panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I thought all public schools had an armed, plain clothes officer. At least mine did, and I think it's a must.
Shooting in Conn. School
- Thread starter UncleBob
- Start date
[quote name='panzerfaust']I thought all public schools had an armed, plain clothes officer. At least mine did, and I think it's a must.[/QUOTE]
your elementary school had a plain clothes armed officer? I highly doubt that.
Unless you went to a school that consisted of K-8 or K-12 in the same building then there would have been no need for an armed officer.
We are talking about an elementary school. Just an elementary school. Most likely kindergarten through third grade. Why would they have the need for an officer?
You guys forget that we have close to 400 million people in this country. It hits close to home but it is still very much random. How many people die each year from random acts of violence like this?
your elementary school had a plain clothes armed officer? I highly doubt that.
Unless you went to a school that consisted of K-8 or K-12 in the same building then there would have been no need for an armed officer.
We are talking about an elementary school. Just an elementary school. Most likely kindergarten through third grade. Why would they have the need for an officer?
You guys forget that we have close to 400 million people in this country. It hits close to home but it is still very much random. How many people die each year from random acts of violence like this?
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='panzerfaust']I thought all public schools had an armed, plain clothes officer. At least mine did, and I think it's a must.[/QUOTE]
That would make for a
ing shitload of plain-clothes officers.
That would make for a
ing shitload of plain-clothes officers.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
lol damn i don't know, that's how my entire district was. one officer, a pretty friendly face and all that, very involved and like a dean. thought all schools had one.
i'm not even saying it's a great preventive measure to full out shootings, just seems natural to have one. same kind of guy who saved the people in that board meeting in florida some year ago.
he didn't do much shooting but he did presentations and safety talks to classes and was generally seen near the main offices and entrance way. it's a pretty valuable addition to any school, i think.
i'm not even saying it's a great preventive measure to full out shootings, just seems natural to have one. same kind of guy who saved the people in that board meeting in florida some year ago.
he didn't do much shooting but he did presentations and safety talks to classes and was generally seen near the main offices and entrance way. it's a pretty valuable addition to any school, i think.
raisaandriana
Banned
It is really humiliated that killing of innocent of our children and it’s also remind us about the unconsciousness of Guards of School and their responsibility and Its one Kind of failure of the authority for inspection and invigilate School and it’s premises about ensuring the secure safety of the child and the remain school authority from the effect of outer power.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
There are about 100,000 public schools. Many of which have been given less and less resources to educate more and more children. To put an armed security guard in every school is just not feasible. A qualified person would have to be well trained (ex military, ex police) and that would not come cheap. Hey I am all for it if it meant good jobs for vets but you think the budget hawks are going to cough up 5 billion a year to pay someone 50k (even if its less with benefits it is a min amount) a year to do this? I am not sure what the solution is really. The sad truth is the chances of these massacres happening are slim but when they do happen it gets a strong (deservedly) response from people.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='The Crotch']Real talk: do you advocate armed security personnel at every American school?[/QUOTE]
It's a great question. On one hand, this incident proves just how vulnerable schools tend to be. So based on what we saw, I'd say yes.
On the other hand, many schools resemble prisons already and there have been many documented...issues between police officers and students. That hardly seems like an environment conducive to learning.
Maybe have a police outpost nearby and a door locking system?
It's a great question. On one hand, this incident proves just how vulnerable schools tend to be. So based on what we saw, I'd say yes.
On the other hand, many schools resemble prisons already and there have been many documented...issues between police officers and students. That hardly seems like an environment conducive to learning.
Maybe have a police outpost nearby and a door locking system?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Maybe have a police outpost nearby and a door locking system?[/QUOTE]
You identify as a Libertarian, yes?
You identify as a Libertarian, yes?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='highoffcoffee496']http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html
"There is no pattern, there is no increase: says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University."
"Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning."
"Still, he understands the public perception — and extensive media coverage — when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. "There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening."[/QUOTE]
Your probability of being a victim in a mass killing is indeed low - and there have been few enough of them that it is hard to argue for a pattern. I disagree with Fox (someone who does know their stuff, by the way) because where he would say "there is no increase" I would argue that there certainly appears to be.
Mass killings are rare enough that we shouldn't base a policy (armed guards in every school, mandatory armed teachers, or some other foolhardy idea from the people who dare argue that *I* am the statist) to stop them. Again, my concern are the common, everyday firearm fatalities that we don't appear to be interested in stopping or basing policy around - we shouldn't base policy around the events that are *un*likely to occur.
"There is no pattern, there is no increase: says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University."
"Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning."
"Still, he understands the public perception — and extensive media coverage — when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. "There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening."[/QUOTE]
Your probability of being a victim in a mass killing is indeed low - and there have been few enough of them that it is hard to argue for a pattern. I disagree with Fox (someone who does know their stuff, by the way) because where he would say "there is no increase" I would argue that there certainly appears to be.
Mass killings are rare enough that we shouldn't base a policy (armed guards in every school, mandatory armed teachers, or some other foolhardy idea from the people who dare argue that *I* am the statist) to stop them. Again, my concern are the common, everyday firearm fatalities that we don't appear to be interested in stopping or basing policy around - we shouldn't base policy around the events that are *un*likely to occur.
[quote name='panzerfaust']I thought all public schools had an armed, plain clothes officer. At least mine did, and I think it's a must.[/QUOTE]
My HS had one, but that was more to crack down on their drug policy
EDIT: You're from IL too, huh? I guess it's just an around here thing. Where did you go?
My HS had one, but that was more to crack down on their drug policy
EDIT: You're from IL too, huh? I guess it's just an around here thing. Where did you go?
Yeah, these things are super rare. No need to have an armed officer in every school. Huge waste of resources given how rare serious violence is in most schools (small rural and suburban schools) etc. Leave that for urban schools in dangerous cities where metal detectors etc. are needed.
The only way to prevent these tragedies is to find ways to improve our mental health system. Even that will never be fool proof as we can't force parents to care about their kids or adults to go to the doctor for help etc. But we can do more for people who are diagnosed with mental health problems and don't have health insurance, or have insurance with lousy coverage for mental health issues to where they can't afford the co-pay.
Beyond that, work on banning high capacity magazines and have an aggressive buy back program for them and assault weapons etc. to try to make them harder to get in hopes that at least body counts will drop when a nut job shoots up a school, theater or other crowded area due to having to reload more often and giving people more windows to take them down without getting mowed down like the principal who lunged at this guy.
Beyond that, I agree 100% with Myke that the real issue is all the normal, single shootings that happen everyday. That's where the vast majority of the 30,000+ firearm deaths in the US are occurring and thus where public policy aimed at reducing violence needs to focus.
The only way to prevent these tragedies is to find ways to improve our mental health system. Even that will never be fool proof as we can't force parents to care about their kids or adults to go to the doctor for help etc. But we can do more for people who are diagnosed with mental health problems and don't have health insurance, or have insurance with lousy coverage for mental health issues to where they can't afford the co-pay.
Beyond that, work on banning high capacity magazines and have an aggressive buy back program for them and assault weapons etc. to try to make them harder to get in hopes that at least body counts will drop when a nut job shoots up a school, theater or other crowded area due to having to reload more often and giving people more windows to take them down without getting mowed down like the principal who lunged at this guy.
Beyond that, I agree 100% with Myke that the real issue is all the normal, single shootings that happen everyday. That's where the vast majority of the 30,000+ firearm deaths in the US are occurring and thus where public policy aimed at reducing violence needs to focus.
ced
CAGiversary!
Also another failing in our media: seems like nobody cares to report nor asks questions unless there is a mass catastrophe. As a result, people are gripped with a fear that we need to barricade against against these crazy guys armed to the teeth when in actuality the guy with a single pistol is more of a daily threat. Kind of like how plane crashes make people avoid flying when car crashes are statistically more likely to occur. Again, multi-fatality plane crash gets national attention while single victim car fatality is maybe a blip on the local radar.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']You identify as a Libertarian, yes?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Yes.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Beyond that, work on banning high capacity magazines and have an aggressive buy back program for them and assault weapons etc. to try to make them harder to get in hopes that at least body counts will drop when a nut job shoots up a school, theater or other crowded area due to having to reload more often and giving people more windows to take them down without getting mowed down like the principal who lunged at this guy.
[/QUOTE]
Virginia Tech - 32 killed - 10 round magazines, not a single "assault weapon" used. Shouldn't we be looking for real solutions?
Beyond that, work on banning high capacity magazines and have an aggressive buy back program for them and assault weapons etc. to try to make them harder to get in hopes that at least body counts will drop when a nut job shoots up a school, theater or other crowded area due to having to reload more often and giving people more windows to take them down without getting mowed down like the principal who lunged at this guy.
[/QUOTE]
Virginia Tech - 32 killed - 10 round magazines, not a single "assault weapon" used. Shouldn't we be looking for real solutions?
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Yes.[/QUOTE]
Help me understand how you can rectify being both Libertarian and advocating for turning schools into institutions/asylums.
Focusing on stopping mass killings will save us a few dozen murders a year at best; a focus on gun control could reduce overall firearm-related fatalities pretty significantly, and better treatment/attitude towards mental illnesses might help reduce the mass killings from people who have mental problems without turning primary schools into prison-like facilities.
Help me understand how you can rectify being both Libertarian and advocating for turning schools into institutions/asylums.
Focusing on stopping mass killings will save us a few dozen murders a year at best; a focus on gun control could reduce overall firearm-related fatalities pretty significantly, and better treatment/attitude towards mental illnesses might help reduce the mass killings from people who have mental problems without turning primary schools into prison-like facilities.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Help me understand how you can rectify being both Libertarian and advocating for turning schools into institutions/asylums.
Focusing on stopping mass killings will save us a few dozen murders a year at best; a focus on gun control could reduce overall firearm-related fatalities pretty significantly, and better treatment/attitude towards mental illnesses might help reduce the mass killings from people who have mental problems without turning primary schools into prison-like facilities.[/QUOTE]
I already spoke of my uneasiness of having officers in school. I don't see how having a small outpost outside of the school, where they wouldn't have day to day interaction with students, meets your description. After all, better to have them there than sleeping in their car at the outskirts of those small towns.
Focusing on stopping mass killings will save us a few dozen murders a year at best; a focus on gun control could reduce overall firearm-related fatalities pretty significantly, and better treatment/attitude towards mental illnesses might help reduce the mass killings from people who have mental problems without turning primary schools into prison-like facilities.[/QUOTE]
I already spoke of my uneasiness of having officers in school. I don't see how having a small outpost outside of the school, where they wouldn't have day to day interaction with students, meets your description. After all, better to have them there than sleeping in their car at the outskirts of those small towns.
Oh Temporary ,. I know we've been down this road before.
I just want to clarify one more time : Why not get rid of a lot of these guns?
Whats the downside again?
We might accidentally elect a tyrant?
Do you agree with the premise that 'when people are determined to do crazy shit , they'll find a way'?
Is that what we learned on 911? (Reminders Note : Sure wasn't what you in particular learned when it came to Benghazi)
So when people dont have access to guns , that doesn't mean the death toll will drop in places like Chicago?
They'll run each other over with cars or stab each other with knives , right?
But when we elect a tyrant , we're all going to need guns if you're determined to get rid of that guy. Knives and cars and poison and flying planes into buildings wont cut it at that point...
I just want to clarify one more time : Why not get rid of a lot of these guns?
Whats the downside again?
We might accidentally elect a tyrant?
Do you agree with the premise that 'when people are determined to do crazy shit , they'll find a way'?
Is that what we learned on 911? (Reminders Note : Sure wasn't what you in particular learned when it came to Benghazi)
So when people dont have access to guns , that doesn't mean the death toll will drop in places like Chicago?
They'll run each other over with cars or stab each other with knives , right?
But when we elect a tyrant , we're all going to need guns if you're determined to get rid of that guy. Knives and cars and poison and flying planes into buildings wont cut it at that point...
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
Getting rid of those guns won't do anything except disarm people who should and have a right to be armed. We've spent 1 trillion dollars and 40 years fighting a war on drugs and yet, your average 9th grader has no problems getting them. Laws against ownership of anything is immoral and not the sign of a free society.
I'm not sure what your "reminders note" is all about, so unless you want to clarify what the you're talking about, I won't address it.
Guarding against a tyrannical state isn't the only function of wanting to be armed. You can't really compare acts of terrorism to fighting against a tyrannical government. Basically, you're comparing the use of a knife against a well trained, well armed military force to that same knife against a bunch of random, unarmed civilians. The two do NOT compare.
Please, name ONE single gun law that would have kept this incident from happening.
I'm not sure what your "reminders note" is all about, so unless you want to clarify what the
you're talking about, I won't address it. Guarding against a tyrannical state isn't the only function of wanting to be armed. You can't really compare acts of terrorism to fighting against a tyrannical government. Basically, you're comparing the use of a knife against a well trained, well armed military force to that same knife against a bunch of random, unarmed civilians. The two do NOT compare.
Please, name ONE single gun law that would have kept this incident from happening.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
So we should do away with all laws cause "people gunna break 'em"? Fact is, the states with strictest gun laws have fewer gun deaths. It's not that difficult to understand. You make anything harder to get, less people will get that thing.
Feeling like one needs a gun to be safe isn't exactly the sign of a free society either.
I have a 7 and 10 year old and I am 100% against having an armed person in the school. It takes something that might having less than .01% odds of happening (gun on school property) and make it a 100% certainty. In the vast majority of case, a mass shooter is taken out my someone who in unarmed (when not killed or taken by police). You don't need a gun to be a hero- if that is your fantasy.
Feeling like one needs a gun to be safe isn't exactly the sign of a free society either.
I have a 7 and 10 year old and I am 100% against having an armed person in the school. It takes something that might having less than .01% odds of happening (gun on school property) and make it a 100% certainty. In the vast majority of case, a mass shooter is taken out my someone who in unarmed (when not killed or taken by police). You don't need a gun to be a hero- if that is your fantasy.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='usickenme']So we should do away with all laws cause "people gunna break 'em"?[/QUOTE]
Of course not, after all, you have to be able to charge them with something, but things like murder and assault are already illegal.
[quote name='usickenme']
Fact is, the states with strictest gun laws have fewer gun deaths. It's not that difficult to understand. You make anything harder to get, less people will get that thing.
[/QUOTE]
And yet, gun free areas like Washington DC and Chicago are some of the most violent cities in the US. A disarmed public makes for easy pickings for criminals who don't give a shit what gun laws are. Here where I live, it's very difficult to get a pistol permit, and yet, almost every day there's a shooting.
[quote name='usickenme']
Feeling like one needs a gun to be safe isn't exactly the sign of a free society either.[/QUOTE]
Sure it is. Free doesn't mean safe.
[quote name='usickenme']
I have a 7 and 10 year old and I am 100% against having an armed person in the school. It takes something that might having less than .01% odds of happening (gun on school property) and make it a 100% certainty. In the vast majority of case, a mass shooter is taken out my someone who in unarmed (when not killed or taken by police). You don't need a gun to be a hero- if that is your fantasy.[/QUOTE]
You're right, you don't need a gun to be a hero, so we should take them away from the police and military then.
How would you feel about a police outpost on school grounds, but not a part of the everyday school population?
Of course not, after all, you have to be able to charge them with something, but things like murder and assault are already illegal.
[quote name='usickenme']
Fact is, the states with strictest gun laws have fewer gun deaths. It's not that difficult to understand. You make anything harder to get, less people will get that thing.
[/QUOTE]
And yet, gun free areas like Washington DC and Chicago are some of the most violent cities in the US. A disarmed public makes for easy pickings for criminals who don't give a shit what gun laws are. Here where I live, it's very difficult to get a pistol permit, and yet, almost every day there's a shooting.
[quote name='usickenme']
Feeling like one needs a gun to be safe isn't exactly the sign of a free society either.[/QUOTE]
Sure it is. Free doesn't mean safe.
[quote name='usickenme']
I have a 7 and 10 year old and I am 100% against having an armed person in the school. It takes something that might having less than .01% odds of happening (gun on school property) and make it a 100% certainty. In the vast majority of case, a mass shooter is taken out my someone who in unarmed (when not killed or taken by police). You don't need a gun to be a hero- if that is your fantasy.[/QUOTE]
You're right, you don't need a gun to be a hero, so we should take them away from the police and military then.
How would you feel about a police outpost on school grounds, but not a part of the everyday school population?
usickenme
CAGiversary!
oh boy..
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Of course not, after all, you have to be able to charge them with something, but things like murder and assault are already illegal. [/quote]
Laws change with the people's will. Honestly, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Just think the old "well criminals will still do crime" line is weak. It's defeatist and clearly counter to everyone of our laws.
1.) I don't care about anecdotes. 2.) Yet gun "free for all" areas also have some of the most violent cities (like the majority of the south) Guess criminals don't really care if you are packing or not. A disarmed public means less guns. PERIOD. Criminals aren't manufacturing guns, their stealing them.
Sorry but bullshit (although I do concede that freedom from fear isn't a right grant by the Constitution but guns are, unfortunately)
Works for the UK but again I'm not making that point. Weapons have a place in society. Also, those people are 100% guaranteed to be trained. Equating them with the average is useless.
I wouldn't like anything on school grounds. How far away from the police station is the average school? I would think most are within 5 minutes.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Of course not, after all, you have to be able to charge them with something, but things like murder and assault are already illegal. [/quote]
Laws change with the people's will. Honestly, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Just think the old "well criminals will still do crime" line is weak. It's defeatist and clearly counter to everyone of our laws.
1.) I don't care about anecdotes. 2.) Yet gun "free for all" areas also have some of the most violent cities (like the majority of the south) Guess criminals don't really care if you are packing or not. A disarmed public means less guns. PERIOD. Criminals aren't manufacturing guns, their stealing them.
Sorry but bullshit (although I do concede that freedom from fear isn't a right grant by the Constitution but guns are, unfortunately)
Works for the UK but again I'm not making that point. Weapons have a place in society. Also, those people are 100% guaranteed to be trained. Equating them with the average is useless.
I wouldn't like anything on school grounds. How far away from the police station is the average school? I would think most are within 5 minutes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='usickenme']oh boy..
Laws change with the people's will. Honestly, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Just think the old "well criminals will still do crime" line is weak. It's defeatist and clearly counter to everyone of our laws.
[/QUOTE]
No, saying that we should restrict everyone because of the actions of a few is defeatist. Would you be cool with restrictions on your ability to speak just because the Westboro members say ridiculous things?
[quote name='usickenme']
1.) I don't care about anecdotes. 2.) Yet gun "free for all" areas also have some of the most violent cities (like the majority of the south) Guess criminals don't really care if you are packing or not. A disarmed public means less guns. PERIOD. Criminals aren't manufacturing guns, their stealing them.
[/QUOTE]
What anecdotes? There are plenty of examples of high gun/high gun crime areas just as there are high gun/low gun crime areas. The stats on these things just aren't clear cut as there are many other factors that play into these things.
In 2011, in NY State, a place with strict gun control, had 770 counts of murder (btw, this excludes NYC just to be fair).
In 2011, Alabama (which I picked at random), had 311.
Robbery? NY - 28,317, Alabama - 4, 885.
Now, perhaps NY state (remember, not including NYC) has a higher population than Alabama, but it can't be that much higher.
Just look at stats regarding the last AWB. It had no effect on violent crime. In fact, it went up during the ban.
Now, you can argue that gun violence goes down during such bans, but who gives a shit the method by which one is killed when murder rates either stay the same or go up during these bans?
Make it tougher to get these guns? Mags? Safety requirements? It's not something I'm totally against. Full out bans? Again, it's not a solution to the problem.
[quote name='usickenme']
Sorry but bullshit
[/QUOTE]
Ok, how is it bullshit? When has free ever been equated to safe? In fact, in many ways, they tend to negate each other.
[quote name='usickenme']
Works for the UK but again I'm not making that point. Weapons have a place in society. Also, those people are 100% guaranteed to be trained. Equating them with the average is useless.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/08/police_shooting_with_empire_st.html
[quote name='usickenme']
I wouldn't like anything on school grounds. How far away from the police station is the average school? I would think most are within 5 minutes.[/QUOTE]
I completely get where you're coming from on that. But a lot can happen in five minutes. This is a prime example.
Laws change with the people's will. Honestly, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Just think the old "well criminals will still do crime" line is weak. It's defeatist and clearly counter to everyone of our laws.
[/QUOTE]
No, saying that we should restrict everyone because of the actions of a few is defeatist. Would you be cool with restrictions on your ability to speak just because the Westboro members say ridiculous things?
[quote name='usickenme']
1.) I don't care about anecdotes. 2.) Yet gun "free for all" areas also have some of the most violent cities (like the majority of the south) Guess criminals don't really care if you are packing or not. A disarmed public means less guns. PERIOD. Criminals aren't manufacturing guns, their stealing them.
[/QUOTE]
What anecdotes? There are plenty of examples of high gun/high gun crime areas just as there are high gun/low gun crime areas. The stats on these things just aren't clear cut as there are many other factors that play into these things.
In 2011, in NY State, a place with strict gun control, had 770 counts of murder (btw, this excludes NYC just to be fair).
In 2011, Alabama (which I picked at random), had 311.
Robbery? NY - 28,317, Alabama - 4, 885.
Now, perhaps NY state (remember, not including NYC) has a higher population than Alabama, but it can't be that much higher.
Just look at stats regarding the last AWB. It had no effect on violent crime. In fact, it went up during the ban.
Now, you can argue that gun violence goes down during such bans, but who gives a shit the method by which one is killed when murder rates either stay the same or go up during these bans?
Make it tougher to get these guns? Mags? Safety requirements? It's not something I'm totally against. Full out bans? Again, it's not a solution to the problem.
[quote name='usickenme']
Sorry but bullshit
[/QUOTE]
Ok, how is it bullshit? When has free ever been equated to safe? In fact, in many ways, they tend to negate each other.
[quote name='usickenme']
Works for the UK but again I'm not making that point. Weapons have a place in society. Also, those people are 100% guaranteed to be trained. Equating them with the average is useless.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/08/police_shooting_with_empire_st.html
[quote name='usickenme']
I wouldn't like anything on school grounds. How far away from the police station is the average school? I would think most are within 5 minutes.[/QUOTE]
I completely get where you're coming from on that. But a lot can happen in five minutes. This is a prime example.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']
Please, name ONE single gun law that would have kept this incident from happening.[/QUOTE]
There isnt one and you know that. Its not about any 1 specific law so your point is ridiculous. Look at it like this : This guy would've passed a background check. All he had was parking tickets...
You're okay with that?
Last time I checked as much as I hate the Westboro baptists cult , they didnt actually kill anyone.
And I'll add this:
With freedom of speech there comes a price. The price is you have to tolerate these annoying assholes and their retard opinion on god.
The price we pay for this other freedom has gotten too high.
Whats the need?
As much as we all hate those people , lets be serious here - If someone was killed at one of their protests , yeah , we'd all be talking about restricting them from protesting funerals again. Thats just the truth of it
Please, name ONE single gun law that would have kept this incident from happening.[/QUOTE]
There isnt one and you know that. Its not about any 1 specific law so your point is ridiculous. Look at it like this : This guy would've passed a background check. All he had was parking tickets...
You're okay with that?
Last time I checked as much as I hate the Westboro baptists cult , they didnt actually kill anyone.
And I'll add this:
With freedom of speech there comes a price. The price is you have to tolerate these annoying assholes and their retard opinion on god.
The price we pay for this other freedom has gotten too high.
Whats the need?
As much as we all hate those people , lets be serious here - If someone was killed at one of their protests , yeah , we'd all be talking about restricting them from protesting funerals again. Thats just the truth of it
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='EdRyder']There isnt one and you know that. Its not about any 1 specific law so your point is ridiculous. Look at it like this : This guy would've passed a background check. All he had was parking tickets...
You're okay with that? [/QUOTE]
Absolutely not. Now tell me how banning the ownership of things would have changed that.
[quote name='EdRyder']
Whats the need?
[/QUOTE]
Luckily, my life isn't determined by what you think I need and don't need.
You're okay with that? [/QUOTE]
Absolutely not. Now tell me how banning the ownership of things would have changed that.
[quote name='EdRyder']
Whats the need?
[/QUOTE]
Luckily, my life isn't determined by what you think I need and don't need.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
Oh boy did my brother-in-law lose his shit when the President came on TV. We were watching the Niners-Patriots game and they cut to the President and he yells "wonderful way to ruin the game". Then when Obama starts with the scripture (which personally I could do without) he gets up and yells "he's a frickin Muslim, he is an abomination", walks out of the room and says "I cannot look at him without wanting to throw up". Now I was no fan of George Bush and frankly thought he was a moron but I never felt like how he was ranting and raving. When the game comes back on I said the Niners scored and I wondered how. His response was we will never know since the President was using a tragedy to promote his own anti-gun agenda..."sickening". I was thinking 9/11? The conservatives have ridden that horse till is died, was buried and then dug it back up again. It is sad the President could not even say the word "gun" when talking about change. He mentioned mental health which is good but it is a combo of many things that need to change.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
I agree completely.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, these things are super rare. No need to have an armed officer in every school. Huge waste of resources given how rare serious violence is in most schools (small rural and suburban schools) etc. Leave that for urban schools in dangerous cities where metal detectors etc. are needed.
The only way to prevent these tragedies is to find ways to improve our mental health system. Even that will never be fool proof as we can't force parents to care about their kids or adults to go to the doctor for help etc. But we can do more for people who are diagnosed with mental health problems and don't have health insurance, or have insurance with lousy coverage for mental health issues to where they can't afford the co-pay.
Beyond that, work on banning high capacity magazines and have an aggressive buy back program for them and assault weapons etc. to try to make them harder to get in hopes that at least body counts will drop when a nut job shoots up a school, theater or other crowded area due to having to reload more often and giving people more windows to take them down without getting mowed down like the principal who lunged at this guy.
Beyond that, I agree 100% with Myke that the real issue is all the normal, single shootings that happen everyday. That's where the vast majority of the 30,000+ firearm deaths in the US are occurring and thus where public policy aimed at reducing violence needs to focus.[/QUOTE]
Someone on NPR earlier seemed to be saying we need a system to report people by. So that if Jim at work starts acting weird, you can report him to some agency.
Which I think would lead us down are really scary path personally. You piss off the wrong person, next thing you know they're reporting you as being unstable and you're having to deal with that.
The only way to prevent these tragedies is to find ways to improve our mental health system. Even that will never be fool proof as we can't force parents to care about their kids or adults to go to the doctor for help etc. But we can do more for people who are diagnosed with mental health problems and don't have health insurance, or have insurance with lousy coverage for mental health issues to where they can't afford the co-pay.
Beyond that, work on banning high capacity magazines and have an aggressive buy back program for them and assault weapons etc. to try to make them harder to get in hopes that at least body counts will drop when a nut job shoots up a school, theater or other crowded area due to having to reload more often and giving people more windows to take them down without getting mowed down like the principal who lunged at this guy.
Beyond that, I agree 100% with Myke that the real issue is all the normal, single shootings that happen everyday. That's where the vast majority of the 30,000+ firearm deaths in the US are occurring and thus where public policy aimed at reducing violence needs to focus.[/QUOTE]
Someone on NPR earlier seemed to be saying we need a system to report people by. So that if Jim at work starts acting weird, you can report him to some agency.
Which I think would lead us down are really scary path personally. You piss off the wrong person, next thing you know they're reporting you as being unstable and you're having to deal with that.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Clak']Someone on NPR earlier seemed to be saying we need a system to report people by. So that if Jim at work starts acting weird, you can report him to some agency.
Which I think would lead us down are really scary path personally. You piss off the wrong person, next thing you know they're reporting you as being unstable and you're having to deal with that.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I am not sure exactly how you handle it. I think you need to start young and have a system in place where parents can feel like they can go to express concerns about their own children. There are a lot of families out there with mentally unstable children that never get dealt with and they end up snapping like this guy did. Right now our treatment of mental illness is pretty much as long as they are not committing a crime the police want nothing to do with and if they do then they just want to throw them in jail. We need a better system for the Police to handle these people. I would agree though that a general "1-800" number style system could be abused.
Which I think would lead us down are really scary path personally. You piss off the wrong person, next thing you know they're reporting you as being unstable and you're having to deal with that.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I am not sure exactly how you handle it. I think you need to start young and have a system in place where parents can feel like they can go to express concerns about their own children. There are a lot of families out there with mentally unstable children that never get dealt with and they end up snapping like this guy did. Right now our treatment of mental illness is pretty much as long as they are not committing a crime the police want nothing to do with and if they do then they just want to throw them in jail. We need a better system for the Police to handle these people. I would agree though that a general "1-800" number style system could be abused.
[quote name='EdRyder']There isnt one and you know that. Its not about any 1 specific law so your point is ridiculous. Look at it like this : This guy would've passed a background check. All he had was parking tickets...
You're okay with that?
Last time I checked as much as I hate the Westboro baptists cult , they didnt actually kill anyone.
And I'll add this:
With freedom of speech there comes a price. The price is you have to tolerate these annoying assholes and their retard opinion on god.
The price we pay for this other freedom has gotten too high.
Whats the need?
As much as we all hate those people , lets be serious here - If someone was killed at one of their protests , yeah , we'd all be talking about restricting them from protesting funerals again. Thats just the truth of it[/QUOTE]
There is no need for many of the guns people like to buy. No civilian needs an assult rifle, I don't care that it's not full auto. Like I said earlier, since we've got chest thumpers here who like to bring up the 2nd amendment, I'll even work within the context of the time that was written. You want a musket? Knock yaself out. Cause that's what the authors had in mind when it was written. You think Patrick Henry envisioned something like an AR-15? Doubt it. Now I know the same people will argue that's ridiculous, and I'd expect nothing less, but the argument that we need guns to somehow protect us from our own government is ridiculous too. You standing there with your little assault rifle is equivalent to standing there with a musket because neither you, nor your compatriots have shit when it comes to the arms the military has access to. The time when military and civilian arms were roughly equal has long since passed, and there is no way in hell that any civilian needs a a rocket launcher or other explosives.
So in short, you're delusional if you think your little cache of arms is going to stop the government. You need to stop using that argument and wake up to reality.
You're okay with that?
Last time I checked as much as I hate the Westboro baptists cult , they didnt actually kill anyone.
And I'll add this:
With freedom of speech there comes a price. The price is you have to tolerate these annoying assholes and their retard opinion on god.
The price we pay for this other freedom has gotten too high.
Whats the need?
As much as we all hate those people , lets be serious here - If someone was killed at one of their protests , yeah , we'd all be talking about restricting them from protesting funerals again. Thats just the truth of it[/QUOTE]
There is no need for many of the guns people like to buy. No civilian needs an assult rifle, I don't care that it's not full auto. Like I said earlier, since we've got chest thumpers here who like to bring up the 2nd amendment, I'll even work within the context of the time that was written. You want a musket? Knock yaself out. Cause that's what the authors had in mind when it was written. You think Patrick Henry envisioned something like an AR-15? Doubt it. Now I know the same people will argue that's ridiculous, and I'd expect nothing less, but the argument that we need guns to somehow protect us from our own government is ridiculous too. You standing there with your little assault rifle is equivalent to standing there with a musket because neither you, nor your compatriots have shit when it comes to the arms the military has access to. The time when military and civilian arms were roughly equal has long since passed, and there is no way in hell that any civilian needs a a rocket launcher or other explosives.
So in short, you're delusional if you think your little cache of arms is going to stop the government. You need to stop using that argument and wake up to reality.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
Yeah, plus, who would look into the situation? Would calls with concerns be handled by law enforcement (not good) or licensed mental healthcare professionals?
I honestly think that safety requirements (gun safe, etc) and maybe even a mental health evaluation on file (to be renewed every five years) as part of the NICS system would go a long way to preventing many of these incidents.
What could we do about our violent culture though? I don't see any clear solutions for that.
I honestly think that safety requirements (gun safe, etc) and maybe even a mental health evaluation on file (to be renewed every five years) as part of the NICS system would go a long way to preventing many of these incidents.
What could we do about our violent culture though? I don't see any clear solutions for that.
[quote name='cancerman1120']Yeah I am not sure exactly how you handle it. I think you need to start young and have a system in place where parents can feel like they can go to express concerns about their own children. There are a lot of families out there with mentally unstable children that never get dealt with and they end up snapping like this guy did. Right now our treatment of mental illness is pretty much as long as they are not committing a crime the police want nothing to do with and if they do then they just want to throw them in jail. We need a better system for the Police to handle these people. I would agree though that a general "1-800" number style system could be abused.[/QUOTE]
Well they're point was this, you can do something about it when they're under 18, assuming you recognize it. You can have a kid committed against their will basically. You can't easily do that to an adult. That guys argument seemed to be that we should be able to, but I just don't know how you'd do it without it being used to just with people.
Well they're point was this, you can do something about it when they're under 18, assuming you recognize it. You can have a kid committed against their will basically. You can't easily do that to an adult. That guys argument seemed to be that we should be able to, but I just don't know how you'd do it without it being used to just
with people.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']There is no need for many of the guns people like to buy. No civilian needs an assult rifle, I don't care that it's not full auto. Like I said earlier, since we've got chest thumpers here who like to bring up the 2nd amendment, I'll even work within the context of the time that was written. You want a musket? Knock yaself out. Cause that's what the authors had in mind when it was written.[/QUOTE]
Stupid argument is stupid. Does that mean that the first amendment shouldn't apply to TV, radio and other modern forms of communication? Does the fourth not apply to automobiles? After all, that's not what they had in mind! Get real.
[quote name='Clak']You standing there with your little assault rifle is equivalent to standing there with a musket because neither you, nor your compatriots have shit when it comes to the arms the military has access to. The time when military and civilian arms were roughly equal has long since passed, and there is no way in hell that any civilian needs a a rocket launcher or other explosives.[/QUOTE]
Yes, so lets take all of those things away then. That'll really improve our chances! Talk about a defeatist attitude.
[quote name='Clak']
So in short, you're delusional if you think your little cache of arms is going to stop the government. You need to stop using that argument and wake up to reality.[/QUOTE]
So if people's "little cache of arms" isn't going to do anything, then, do tell, how will having next to nothing help?
Stupid argument is stupid. Does that mean that the first amendment shouldn't apply to TV, radio and other modern forms of communication? Does the fourth not apply to automobiles? After all, that's not what they had in mind! Get real.
[quote name='Clak']You standing there with your little assault rifle is equivalent to standing there with a musket because neither you, nor your compatriots have shit when it comes to the arms the military has access to. The time when military and civilian arms were roughly equal has long since passed, and there is no way in hell that any civilian needs a a rocket launcher or other explosives.[/QUOTE]
Yes, so lets take all of those things away then. That'll really improve our chances! Talk about a defeatist attitude.
[quote name='Clak']
So in short, you're delusional if you think your little cache of arms is going to stop the government. You need to stop using that argument and wake up to reality.[/QUOTE]
So if people's "little cache of arms" isn't going to do anything, then, do tell, how will having next to nothing help?
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
We share the top gun ownership rates in the world with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Having next to nothing helps when the alternative is unrelated local gun crime which is the result of poverty.
We also share that list with the Swiss, but the Swiss aren't delusional.
Or in other words, if it is the case that having yellow teapots wont help fight off aliens, how will NOT having them help.
We also share that list with the Swiss, but the Swiss aren't delusional.
Or in other words, if it is the case that having yellow teapots wont help fight off aliens, how will NOT having them help.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
http://tribune.com.pk/story/229844/the-day-69-children-died/
As for the 2nd Amendment/it's stupid to arm yourself against the government tangential discussion, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq didn't exactly roll over for the largest military in the world.
And yeah, let's profile those who we assume are mentally challenged. Because if there's anything wrong in this world, it's that mentally challenged people aren't stigmatized enough.
As for the 2nd Amendment/it's stupid to arm yourself against the government tangential discussion, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq didn't exactly roll over for the largest military in the world.
And yeah, let's profile those who we assume are mentally challenged. Because if there's anything wrong in this world, it's that mentally challenged people aren't stigmatized enough.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Stupid argument is stupid. Does that mean that the first amendment shouldn't apply to TV, radio and other modern forms of communication? Does the fourth not apply to automobiles? After all, that's not what they had in mind! Get real.
Yes, so lets take all of those things away then. That'll really improve our chances! Talk about a defeatist attitude.
So if people's "little cache of arms" isn't going to do anything, then, do tell, how will having next to nothing help?[/QUOTE]
Do you seriously believe the government would come attack it's own people? Is that seriously something that you fear in the back of your mind? Can you think of even ONE feasible scenario that doesn't sound like a hack-neyed Stephen King book of that happening? I swear, Libs want government to be completely unintruding on business, which actually would kill you if it meant making a profit, but apparently the guys who actually need you alive enough to vote for them are the real threat.
Yes, so lets take all of those things away then. That'll really improve our chances! Talk about a defeatist attitude.
So if people's "little cache of arms" isn't going to do anything, then, do tell, how will having next to nothing help?[/QUOTE]
Do you seriously believe the government would come attack it's own people? Is that seriously something that you fear in the back of your mind? Can you think of even ONE feasible scenario that doesn't sound like a hack-neyed Stephen King book of that happening? I swear, Libs want government to be completely unintruding on business, which actually would kill you if it meant making a profit, but apparently the guys who actually need you alive enough to vote for them are the real threat.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='RealDeals']Do you seriously believe the government would come attack it's own people? Is that seriously something that you fear in the back of your mind? Can you think of even ONE feasible scenario that doesn't sound like a hack-neyed Stephen King book of that happening? I swear, Libs want government to be completely unintruding on business, which actually would kill you if it meant making a profit, but apparently the guys who actually need you alive enough to vote for them are the real threat. [/QUOTE]
I certainly don't think it's likely, but impossible? Perhaps it hasn't been tried thus far because they knew they'd be met with resistance.
As far as your shoe-horning of markets into the discussion, I may be taking a wild stab at this, but something tells me that a company that kills its customers for profit probably wouldn't stay in business for long, since they too need customers in the same way that these politicians you speak of need votes. Guess you didn't think it out that far ahead though.
[/QUOTE]I certainly don't think it's likely, but impossible? Perhaps it hasn't been tried thus far because they knew they'd be met with resistance.
As far as your shoe-horning of markets into the discussion, I may be taking a wild stab at this, but something tells me that a company that kills its customers for profit probably wouldn't stay in business for long, since they too need customers in the same way that these politicians you speak of need votes. Guess you didn't think it out that far ahead though.
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 196 (100%)
[quote name='RealDeals']I swear, Libs want government to be completely unintruding on business, which actually would kill you if it meant making a profit, but apparently the guys who actually need you alive enough to vote for them are the real threat. [/QUOTE]
You mean conservatives, right?
[quote name='Temporaryscars']As far as your shoe-horning of markets into the discussion, I may be taking a wild stab at this, but something tells me that a company that kills its customers for profit probably wouldn't stay in business for long, since they too need customers in the same way that these politicians you speak of need votes. Guess you didn't think it out that far ahead though.[/QUOTE]
I think he means cases like pharmaceuticals, and manufacturers of certain things that have caused harm many times, like drop-down cribs and buckyballs.
[quote name='UncleBob']Yes.[/QUOTE]
And we don't live in that kind of country. And even if we did, I really doubt that if the government wanted assassinate you, a gun is going to change a thing.
[/QUOTE]You mean conservatives, right?
[quote name='Temporaryscars']As far as your shoe-horning of markets into the discussion, I may be taking a wild stab at this, but something tells me that a company that kills its customers for profit probably wouldn't stay in business for long, since they too need customers in the same way that these politicians you speak of need votes. Guess you didn't think it out that far ahead though.[/QUOTE]
I think he means cases like pharmaceuticals, and manufacturers of certain things that have caused harm many times, like drop-down cribs and buckyballs.
[quote name='UncleBob']Yes.[/QUOTE]
And we don't live in that kind of country. And even if we did, I really doubt that if the government wanted assassinate you, a gun is going to change a thing.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I certainly don't think it's likely, but impossible? Perhaps it hasn't been tried thus far because they knew they'd be met with resistance.
As far as your shoe-horning of markets into the discussion, I may be taking a wild stab at this, but something tells me that a company that kills its customers for profit probably wouldn't stay in business for long, since they too need customers in the same way that these politicians you speak of need votes. Guess you didn't think it out that far ahead though.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to businesses that knowingly overlook safety hazards in their products to maintain cost-effectiveness. My entire point was that both have an equally vested interest in their audiences (the people), but you seem only to be fearful of the government. Why?
As far as your shoe-horning of markets into the discussion, I may be taking a wild stab at this, but something tells me that a company that kills its customers for profit probably wouldn't stay in business for long, since they too need customers in the same way that these politicians you speak of need votes. Guess you didn't think it out that far ahead though.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to businesses that knowingly overlook safety hazards in their products to maintain cost-effectiveness. My entire point was that both have an equally vested interest in their audiences (the people), but you seem only to be fearful of the government. Why?
[quote name='elessar123']You mean conservatives, right?
And we don't live in that kind of country. And even if we did, I really doubt that if the government wanted assassinate you, a gun is going to change a thing.[/QUOTE]
Libertarians in particular seem to be particularly apocalyptic in their view of the government. Conservatives aren't afraid to support if it means supporting their agendas, but Libs just seem to be infatuated with and have this fetish of a fighting the good fight against a government that aims to enslave its own people in salt mines. For what reason.... CUZ THEY EVILZZZ!1!1!1 :lol:
And we don't live in that kind of country. And even if we did, I really doubt that if the government wanted assassinate you, a gun is going to change a thing.[/QUOTE]
Libertarians in particular seem to be particularly apocalyptic in their view of the government. Conservatives aren't afraid to support if it means supporting their agendas, but Libs just seem to be infatuated with and have this fetish of a fighting the good fight against a government that aims to enslave its own people in salt mines. For what reason.... CUZ THEY EVILZZZ!1!1!1 :lol:
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='RealDeals']I was referring to businesses that knowingly overlook safety hazards in their products to maintain cost-effectiveness. My entire point was that both have an equally vested interest in their audiences (the people), but you seem only to be fearful of the government. Why?[/QUOTE]
Businesses that overlook safety hazards in products tend to not stay in business very long. I don't know about you, but I tend to avoid hazardous products. Then again, I doubt you read the monthly recall list, am I right?
[quote name='RealDeals']Libertarians in particular seem to be particularly apocalyptic in their view of the government. Conservatives aren't afraid to support if it means supporting their agendas, but Libs just seem to be infatuated with and have this fetish of a fighting the good fight against a government that aims to enslave its own people in salt mines. For what reason.... CUZ THEY EVILZZZ!1!1!1 :lol:[/QUOTE]
Generalizations for the win. I suggest you try presenting us with some sort of real and meaningful argument rather than act like a clown, engage in hyperbole and treat people like cartoons. I mean, I know this is vs and all, and it's the name of the game, but you're better than that!
That being said, which do you think has the higher number throughout history? The number of dictatorships/monarchies or the number of democracies/republics? Oh, sorry, I forgot, liberals are only all "POWER TO THE PEOPLE" when a republican is in office. Remember all those protests when Bush was in office? Man, I sure miss those.
Businesses that overlook safety hazards in products tend to not stay in business very long. I don't know about you, but I tend to avoid hazardous products. Then again, I doubt you read the monthly recall list, am I right?
[quote name='RealDeals']Libertarians in particular seem to be particularly apocalyptic in their view of the government. Conservatives aren't afraid to support if it means supporting their agendas, but Libs just seem to be infatuated with and have this fetish of a fighting the good fight against a government that aims to enslave its own people in salt mines. For what reason.... CUZ THEY EVILZZZ!1!1!1 :lol:[/QUOTE]
Generalizations for the win. I suggest you try presenting us with some sort of real and meaningful argument rather than act like a clown, engage in hyperbole and treat people like cartoons. I mean, I know this is vs and all, and it's the name of the game, but you're better than that!
That being said, which do you think has the higher number throughout history? The number of dictatorships/monarchies or the number of democracies/republics? Oh, sorry, I forgot, liberals are only all "POWER TO THE PEOPLE" when a republican is in office. Remember all those protests when Bush was in office? Man, I sure miss those.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I already spoke of my uneasiness of having officers in school. I don't see how having a small outpost outside of the school, where they wouldn't have day to day interaction with students, meets your description. After all, better to have them there than sleeping in their car at the outskirts of those small towns.[/QUOTE]
Hmm. A snarky question and a legit question:
1) The difference between "police state" and "legitimate response" is a couple hundred yards, then? Or is there more that you're not getting at here?
(EDIT: Pardon, not enough coffee yet. I see you mention interaction as a difference. dmaul, given your research interests, can you speak to benefits or pitfalls of regular interaction with police in this specific context?)
2) How is the outpost going to be any different than a standard police force?
3) We struggle to fund education at all these days for a litany of reasons; where will we find the funds for this "education security force"? Not just the personnel, but an auto if they need it, firearms (they're gonne want tactical gear and firearms beyond simply a handgun), a facility to place them, etc.
We can't even get reasonably recent textbooks and computers in schools; where will we reasonably find the funds for a security force for every educational facility? Or will we leave it up to private/charter schools to staff their own?
Hmm. A snarky question and a legit question:
1) The difference between "police state" and "legitimate response" is a couple hundred yards, then? Or is there more that you're not getting at here?
(EDIT: Pardon, not enough coffee yet. I see you mention interaction as a difference. dmaul, given your research interests, can you speak to benefits or pitfalls of regular interaction with police in this specific context?)
2) How is the outpost going to be any different than a standard police force?
3) We struggle to fund education at all these days for a litany of reasons; where will we find the funds for this "education security force"? Not just the personnel, but an auto if they need it, firearms (they're gonne want tactical gear and firearms beyond simply a handgun), a facility to place them, etc.
We can't even get reasonably recent textbooks and computers in schools; where will we reasonably find the funds for a security force for every educational facility? Or will we leave it up to private/charter schools to staff their own?
[quote name='RealDeals']Do you seriously believe the government would come attack it's own people? Is that seriously something that you fear in the back of your mind? Can you think of even ONE feasible scenario that doesn't sound like a hack-neyed Stephen King book of that happening? I swear, Libs want government to be completely unintruding on business, which actually would kill you if it meant making a profit, but apparently the guys who actually need you alive enough to vote for them are the real threat. [/QUOTE]
And it isn't even about having a defeatist attitude, it's about being realistic (something I know the libertarians are loath to do). The time when we could reasonably physically defend ourselves from our government has come and gone. If we really wanted to be able to, then we should have stopped the military from developing the shit they have.
Be real, they think their guns mean a damn thing in the face of a laser guided bomb? Get the outta here.
[/QUOTE]And it isn't even about having a defeatist attitude, it's about being realistic (something I know the libertarians are loath to do). The time when we could reasonably physically defend ourselves from our government has come and gone. If we really wanted to be able to, then we should have stopped the military from developing the shit they have.
Be real, they think their guns mean a damn thing in the face of a laser guided bomb? Get the
outta here.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Hmm. A snarky question and a legit question:
1) The difference between "police state" and "legitimate response" is a couple hundred yards, then? Or is there more that you're not getting at here?
(EDIT: Pardon, not enough coffee yet. I see you mention interaction as a difference. dmaul, given your research interests, can you speak to benefits or pitfalls of regular interaction with police in this specific context?)
2) How is the outpost going to be any different than a standard police force?
3) We struggle to fund education at all these days for a litany of reasons; where will we find the funds for this "education security force"? Not just the personnel, but an auto if they need it, firearms (they're gonne want tactical gear and firearms beyond simply a handgun), a facility to place them, etc.
We can't even get reasonably recent textbooks and computers in schools; where will we reasonably find the funds for a security force for every educational facility? Or will we leave it up to private/charter schools to staff their own?[/QUOTE]
It's like you're not even listening.
1. And you accuse me of black and white hyperbole? Ridiculous.
2. Well for one, it would be closer. Second, they wouldn't be there to police students, but be there as an available resource if needed.
3. As I said before (thus you not listening), police are already paid for. As are their vehicles. Instead of allowing cops to sleep in their cars, harass people for filming them or engage in other daily dickery that they tend to partake in, have them near the school within earshot, that way, when something like this DOES go down, there's somebody there to offer at least some resistance.
[quote name='UncleBob']I love how quickly the conversation goes from "the government wouldn't attack its own citizens" to "the government will use laser guided bombs against you".
It's so subtle, you almost wouldn't even notice.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it mind boggling? "You don't stand much of a chance, therefore, I'm going to make it so you stand no chance at all."
1) The difference between "police state" and "legitimate response" is a couple hundred yards, then? Or is there more that you're not getting at here?
(EDIT: Pardon, not enough coffee yet. I see you mention interaction as a difference. dmaul, given your research interests, can you speak to benefits or pitfalls of regular interaction with police in this specific context?)
2) How is the outpost going to be any different than a standard police force?
3) We struggle to fund education at all these days for a litany of reasons; where will we find the funds for this "education security force"? Not just the personnel, but an auto if they need it, firearms (they're gonne want tactical gear and firearms beyond simply a handgun), a facility to place them, etc.
We can't even get reasonably recent textbooks and computers in schools; where will we reasonably find the funds for a security force for every educational facility? Or will we leave it up to private/charter schools to staff their own?[/QUOTE]
It's like you're not even listening.
1. And you accuse me of black and white hyperbole? Ridiculous.
2. Well for one, it would be closer. Second, they wouldn't be there to police students, but be there as an available resource if needed.
3. As I said before (thus you not listening), police are already paid for. As are their vehicles. Instead of allowing cops to sleep in their cars, harass people for filming them or engage in other daily dickery that they tend to partake in, have them near the school within earshot, that way, when something like this DOES go down, there's somebody there to offer at least some resistance.
[quote name='UncleBob']I love how quickly the conversation goes from "the government wouldn't attack its own citizens" to "the government will use laser guided bombs against you".
It's so subtle, you almost wouldn't even notice.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it mind boggling? "You don't stand much of a chance, therefore, I'm going to make it so you stand no chance at all."
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 196 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']I love how quickly the conversation goes from "the government wouldn't attack its own citizens" to "the government will use laser guided bombs against you".
It's so subtle, you almost wouldn't even notice.[/QUOTE]
No, it's merely to invalidate the argument that you should have guns to protect yourself from the government taking you out. Which is a paranoid idea to begin with, unless you're guilty of something, but then I hope they come after you, and you probably shouldn't have a gun anyways.
It's so subtle, you almost wouldn't even notice.[/QUOTE]
No, it's merely to invalidate the argument that you should have guns to protect yourself from the government taking you out. Which is a paranoid idea to begin with, unless you're guilty of something, but then I hope they come after you, and you probably shouldn't have a gun anyways.
[quote name='elessar123']No, it's merely to invalidate the argument that you should have guns to protect yourself from the government taking you out. Which is a paranoid idea to begin with, unless you're guilty of something, but then I hope they come after you, and you probably shouldn't have a gun anyways.[/QUOTE]
bob's brain doesn't work in a sensible way. He lives his life in fear of the government, as does temp apparently. I'm actually surprised some of them aren't posting from some militia bunker in the northwest.
bob's brain doesn't work in a sensible way. He lives his life in fear of the government, as does temp apparently. I'm actually surprised some of them aren't posting from some militia bunker in the northwest.
bread's done