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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

CaptainChip:
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

That's a myth. It's never been proven.

Not only that, but Belgium showed statistics a few days ago (found several times in the recent gun threads) which showed their firearms deaths had been cut in half since 2006 when they tightened their gun laws. (and that's while the pre-2006 law was already tighter than in the US, meaning they have more to gain)

Despite the economic crisis breaking out after that, the number of suicides didn't return to their pre-2006 levels, and for women (who rarely ever killed themselves with guns anyway) there was no decrease at all, proving that the gun ban was the cause for the male drop.

Then we saw British crime statistics a while back which showed a sharp decline of firearms violence. And a small increase in non-firearms violence, but nowhere near the same rise, as the gun control measures lowered it. So lives were saved.

CaptainChip:
then you've solved absolutely nothing. Secondly, in those countries, when guns were banned, crimes shot up.

That's bullshit.

CaptainChip:
The UK has the most violent crimes in the EU, and even more than the US.

Yeah right. I don't believe it. For one thing the murder rate of the US is four times that of the UK.

CaptainChip:
Australia also had their crime rate go up as well.

Prove it. Because one thing's for certain: They've not had a single spree killing since they banned guns in Australia.

CaptainChip:
And Czech Republic, who have extremely lax guns laws, have a 1.7 homicide rate.

Which is quite a lot higher than comparable countries with a gun ban. For instance it's 64% higher than the Polish murder rate.

CaptainChip:
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.

Don't forget to add a statistical analysis which proves this occurs more often than school shootings, and that it occurs more often than people going postal.

This is required because anecdotes are not evidence (something which Farson for instance remains blissfully unaware of) and otherwise bringing firearms violence into classrooms would not resolve the problem of firearms violence in classrooms, but increase it.

I know, I know, it's so obvious it's almost insulting someone's intellect to point it out explicitly, but for some reason the gun lobby doesn't understand that adding violence to violence, increases it.

BreakfastMan:

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. -_-

The difference between semi-automatic and automatic/burst weapons is hardly nitpicking.

Shaoken:

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,

Did not what? Israeli school teachers are not allowed to arm? Israeli schools are safe murderous rampage zones? I think not.

And there's a load of links on the web suggesting that, yes, they can still arm, well after 2005.

Example: http://messiahsmandate.org/are-israeli-teachers-armed/ appears to have been published this month.

This guy goes out of his way to help your point, but proves that, in the long run, even a guy siding with you is confirming the ability of Israeli's teachers to arm themselves.

As for the media, they just gave about a minute to a guy filming himself quitting the NRA. How about a minute for those staying in the NRA and calling calls for assault weapons bans (not used in this recent shooting) ludicrous?

I think this tragedy should not be exploited by either side. It is a time for humility. If, without responding to calls from gun control, self defense advocates came out making statement that this shows we need to stop the safe murderous rampage zones, even if correct, their timing sucks. They should be ashamed. Those that saw this tragedy as a moment to call for a more totalitarian state where the law abiding may not defend themselves should be ashamed of themselves too.

Shock and Awe:
The difference between semi-automatic and automatic/burst weapons is hardly nitpicking.

semi-automatic: lots of bullets come out, killing lots of innocent children
automatic weapons: lots of bullets come out, killing lots of innocent children

Yes, it is nitpicking.

Especially since Farson uses it to ignore arguments, sow confusion, and then come back with his singular anecdotes and faulty comparisons again. Notice how by nitpicking over firing modes he ignores the blunt fact that people who propose banning assault rifles will save lives, and he's opposed to that without giving a good reason why.

Mass shooting don't just happen at schools and there have been situations where people started firing within ear shot of armed security guards and still plenty died. This guy wants the federal government to bend over backwards for someone's right to own a semi automatic gun with only a base form of protection against people that are mentally unstable or are potential criminals.

Seriously if the NRA doesn't want the semi automatic's banned they should push for more state reform for buying weapons and make it more difficult, sorry gun owners. Is it fair that you have to go through a lengthier process to own your choice of weapon no(in my opinion yes) but it's not fair to the people not firing guns to taken down. And I don't understand how the best solution is put a gun in every citizen's hand in america.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
The difference between semi-automatic and automatic/burst weapons is hardly nitpicking.

semi-automatic: lots of bullets come out, killing lots of innocent children
automatic weapons: lots of bullets come out, killing lots of innocent children

Yes, it is nitpicking.

Especially since Farson uses it to ignore arguments, sow confusion, and then come back with his singular anecdotes and faulty comparisons again. Notice how by nitpicking over firing modes he ignores the blunt fact that people who propose banning assault rifles will save lives, and he's opposed to that without giving a good reason why.

I'd make the argument the massacre could have been done with a pistil with low cap mags, a shot gun, or any quality bolt action with iron sights. Baby killing assault weapons are hardly needed to attack the defenseless.

Shock and Awe:
I'd make the argument the massacre could have been done with a pistil with low cap mags, a shot gun, or any quality bolt action with iron sights. Baby killing assault weapons are hardly needed to attack the defenseless.

Even if that happened, the death toll would be a lot lower. Plus that a permit system would drastically lower the odds of a guy like him getting his hands on a non-automated hunting or sports weapon. His mom wouldn't be able to obtain a firearms permit because her delusions about the end of the world (she's a 'prepper' as they describe themselves) are proof that she's mentally uncapable of responsible weapons ownership. People like that suffer from delusions about how any sort of societal problem will turn everyone into raging maniacs, and they'll need guns to murder those people with when the time comes.
Plus they'd likely claim to need the gun for killing people who are part of those imaginary threats as part of their application, and definately as part of a psych evaluation. That's not a valid motivation in pretty much any permit system, and it'd be permit denied, school shooting prevented.

Shock and Awe:

BreakfastMan:

farson135:

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. -_-

The difference between semi-automatic and automatic/burst weapons is hardly nitpicking.

Fah. It was an assault weapon that is also a rifle. In my mind, that makes it an assault rifle. Or, at least, so I thought...

BreakfastMan:

Shock and Awe:

BreakfastMan:

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

The difference between semi-automatic and automatic/burst weapons is hardly nitpicking.

Fah. It was an assault weapon that is also a rifle. In my mind, that makes it an assault rifle. Or, at least, so I thought...

Assault weapon is a completely made up term that came about when the AWB was passed. Assault Rifle designates a rifle that uses an intermediate round (7.62x39, 5.56x45, ect), accepts double stack magazines, and fires either bursts or fully automatic.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
I'd make the argument the massacre could have been done with a pistil with low cap mags, a shot gun, or any quality bolt action with iron sights. Baby killing assault weapons are hardly needed to attack the defenseless.

Even if that happened, the death toll would be a lot lower. Plus that a permit system would drastically lower the odds of a guy like him getting his hands on a non-automated hunting or sports weapon. His mom wouldn't be able to obtain a firearms permit because her delusions about the end of the world (she's a 'prepper' as they describe themselves) are proof that she's mentally uncapable of responsible weapons ownership. People like that suffer from delusions about how any sort of societal problem will turn everyone into raging maniacs, and they'll need guns to murder those people with when the time comes.
Plus they'd likely claim to need the gun for killing people who are part of those imaginary threats as part of their application, and definately as part of a psych evaluation. That's not a valid motivation in pretty much any permit system, and it'd be permit denied, school shooting prevented.

We could argue hypothetical situations all day long about one type of weapon would do so much damage. However I will say this; The reason assault rifles and similar weapons are used are because they are able to put down a level of fire that suppresses the enemy and keeps them from shooting back. In a situation when you are shooting those who have zero defense this is not a factor. This means weapons such as pistols, shotguns, and bolt action rifles can easily cause havoc just as well as a semi-auto. Just look at the Dunblane shooting where seventeen were killed and fifteen wounded. That was with revolvers and pistols with 13 round magazines. Thats only three more then whats allowed by the AWB.

As for her being a prepper making her unstable I'd argue that isn't true. Gullible and wrong? Maybe but preppers aren't inherently murderous crazy people. Usually they are just misguided.

Skeleon:
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.

Lots of rightists? Try leftists as well.

Also, regulations that affect my life every second are a little different from a school deciding to add a security guard.

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?

To that extent, no. You guys are always asking to police morality (drug use, sex, etc) so it will happen to an extent but you take it too far.

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.

Citation.

The NRA does not want criminals to have open access to guns. I do not believe the NRA has even mentioned people on terrorist watch lists but as an NRA member I personally do not like the idea that some random bureaucrat can bar me from a gun purchase without any oversight or reason.

As for selling guns, the NRA is a sporting organization that deals in marksmanship with firearms. The selling of firearms is a condition of their success (more people buy guns). That does not mean their purpose is to sell guns.

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

Nit-picky? Assault rifle has a military definition and assault weapon has both a military and a civilian definition. The term assault rifle and the civilian term assault weapon are completely different.

Also, the Sandy rifle is not even an assault weapon. It was bought after the Assault Weapons Ban in Connecticut was put into place.

Karma168:
Ok then, which one of these three men was one of the Columbine shooters? And what was his name? Obviously no looking it up.

Easy, the middle one is Eric Harris. The bottom one also looks somewhat familiar. Is he important?

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.

It doesn't matter if it is 50/50. That is a huge distinction. They are remembered.

Shaoken:
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

Routinely? Citation.

Blablahb is a special case because he does not make real arguments.

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 argued that money is not going to steal a gun off of a guard. Your argument is irrelevant. Stop trying to change the subject.

You don't have security guards to guard a school because A) it has a negative effect on children's mental growth

No, it doesn't. At least no more than living in a shitty school system. Anything and everything can have a negative affect depending on the child's individual status.

B) Zero Tolerance policies are bullshit and never worked

What does that have to do with anything?

C) So far there have been what, over the course of 15 years 4 school shootings? Terrible, but statistically speaking guards are unnessicary.

You can argue that. But attacking him for making an argument is wrong.

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.

And that proves your point how?

What was it you said? You had Pattern Regonition? Well the NRA has constantly refused any and all talk of increased gun control

Have they? Stop guessing. The NRA is regularly attacked by more pro-gun organizations (like JPFO) for supporting anti-gun measures and not backing certain pro-gun measures.

so what solution could he be open to?

More mental health checks, better reporting, etc.

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."

Because that is what I said. Y'all keep trying to add more to my arguments so that you can attack them. Problem, my arguments are not yours to change. Y'all are the dishonest ones because y'all refuse to argue about what I actually say.

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.

Actually, I have a series of shootings where that is a principle factor. You scenario has nothing.

Also, having read and studied some psychology I think I am in a better position that you are. After all, you are just guessing.

Let's see, if we can figure out why the killer did this and how

Which of course can only be solved by looping the same videos and pictures over and over again.

we can work to make sure it never happens again.

And stirring people into a righteous frenzy is very contusive to a rational debate.

And how is what you're saying helping? You're arguing that teachers need to be able to carry guns to keep children safe.

When did I argue that? Another example of how dishonest you are. You assume my views and then argue against a strawman.

I said there is no reason to prevent teachers from carrying into schools.

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.

You have admitted that these kinds of incidents are rare. What about the media blowing the story up?

Like Skel said, whose going to remember him?

Lots of people. Contrary to your insistence just because everybody does not care does not mean that no one cares.

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.

Several. They were covered in my history class.

Also, why do you keep going further and further back? I never said for all time (another example of your dishonesty) I said for a decade. And then you have this-

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.

Now you go all the way back to an incident more than a decade ago from when I was still in middle school and not politically active or socially engaged. I can still remember several of their names-

I remember Mohamed Atta because he spoke on the speaker and it is the same with Ziad Jarah.

Also-
Ahmed al-Nami and Ahmed al-Haznawi

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.

Irrelevant. People remember the main guy because that is the name that is pushed. You actually disproved your own point. The media pushed bin Laden and bin Laden is who is remembered.

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

You did. It is just now that you were proven wrong you want to backtrack. So sad.

I do not expect everybody to have my memory (as a historian I have to have a good memory) but I do know that lots of people do remember various mass murderers because the media makes sure they do.

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."

I am waiting for you to show where I said what you claimed I said.

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.

And is a picture of the guy relevant? You know what he looks like. Congrads, do you feel enlightened now?

Don't spend hours discussing every little detail, again we're on a forum that's doing exactly that. People just gossip.

Have you seen some of that coverage? John Steward regularly makes fun of American media's asinine second by second coverage.

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.

And the killer's family does not deserve any privacy?

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.

And there is that decade again. You keep making my arguments for me.

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.

Focusing on the tragedy rather than focusing on the madman.

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

Because half of those guys have been dead for the better part of a decade or more.

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

I graduate student in history. I never claimed to by a psychologist but that I have read some works on psychology (another strawman for you).

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.

So you could not find it. Big surprise.

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.

In other words my initial statement was right. I stated that teachers in certain areas were encouraged to have guns. I was right.

In fact Vertabrim was the one lying because he stated- "You're not allowed to bring a weapon in to a school in Israel under any circumstances, teacher or not"

And again what does that have to do with Teachers being able to react in a positive way (ie not shooting a kid)?

Now you are changing your argument.

Do you have any evidence showing that it will/might happen?

People fight back when they think they're going to die. Thanks again for stating facts never in dispute.

You disputed it. You said they would freeze. More dishonesty.

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?

Find me an instance where a CHL shot someone by mistake.

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.

And teachers and students really so different?

Nope, because it's fucking irrelevant.

And yet you felt the need to argue. If you are going to pout when things do not go your way then just cut the shit.

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.

Huge stretch. They did not know it would be happening then.

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.

I gave several more in my very first post on the topic that you keep bringing up. Many schools in the US allow it including a school in Texas- http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/teachers-carry-concealed-weapons-in-tiny-texas-town-as-national-school-safety-debate-heats-up/2012/12/20/f160f6a2-4a7c-11e2-8af9-9b50cb4605a7_story.html

Besides them not being needed in schools?

In your opinion. However, banning something because you do not think it is necessary is not really an argument.

Sure you can school me with your knowledge on CHL and the 53 positions.

Can you? Of course not. Fail.

Yet despite you preaching about the benifits, the point reminds that no first world country allows them in schools.

The Czech Republic allows all people to carry in schools if they have a permit.

Shock and Awe:
Assault weapon is a completely made up term that came about when the AWB was passed.

FYI- The term assault weapon did exist for the military. Assault weapon, a weapon used to assault a position. The government and the Brady Campaign did change the term to fit the law.

farson135:

Shock and Awe:
Assault weapon is a completely made up term that came about when the AWB was passed.

FYI- The term assault weapon did exist for the military. Assault weapon, a weapon used to assault a position. The government and the Brady Campaign did change the term to fit the law.

image

This is payback for the Lee-Enfield thing isn't it?

Why is it every thread about Gun Control that pops up here, a complete shit storm ensues.

Anyway, the whole proposition of having armed guards in schools is already a reality here. They're called School Resource Officers (SRO), they're basically Police Officers on loan to a school. One was present at my middle school, two at my high school, and a whole dedicated PD at my college.

And there hasn't been a single issue at my schools. The only threat of a school shooting was at my high school my senior year. And it turned out to be just an empty threat.

And to me, there isn't a whole lot of difference between an LEO, and a civilian. It's just a badge.

Smagmuck_:
Why is it every thread about Gun Control that pops up here, a complete shit storm ensues.

Probably because they only pop up when people have died, then both sides accuse the other of being against the thing that would have stopped it.

Anyway, the whole proposition of having armed guards in schools is already a reality here. They're called School Resource Officers (SRO), they're basically Police Officers on loan to a school. One was present at my middle school, two at my high school, and a whole dedicated PD at my college.

From the article from Senator Yee on the last page, apparantly Columbine had armed guards the day of the massacre and it did nothing. And people are more pointing out that there is no reason why a school should have to have armed guards in a first world nation. The only other places that had to go that far were schools that were essentially in war zones, and nowhere in the US can really compare.

So from that perspective, armed guards seems like a massive overreaction and not really a solution to the problem, and like dmase said mass shootings do happen within ear shot of armed guards. It's less than a band-aid on very deep gash.

And because it's somewhat relevant: http://www.news.com.au/world/obama-vows-action-after-online-petition/story-fndir2ev-1226542151230

•Huffington Post lists every US shooting death since Sandy Hook
•Gun lobby calls for armed guards in every school
•Barack Obama vows action on guns
•Guns in America: The shocking truth
IN a shocking expose of gun violence in America, The Huffington Post has compiled a list of every US shooting death since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre on December 14.
That act of violence claimed the lives of 26 people, including 20 innocent children, at a school in Connecticut.
The Huffington Post reports that the night after Sandy Hook, a gunman pulled behind a car in Kansas City and opened fire, striking a 4-year-old boy in the head.
"He was innocent and he was just lifeless," a bystander said. "All my life I've never seen nothing so devastating."
This week doctors declared the boy brain dead.
In the week following the Sandy Hook massacre, bodies were found inside a vacant house, at a car wash, and in a corner store. They were also discovered on a bike trail, in a backyard, inside the front office of a motel, and in a Chevy pickup, the website reports. All of the bodies had one thing in common: they died from gunshots wounds.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Recommended CoverageRelated Coverage.Protests as NRA speaks out .... End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The Huffington Post spent this week tracking gun-related homicides and accidents throughout the US, and logged more than 100 from Google and Nexis searches. It says there were more than twice that many homicides alone in an average week in 2010.
The deaths included murder-suicides, and ranged from babies through to grandparents.
Protests as NRA speaks out
The US gun lobby has called for armed protection of schools after the Sandy Hook massacre.
.On Saturday afternoon, a 3-year-old in Oklahoma died after accidentally shooting himself in the head with a gun he found inside his aunt and uncle's house. His uncle is an Oklahoma state trooper.
"Nobody should have to go through something like that," a resident said.
Paul Sampleton Jr., 14, was bound and shot in his Georgia townhome on Wednesday afternoon. His father found him in the kitchen. Police suspect a robbery motive, the website reports.
"He was smiling, listening to music," a friend told a local reporter. "He got on his bus, I got on mine. We were all happy."
The list goes on.

.
The expose comes as US President Barack Obama has vowed to take action to stop gun violence and gun lobby group NRA was slammed for calling for armed police in every US school.

Mr Obama's promise came in response to online petitions signed by more than 400,000 people after last week's primary school massacre, as the US's most powerful pro-gun lobbying group demanded overnight that armed police be deployed to every school in the country.
"In the days since the heartbreaking tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, hundreds of thousands of you, from all 50 states, signed petitions asking us to take serious steps to address the epidemic of gun violence in this country," Mr Obama said in an online video on Friday. "We hear you."
Mr Obama joined a nationwide moment of silence to mark the passing of one week since the Newtown school massacre overnight. Mr Obama took part in the unofficial national day of mourning at the White House and First Lady Michelle Obama sent an open letter of support for the survivors.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), 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 of 20 young children and six school staff.
But the group's leaders, in a combative and determined public appearance, 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 last week's massacre of 26 children and staff in an elementary school.
"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.
Celebrities speak out on gun violence
The stars feature in a new public service announcement against gun violence for Demand a Plan after the Sandy Hook shootings
.The NRA was ready to help train security teams for schools and work with teachers and parents to improve security measures, and attacked the media and the political class for what he said was demonising gun owners, he said.
The declaration caused outrage with his armed-officers idea immediately lambasted by gun control advocates, and not even the NRA's point man on the effort seemed willing to go so far.

.
Former Republican congressman Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, whom LaPierre named national director of the program, said in an interview that decisions about armed guards in schools should be made by local districts.
"I think everyone recognises that an armed presence in schools is sometimes appropriate,'' Hutchinson said. "That is one option. I would never want to have a mandatory requirement for every school district to have that.''
Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York called the NRA's response "both ludicrous and insulting'' and pointed out that armed personnel at Columbine High School in Colorado and the Fort Hood Army post in Texas could not stop mass shootings.
The liberal group CREDO, which organised an anti-NRA protest outside congress, called LaPierre's speech "bizarre and quite frankly paranoid''.

"This must be a wake-up call even to the NRA's own members that the NRA's Washington lobbyists need to stand down and let congress pass sensible gun control laws now,'' CREDO political director Becky Bond said in a statement.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the NRA is blaming everyone but itself for a national gun crisis and is offering "a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe''.
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 the gunman used in the December 14 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 New York Times, in an editorial on Saturday, did not mince words, calling LaPierre's remarks a "mendacious, delusional, almost deranged rant''.

Mr Obama has called on Congress to pass legislation banning military-style assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips. It would would also close loopholes that allow people to purchase guns without background checks.
Mr Obama has also appointed US Vice President Joe Biden to head a task force to explore ways to prevent mass shootings, including by improving access to mental health care, and addressing depictions of violence in popular culture.
"I will do everything in my power as president to advance these efforts, because if there's even one thing we can do as a country to protect our children, we have a responsibility to try," Mr Obama said in the video. "But as I said earlier this week I can't do it alone. I need your help."
Mr Obama called on ordinary citizens, law enforcement officials and gun owners to campaign publicly and petition Congress in support of his reforms.
More than 400,000 people have signed "We the People" petitions on the White House's website calling for action on gun violence, making it one of the most popular issues since the launch of the site, a White House official said.
One such petition set the record for being the fastest ever to reach 25,000 signatures, the official said.
Last Friday's massacre of 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School - the latest in a series of mass shootings over the past two years - has galvanised support for reforms aimed at stemming gun violence.

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 the NRA's Mr 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 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 the 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's Senator Frank Lautenberg said on Twitter.
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.
Earlier, the US came together for a moment of silence in memory of the victims. Connecticut State Governor Dannel Malloy first called on residents to stop and reflect in silence at 9.30am (1.30am AEDT) local time, the minute 20-year-old Adam Lanza burst into the Sandy Hook Elementary School and began slaughtering 20 six- and seven-year-old children and six staff on December 14.
"Let us all come together collectively to mourn the loss of far too many promising lives," Mr Malloy said.
"Though we will never know the full measure of sorrow experienced by these families, we can let them know that we stand with them during this difficult time."
Mr Malloy asked for churches and government buildings to ring bells 26 times, symbolizing each of the victims in the school.
In Newton, bell rang as people on the street stood in a cold, driving rain.

His appeal was quickly matched by state governors from Hawaii to Florida, who called on residents to observe their own moment of silence at 9.30am local time in solidarity. Houses of worship around the country also embraced the week's anniversary.
The National Council of Churches said that thousands of churches would "observe a minute of silence and at 9.30am Friday sound their bells 26 times in memory of the victims who died in the school."
On the crowd-sourced charity site, causes.com, almost 177,000 people had signed up by early Friday to pledge a moment's silence.
Mrs Obama wrote to the people of Newtown that "as a mother of two young daughters, my heart aches for you and your families."
However, "the countless acts of courage, kindness and love here in Newtown and across America" had inspired her to believe the country had shown its good side in the aftermath of the massacre, she said.

http://www.news.com.au/world/obama-vows-action-after-online-petition/story-fndir2ev-1226542151230

So even the NRA pointman is saying that his boss' call for all schools to have armed guards is crazy and that it'd make more sense to leave it up to local communities. I don't think the NRA has helped their case at all over this fiasco, and I'd be interested to get numbers on what their members think of the proposal. 4 million people can't be covered by one single statement or position without leaving out something vital (for starters, Michael Moore is technically a member of the NRA).

America should arm its teachers. You know how many casualties there would be if a shooter opened up and the faculty and teachers were armed? One - the shooter himself.

Guns save more innocent lives than they end and they are the only proper equalizer against brute force. If I was a mugger, and I went after a little old lady, even if she had a large knife I could easily overpower her and take her money. If she had a gun, I would go down with a round between my eyes.

Protect little old ladies - support gun rights.

2012 Wont Happen:
America should arm its teachers. You know how many casualties there would be if a shooter opened up and the faculty and teachers were armed? One - the shooter himself.

Incorrect. That would be assuming that the first teacher was prepared for the shooter. Since nobody in a school in their right mind expends an armed gunman to just walk into a classroom, gun drawn, the first teacher, even if armed, is not going to be able to pull their weapon up fast enough if the gunman is paying attention to them. So that's one classroom of casualties.

Guns save more innocent lives than they end and they are the only proper equalizer against brute force. If I was a mugger, and I went after a little old lady, even if she had a large knife I could easily overpower her and take her money. If she had a gun, I would go down with a round between my eyes.

Citation Needed. Let's say find me the statistics for 2009, because we know for a fact that 11,493 people (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf) were murdered (and yes, that is the statistics for murders, suicides and accidents are covered in seperate statistics, that is the number for homicides. In case you were wondering, the total number of homicides for 2009 was around 16,799, so firearms killed twice as many people as all other weapons put together), you should be able to find records of the amount of people saved by firearms.

So time to prove your point, you know the year you need to find the statistics for, you know the number you have to beat, so hop to it.

Demon ID:
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.

It's alien that some of us are comfortable with using a firearm to defend ourselves, especially since the police aren't required to do a thing to help us? We're on our own out here, bub.

GunsmithKitten:

Demon ID:
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.

It's alien that some of us are comfortable with using a firearm to defend ourselves, especially since the police aren't required to do a thing to help us? We're on our own out here, bub.

Down here in Oz (and I'm guessing up there in the UK) if the police aren't required to do a thing to help the common man, we'd rage the fuck out. Vote out politicions who abide by that, protest in the streets, basically demand better and don't stop untill we get it.

Your police arent' legally obliged to help you? Rage the fuck out and force the polticions to do their damn jobs and make things better.

It never ceases to suprise me how so many Americans will proclaim themselves living in the greatest country on Earth yet simply live with such terrible services. Hell the last time we had a major uproar over the sentancing for viechler manslaughter, the law was changed in a week. We don't fuck around when something offends us on a large scale.

Shaoken:

Down here in Oz (and I'm guessing up there in the UK) if the police aren't required to do a thing to help the common man, we'd rage the fuck out. Vote out politicions who abide by that, protest in the streets, basically demand better and don't stop untill we get it.

We should have. Oh by the GODS we should have.

I do not kid in saying that my stance on firearms would not be nearly as sure if this weren't the case. But it is, folks. You. Are. On. Your. Own.

Which infuriates me even more than people like Blahab and TechNo are okay with not just making sure I have no firearms to defend myself with, but are okay with the cops being legally allowed to ignore any calls for help.

Shock and Awe:

farson135:

Shock and Awe:
Assault weapon is a completely made up term that came about when the AWB was passed.

FYI- The term assault weapon did exist for the military. Assault weapon, a weapon used to assault a position. The government and the Brady Campaign did change the term to fit the law.

image

This is payback for the Lee-Enfield thing isn't it?

No, I was just trying to be helpful.

BTW thanks for that. You could not have known it was a typo but if I had been wrong I am glad someone informed me before I made myself look like an idiot (although I think only a handful of people on this forum would even notice my mistake).

So a cop in every school?
Looking it up that would cost more than 5 billion a year, and something like 15-20 people are killed in schools each year on average, with few incidents causing more than one death, however more than half of the deaths involve a gun.
So this would be spending around 250 million dollars per "person" to maybe prevent their possible death. That doesn't seem like an efficient system. It sure as hell isn't one for dealing with much more rare spree shootings, I mean there were two cops at columbine and they were unable to prevent what happened. So half that is supposed to be better?
This is utter nonsense. I find him confusing why we protect places like banks to be very strange. Criminals want to steal money, I don't see that many who want to go shoot up schools.

There may be something to him saying people will remember this killers name. But that is not because of the mere fact the media is reporting newsworthy events. Few people would remember the names of just about any of the people who carried out these acts, I certainly don't know anyone who does and have not been show anything to indicate that people do remember them like that. But because of the mistakes with reporting the name, getting it wrong at the start, people will remember. But that is not really an argument saying the media in any way caused this.

Looking at what he has said here, Wayne LaPierre is an idiot. He is not helping anything or anyone.

Shaoken:

2012 Wont Happen:
America should arm its teachers. You know how many casualties there would be if a shooter opened up and the faculty and teachers were armed? One - the shooter himself.

Incorrect. That would be assuming that the first teacher was prepared for the shooter. Since nobody in a school in their right mind expends an armed gunman to just walk into a classroom, gun drawn, the first teacher, even if armed, is not going to be able to pull their weapon up fast enough if the gunman is paying attention to them. So that's one classroom of casualties.

Guns save more innocent lives than they end and they are the only proper equalizer against brute force. If I was a mugger, and I went after a little old lady, even if she had a large knife I could easily overpower her and take her money. If she had a gun, I would go down with a round between my eyes.

Citation Needed. Let's say find me the statistics for 2009, because we know for a fact that 11,493 people (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf) were murdered (and yes, that is the statistics for murders, suicides and accidents are covered in seperate statistics, that is the number for homicides. In case you were wondering, the total number of homicides for 2009 was around 16,799, so firearms killed twice as many people as all other weapons put together), you should be able to find records of the amount of people saved by firearms.

So time to prove your point, you know the year you need to find the statistics for, you know the number you have to beat, so hop to it.

I can't find a more recent statistic, but in 1995 it was found that guns were used in self defense 2.5 million times per year on average in the United States by a study called "The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" by Professors of Criminology Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.

Those statistics aren't likely entirely correct today, but unless it dropped from millions to the tens of thousands since then guns are used defensively much more often than offensively.

GunsmithKitten:

We should have. Oh by the GODS we should have.

I do not kid in saying that my stance on firearms would not be nearly as sure if this weren't the case. But it is, folks. You. Are. On. Your. Own.

And I place most of the blame on the politicions in the US for not doing their damn job, with some of it going to the American populace for enabling

Which infuriates me even more than people like Blahab and TechNo are okay with not just making sure I have no firearms to defend myself with, but are okay with the cops being legally allowed to ignore any calls for help.

And well I'm against private gun ownership for reasons beyond hunting, but I acknowledge that the current situation in the US makes that impractical. So while I think the US would be better off without guns for the purpose of self-defense, I'm smart enough to realise that there are a lot of steps and changes that would need to be implemented to make that a smart idea.

2012 Wont Happen:
America should arm its teachers. You know how many casualties there would be if a shooter opened up and the faculty and teachers were armed? One - the shooter himself.

Guns save more innocent lives than they end and they are the only proper equalizer against brute force. If I was a mugger, and I went after a little old lady, even if she had a large knife I could easily overpower her and take her money. If she had a gun, I would go down with a round between my eyes.

Protect little old ladies - support gun rights.

So escalating a situation from a mugging to murder is okay with you?

2012 Wont Happen:

Shaoken:

2012 Wont Happen:
America should arm its teachers. You know how many casualties there would be if a shooter opened up and the faculty and teachers were armed? One - the shooter himself.

Incorrect. That would be assuming that the first teacher was prepared for the shooter. Since nobody in a school in their right mind expends an armed gunman to just walk into a classroom, gun drawn, the first teacher, even if armed, is not going to be able to pull their weapon up fast enough if the gunman is paying attention to them. So that's one classroom of casualties.

Guns save more innocent lives than they end and they are the only proper equalizer against brute force. If I was a mugger, and I went after a little old lady, even if she had a large knife I could easily overpower her and take her money. If she had a gun, I would go down with a round between my eyes.

Citation Needed. Let's say find me the statistics for 2009, because we know for a fact that 11,493 people (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf) were murdered (and yes, that is the statistics for murders, suicides and accidents are covered in seperate statistics, that is the number for homicides. In case you were wondering, the total number of homicides for 2009 was around 16,799, so firearms killed twice as many people as all other weapons put together), you should be able to find records of the amount of people saved by firearms.

So time to prove your point, you know the year you need to find the statistics for, you know the number you have to beat, so hop to it.

I can't find a more recent statistic, but in 1995 it was found that guns were used in self defense 2.5 million times per year on average in the United States by a study called "The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" by Professors of Criminology Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.

Those statistics aren't likely entirely correct today, but unless it dropped from millions to the tens of thousands since then guns are used defensively much more often than offensively.

Actually I've heard some issues with that study about how it was to broad and wasn't totally representative of what would be considered legal and...productive for lack of a better term. Though its worth considering that if only one out of one hundred of those cases stopped serious harm or death its a good thing.

As much as I think LaPierre is a partisan hack, his plan isn't completely retarded(though incomplete). I don't know how practical it would be, though. It'd have to be something done on the state level, unless the federal government takes a bunch of power from the states, and I don't see either Republicans or Democrats being in favor of funding this, especially right now, for different reasons.

Of course, then he went off about how the media, video games, and music videos are the moral failings of society. Everything is right with the world.

DJjaffacake:

2012 Wont Happen:
America should arm its teachers. You know how many casualties there would be if a shooter opened up and the faculty and teachers were armed? One - the shooter himself.

Guns save more innocent lives than they end and they are the only proper equalizer against brute force. If I was a mugger, and I went after a little old lady, even if she had a large knife I could easily overpower her and take her money. If she had a gun, I would go down with a round between my eyes.

Protect little old ladies - support gun rights.

So escalating a situation from a mugging to murder is okay with you?

A law abiding citizen protecting themselves from an assailant is okay. Usually once a gun comes into play the trigger doesn't even need to be pulled because the assailant will back down.

When I was fifteen I was a thief, a vandal, all sorts of things. However, I would never break into houses or mug people because I knew in Texas you would get shot dead for doing such a thing. Not only are guns frequently used in self defense, their mere existence deters crimes that would have otherwise been committed.

I still can't believe we're even having this conversation. Honestly the idea of schools needing armed guards to be safe seems like madness and now that the NRA suggests it this idea suddenly seems less crazy? Imagine if the president proposed this before the shooting, there'd be absolute hell to pay and everyone would be saying it's an insane idea.

Yes I know that some schools have cops, mine had one show up every other day who was in charge of the local anti-drug program. Never once did I think that Cop was there just to protect the place but was more to try and be a good influence on the students and like I said to run the local drug awareness program. I just can't imagine needing guys with guns on school grounds just to keep people from shooting up the place.

Some people call a ban on some types of weapons a drastic step that may not work, how is a mass deployment of armed men to schools everywhere any diffrent?

LetalisK:
As much as I think LaPierre is a partisan hack, his plan isn't completely retarded(though incomplete). I don't know how practical it would be, though. It'd have to be something done on the state level, unless the federal government takes a bunch of power from the states, and I don't see either Republicans or Democrats being in favor of funding this, especially right now, for different reasons.

The issues with his statement and positions is that:

A) He completedly ruled out any further tightening of gun or ammo restrictions as not being able to do anything to solve the problem, despite evidence from other countries showing that if done right it does make a difference.
B) He stated to put armed security teams in every school in the United States. Knight Templar crunched the numbers and it ended up costing in the neighbourhood of $5 Billion. Unless someone suggests underpaying the people you want to serve as the first line of defense and put their lives on the line, his plan is nowhere near practical.
C) Also from Knight Templar's research, only 15-20 people die in schools each year out of a student population of millions, and gun massacres are quite rare. Nothing screams "over-reaction" like saying America needs armed guards in every school to stop a problem that could take years to develop. Unless I'm mistaken the last school Massacre in the US was Virginia Tech, and that was what, 2007? So that would have been $25 Billion dollars to put guards in every school in the US to stop this killer.
D) Armed Guards aren't an automatic solution; Columbine had two armed guards and both failed to make a difference. People go on gun rampages within earshot of armed guards already, so they're not the solution to the problem.

Anyway, to the great suprise of absolutely nobody, the NRA VP doubles down on his comments.

The most powerful gun lobby in the United States has ruled out any support for greater regulation of firearms or ammunition magazines in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre.

Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), said planned legislation to outlaw military-style assault weapons and large-capacity magazines was "phony" and would not work.

He repeated the NRA's call to place an armed guard in every school and argued that prosecuting criminals and fixing the mental health system, rather than gun control, were the solutions to America's mass shooting epidemic.

On December 14, a disturbed local man, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, killed his mother in their Newtown, Connecticut home before embarking on a horrific shooting spree at a local elementary school.

He blasted his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and shot dead 20 six- and seven-year-old children and six adults with a military-style assault rifle before taking his own life with a handgun as police closed in.

The bloodshed, the latest in a string of mass shootings in the United States, has reopened a national debate on the country's gun laws, which are far more lax than in most other developed nations.

President Barack Obama said he would support a new bill to ban assault rifles and put Vice-President Joe Biden in charge of a panel looking at a wide range of other measures, from school security to mental health.

Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein has pledged to table a bill on January 3 that would ban at least 100 military-style semi-automatic assault weapons, and would curb the transfer, importation and the possession of such arms.

"I think that is a phony piece of legislation, and I do not believe it will pass for this reason," LaPierre told NBC's Meet the Press. "It is all built on lies that have been found out."

"We don't think it works and we're not going to support it," he said. "A gun is a tool, the problem is the criminal."

The NRA points to the fact that the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, when 12 kids and a teacher were gunned down by two senior students, occurred despite similar legislation being in force at the time.

"I don't think it will (work). I keep saying it, and you just won't accept it: it's not going to work, it hasn't worked. Dianne Feinstein had her (previous) ban and Columbine occurred," LaPierre said.

The NRA has been in the crosshairs since the Sandy Hook massacre and took the unusual step on Friday of holding a press conference and speaking out on the tragedy.

LaPierre reaffirmed the group's position on Sunday and launched a fierce defence of gun owners' rights, which he portrayed as being imperiled by rich folk in cities, elite politicians and a hysterical media.

"The average guy in the country values his freedom, doesn't believe the fact that he can own a gun is part of the problem and doesn't like the media and all these high-profile politicians blaming him," he said.
"If it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools, then call me crazy," he added. "If I'm a mum or a dad and I'm dropping my child off at school, I feel a whole lot safer."

Source - http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/15703541/us-public-want-guards-in-every-school-nra/

So he notes that the weapon-ban didn't work with Columbine, while ignoring the delicious irony that his propposed solution was in effect at Columbine and it didn't work.

I also have a question for those who want to allow teachers to carry on campus; what if there's another massacre started by a student? What then? Is your solution that the teacher guns down one of the students they were told to protect? How exactly are teachers supposed to deal with that kind of trauma of having to gun down a child? And how will other students react knowing that one of their teachers could kill them? How will parents react?

Shaoken:
snip

Not sure if you were trying to argue against me or reinforce my point. Either way, good show.

2012 Wont Happen:

DJjaffacake:

2012 Wont Happen:
America should arm its teachers. You know how many casualties there would be if a shooter opened up and the faculty and teachers were armed? One - the shooter himself.

Guns save more innocent lives than they end and they are the only proper equalizer against brute force. If I was a mugger, and I went after a little old lady, even if she had a large knife I could easily overpower her and take her money. If she had a gun, I would go down with a round between my eyes.

Protect little old ladies - support gun rights.

So escalating a situation from a mugging to murder is okay with you?

A law abiding citizen protecting themselves from an assailant is okay. Usually once a gun comes into play the trigger doesn't even need to be pulled because the assailant will back down.

When I was fifteen I was a thief, a vandal, all sorts of things. However, I would never break into houses or mug people because I knew in Texas you would get shot dead for doing such a thing. Not only are guns frequently used in self defense, their mere existence deters crimes that would have otherwise been committed.

So all good people get to buy their guns at Walmart and muggers stay with their knives? Yes indeed, that would solve things.
Aren't we forgetting the classic Cold War weapon's race factor? If the victims carry guns of course I'll also get myself one and be sure to be the first to draw if it comes to it.

Completely unrelated thing: are you going to change your name now or do you plan on staying with it?

2012 Wont Happen:

DJjaffacake:

2012 Wont Happen:
America should arm its teachers. You know how many casualties there would be if a shooter opened up and the faculty and teachers were armed? One - the shooter himself.

Guns save more innocent lives than they end and they are the only proper equalizer against brute force. If I was a mugger, and I went after a little old lady, even if she had a large knife I could easily overpower her and take her money. If she had a gun, I would go down with a round between my eyes.

Protect little old ladies - support gun rights.

So escalating a situation from a mugging to murder is okay with you?

A law abiding citizen protecting themselves from an assailant is okay.

That's not what I asked.

2012 Wont Happen:
A law abiding citizen protecting themselves from an assailant is okay. Usually once a gun comes into play the trigger doesn't even need to be pulled because the assailant will back down.

Assailant? He talked of a mugging. It would be a robber. The type that walks away disappointed if you tell them to stick it, or takes off if given a few bucks, money which is then easily reclaimed from your insurance.

2012 Wont Happen:
Not only are guns frequently used in self defense, their mere existence deters crimes that would have otherwise been committed.

Then how come gun-loving countries have soaring crime rates, while countries with gun bans do not?

Don't make the mistake of bringing up Switserland. It's getting tiresome by now.

Also, self-defense with guns never happens. It's a myth. You can't defend yourself by murdering others, and a scenario where you would've died unless you killed someone never happens.

Blablahb:
Assailant? He talked of a mugging. It would be a robber.

Assailant: A person who physically attacks another.

A mugger certainly can qualify.

The type that walks away disappointed if you tell them to stick it, or takes off if given a few bucks, money which is then easily reclaimed from your insurance.

So how do you explain this- http://www.pacrimestoppers.org/crimestoppers/cases/current/2012/criminal-homicide-timothy-mcnerney-unknown-suspects-washington-wash

Then how come gun-loving countries have soaring crime rates, while countries with gun bans do not?

So you are stating that Iceland has a souring crime rate but Jamaica does not. I would love to see you prove that.

Don't make the mistake of bringing up Switserland. It's getting tiresome by now.

Yeah, people bringing up inconvenient facts over and over again must be tiresome for you. I mean how can you maintain your sense of smug superiority if we keep chopping down your arguments?

BTW when are you going to learn how to spell Switzerland?

Also, self-defense with guns never happens. It's a myth. You can't defend yourself by murdering others, and a scenario where you would've died unless you killed someone never happens.

Really- http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_cbb8d741-70ed-549f-9c47-4c206b338928.html

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked