze of panic after the shot is fired. So again, how exactly is a teacher going to be of the best use in that situation? They're not trained to handle firefights, most people tend to act badly when the fight-or-flight instinct kicks in, hence why the military breaks down soldiers so that they default to their training instead of their basic instincts.

And there's enough evidence out there of people freezing like a deer in headlights in high-stress situations.

And there is more than enough evidence showing that when your life is in immediate appreciable danger you will react.

React? Yes. React in a way conductive to the task at hand? I would not bet my life on that.

Fuck this massacre started when he murdered someone else and stole their guns.

Didn't happen in a school.

So what, teachers are going to be so great at keeping ssomeone from stealing their guns? Are they going to walk around all day paranoid that someone might try and jump them to steal their weapon?

Guns get stolen because people get complacent. There are 6.4 million teachers give or take in the US. Even if you gave half of them guns, statistically one of them is going to fuck up.

Concealed doesn't equal invisible, you can notice someone carrying a concealed weapon if it's not hidden enough or you know what to look for. And if you're witnessing someone carry one five days a week, you'll be able to find a pattern. And if every teacher has a gun like some people are suggesting, well then finding one won't be that hard.

Really? Can you spot a CHL? I can because I see it every day. You on the other hand are likely talking out of your ass. Can you name every form of concealed carry on the open market? Go for it. If you cannot then you cannot identify if a person is concealed carrying because you do not even know where to look.

First off, since teachers and schools don't have the biggest budget to buy different kind of holsters, the gun will be concealed in the same place day in and day out. So someone who spends day in and day out with that teachers will be able to identify where the gun isn't. And there are only so many places where you can conceal a gun, and students are going to be very familar with you by the mid-year point.

What did you say their names were Harris and that other kid? They spent months planning it, did you think maybe they did some research on it? Did some planning? If their teachers were carrying concealed weapons, don't you think they might have done a little bit more homework and made sure that these teachers, whom they saw with great frequency, were or weren't carrying?

Like you admitted, you see it every day. The whole point behind concealed carry is to make people be unsure if a person is carrying a weapon, the point is rendered null and void if you're familar enough with that person to know what's going on.

Besides all that, what is the point of giving teachers guns? How many school massacres happen a year? One, with usually a few years inbetween incidents. Nothing like an over-reaction to fuck up the situation.

Also, no kid has took a gun away from a security officer and their school because most people are smart enough to know that putting security officers at schools in a first world country is a retarded idea.

It already happens.

Yeah, in Israel. Specifically, In warzone Israel. Last time I checked terrorists were nothing but an anonmoly in the US, seeing as you've had what, two sucessful terrorist attacks in two decades? Compared to the multiple attacks per year Israel had, and even they have restricted Guns to a point beyond what my country does.

A-Fucking-Gain, if America implemented this they would be the only first world country in the world to do so.

No, many schools add security officers.

Yeah, in America. I've never seen a security officer here in Australia, I've never heard of a security officer here either, or in the UK, or in Germany, or France, and a-fucking-gain since you ignore the facts, the only first world country besides America to have guns in schools are schools that are actually in zones where terrorists from another nation can strike. I don't think Mexico is going to be gunning for Texas and California anytime soon, and I'm sure many Canadians are in no rush to head south.

Although police and soldiers weren't given guns to deal with gun violence.

Really? Do you actually believe even half of what you wrote in this post?

Yes. You don't go "hmm, this place has a lot of guns, let's send soldiers there." You go "hey, this place is threatening us/harbouring terroists/has shit we want, let's go invade them." And with guns as regulated as they are here, police don't carry guns to fight other people with guns, they carry gunsbecause it gives them an advantage over knifemen or violent drunks.

farson135:

BreakfastMan:
But is there that much of a difference between The Punisher and the Dirty Harry/Death Wish movies?

Don't know. I probably have not seen those two movies in more than a decade. I do not even remember the plot.

Dirty Harry: Cop decides to take law into his own hands and brutalizes criminals to get what he wants.

Death Wish: Guy's wife and daughter are raped and killed. He becomes a vigilante and starts murdering criminals in cold blood. He is treated as a hero.

Both are considered classic action films and both peddle absolutely horrid ideas.

He is just trying to deflect blame from the gun lobby to some other source.

Media perpetuates violence by glorifying violence. That is a common idea.

Common ideas are not always right.

Basically, he is assisting many in the media in the creation of a scapegoat so they can keep on selling assault rifles. -_-

Assault rifles? The NRA generally does not care about assault rifles and most people do not really care about them anyway because legally purchased assault rifles are never used in crime by civilians in the US.

Type of gun used in the Sandy Hook killings: a Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle. This weapon was legally purchased by the mother of the family. Source.

That attack in the theater in Colorado earlier this year? Same gun. Also legal. Source.

CaptainChip:

Shaoken:

CaptainChip:
As a full supporter of gun rights, here's my problem with the interview they did: They had all the facts on their side regarding an AWB and gun free zones with the recent Sandy shooting. But instead they chose to scapegoat it to violent media. Nevermind the fact that crimes have been dropping for 19 years now, neither guns nor media have anything to do with people murdering other people. Its something that has always happened. It will always happen. Guns and entertainment are just scapegoats.

And the part about putting guards in school, that seems a little extreme. I believe we should just get rid of gun free zones, allow teachers, who volunteer and have gone through training, to be allowed to carry in schools. I would not like to see schools become like a prison.

I have a question: how do you respond to the fact that in Australia and the UK they have restricted guns to a much further degree than the US has, and subsequently the amount of gun homicides dropped significantly and the death toll of rampages dropped?

First of all, never just account for gun homicides. Always account for total homicides. Because if the same amount of people are just getting stabbed instead of shot, then you've solved absolutely nothing. Secondly, in those countries, when guns were banned, crimes shot up. The UK has the most violent crimes in the EU, and even more than the US. Australia also had their crime rate go up as well.

Yeah, and our homicide rates went down too. People moved to knives, bottles and fists because guns were too much hassle to make practical for the criminal element. One man with a gun can kill many unarmed people. One man with a knife will kill less people in the same situation (assuming that said people have full range of motion. A bunch of restrained people are going to be hard pressed to offer much to make a difference no matter what weapon or lack therefore is present).

Yes murders still happen in these countries, but the death toll of rampages has clearly and unquestionably dropped in these countries. None of these countries require armed teachers in schools; even Israel, which again has long-standing problems with terrorism, only allows guns in schools in the most extreme situations. Why are guns even needed in schools if guns aren't a problem in the US? No army is going to invade anytime in this decade, terrorist actions on US soil are overwhelmingly rare, yet somehow the answer to "school massacres" is "arm teachers" instead of "stop people from going on gun massacres."

Well, the record for most kills from a single solo spree killer is the Norway shootings from 2011, and Norway has really strict gun laws. And Czech Republic, who have extremely lax guns laws, have a 1.7 homicide rate. When you compare countries you have to understand that other countries aren't just America but without guns, there are a metric shit-ton of differences between the US and EU to compare shootings with. Poverty rates, health rates, history, etc. And also, I'm not saying "guns should be required in schools". I'm saying teachers and principals should be allowed to volunteer to have guns in schools. I remember like, a year ago, some kid tried to shoot up a school, and a principal had a shotgun in his room, and shoot the kid before he could kill anyone. I'll try to find a link for you if I can.

So, what do you propose that would stop shootings?

Let's see:

* Fix your government systems to avoid this partisan bullshit clogging it up
* Fix up the loopholes to keep track of guns being sold by private re-sellers (biggest cause of weapons winding up in the Cartel's hands in Mexico. Granted, that's another problem entirely)
* Require the use of Gun Safes to stop the number of "stolen" firearms being reported each year.
* Enforce gun free zones and drop down hard on those who violate it.
* End the fucking love affair some of the crazier elements of US society have with guns and start treating them with the respect killing machines deserve.
* Stop treating drug abuse as a criminal matter and start treating it is a medical problem that needs a medical solution.
* Start reforming your prison system to focus more on reablitation than punishment, because you have too many people in your prisons who keep getting sent to them.

Really, you have a massive amount of problems that contribute. More than we could get into here.

Skeleon:
This is where the big government authoritarianism right wingers are so in favour of comes in again. Instead of regulating things properly and leaving people alone to live their lives in peace, they want to introduce guards, watchmen, overseers everywhere and militarize people.

Let me get this straight, you want to regulate things in order to let people live in peace? Nice contradiction.

Let me guess, the next step is to give guards vaginal probing rights to determine virginal status of the girls.

Wow, go from security guards in schools to sexual assault. That is a jump worth of Blablahb.

I have nothing but hatred for the NRA

Hatred for an organization that represents millions of people. Nice.

they don't represent the people

Right, because a membership base of 4.3 million people is not representative of a broad trend in a society of 300 million people. No individual group is representative of all Americans but 4.3 million out of 300 million is a lot of people.

they don't represent their own members

I suppose it is a good thing that the NRA has the power to force people to be members then right? Oh wait.

they only represent gun manufacturers

You mean like Ruger? The guys who supported the initial Assault Weapon Ban.

and moralistic authoritarian big government right wing politicians.

Citation. Ron Paul has an A rating.

Shaoken:
Two Ad Honimum attacks (going after the speaker and not his argumet) and aruging against a strawman (has anyone in this thread even typed out the man's name?). Yep, you're sticking to your intellectual dishonesty well and true.

And an Ad Hominem attack from you. And you are continuing to miss the point. Congrads for consistency.

Last time I checked men don't hold up banks to kill people, they hold up banks to steal it's contents.

And how does that prove your argument is less of a fallacy?

He's not calling on them to discuss the issue, he's calling on them to implement his solution. He's the one who propossed the solution and said that anyone oppossed to it is risking the lives of children. That is a pretty big indiciation that he only thinks his solution is the right one and wants that one implemented, since he outright said "if you listened to be in 2007 there's a good chance those 26 people would be alive."

Once again, do you actually believe that bullshit? Proposing one solution is not the same as stating it is the only solution.

And for dishonesty.

Report.

Most people don't murder others for the fame.

Really? People who feel they have been ostracized generally want to get back at the society that has "wronged" them. And doing so in a spectacular way makes them more "real" and important in their view.

26 people are dead in a school shooting but you don't want them to dwell on it? Don't spend hours discussing a tragedy that happened...do you even know how human beings react to tragedy to begin with?

Considering I am a human being yes I do. And is all of this helping anything?

A few days ago a young boy brought a gun to school to protect himself from a shooting. You are scaring the living shit out of people. How in the fuck is that helpful? Stirring up righteous anger does not lead to a calm and rational response. It leads to the Patriot Act.

Suppress the killers identity because they [i]might[/b] be after the fame, despite the public having a right to know? How the fuck does that make a difference? Will school massacres stop if mentally deranged people realise that their name will only be mentioned some times and not all the time?

Try actually studying the psychology behind these incidents instead of just attacking people.

Nobody is praising him, nobody is honouring him, nobody but you is giving him any distinctions.

Being remembered for decades to come sounds like a distinction to me.

Prove it. Because I can barely remember what the V-Tech killer's face looked like and that was only 5 years ago, I've seen Bowling for Columbine three times, read the TV Tropes page on the massacre this year and I couldn't tell you the name or faces of the two killers, I have no idea who the hell was behind Fort Hood, The Port Arthur Massacre was 15 years ago and a lot closer than anything that happened in the States yet the only reason why I can remember the killer's first name was William was because I wiked it an hour ago.

So your inattention is proof of what? The vast majority of people can and do remember them.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/20120806montini0807-remembering-mass-murder-victim-not-killer.html

Yeah, your argument is bullshit. This si what, the fourth case this year of a mass shooting? Tell me, what was the name of the guy who shot up that movie theatre, the guy calling himself the Joker? Tell me without looking. Because apparantly I'll remember this guy's name and face for decades (even though I don't know his name or his face), so logically you'd know that man's name and face.

Easy James Holmes. He is the guy with the orange hair at the trial.

Once again, your inability to remember this guy is irrelevant. Most other people can. In the grand scheme of things you are irrelevant.

And your argument is entirely invalid ayway since the police do have to release the suspects name and picture in their inquiry of the crime. What, do you want the media to ignore that too? Would you like them to ignore anything else while you're at it?

And you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Go ahead and quote the part where I said to ignore all of those things. I will wait.

Good for you, you know how to use a dictionary. Now try using some critical thinking and explain and prove with evidence your arguments instead of using strawmen and ad honimum arguments.

Do you know what a distinction is? Apparently not- A distinguishing factor, attribute, or characteristic.

Manipulate the narrative. So suppress facts. Nice doublespeak.

So in other words by talking about the victims instead of the killer you are manipulating the narrative and suppressing facts. You live in a weird world.

Bullshit. Because if you did, you would have listed them.

And if I had listed them you would have accused me of looking them up.

So again, without cheating, who was the one behind

Forgive spelling-

movie theatre shooting

Holmes.

whoever the guy before him was,

Probably the Oakland shooter, One Goh.

the guy who tried to kill that Senator

I assume you are talking about the Tucson Shooter, Jared Lougner

the man behind Fort Hood

Nedal Hassan (I think I misspelled that).

V-Tech

Seung-Hui Cho

Columbine

I already did that in my last post. Klebold and Harris.

the name of the two DC snipers

John Muhammad and something Malvo.

Face it, nobody cares who the fuck they were. They were a novelty for a month, another American psychopath. And then they were forgotten about and ignored by the media when people got their fill of that tragedy. They're barely worth trivia questions.

In your opinion. However, they are remembered.

I'm sorry (well not really), but I think you're a liar.

You are entitled to your opinion but unfortunately for you, you are not entitled to your own facts.

How would you know, plenty of mass murderers from that time made it to the modern day. And since they erased that person from history (through means to primiative for our modern world) how would you even know what they did?

This is why laymen should not discuss history.

Easy, read the history of the time, see where it mentioned mass murderers (usually tied to some cult), and then notice how everybody but the leader is mentioned.

And you can't really make that point because how many individual Romans do we know of who weren't Ceasers or generals or important figures of the day?

Plenty of writers. And once again, if they do not mention him then how is he remembered?

And the pot is calling the kettle black. The same man who does not care about the distinction between Israeli gun policy and American gun policy, only that some Israeli teachers carry guns therefore it's a perfectly okay idea.

Is that what I said? Feel free to quote where I said that. I will wait.

So you're saying a controlled test where there was no actual threat of death or danger, no life or death, none of those highly stressful factors that are so troublesome, some students fought back?

No, ALL of the students in the test fought back.

Following that logic those three should be given real guns and thrown straight into Afganistan, they're clearly capable of surviving in that environment.

Wow, and you accuse me of academic dishonesty. You know damn well that statement is bullshit and yet here we are.

Furthermore, why would you give a student a paint pistol? What possible reasons could there be to use it? Those students knew ahead of time what was going on because duh, why else would someone give them paint pistols? To sit in class and do absolutely nothing out of the ordinary?

Fucking wow. You did not even watch that video did you?

The participants were told they would not be doing the test until later in the day. To begin with they were going to practice concealed carrying and try on their protective equipment, etc for the test.

You really don't understand what this evidence thing is.

Nor do you.

Society at large has made the practice of actually killing someone yourself such a taboo it's against our nature. We don't need to kill anyone, it's not a natural state for us.

A new societal distinction does not overcome evolution.

So again, a man walks into a room with a gun drawn, that first teacher is dead on account of not being able to pull out a gun fast enough.

Your example is a situation where a person has no chance of success (they are already on their back foot and have no chance to respond) to prove that self defense is impossible.

Most people will either freeze of panic after the shot is fired.

Which is why during every security tape of a shooting we see people running around.

So again, how exactly is a teacher going to be of the best use in that situation? They're not trained to handle firefights, most people tend to act badly when the fight-or-flight instinct kicks in, hence why the military breaks down soldiers so that they default to their training instead of their basic instincts.

Have fun-

React? Yes. React in a way conductive to the task at hand? I would not bet my life on that.

I would-

So what, teachers are going to be so great at keeping ssomeone from stealing their guns? Are they going to walk around all day paranoid that someone might try and jump them to steal their weapon?

Find me a case where a CHL has a gun taken from his/her body without them attempting to draw first.

Guns get stolen because people get complacent. There are 6.4 million teachers give or take in the US. Even if you gave half of them guns, statistically one of them is going to fuck up.

You are way overestimating the number of teachers that would carry.

First off, since teachers and schools don't have the biggest budget to buy different kind of holsters, the gun will be concealed in the same place day in and day out. So someone who spends day in and day out with that teachers will be able to identify where the gun isn't.

Not all people wear holsters in the same place. Men have different standard carry positions than women.

And there are only so many places where you can conceal a gun, and students are going to be very familar with you by the mid-year point.

I count 53 standard locations (assuming the person is a woman wearing a suit with pockets and pants, so that I can cover both male and female forms). And that is assuming that they do not just put it in something else. And assuming they are wearing fairly standard clothing (so no trench coats). Can you tell me all of those locations?

Like you admitted, you see it every day. The whole point behind concealed carry is to make people be unsure if a person is carrying a weapon, the point is rendered null and void if you're familar enough with that person to know what's going on.

And you are not familiar enough to figure it out. What, do you think we walk around with a perfect gun imprint on our pants? Here is a CHL, can you tell me where she is carrying without cheating-

image

Besides all that, what is the point of giving teachers guns? How many school massacres happen a year? One, with usually a few years inbetween incidents. Nothing like an over-reaction to fuck up the situation.

The simple fact is that there is no reason to ban it. We allow concealed carry and there is no reason we should not allow it in the place that people spend 40 hours a week.

BreakfastMan:
Type of gun used in the Sandy Hook killings: a Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle. This weapon was legally purchased by the mother of the family. Source.

That attack in the theater in Colorado earlier this year? Same gun. Also legal. Source.

Neither of those are assault rifles.

farson135:
Let me get this straight, you want to regulate things in order to let people live in peace? Nice contradiction.

Not at all. It just goes to show how much we differ on what sort of control either of us are willing to accept. I certainly don't like the overly zealous safety-over-liberty approach the USA takes on so many issues, be that security in schools, airports, warrantless wiretapping, torture, indefinite detention and so on. I consider regulation much less infringing than actually putting authority on the ground. But for some reason, a lot of rightists seem to really like having guards, police and cameras on every corner, watching every move. It's a kind of authoritarianism I can't abide by. It's the kind of authority they like and worship.

Wow, go from security guards in schools to sexual assault. That is a jump worth of Blablahb.

Actually, no. It's merely an attack on big government right wingers, especially Social Conservatives. Do you honestly think these guards aren't going to be used to fulfil a role of morality police as well? We know these people and their creeping desire for further infringements on privacy and self-determination. Vaginal probing was merely an over-the-top example I used because a) we had actual rightist politicians argue for it in other Social Conservative debates and b) it's a nice representation of how infringing these people are and how much more infringing they would like to be if only they could.

Hatred for an organization that represents millions of people. Nice.

Kind of a nonsensical response considering I disputed in the first place that they represent all those people. If I agreed with the premise, maybe you'd have a point here.

I suppose it is a good thing that the NRA has the power to force people to be members then right? Oh wait.

What does that have to do with anything?
When even NRA members by a sizeable majority argue against, for example, criminals and people on the terrorist-watchlist having open access to guns and want background checks instead, yet the NRA leadership ensures lobbying-efforts towards open access to guns for everybody (EDIT: except people with a mental history; I guess they needed one group of scapegoats) and sales increases overall rather than sensible control, then they don't represent their members. Which is what I said. The NRA is about selling guns, simply as that. That's why concerns of their members are ignored. That's why I have nothing but hatred for the NRA, yet differentiated between it and its not-represented members as I did.

farson135:

BreakfastMan:
Type of gun used in the Sandy Hook killings: a Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle. This weapon was legally purchased by the mother of the family. Source.

That attack in the theater in Colorado earlier this year? Same gun. Also legal. Source.

Neither of those are assault rifles.

Oh, so you are just being nit-picky about the difference between the terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle". Wonderful. -_-

Only problem with this is security will likely be minimal, maybe only 1 or 2 guards for smaller schools, and they'll probably have an office near an entrance to keep an eye on who's coming and going. Where a gunman is going to go first? Exactly.

Security sounds good but short of a full scale security detail it's wouldn't do much to stop, or even deter, a gunman from carrying out an attack, if anything it'll just give him more weapons to use, prolonging the rampage.

farson135:

So your inattention is proof of what? The vast majority of people can and do remember them.

Ok then, which one of these three men was one of the Columbine shooters? And what was his name? Obviously no looking it up.

Now even if you can answer that what would you be willing to bet that more than 50% of random people on the street could as well? People don't hold onto names and faces if they're not important, we might remember a name, a feature or where the crime happened but people rarely remember all 3. Ask people in 5 years if it was Holmes or Lanza that shot up the movie theatre and you'll probably get a 50/50 split on answers. Most people will guess because they have no idea who they are anymore.

charge52:

Gorfias:

Legalizing concealed carry for teachers and admin at public schools should do it. I think the additional costs would be minimal. Stigmatizing the media is stupid. Like guns, millions watch movies, play games and they aren't nuts.

Krauthammer does state today in www.nationalreview.com that he used to comit those who seemed dangerous to themselves and others. Now that is very difficult.

That's bad for society, and bad for the mentally ill as well.

... First, we have to assume the teachers would even want to have guns with them at school, then we would have to train all of them.

Not all of them. Just some of them. Otherwise, schools are rampage safety zones. More in a second:

Shaoken:

Hell let's take a look at some rough stats from the '04 census there were 6.4 Million Teachers in the United States.

Again, you don't have to train 6.4 million teachers. Just enough of them to ensure schools are not rampage safe zones.

Some anecdotes: http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/14/do-civilians-armed-with-guns-ever-capture-kill-or-otherwise-stop-mass-shooters/

They manage to arm teachers is Israel. I'm betting we can do so here too.

farson135:

Shaoken:
Two Ad Honimum attacks (going after the speaker and not his argumet) and aruging against a strawman (has anyone in this thread even typed out the man's name?). Yep, you're sticking to your intellectual dishonesty well and true.

And an Ad Hominem attack from you. And you are continuing to miss the point. Congrads for consistency.

I'm not dismissing your argument because you're the one making it. I'm dismissing your argument because it's bullshit. I'm pointing out that you routinely engagine in ad honimum attacks and the distortion

Last time I checked men don't hold up banks to kill people, they hold up banks to steal it's contents.

And how does that prove your argument is less of a fallacy?

You have security guards to guard a bank because there are plenty of people out there who would want to steal it's contents.

You don't have security guards to guard a school because A) it has a negative effect on children's mental growth, B) Zero Tolerance policies are bullshit and never worked, and C) So far there have been what, over the course of 15 years 4 school shootings? Terrible, but statistically speaking guards are unnessicary. Banks got robbed very frequently (comparatively) during the 20s, and people still try to rob banks and other such places for money. Guards are just a waste of time and money when simplier solutions will yield better results, the amount of people deranged enough to shoot up schools is very low.

Once again, do you actually believe that bullshit? Proposing one solution is not the same as stating it is the only solution.

He came out swinging, refused to answer questions, basically pulled a "I told you so" by mentioning that he brought this up five years ago after V-Tech and clearly implied that had people listened to him the man would have been killed/stopped at the door.

What was it you said? You had Pattern Regonition? Well the NRA has constantly refused any and all talk of increased gun control, so what solution could he be open to?

Report.

I'm assuming you meaned Reported, as in you hit the report button on me. That's fine. But you are dishonest, back in the "guns for teachers" thread you used the fact that teachers had guns in Thailand and Israel as proof that such an idea works, and whenever someone repeatedly pointed out to you that the situations are not comparable you kept saying "I only said that teachers can ahve guns in Thailand and Israel, which they do."

Really? People who feel they have been ostracized generally want to get back at the society that has "wronged" them. And doing so in a spectacular way makes them more "real" and important in their view.

Well I'm glad you've enlightened us with your psychology degree, but you still haven't proven that this man did this because he felt wronged by Society instead of a varity of other reasons. Because at present nobody knows what pushed him to do this. I could just as easily said that he was convinced that the Illuminati were brainwashing the children and death was the only way to save them. I'd have just as much evidence for such a claim as you do that it was for fame.

Considering I am a human being yes I do. And is all of this helping anything?

Let's see, if we can figure out why the killer did this and how, we can work to make sure it never happens again. And as seen consistently in the American Political circus, if there's no public support for measures it'll never get any traction. Case in point; that Congressional Inquiry into Professional Wrestling after the Beniot Double Murder/Suicide. Stopped as soon as people stopped caring about it. Now barely anyone could tell you the full name of the murderer (Chris Beniot), his wife (Nancey) and son (Daniel) or why he snapped (a combination of steroid abuse and repeated concussions resulting in servere brain damage). The only reason I know any of that is that I followed Wrestling and that was a big deal within that circle. For all the talk the media did in that political circus, how many people do you think who say all of that remembers Beniot's name or face?

A few days ago a young boy brought a gun to school to protect himself from a shooting. You are scaring the living shit out of people. How in the fuck is that helpful? Stirring up righteous anger does not lead to a calm and rational response. It leads to the Patriot Act.

And how is what you're saying helping? You're arguing that teachers need to be able to carry guns to keep children safe. And I fail to see how keeping the media to the victims is going to help the situation for that young boy, he'll still know that children were killed because someone walked in and shot them. And he doesn't know what the man looks like, he could be anyone.

It works both ways.

Try actually studying the psychology behind these incidents instead of just attacking people.

Good advice. You first, because last I checked there's no evidence avaliable to start studying this man's psychology.

Being remembered for decades to come sounds like a distinction to me.

Like Skel said, whose going to remember him? Despite your insistance, time as proven that the American Populace has a short attention span when it comes to tragedy. They act horrified and demand action straight afterwards, then they start to feel safer, and finally they do what all adults do and put it behind them.

Just think, how many serial killers do you know of from the 20th century? I'd wadger just the ones they made movies of, or based characters on.

Hell here's an even better point; name all 19 9/11 Hijackers. People are still suffering from the psychological damage that one did, but nobody really cares who actually flew the planes, Bin Laden ordered it and everyone else involved has pretty much disappeared from the public eye.

Don't believe me? Why don't you try asking random people if they know the names of the hijackers, or the man who actually planned it. I'll wait right here.

So your inattention is proof of what? The vast majority of people can and do remember them.

Again, prove it. Because I bet you if you took a video camera, went down your street and asked 200 people to name the ones behind Columbine, you'll get a lot of wrong answers.

So don't assume your memorising of killers name is proof that everyone does the same as you.

Easy James Holmes. He is the guy with the orange hair at the trial.

Good, you remembered. What about Fort Hood? Who was the man who shot up that supermarket and injured that Congresswoman?

Once again, your inability to remember this guy is irrelevant. Most other people can. In the grand scheme of things you are irrelevant.

I know I'm irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. So are you. Most people who waste their days talking about politics on video game forums aren't exactly the movers and shakers of the world.

And you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Go ahead and quote the part where I said to ignore all of those things. I will wait.

"No, actually I want them to do what many experts have recommended. Say what happened but do not dwell on it. Do not show elaborate scenes and spend hours discussing every little detail. Do not show the killers picture regularly but instead concentrate on the victims. Try not to even mention the killer's name. And on."

So how exactly is the police releasing the suspect's image to the media supposed to go with "don't show the killers picture regularly?" The media do have an obligation to report the facts, and they do have to repeat it several times a day in case someone wasn't watching earlier. Don't spend hours discussing every little detail, again we're on a forum that's doing exactly that. People just gossip. As for concentrating on the victims, that would be invading their right and their families right to privacy. I'd rather the media focus on the killer more than them trying to focus on the victims.

Do you know what a distinction is? Apparently not- A distinguishing factor, attribute, or characteristic.

He's a mass killer. Big whoop. Wikipedia has a whole list of them. He's no Charles Manson, he's no Bin Laden, didn't kill anyone famous enough to be Oswald, wasn't memorable enough to be Ed Gien (who inspired Leatherface). I guarentee you that in ten years you'll be one of maybe 10% of America who didn't lose someone that day who bothers to remember.

So in other words by talking about the victims instead of the killer you are manipulating the narrative and suppressing facts. You live in a weird world.

Why talk about the victims? They did nothing to bring it on, why try and twist the narrative to focus on people who had no choice in the matter? The killer was the sole instigator and driver of events, nobody else.

Holmes.

whoever the guy before him was,

Probably the Oakland shooter, One Goh.

the guy who tried to kill that Senator

I assume you are talking about the Tucson Shooter, Jared Lougner

the man behind Fort Hood

Nedal Hassan (I think I misspelled that).

V-Tech

Seung-Hui Cho

Columbine

I already did that in my last post. Klebold and Harris.

the name of the two DC snipers

John Muhammad and something Malvo.

I stand corrected, you do know them off by heart. A little worrying, but I wil lconcend the point.

I still argue that you are the minority of those who were old enough to comprehend these actions.

In your opinion. However, they are remembered.

By people who study these massacres and the ones who lost people to them. I don't really have confidence in humanity to bother remembering actiosn that don't really effect them.

This is why laymen should not discuss history.

So you're a Trained Psychologist and Historian? You're making a lot of claims.

Is that what I said? Feel free to quote where I said that. I will wait.

Okay, I wasted enough time finding this, so I'm just going to ignore this from here on out because seriously, we're killing the page length.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.396178.16123355 - In which Verbatim, an Israeli whose mother is a Teacher, counters your statement here (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.396178.16121181) that you can own a gun with a liscence and that teachers can carry guns in school. The post he is replying to is here;

farson135:

Verbatim:
Ehm? You're not allowed to bring a weapon in to a school in Israel under any circumstances, teacher or not.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91528/

Israel has one of the strictest gun control policies in the World these days, civilians cannot own guns.

Yes they can with a license.

And as Vertabrim pointed out, the last time a teacher got a gun liscence in Israel was 1995, you were using a source that was wrong at the time of it's release, at present no teacher in Israel is allowed to bring a firearm on campus, the only point in which it was allowed was for a school inside a conflict zone, where everyone is issued a gun (so they're not giving teachers guns specifically, they're giving everyone guns), and that teachers can only bring guns inside the school if they were issued them for that express purpose and for no other reasons. And again, the last of these permits was given back in 1995, when the permissions were canceled.

No, ALL of the students in the test fought back.

And again what does that have to do with Teachers being able to react in a positive way (ie not shooting a kid)? People fight back when they think they're going to die. Thanks again for stating facts never in dispute. How does that prove that a teacher, with a real gun and no notice will be able to use it on the killer alone and not end up shooting someone else by mistake?

Wow, and you accuse me of academic dishonesty. You know damn well that statement is bullshit and yet here we are.

Well I have no fucking idea what your point is supposed to be, because we're talking about teachers having guns, and you're talking about students fighting back.

Fucking wow. You did not even watch that video did you?

Nope, because it's fucking irrelevant. We're talking about teachers carrying in a real situation, no students carrying paitn guns or fighting back when they think they're in danger. A for effort, but still irrelevant to what's being discussed at hand.

The participants were told they would not be doing the test until later in the day. To begin with they were going to practice concealed carrying and try on their protective equipment, etc for the test.

Right, but they knew the test was happening. So not comparable, no teacher is going to be told that a shooting will happen that day.

Which is why during every security tape of a shooting we see people running around.

Panic.

I would-

Good for you. Hope your faith is well placed.

You are way overestimating the number of teachers that would carry.

Well it's a hypothetical to begin with and the only examples given was a school in Thailand that was in a warzone and a conflict Zone in Israel almost two decades ago.

The simple fact is that there is no reason to ban it. We allow concealed carry and there is no reason we should not allow it in the place that people spend 40 hours a week.

Besides them not being needed in schools? Sure you can school me with your knowledge on CHL and the 53 positions. Yet despite you preaching about the benifits, the point reminds that no first world country allows them in schools. The school in Thailand had enough of a threat against it that there was no point concealing it, and as Vert kept saying Israel has not allowed guns in schools since 2005 reaffirmed the police as the only ones with the authority to defend lives.

At this point you and I are wasting each others time. We're not budging, we're not convincing anyone, and I don't really care enough to bother trying to "win" an internet debate on something so fucking serious. So I'll just ignore any reply you make to me in this thread on these points.

Gorfias:

Shaoken:

Hell let's take a look at some rough stats from the '04 census there were 6.4 Million Teachers in the United States.

Again, you don't have to train 6.4 million teachers. Just enough of them to ensure schools are not rampage safe zones.

Some anecdotes: http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/14/do-civilians-armed-with-guns-ever-capture-kill-or-otherwise-stop-mass-shooters/

They manage to arm teachers is Israel. I'm betting we can do so here too.

They did not, as our good Israeli Escapist friend Vertabrim pointed out, it was a unique circumstance that happened before 2005 in conflict areas of Israel, where all settlers were given guns, with the last teacher who got permission to bring a gun on campus recieving it in 1995, and in 2005 all of these permissions were canceled as the Israeli government reaffirmed that only the police had the authority to protect schools.

So they did, for a point in time, arm teachers in Israel. They did it for teachers were essentially in a war zone, which last time I checked no school in the United States could claim. The Russians decide to renenact Red Dawn, you'll have my vote to give Teachers guns. But asit stands, two completely different scenarios.

And because why not, here's a somewhat video-game related news story in relation to the NRA's statement;

California State Senator Leland Yee, who took his fight against violent video games all the way to the Supreme Court a couple of years ago and lost, slammed the NRA's odd, new attack on video games.

It's not that the former child psychologist suddenly loves violent video games. It's that Yee, who wrote the failed California law that would criminalise the sale of them to minors, believes that the NRA should be focusing on something else in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting.

Here's Yee, in an emailed statement:

"I find it mind-boggling that the NRA suddenly cares about the harmful effects of ultra-violent video games. When our law was before the Supreme Court - while several states, medical organisations, and child advocates submitted briefs in support of California's efforts - the NRA was completely silent. Now, rather than face reality and be part of the solution to the widespread proliferation of assault weapons in America, they attempt to pass the buck. More guns are not the answer to protecting our children, as evident by the fact that armed guards weren't enough to stop the tragedy at Columbine High School. The NRA's response is pathetic and completely unacceptable."

A San Francisco Democrat, Lee has been busy pushing for gun control in his state. He is trying to close a loophole that allows state residents to buy some semi-automatic weapons.

Source - http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/12/even-one-of-the-biggest-violent-video-games-critic-slams-the-nra/

So Columbine had armed guards at it? I did not know that (unless Yee is wrong).

It's moments like this where you realise just how different Britain (where i'm from) and the USA is.

The NRA's response seems idiotic to me, but then again most of the pro-gun discussion seems alien. It's interesting, in a kind of tragic way.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked