Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#402 Jan 21 2013 at 2:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,278 posts
We already do.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#403 Jan 21 2013 at 2:42 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,691 posts
Also, procreation permits. Seriously.

Alternatively, retroactive abortion.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#404 Jan 21 2013 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,549 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira wrote:
How about a big gay guy who likes to dress in drag?

Screenshot
No, he's just French, not gay.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#405 Jan 21 2013 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,818 posts
I'd go with De Niro for King of America.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#406 Jan 21 2013 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"image"

I'm not sure I could support a king who uses the same fabric for his clothes as he does his furniture.

Edited, Jan 21st 2013 4:20pm by Allegory
#407 Jan 21 2013 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Belkira wrote:
So in your hypothetical situation, there is an armed shooter roaming the halls, and the teacher with his gun in the teachers lounge is able to sprint to the lounge, get into his/her locker, and get back to the shooter all without bein shot him/herself? I mean, come on.


There have been cases of faculty sprinting up to a quarter mile away from the school to their car where they could legally store their weapons, then sprinting back and engaging and stopping a shooter. So yeah. It's possible. Certainly, it's more possible than if they aren't allowed to have their guns anywhere near the school at all, right? We're talking about probabilities here, not absolutes. Will someone be able to do this in every case? Of course not. Are they more able to do so if they are able to store their weapons on campus rather than being barred from doing so? Absolutely.

Quote:
This only works if the teachers classroom and the lounge are close to each other but nowhere near the shoote, and the shooter doesn't know that there is a weapon in the lounge.


Let's change "teacher" to "faculty". You get that not everyone who works at a school is a teacher, right? By using the word "teacher" you shrink the set to those most likely to be in classrooms teaching at the time of a shooting, which unfairly skews the issue. A faculty member could be in the lounge at the time the shooting starts. They could be on a prep period, or the shooting could start during lunch, assembly, etc. The typical teacher is only actually in a classroom in front of students about 50% of the total school day, and not all faculty are teachers. Again, this is about odds, not absolutes.

Quote:
Under your hypothetical, the odds of the shooter knowing about the weapon in the lounge is pretty great, since one of your legs of your argument is that if the shooter know there is an armed person in the school, he's less likely to show up.


No. My argument is based on the fact that the potential shooter will have no clue if some of the faculty have firearms on campus, which faculty might if any do, and where said firearms would be stored if that was the case. Those unknowns will present a disincentive for the shooter *and* if the shooter chooses to go forward with the shooting, makes it harder for him to plan his shooting to avoid those unknowns. He wont know which teachers to make sure are in class when he starts shooting. He wont know which if any of the office staff might have a firearm. He therefore cannot ensure that he can maximize the time he has to commit his crime before someone shows up to stop him.


Which is exactly the point.

Quote:
Not that I am in any way advocating this, but your scenario works much better if the teacher has his/her weapon in the classroom with him/her. Which, lets face it, is just an assinine idea.


Yes. It would work better that way. But I agree it would open the door for far more problems than it would solve. Again, you start dealing with odds here. What are the odds that a firearm on a teacher in the classroom will result in a shooting (accidental or otherwise) by itself? Unruly student grabs the gun. Teacher over-reacts and uses the gun. Lots of scenarios puts this in the "probably a bad idea" category. That's why I suggested what I suggested. Let the school and/or district decide how they want to manage legal possession of firearms on their campuses. I'm just suggesting that if we're already even entertaining the idea of putting armed security in schools, why not save the expense and simply remove the legal restrictions when it comes to faculty/staff at the schools? Let the schools decide how to do this safely, but remove the federal and state restrictions currently in place so that they can actually do this in the first place.

Right now, under existing law the only way to have armed resistance to a potential shooter is to have actual law enforcement (including licensed security) employed at the school. That's expensive, and as Columbine taught us, not necessarily effective.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#408 Jan 21 2013 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,907 posts
Great post, gbaji. Great fucking post. You champion, you beast, you posting master. This will go down in history as your finest fucking work.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#409 Jan 21 2013 at 6:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Listening to local news, I heard that there were a couple bills being brought in front of lawmakers here in Michigan to make any Federal gun controls law invalid for guns and ammunition manufactured and sold inside Michigan.

It must make you sad to know that the lawmakers in MI have no idea how our tiered legislative system works.


Or happy that they know exactly how our judicial system works.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#410 Jan 21 2013 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not really since they could file suit even without silly "We're not gonna do it!" laws on the books.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#411 Jan 21 2013 at 6:49 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,907 posts
Yeah, you suck, gbaji. Stop sucking so much, you great big sucker.

P.S. You suck.

P.P.S. You tell 'im, Jophiel!!
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#412 Jan 21 2013 at 6:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,622 posts
When did a faculty member sprint to their car, get a gun, and stop a mass shooting? I find it difficult to just take your word on this one.

I'm going to have to say that the odds of this helping more than harming are slim to none. Not only do the stars have to align just so to have this hypothetical go off as planned, but I also would not feel terribly comfortable knowing that the creepy janitor at my kids school might be packing heat while my child is in attendance. Thinking back to my school days, I can think of maybe one or two faculty members that I might have trusted to handle a gun around the students. If your harebrained scheme were to be in any way effective, there would have to be mandatory gun training involved for all faculty, and if you're going to start expecting these faculty members to play Rambo, you definitely need to pay them at least double what they're making now.

Its just not a good idea on so many fronts, IMHO.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#413 Jan 21 2013 at 6:54 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,907 posts
Could you maybe throw a couple of puerile insults in there, Belkira? It's for the greater good.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#414 Jan 21 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You okay there, Kavekk? Feeling ignored?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#415 Jan 21 2013 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,907 posts
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one working on our relationship.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#416 Jan 21 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Not really since they could file suit even without silly "We're not gonna do it!" laws on the books.


Irrelevant. It's a matter of who "they" are. An individual could sue claiming that a federal assault weapon ban (whatever that means) violates their 2nd amendment right. But a state could not. By passing a law which directly contradicts such a ban, it allows the states themselves to make a separate challenge (that pesky 10th amendment) on the issue. Doubly relevant given the restrictions (made/sold within the state). What right does the federal government have to limit non-interstate commerce of firearms? Clear 10th amendment issue, even leaving off the whole firearms aspect of it.

When a state and federal law directly contradict each other, it's also a lot faster/easier for said case to get to the Supreme Court level. Again, this is an indication of these legislatures having a good grasp of our our judicial system works. If they don't pass a law at the state level which contradicts the federal law, they can't make a claim that the federal law unfairly infringes on their state's right to pass their own laws. It's a standing issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#417 Jan 21 2013 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uh huh. Not really but I'm glad you're willing to go balls out to defend any stupid state legislative action that suits your agenda. Have fun with that Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#418 Jan 21 2013 at 7:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Belkira wrote:
When did a faculty member sprint to their car, get a gun, and stop a mass shooting? I find it difficult to just take your word on this one.


Ended a shooting (again, "stop" can also mean "prevent", which is not what I'm talking about). Go look up the Pearl High School Shooting. Of course, unless you really look, you'll just read that the assistant principle stopped the shooter with his pistol as the shooter was attempting to leave the scene. What you wont read, unless you look for more detail, is that the reason he wasn't able to intervene earlier was because he had to run to his vehicle to retrieve his weapon:

Quote:
The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.


and

Quote:
Myrick is as much of a hero as the law would allow. He was only seconds away from the shootings, yet the law had him far away from his gun. Federal law precludes anyone but a cop from having a weapon in or near a school. The modern spree of school shootings began sometime shortly after this law was enacted. In most places, state and local laws needlessly duplicate the federal law, serving only to accommodate political grandstanding.


How many fewer shots would the shooter have gotten off if he had only need to run to his office, or lounge to retrieve his gun instead of the federally mandated distance from the edge of the campus?

Quote:
I'm going to have to say that the odds of this helping more than harming are slim to none.


And yet, there are nearly as many stories of individual armed civilians intervening in a shooting (and potentially preventing it from becoming a mass shooting in the first place) as there are stories of mass shootings themselves. For every Aurora Theater Shooting, there's a New Destiny Church shooting (also in Aurora just 3 months prior) which never became a mass shooting because one person happened to be there with a concealed weapon and ended the shooting.

Remember that the odds of being in such a shooting in the first place are "slim to none", yet they do happen.

Quote:
Not only do the stars have to align just so to have this hypothetical go off as planned, but I also would not feel terribly comfortable knowing that the creepy janitor at my kids school might be packing heat while my child is in attendance. Thinking back to my school days, I can think of maybe one or two faculty members that I might have trusted to handle a gun around the students. If your harebrained scheme were to be in any way effective, there would have to be mandatory gun training involved for all faculty, and if you're going to start expecting these faculty members to play Rambo, you definitely need to pay them at least double what they're making now.


Most people who own firearms legally are capable users of them (yes, there are exceptions). Doubly so those who apply for and obtain concealed carry permits. Presumably triply those who are also employees at a school (and already have a whole bunch of requirements and responsibilities when it comes to the kids in their care). And my suggestion does not preclude a school deciding who can or can't carry weapons on their campus. If they decide that the janitor isn't sufficiently responsible or trusted, they can exclude janitorial staff if they wish. They can also require that anyone who wants to bring a weapon to work must pass a safety class (or place any other restriction they want). The point is that without removing the current federal and state laws regarding this, we can't allow *anyone* other than on duty police and security to legally have firearms on or near a school campus, whether the school, the district, or the parents would want them to or not.

Quote:
Its just not a good idea on so many fronts, IMHO.


Because it's unlikely to reduce the number of deaths when a shooting occurs? But "unlikely" is still greater odds than currently exist. And even under the current restrictions there have been rare cases where it's happened anyway. So higher probability of reducing the number of dead children isn't worth it? Why not?


What's strange is that we can say with some degree of certainty that the statistical number of deaths from such shootings will be greater over time with those laws in place than with them not. So by keeping them in place we are killing school children. We don't know which ones, or how many, but we are increasing the total number who will be (and have been) killed over any given period of time by keeping those laws in place. So you're basically supporting a course of action which will result in more dead kids purely because.... why? A knee jerk assumption that guns are bad and should be banned wherever we can? I just don't get it. I'm sure for the hard core long term anti-gun crowd increased deaths among students is a price worth paying for the goal of more gun control, but is this something more "normal" people agree with? If you could pass a law that would ensure that 10 more children were killed in gun violence each year, but that by doing so you'd increase awareness of gun violence and increase the odds of passing some kind of sweeping gun control, would you do it? Would the end goal of gun control be worth a statistically increased number of deaths of children?


To me, that's what we're looking at here. It's a law that seems designed to make schools nice fat targets for potential mass shooters. It's designed to maximize the number of kids who will die when such shootings do occur. Now maybe that's just unintended side effects of a well meaning law, or maybe it's a sinister plot to intentionally create as many helpless child victims of guns as possible as part of a longer term gun control push. I can't say for sure, but in either case, shouldn't any rational person oppose the law? I think so. Unless you want more kids to die in these kinds of shootings, that is.

Edited, Jan 21st 2013 5:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#419 Jan 21 2013 at 7:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uh huh. Not really but I'm glad you're willing to go balls out to defend any stupid state legislative action that suits your agenda. Have fun with that Smiley: laugh


It's not about my agenda Joph. Why do *you* think they passed the law? I mean, it screams "10th amendment challenge" as loud as can be. How much more blatant do they need to be?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#420 Jan 21 2013 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
How many fewer shots would the shooter have gotten off if he had only need to run to his office, or lounge to retrieve his gun instead of the federally mandated distance from the edge of the campus?
First, nice opinion editorial link. I went ahead and looked up the story itself instead of the dong-gobbling your link provided. You're welcome. Considering he was stopped while leaving the school meaning the shooting was already stopped, to answer your question I'd go with none. He specifically targeted his ex-girlfriend so she'd be dead regardless, the other girl was in the vicinity so she'd be dead too, and I'm not finding further details but I kind of doubt he just wandered around to injure the seven other people so I imagine they were in the same range as the two dead girls as well. If he saw the rifle while Luke was entering the school (Luke was wearing a trench coat, but all indications say he wasn't trying too hard to hide the 30-30) he'd still have to go to where the gun was stored, unlock it, and hope he ran to the right place to stop those shootings. I'd say that'd take at least thirty seconds depending on the lock and distance to and from the incident and stored weapon, as opposed to the minute plus to get to his truck (and we're assuming the truck was at the legal distance, and he didn't just have the gun illegally stored. Nothing in any story I've read said the truck was legally 1,320ft away from the school grounds. World record quarter mile is 45s, and I don't think you'll argue that the VP of a high school was also an Olympic runner.) and get lucky Luke was leaving anyway.

Now, maybe if the VP's office happened to overlook the main entrance that Luke came through, and if he was paying close enough attention to a student walking in through the door and saw the rifle, and if the gun was stored in the Joe's office anyway, and if Luke didn't decide to start shooting anyway after seeing Joe's gun then Joe could have prevented the whole thing and you'd be right. However, and this is a big however, this is just playing the "if" game until all the details of your hypothetical line up perfectly to suit you. The problem is that the actual details of what happened don't make the odds all that much favorable for having the gun in the school in the hands of any Pep Streebek wannabe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#421 Jan 21 2013 at 9:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How many fewer shots would the shooter have gotten off if he had only need to run to his office, or lounge to retrieve his gun instead of the federally mandated distance from the edge of the campus?
First, nice opinion editorial link. I went ahead and looked up the story itself instead of the dong-gobbling your link provided. You're welcome. Considering he was stopped while leaving the school meaning the shooting was already stopped, to answer your question I'd go with none. He specifically targeted his ex-girlfriend so she'd be dead regardless, the other girl was in the vicinity so she'd be dead too, and I'm not finding further details but I kind of doubt he just wandered around to injure the seven other people so I imagine they were in the same range as the two dead girls as well.


Except:

Quote:
Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up.


He wasn't heading off to give up. He was getting into his car to head to another school to shoot more people. You can question the particular article I linked, but I've run across several different sources which have stated this.

Quote:
If he saw the rifle while Luke was entering the school (Luke was wearing a trench coat, but all indications say he wasn't trying too hard to hide the 30-30) he'd still have to go to where the gun was stored, unlock it, and hope he ran to the right place to stop those shootings.


Yes. Exactly what he had to do anyway. Except that said firearm would be closer. Closer means faster. Faster means shooter has less time to kill people. Which means fewer dead people.

Quote:
I'd say that'd take at least thirty seconds depending on the lock and distance to and from the incident and stored weapon, as opposed to the minute plus to get to his truck (and we're assuming the truck was at the legal distance, and he didn't just have the gun illegally stored. Nothing in any story I've read said the truck was legally 1,320ft away from the school grounds. World record quarter mile is 45s, and I don't think you'll argue that the VP of a high school was also an Olympic runner.) and get lucky Luke was leaving anyway.


It doesn't matter how long it would take. It will take less time if his gun is closer than if it is farther away. Everything else staying the same, if it's possible to save any lives at all, you will save more if the firearm is closer than if it is farther. It's about relative statistical outcomes.

It's just strange how people's brains seem to turn to mush when certain subjects come up. If we were talking about a first aid kit you'd never argue that distance doesn't matter so there's no reason to make sure they're as close as possible to where people might get hurt. But in this case it suddenly doesn't matter how far away a person's gun is because you'll just assume they could never get to it in time anyway? Isn't that silly? Of course it matters.


If we accept the fact that it's possible for armed civilians to intervene in a shooting and save lives (which me must because we know it's happened) then it's absurd to argue that how far we require said civilian to keep his gun from his person doesn't impact his ability to potentially save lives. Everything else staying the same, the more time it takes a civilian who is attempting armed intervention during a shooting to arm themselves, the more lives will be lost. That's very straightforward logic.

Quote:
Now, maybe if the VP's office happened to overlook the main entrance that Luke came through, and if he was paying close enough attention to a student walking in through the door and saw the rifle, and if the gun was stored in the Joe's office anyway, and if Luke didn't decide to start shooting anyway after seeing Joe's gun then Joe could have prevented the whole thing and you'd be right. However, and this is a big however, this is just playing the "if" game until all the details of your hypothetical line up perfectly to suit you. The problem is that the actual details of what happened don't make the odds all that much favorable for having the gun in the school in the hands of any Pep Streebek wannabe.


You're inventing scenarios to justify your position. The fact is that in that case the vice principle did see the shooter, he did run off to get his gun, and his gun was far enough away that by the time he got back he wasn't able to do more than apprehend the shooter and hold him for police. We can't make absolute conclusions about the specific outcome had he had his pistol locked in his office instead of his truck, but assuming that his office was closer than his truck, then he would have been able to intervene sooner. Whether that would have prevented the fatalities in that case is unknown, but it might have. It certainly had better odds of doing so than otherwise.

There's just no logic to your argument. We can sit here and play scenario games all day long, but at the end of that day, the fact is that everything else staying the same, if it's possible at all for a civilian to intervene in a shooting and save lives, he will be more likely to do so if he's armed. And the sooner he can be armed and arrive where the shooter is, the sooner he may intervene. And the sooner he intervenes and ends the shooting, the greater the odds that fewer people will die.

Logic alone gives us every reason to conclude that our current gun free zone laws are resulting in increased school shooting deaths. And that's even if we didn't have the statistical data to back it up. Since the mid 90s when we passed that federal law (1996 IIRC), we've seen the number of mass shootings at schools spike. We went from nearly never having such things happen to having them happen every year or so. At what point do we take seriously the speculation that perhaps this law is why we're seeing these types of shootings happen so frequently? We've told any yahoo who wants to take his anger out on the world in a grand display of violence exactly the best location to do so. And the best location? Our schools.

Sorry, but I think that's nuts. We're killing kids in the name of gun control. It's ridiculous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#422 Jan 21 2013 at 9:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not about my agenda Joph. Why do *you* think they passed the law?

Adorable that you think this was anything more than a penis-stroking sop to the NRA "Obama is a Fascist Monster!!!" set.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#423 Jan 21 2013 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
If we were talking about a first aid kit you'd never argue that distance doesn't matter so there's no reason to make sure they're as close as possible to where people might get hurt.
Except there are more than one first aid kits throughout a school, and at least one individual whose job is to be there in emergency situations which is almost 100% contradictory to your "one gun in the school will absolutely save lives" argument.
gbaji wrote:
He wasn't heading off to give up.
He was heading off from the original shooting. Those nine shots weren't stopped by Joe and his gun in the truck, and the facts are against him to have been able to prevent them if the gun was closer. Those are the facts of the story, no matter how much you want to try to distort them to favor your hypothetical. I know you like to change the question when the answer isn't to your liking, but there you have it. Reality.
gbaji wrote:
The fact is that in that case the vice principle did see the shooter,
your own article wrote:
The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck.
So what you're saying is Joe saw the gun and just let him go? He didn't give a flying fuck that he saw a kid with a rifle just walking in and ignored him? That must have been some pretty damn awesome coffee he was drinking. And this is the kind of monster you want in our schools? One that just lets kids with guns walk around the halls until the bloodshed?

Who is "inventing scenarios" to "justify their position" here?

Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 12:45am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#424 Jan 21 2013 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
466 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
When did a faculty member sprint to their car, get a gun, and stop a mass shooting? I find it difficult to just take your word on this one.


Ended a shooting (again, "stop" can also mean "prevent", which is not what I'm talking about). Go look up the Pearl High School Shooting. Of course, unless you really look, you'll just read that the assistant principle stopped the shooter with his pistol as the shooter was attempting to leave the scene. What you wont read, unless you look for more detail, is that the reason he wasn't able to intervene earlier was because he had to run to his vehicle to retrieve his weapon:

Quote:
The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.


and

Quote:
Myrick is as much of a hero as the law would allow. He was only seconds away from the shootings, yet the law had him far away from his gun. Federal law precludes anyone but a cop from having a weapon in or near a school. The modern spree of school shootings began sometime shortly after this law was enacted. In most places, state and local laws needlessly duplicate the federal law, serving only to accommodate political grandstanding.

Is any mention of him
gbaji wrote:
sprinting up to a quarter mile away from the school to their car where they could legally store their weapons, then sprinting back and engaging and stopping a shooter

So, do you have a link for your quarter mile statement or will you just gloss over that? Because you said there have been cases.
#425 Jan 22 2013 at 3:49 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
God bless them law abiding citizens with their firearms, keeping us all safe.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#426 Jan 22 2013 at 4:05 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,691 posts
Gun control won't end crime, obviously. We have gun control, but organized criminals still run around with them. Organized criminals are less likely to go shoot up a school, though. School shootings seem to be a spur of the moment thing by troubled kids, enabled by the kids' easy access to guns.

Gun control would have prevented the assistant principal from getting his gun in the truck, yes, but it likely also would have prevented the 16-year-old gunman from getting a rifle. It's kind of silly to argue that easy access to guns prevents crimes enabled by easy access to guns.

Now, if the assistant principal had stopped organized criminals (say, terrorists) from carrying out organized crime, that would have been a better argument.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#427 Jan 22 2013 at 5:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
25,549 posts
Mazra wrote:
It's kind of silly to argue that easy access to guns prevents crimes enabled by easy access to guns.
You're using logic, that's cheating!
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#428 Jan 22 2013 at 6:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
BonYogi wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Myrick is as much of a hero as the law would allow. He was only seconds away from the shootings, yet the law had him far away from his gun. Federal law precludes anyone but a cop from having a weapon in or near a school. The modern spree of school shootings began sometime shortly after this law was enacted. In most places, state and local laws needlessly duplicate the federal law, serving only to accommodate political grandstanding.

Is any mention of him
gbaji wrote:
sprinting up to a quarter mile away from the school to their car where they could legally store their weapons, then sprinting back and engaging and stopping a shooter

So, do you have a link for your quarter mile statement or will you just gloss over that? Because you said there have been cases.


Um... Because the law in question prohibits firearm possession by anyone but on duty law enforcement within a "school zone". A school zone is defined as anywhere within 1000 feet of the property line of the school. So depending on where one is within the school at the time a shooting begins (and where their car is parked), they might need to run "up to a quarter mile" to get to where they have legally stored their firearm.

Now, the federal law does allow a number of exceptions and one is if the weapon is unloaded and locked in a secure container or gun rack on/in a motor vehicle, but this exception is generally for people driving a vehicle in the area (so you don't get charged with a federal crime just happening to drive within 1000 feet of a school that you may not have known about). Most states have laws which mirror that law and are more strict in this regard, typically prohibiting storage of firearms on school property no matter how stored (so no parking your car in the school lot with a gun inside). My statement about needing to run "up to a quarter mile away" was a general statement (and made before the example). I don't know how far that particular car was parked away from the school in the case I mentioned.

But that's still irrelevant. He had to go farther to get his gun than he might otherwise have had to because of the laws in place. It's not about exactly how far he specifically had to go, but the fact that we arbitrarily decide that we can't have guns within reasonable reach of law abiding citizens in the event something like this happens. As I've said repeatedly, anything that's "farther" means it takes longer to get there, which means it takes longer to attempt to intervene in the shooting. Everything else being the same, we're increasing the statistical number of deaths from shootings like this by having these laws in place.


I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make. It would seem like the fact that very few people are able to run a great distance away to get a firearm in time to end a mass shooting would be a great argument for not requiring them to keep their guns so far away. I'm not sure how you think this constitutes any sort of argument in favor of continuing to restrict firearm possession within school zones at the federal/state level. Makes no sense at all.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 4:50pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#429 Jan 22 2013 at 6:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Mazra wrote:
Gun control would have prevented the assistant principal from getting his gun in the truck, yes, but it likely also would have prevented the 16-year-old gunman from getting a rifle. It's kind of silly to argue that easy access to guns prevents crimes enabled by easy access to guns.


There are no gun control measures even remotely being considered which would have prevented the shooting in question (which was committed with a bolt action hunting rifle btw). And even more dangerous weapons are rarely impacted by such things. Norway has pretty strict gun control laws in place, more strict than even those proposed by the Dems right now, yet a gunman managed to kill 77 people in a mass shooting there.

The idea that gun control will prevent such things is a myth.

Quote:
Now, if the assistant principal had stopped organized criminals (say, terrorists) from carrying out organized crime, that would have been a better argument.


If his gun had been more easily/quickly accessible, he might have saved more people than he did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#430 Jan 22 2013 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Norway has pretty strict gun control laws in place, more strict than even those proposed by the Dems right now, yet a gunman managed to kill 77 people in a mass shooting there.

The idea that gun control will prevent such things is a myth.

"Prevent" as in 100% guarantee? Sure, it won't do so. Mitigate and lower the rate of? Well, I'm guessing Norway's per capita "death by gun" rate is still far lower than ours.

Huh... 1.78 (Norway) versus 10.2 (United States). Who would have thunk it?

To be more exact, in the US, the gun-related homicide rate is 3.7 people per 100k. In Norway it's 0.04 people per 100k.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 7:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#431 Jan 22 2013 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:

The idea that gun control will prevent such things is a myth.

No kidding. No one is stating that gun control will put a complete halt to such acts of violence. Doesn't it strike you as odd though that we have some of the most liberal gun laws and highest gun violence in the developed world?

Gbaji wrote:

If his gun had been more easily/quickly accessible, he might have saved more people than he did.


"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we all would have a merry christmas"

You do realize there is also the chance he would have gotten himself killed. Or killed someone else. Or have zero impact on anything at all. Working in the land of hypothetical is fun and all but is practically useless outside of abstract ideas.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#432 Jan 22 2013 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
And, to be fair, I'll admit that Norway's homicide rate vs that of the US may not be completely linked to the number of firearms. For instance, Norway's robust social safety net probably has a lot to do with them not shooting one another as well.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#433 Jan 22 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
As I've said repeatedly, anything that's "farther" means it takes longer to get there, which means it takes longer to attempt to intervene in the shooting.
I've proven you wrong every time you've said it. Smiley: smile
gbaji wrote:
If his gun had been more easily/quickly accessible, he might have saved more people than he did.
Or not, but keep pretending facts and reality don't exist.

And this quick one:
gbaji wrote:
(which was committed with a bolt action hunting rifle btw)
Do you mean the Pearl High School one that you embarrassed yourself with? Because Marlin Model 336 (and 30-30s in general) are lever action, not bolt action. And no, it isn't semantics.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 8:46pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#434 Jan 22 2013 at 7:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Norway has pretty strict gun control laws in place, more strict than even those proposed by the Dems right now, yet a gunman managed to kill 77 people in a mass shooting there.

The idea that gun control will prevent such things is a myth.

"Prevent" as in 100% guarantee? Sure, it won't do so. Mitigate and lower the rate of?


So kinda like allowing conceal carry?

Quote:
Well, I'm guessing Norway's per capita "death by gun" rate is still far lower than ours.

Huh... 1.78 (Norway) versus 10.2 (United States). Who would have thunk it?


Conflating two things. Obviously if you have more strict gun controls, you'll have lower "gun violence" or even "deaths by gun". But that's circular. The question is whether actual overall crime/violence/murder rates are lower because of gun control and there's very close to zero evidence that one affects the other. But we were talking about mass shooting events, and how to prevent them. Clearly we can't prevent them via gun control, so why not allow legal changes (like more concealed carry and removing gun free zones around schools) which would mitigate and lower the rate of such shootings?

Quote:
To be more exact, in the US, the gun-related homicide rate is 3.7 people per 100k. In Norway it's 0.04 people per 100k.


Sure. So what? When guns are available, people who want to kill someone else will choose to use a gun. If they aren't, they'll use other means. The overall homicide rate in Norway is .6, while it's 4.8 in the US. So in the US, 77% of all homicides are committed via firearm, while in Norway only 6.6% are. But put another way, the ratio of homicides committed with something other than a firearm is much higher in Norway than in the US, right? That strongly suggests that when guns aren't available, people still try to commit crimes (and murders). They just use other tools to do so.

It tells us nothing about what the overall murder rate would be in Norway if they changed their gun control laws to be exactly like in the US. Perhaps then, we'd see .45 gun-related homicides per 100k out of .6 total homicides out of 100k. All you may change is how the murders are committed, not whether they are. There's no strong evidence that simply having guns more available makes people commit more murders than otherwise. The evidence seems to suggests merely an effect on the choice of weapons.


The US has a higher overall murder rate. There are a host of sociological and geographical reasons for that. Assuming it's "because we have more guns" is quite a stretch, but that's more or less the argument you're trying to use. I think it's a flawed one. I think we need to look at how legal changes in the US might change things in the US and not assume that if we changed our laws to be like <insert European nation here>, it'll magically make our overall crime and murder rates go down.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#435gbaji, Posted: Jan 22 2013 at 8:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes. And a giant meteor could have fallen from the sky and killed them all. So what? He could have gotten himself killed by intervening as he did. Yet, he didn't, and he got the shooter to surrender without any other deaths. So why assume that he could not have done that if he'd gotten there sooner? Sure, maybe he wouldn't have changed anything. Maybe things would have been worse. But maybe they would have been better. I happen to think the odds of an armed person opposing a mass shooter producing a better outcome than if he wasn't there is more than worth the risk that he might make things worse. And I don't think consigning children in schools to be helpless victims until the police arrive is a great alternative. Why not allow someone the chance to intervene? Why not give those people the best chance possible of successfully intervening?
#436 Jan 22 2013 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,229 posts
The people saying we should ban all guns are just as insane as the people saying we need to have everyone armed. My god, why does it have to be such extremes?
#437 Jan 22 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,278 posts
Nadenu wrote:
The people saying we should ban all guns are just as insane as the people saying we need to have everyone armed.
Don't forget the "if the janitor had his piece he would have absolutely and for certain saved lives no matter what reality says but this isn't an absolute statement and not all but certainly some!" argument.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#438 Jan 22 2013 at 9:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
"Prevent" as in 100% guarantee? Sure, it won't do so. Mitigate and lower the rate of?
So kinda like allowing conceal carry?

No, what gave you that idea?

Quote:
Conflating two things. Obviously if you have more strict gun controls, you'll have lower "gun violence" or even "deaths by gun".

Fantastic. I'm glad you're on board Smiley: thumbsup

But great job pointing to Norway for one isolated event and then backpedaling like a motherfucker when confronted with actual data! Smiley: laugh

By the way, when people say "Developed nations", they are commonly referring to the ones in dark blue on this map. Or the ones shown on this map. Or this one.

So while I think it's absolutely ducky that you looked up firearm death rates in Venezuela and Cuba, no one is making the argument you're so proud of yourself for debunking.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 9:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#439 Jan 22 2013 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Why not allow someone the chance to intervene? Why not give those people the best chance possible of successfully intervening?


Time and time again that rambo thinking ends up getting the would-be hero either wounded or killed. We have pointed this out to you but you keep ignoring it.

Gbaji wrote:
A Christmas that some kids might have lived to see. Way to ruin Christmas.


This comes from the guy who doesn't care if Billy and Susie starve if it means Gbaji Joe might "suffer" a bit. Smiley: rolleyes

The rest of what you said I am not going to bother with. So many logical fallacies... my brain hurts trying to follow your logic.

____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#440 Jan 23 2013 at 4:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,699 posts
When Gbaji says stuff like "We're (barely) better than Cuba at preventing gun violence!" it makes my brain sad.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#441 Jan 23 2013 at 5:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
But we were talking about mass shooting events, and how to prevent them. Clearly we can't prevent them via gun control, so why not allow legal changes (like more concealed carry and removing gun free zones around schools) which would mitigate and lower the rate of such shootings?


That is just as appropriate a response to the recent round of mass shootings as banning all guns is.

Making it harder for crazy folks to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time isn't an assault on anyone's 2nd amendment rights, its common sense. Tougher gun regulations should definitely be a part of this discussion. Denying it should be, by providing far right opinion pieces as evidence, will be about as effective in this instance as when you do it with climate change.

It's also outright lies, but that never stopped you before so...
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#442 Jan 23 2013 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,549 posts
Jophiel wrote:
And, to be fair, I'll admit that Norway's homicide rate vs that of the US may not be completely linked to the number of firearms. For instance, Norway's robust social safety net probably has a lot to do with them not shooting one another as well.
Their penal system probably has something to do with it too. It's the polar opposite of the US in pretty much every way, perhaps even gone too far as it's so friendly that some eastern European people actually want to go to jail because they'll make more money than they do in their home country while also getting free food and a roof over their head so as soon as they're released they'll commit some petty crime to go back to jail. But even with those people, I think Norway still has (one of) the lowest recidivism rate(s) in the world.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#443 Jan 23 2013 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,691 posts
Nadenu wrote:
The people saying we should ban all guns are just as insane as the people saying we need to have everyone armed. My god, why does it have to be such extremes?


Because people are stupid and can't handle greyscale rules.

Out of curiosity, though, what is it that you imagine would be so bad about complete gun control?
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#444 Jan 23 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, but if you moved Norway to central Africa, that would change!

Of course another country not located in central Africa is the United States and our homicide by firearms rate falls right between that of Costa Rica and Zimbabwe. With stats like those, I guess if you moved us to central Africa it'd be like Thunderdome.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#445 Jan 23 2013 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,699 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, but if you moved Norway to central Africa, that would change!

Of course another country not located in central Africa is the United States and our homicide by firearms rate falls right between that of Costa Rica and Zimbabwe. With stats like those, I guess if you moved us to central Africa it'd be like Thunderdome.


No, then we could export some of our gun violence to neighboring countries.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#446 Jan 23 2013 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Obviously if you have more strict gun controls, you'll have lower "gun violence" or even "deaths by gun".


Quoted without comment.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#447 Jan 23 2013 at 9:09 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,278 posts
Clearly we should let people build missile silos in their backyards.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#448 Jan 23 2013 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,691 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Clearly we should let people build missile silos in their backyards.


Screw my earlier comments, I'm going with the backyard missile silo idea.

This needs to happen.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#449 Jan 23 2013 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When suitcase dirty-nukes are criminalized, only criminals will have suitcase dirty-nukes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#450 Jan 23 2013 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,387 posts
gbaji wrote:
Conflating two things. Obviously if you have more strict gun controls, you'll have lower "gun violence" or even "deaths by gun". But that's circular. The question is whether actual overall crime/violence/murder rates are lower because of gun control and there's very close to zero evidence that one affects the other. But we were talking about mass shooting events, and how to prevent them. Clearly we can't prevent them via gun control, so why not allow legal changes (like more concealed carry and removing gun free zones around schools) which would mitigate and lower the rate of such shootings?


These two are so mixed up right now. Gun-related homicides in general don't seem very related to the mass shootings that pop up on occasion, other than both using a gun of course. On one hand you have people who have a relatively clean slate, peppered with a touch of concern about their mental health going ape-sh*t on a school. The other extreme you have a career criminal spiraling down a violent path of crime/drugs/gangs/etc culminating with a shooting, maybe several times.

I'm not sure how you can really stop a person determined to go out in a 'blaze of glory' though. Any practical defense a school district can afford can be fairly easily overcome by a reasonably determined attacker. I'm not sure spending millions of dollars on armed guards, gun safety training, or whatever is really the best use of money for a school district struggling to educate their kids.

I dunno, our high school security officer dealt drugs to the kids for years before he was caught. I would have hated to have given him a gun on campus. On the other hand despite the school being a gun-free zone guns were commonly brought to school anyway. Especially during hunting season there were always guns in cars in the parking lot. I never heard of any trouble coming from that, however there was the kid who pulled a knife on one of the other students in front of me in the hallway. On one hand it was crime without a gun, on the other that was unsettling enough without imagining him with a firearm.

I guess in the end when I hear gun-free zone I think "cheapest and least controversial way to address a problem" more than a best solution. I'm not sure if there's really a more practical way to address things. Massive school shootings and other mass-murder events are thankfully rare, and I'm not sure one can really afford to spend so much money on such an isolated problem. Again though, I'm going on the assumption anyone bringing a firearm onto school grounds would have to be trained somehow and that they wouldn't allow just anyone to bring a weapon there. Liability reasons if nothing else. Crazy guy kills people and it's a tragedy, your guy kills people and it's a lawsuit.

There, now you can read a wall of text from me for once. Smiley: tongue Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#451 Jan 23 2013 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
On one hand you have people who have a relatively clean slate, peppered with a touch of concern about their mental health going ape-sh*t on a school. [...] The other extreme you have a career criminal...
...I would have hated to have given him a gun on campus. On the other hand despite the school being a gun-free zone guns were commonly brought to school anyway. [...]
On one hand it was crime without a gun, on the other that was unsettling enough without imagining him with a firearm.

It's like I'm being lectured on gun control by Vishnu.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT