The NRA Solution is an insult to the Dead

[Rolyo85]

Kuli, I have to say I am not satisfied with your source. You said "provable evidence", and I didn't see any. As the one making the claim, it is your duty to provide the proof, as you've been the first to point out in many other topics.

Jack - watching porn makes me want to have sex. Playing videogames makes me want to kill zombies and aliens.

[iwantbig]

didnt realise you were over here , do agree with the stats?

[rareboy]

wow you really got me there ! still didn't address my thought on your original post though !

It already was addressed. You don't fucking get it do you.

At a time when the Republicans are blocking expenditure on everything....do you really thing that they will be throwing another 60 to 100 billion dollars at putting armed guards in schools? Do you really think that the community or state tax base will support the conversion of resources in the school system from educators to armed guards? In a foundering economy where most people are already resisting any more taxation?

It won't happen. And the NRA is off the hook by saying 'Well, we had a solution, but government wouldn't pay for it."

Our schools should not need to be lock-down bunkers. It is only further poisoning the minds of America's children and making them paranoid believers in what would literally become a police state. And do you think it would only be the schools? Nope. It would have to be everywhere there were groups of people. By virtue of the NRA's solution to 'protect' freedom, the US will become the absolute opposite...a society saturated with 'law' enforcement and paramilitary presence on every street corner.

But the NRA's masters would probably love this.

The initial post was to illustrate why the NRA response was an insult to the dead, not only of Sandyhook, but to the dead and the survivors of Columbine.

[iwantbig]

It already was addressed. You don't fucking get it do you.

At a time when the Republicans are blocking expenditure on everything....do you really thing that they will be throwing another 60 to 100 billion dollars at putting armed guards in schools? Do you really think that the community or state tax base will support the conversion of resources in the school system from educators to armed guards? In a foundering economy where most people are already resisting any more taxation?

It won't happen. And the NRA is off the hook by saying 'Well, we had a solution, but government wouldn't pay for it."

Our schools should not need to be lock-down bunkers. It is only further poisoning the minds of America's children and making them paranoid beleivers in what would literally become a police state.

The initial post was to illustrate why the NRA response was an insult to the dead, not only of Sandyhook, but to the dead and the survivors of Columbine.

your not loosing your temper are you ?
so is guarding your money more important than guarding your kids ?

[HenryReardon]

This is the culture of violence that makes the portrayal of first person shooter games and violent movies using military assault weapons so palatable and ingrained in North American culture.

You...like Lapierre and Springer...just don't get it. Never will.

We get it. That is, we get why there's such an imporant item in our basic rights. One of the best talk-show hosts on the air, Libertarian commentator Neal Boortz, announced his retirement last summer. He's off the air now, pending one final appearance in early January, but still posts things on his website every so often. The following statement from that site a couple of days ago sums it up:

Democrats absolutely hate the idea that a private individual American can own a gun for the purpose of self defense. They really hate the idea that one of the primary reasons our founding fathers included the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution was a recognition of the fact that a free people always should have the means to defend themselves from a despotic government. Democrats are the embodiment of a despotic government. It is perfectly natural or them to fear an armed citizenry.

He also had this to say:

3. This year 446 school age children have been shot in Chicago, and 62 have died. There has been NO push from the left for gun control resulting from the carnage in Chicago. Odd, don’t you think? By the way, Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. I’m sure you’ve seen these statistics on your favorite network television newscast, haven’t you? Wait! What?

4. The media will NEVER go to any great lengths to report on the use of privately owned firearms in self-defense. This is not part of the leftist agenda. There was a shooting in a mall in Portland, Oregon a few weeks ago that was reportedly halted by a private citizen with a concealed carry permit and a weapon. When the shooter saw the weapon he promptly shot himself. You didn’t hear that on your mainstream newscast, did you?

5. During a spate of school shootings in the late 1990s no less than three of those school shootings were halted by a civilian with a gun.

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-...nd-sandy-hook/

[iwantbig]

how much do you think the buy back scheme would cost?

[iwantbig]

some one tell me if i'm wrong ! but i heard on the news over here that the assault rifle was found in the car ? is that correct or a crossed wire ?

[andysayshi]

Try this on for size. School official retrieves gun from his vehicle and apprehends gunman.
Maybe if he'd been allowed to have the gun on premises, lives might have been saved. An
instance of responsible gun ownership working despite irresponsible restrictions at the school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing a trench coat, to hide his rifle when he entered the school, Woodham fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School's assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into a his mother's car and tried to escape. Myrick, a US Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived.[8][9]

Some thoughts, Henry.

(1) An anecdotal example does not constitute scientific evidence.

(2) Note that a gun was not discharged in the apprehension of the criminal.

(3) Your example is of a military-trained professional apprehending an untrained civilian. How does this correlate to Kulindahr's recommendation that elementary school teachers take up arms? Are they to undertake mandatory weapons training before their appointment as elementary school teachers ? How often will their weapon competency be tested, and who will fund the training and testing procedures? Will their weapons be provided by the Government? Given your criticism of Government interference in most matters outside a standing army, would you support this expenditure of many billions of dollars per year?

[andysayshi]

dont hear me arguing the point ,my post said what it said very clearly .
as i said in another post , youve got so many guns there i'm wondering how much of a difference it would make for the states?
we dont have the same proportion of mass shootings here and it may be well because the average person ( or lunatic ) doesn't have a gun handy when he looses it ! ( just a pointy stick ) but our typical gangsta shooting each other stuff hasnt changed , the bad guys kept their guns !

Sorry, but as I don't know where you are located, I don't know where "here" is.

Also, do you actually mean "looses it", or "loses it"? Sorry, not being a spelling pedant - it just changes the meaning of your sentence.

[iwantbig]

Sorry, but as I don't know where you are located, I don't know where "here" is.

Also, do you actually mean "looses it", or "loses it"? Sorry, not being a spelling pedant - it just changes the meaning of your sentence.

Australia , your profile says " Sydney " and yeah im not the best with the spelling so " loses it "may be the correct but i imagine you can see where i'm coming from .

[HenryReardon]

Some thoughts, Henry.

(1) An anecdotal example does not constitute scientific evidence.

(?

Meaning that you don't believe it actually happened. Dream on.

[HenryReardon]

Australia , your profile says " Sydney " and yeah im not the best with the spelling so " loses it "may be the correct but i imagine you can see where i'm coming from .

A common error in the US, but give him a break. The Brits and the Aussies have some slightly different spelling/grammar conventions.
Anyone whose done any editing knows that.

[Rolyo85]

your not loosing your temper are you ?
so is guarding your money more important than guarding your kids ?

I am not going to be very offensive, but I need to say that perhaps it's good to be able to spell properly before presuming to address complex social and political issues. Just a thought.

Guarding your money is not more important than guarding your kids, but your money is more prone to a direct armed attack by criminals than the school your kids are in. And The way to guard money is entirely different - and way more direct - than the way we should be guarding our kids.

[Rolyo85]

A common error in the US, but give him a break. The Brits and the Aussies have some slightly different spelling/grammar conventions.
Anyone whose done any editing knows that.

Yeah, the difference between "loose" and "lose" is universal. Same as between "your" and "you're"...

[andysayshi]

Meaning that you don't believe it actually happened. Dream on.

I believe it happened 100% Henry, and have never stated otherwise.

As any scientist or statistician will tell you, however, one event is not statistically significant in the assessment of trends or patterns. The US averages three mass shootings per year. If you could provide one similar event per year for the past ten years, I would certainly agree to recognising a pattern of successful intervention that was statistically significant.

Also, would you care to address my points 2 and 3 in my original post?

[chance1]

Not a tangent at all. Reality. It is a special place the rest of us live in.

Why forever more would I have anything bad to say to you? I simply tell you the truth.

Your response is another classic case of Chance argument style 101. When you have no point address the user.

So go ahead and debunk the already proven fact that security does not work to prevent mass murder. Would love to hear how you come to such a conclusion.

Not a tangent ? Mitt Romney and praying away the gay ?

Your ego will not allow u to STFU

As for security

If I had a son or daughter in a school that had a visit from Lanza 2

I'd feel better with an armed guard

They'd have a better chance

Think Die Hard

As for Columbine - very unique situation - school size particular attackers etc.

Not a gun guy - never had one don't want one

But not an ideological slave either

And thanks but keep your "truth" pms to yourself

[iwantbig]

thanks all for being so tolerant with my spelling , and i didn't actually come here to argue , i just made a comment on the way that every thing is determined on cost now days ( may be it all ways was ) .
we used to hear that certain schools in the states had armed guards to protect the teachers from the students and the students from each other

[andysayshi]

Australia , your profile says " Sydney " and yeah im not the best with the spelling so " loses it "may be the correct but i imagine you can see where i'm coming from .

Sorry, seriously wasn't playing spelling Nazi, just wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying.

Yes, I am in Sydney! Where u at?

[HenryReardon]

Yeah, the difference between "loose" and "lose" is universal. Same as between "your" and "you're"...

As a published author with experience in editing, I disagree on those last two. Your and you're are quite different and using one in place of the other violates the Chicago Manual of Style and others. Loose and lose is simply careless, unless it's ingrained into a particular country.

And yes, I get careless in these forums. Spellcheck doesn't seem to work correctly, and time is important, particularly when you have a deadline approaching.

[rareboy]

your not loosing your temper are you ?
so is guarding your money more important than guarding your kids ?

pffffffft Hardly.

It is just that it is a logical fallacy to say that because there are armed guards in some banks, that if people loved their kids, they would put armed guards in every classroom.

Who has time for stupid false equivalencies? Particularly when the person goes on to joke about someone going to a semiors' home and killing them with a pointed stick.

Money is a high risk target for crime. Children aren't.

It is the hallmark of a failed state when parents require an armed presence in the classroom to play the odds that their children won't get mowed down by military assault weapons because they are so readily available in a country obsessed with being militiamen.

You don't get that apparently.

[rareboy]

A common error in the US, but give him a break. The Brits and the Aussies have some slightly different spelling/grammar conventions.
Anyone whose done any editing knows that.

And that is just crap too. Losing is losing. You should know that better than anyone here.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...sing#loose__22

[bankside]

OK, we'll just blame guns and the NRA for the deaths -- even though no NRA member has done any of the shootings.

No personal insults from me -- but have a question -- If you watch porn, what does it make you want to do?

If you watch videos of people destroying their guns, paying their taxes, reducing carbon emissions, and walking into hospitals without their wallets, what does it make you want to do?

[iwantbig]

pffffffft Hardly.

It is just that it is a logical fallacy to say that because there are armed guards in some banks, that if people loved their kids, they would put armed guards in every classroom.

Who has time for stupid false equivalencies? Particularly when the person goes on to joke about someone going to a semiors' home and killing them with a pointed stick.

Money is a high risk target for crime. Children aren't.

It is the hallmark of a failed state when parents require an armed presence in the classroom to play the odds that their children won't get mowed down by military assault weapons because they are so readily available in a country obsessed with being militiamen.

You don't get that apparently.

i didn't joke about a " semiors" home ( hows your spellcheck )
my point was , lunatics are lunatics
apparently children are a high risk target for violent crime in the states , do many bank robbers go to the bank to shoot people ?
in many small business people are told to " give them the money , its insured "
you missed the point that you made , something about a failed state ?

[rareboy]

Not a tangent ? Mitt Romney and praying away the gay ?

Your ego will not allow u to STFU

As for security

If I had a son or daughter in a school that had a visit from Lanza 2

I'd feel better with an armed guard

They'd have a better chance

Think Die Hard

As for Columbine - very unique situation - school size particular attackers etc.

Not a gun guy - never had one don't want one

But not an ideological slave either

And thanks but keep your "truth" pms to yourself

Well well well..... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Just sayin'.........................

[rareboy]

i didn't joke about a " semiors" home ( hows your spellcheck )
my point was , lunatics are lunatics
apparently children are a high risk target for violent crime in the states , do many bank robbers go to the bank to shoot people ?
in many small business people are told to " give them the money , its insured "
you missed the point that you made , something about a failed state ?

Actually, the guards aren't there for the money. They are actually theoretically there to protect people, as a visible deterrent, not the money. And surprise. Most bank branches don't have armed guards. That is just in the movies, I think you'll find.

Certainly here in Canada, probably less than 1% of banks have armed guards. It is the same deal. Give the bank robber the money. The last thing that any bank needs is an armed shoot-out.

And children should not be made to feel that they are the target of violent crime. Our children are already neurotic enough.

[iwantbig]

so just incase anyone thought i was making jokes , my point was in response to the comment indicating that the " nutter " would go to a less secure place than a school ( if schools had adequate armed guards to deter afore mentioned nutter ) . it was meant as agreement to that and to show that in my opinion he would choose a soft target if he was dead set on killing people , an example of the next most helpless of our communities , not a joke .
we've heard various stories of the connection between this bloke and the school ? anyone fill me in on the latest version ?
asking because i am unsure , the last i heard they were still unsure of the motive ?
so was he dead set on this school or was it just the nearest soft target ?
any one got an answer on the assault rifle question ?

[Rolyo85]

As a published author with experience in editing, I disagree on those last two. Your and you're are quite different and using one in place of the other violates the Chicago Manual of Style and others. Loose and lose is simply careless, unless it's ingrained into a particular country.

And yes, I get careless in these forums. Spellcheck doesn't seem to work correctly, and time is important, particularly when you have a deadline approaching.

As a published author, you suck at reading. I just said that the DIFFERENCE between "your" and "you're" is universal despite the language, and you told me that no, those are different. I mean... duh?

And because spellcheck is unreliable, I opt for just being good at spelling. It's easier for foreigners, admittedly, because we don't learn the language from listening to it, but still... It's a serious forum with serious things being discussed. Sucking at spelling doesn't really do much for someone who wants to be taken seriously.

[Rolyo85]

It is the hallmark of a failed state when parents require an armed presence in the classroom to play the odds that their children won't get mowed down by military assault weapons because they are so readily available in a country obsessed with being militiamen.

Beautifully said, and bears repeating.

[chance1]

Ideological slavery exposes dumb

Lots of nakedness here - very unattractive

[chance1]

Beautifully said, and bears repeating.

Ode to (bad) Santa

hahahahahahahahahaha

ode = tribute

[Rolyo85]

Your haikus are beginning to look like algorithms...

[HenryReardon]

It's a serious forum with serious things being discussed. .

Serious thing may well be being discussed in this forum, but they are seldom, if ever, discussed seriously. And that's the truth.

[rareboy]

Well, maybe if you put some effort into providing credible opinions and sources....and not always derailing everry thread....we might all make some headway in 2013.

[HenryReardon]

Well, maybe if you put some effort into providing credible opinions and sources.

This thread is a shining example. Jack and one or two others provide facts and the bedwetting liberals, all awash with their maudlin feelings, can't get past the dead bodies and see the larger picture. That is never going to change.

[Rolyo85]

Serious thing may well be being discussed in this forum, but they are seldom, if ever, discussed seriously. And that's the truth.

It is so. But then again, there are also topics you don't participate in ^_^

[Stardreamer]

They wouldn't be there to scare them, they'd be there to kill them.

Its a ridiculously unserious proposal. Most highschools already have a police officer in them. Many middle schools do as well. (ours was called a 'resource officer') One person is not enough to protect a large building, and more than one just multiplies the instances where something could go wrong.

Take my high school, for example: 4,200 students. Four wings connected by a ring of locker bays and offices in a horse-shoe shape. 4 gyms. One large cafeteria. One full-sized auditorium. An arts wing with four huge rehearsal spaces. An athletics wing nearly sealed off from the rest of the building, with all of the auxiliary facilities you would expect. At least 14 stair-cases.

There is not a chance in hell that a police officer in that school could do a damn thing if there was a shooting. Someone could, theoretically, go on a shooting rampage in the athletics wing, inflict mass casualties, and commit suicide before the officer even had a chance to get to the athletics wing. Even if a shooting occurred in the common areas or academic areas the likelihood of the officer being able to do anything before other students were shot would be slim to none. (Think bays and bays of 4 foot tall lockers that an attacker could easily hide between)

As has been said before: NRA suggestion=idiotic and insulting.

Interesting side note here is this is on a smaller scale the exact same point that Kuli has frequently made that the Police cannot protect you against violence. We are told the Police will protect us against violence and yet many of the same voices are now saying that Police or uniformed security can't even protect a single building.

[Stardreamer]

I am not going to be very offensive, but I need to say that perhaps it's good to be able to spell properly before presuming to address complex social and political issues. Just a thought.

Guarding your money is not more important than guarding your kids, but your money is more prone to a direct armed attack by criminals than the school your kids are in. And The way to guard money is entirely different - and way more direct - than the way we should be guarding our kids.

And yet everyone of the reasons presented for why an armed guard would be ineffective still applies to the bank. Bank robbers are usually far saner than a spree killer and far more likely to consider the fact that there is a guard so why do we have armed bank guards? By the logic presented, the banks waste a lot of money keeping armed guards around.

[HenryReardon]

It is so. But then again, there are also topics you don't participate in ^_^

Ignoring your dangling whatchamacallit, I will say, so what? I have little time for nonsense these days.

[HenryReardon]

And how are you going to criticize a discussion not being "serious" when you can't help but insult liberals? .

It is a fact that liberals speak from feelings rather than logic.

[HenryReardon]

And with his retirement, perhaps a replacement who is capable of speaking truthfully on this issue.

Mr Boortz isn't the first, and won't be the last libertarian, to speak absolute absurdity on any political topic.

.

Having said that, I can only predict your reaction to this: Herman Cain is taking over the Boortz time slot.

And you're dead wrong, Neal Boortz never spoke absurdly about anything. He went after both democrats and republicans whenever he found it necessary to call them out.

[HenryReardon]

For the record, we've had a ban on assault weapons before. By all accounts, it didn't make much of a difference.
Why? Because the bill was one of those cosmetic "feel good" bills which put a Band-Aid on a perceived problem and everyone patted themselves on the back, said 'good job' and went home. Which is more or less what will happen this time.



http://www.spectacle.org/0304/assault.html

[rareboy]

It is a fact that liberals speak from feelings rather than logic.

Well certainly they tend to speak based on a much broader and deeper and more nuanced body of knowledge than the doctrinaire knee jerk apologists for the NRA are doing.

And you know what Rearden.

This thread isn't going to be about Boortz and his history or histrionics.

Your posts about what all liberals do or don't think and what they do or don't want is just as absurd as saying that all conservatives are idiots.

If you have so little time for nonsense these days, then you really should stop writing it and probably speaking it out loud.

Because you are right. When it comes to this issue, all you seem to be doing is wasting your life by spouting it.

[Kulindahr]

Recently reetired libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz mentioed this on his website yesterday. No links are given but there's probably enough information provided that the articles could be located. He sometimes exaggerated, but never lied. Of course, we we all realize that you're not interested in anything which would dare to conflict with your preconceived liberal notions.

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-...nd-sandy-hook/

Boortz is a bit out in cloud cuckoo land.

But the preponderance of evidence from all the states which have passed "shall issue" concealed carry laws is overwhelming: the presence of firearms in the hands of individuals the perpetrator can't identify ahead of time is a serious deterrent. Why? Because it could keep the perpetrator from achieving his goal.

[Kulindahr]

But the NRA...as an organization almost solely under the control of the gun manufacturers and the extremist right wing...has delivered an unbalanced response....not to say arrogant, aggressive and ill timed.

The NRA gets under 3% of its income from gun manufacturers. They're hardly in control.

And "the extremist right wing" considers the NRA liberal.

[chance1]

Repetitive I know ..... but Donny Deutsch on Morning Joe said this week that "gun control" is a stupid and off point term - it's "automatic gun control"

I'm for automatic gun control - those weapons have no place in civilized society

Schools deciding to arm their guard I sorta understand - I don't like it but like i've said, there can be an honest debate about it

The problem in CE+P and in the mainstream media, is that it's become a "guns are bad" argument - period

"studies show" ...........

Ideology is supercedeing common sense

and FYI, a NJ school district is arming their guard in the wake of Newtown - I understand why

Mayor Hornick announced it this week

“This isn’t a luxury item. This is a necessity, based on what we saw happen in Connecticut,” said Hornik, a Democrat who supports an assault-weapons ban and stricter gun control.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/j...S1oOuWbD62d51K

[Kulindahr]

Please provide a reputable cite for this evidence.

The federal government. It's why the air marshals are plainsclothes.

[Kulindahr]

Edit: And suggesting that Teachers should be armed is kind of forcing them to be something that they shouldn't have to or obviously didn't want to be. Give Teachers guns it doesn't mean they'll be able to handle the situation. So now all these Teachers have to be trained to be Police Officers. You're going to be forcing people who don't want guns or someone who doesn't like them to have to handle one.

How is that even fair or even right? When the same people arguing for this would argue that it is wrong for someone to take away their guns. You're against people taking away ANY gun, but you're ok with giving more guns to people that don't want anything to do with them.

Point: from the recent experience, armed teachers would obviously be able to handle the situation -- they made a good effort unarmed; armed, they'd actually be people to contend with.

I don't understand why any teacher wouldn't want to be armed, given that it means protecting the kids.

[Kulindahr]

Can you provide a cite or the mathematics to justify this statement?

Simple. Even if the government bought the guns, that's far cheaper than paying bureaucrats.

And remember that Canada abandoned one regulation scheme because it was extremely expensive with little to show for the money.

[Kulindahr]

But what this whole scenario demonstrates is what I've pointed out about the paucity of balanced thinking. You and LaPierre and the other fringe right wingers on this just immediately jump to the automatic response of more violence being the solution to violence.

No, what LaPierre is propsing -- in idiotic fashion -- is less violence. We've been through this before: gunman enters school, shoots as he pleases, kills two dozen, versus gunman enters school, starts to shoot, armed teacher shoots him... far fewer dead.

[Kulindahr]

Kuli, I have to say I am not satisfied with your source. You said "provable evidence", and I didn't see any. As the one making the claim, it is your duty to provide the proof, as you've been the first to point out in many other topics.

Jack - watching porn makes me want to have sex. Playing videogames makes me want to kill zombies and aliens.

I can't find any referent for that in this thread, so I don't know what you mean.

I've been looking for a study I remember that showed that playing violent video games was negatively correlated with actual violence by the players, BTW -- can't find it. Some days google just doesn't like me.