Discussion in 'Overtime: Off-Topic Discussion' started by The Wise Owl, Dec 21, 2012.
There was a mass shooting on AN ARMY BASE. Gun nuts stay nutty.
Also, accidental gun deaths outnumber mass shooting deaths 5 to 1. So increasing gun presence is stastically more likely to increase accidents more than it will prevent deaths.
Finally, how did being a gun owner work out for this kid's mom?
auto accidents outnumber mass shootings and gun accidents...lets get em off the road...tobacco outnumbers all of the above..lets ban that
there's so many other things that kill more yet aren't even being discussed, because ONCE in a while a nut job goes crazy and tries to top the last nut job that went crazy...(which is why media needs to forget who did the crime and reflect on who was victim to the crime)...
everyone here knows who timothy mcveigh was, but can't name one victim without google's help.
As for the base shooting which i didn't touch, the guy was a radical islamic that targeted US military persons , he also used a HAND GUN to do his killings and was stopped by another gun. Yes 13 dead, and an attack from the inside. Surprise killings can't be stopped imo, but this was a trained shooter that did this, not a civilian. Its not like a civilian would target an army base and even if they did, they would be shot before they got into the base since civilians have to pass armed security, which they are not allowed to do with a weapon...
also a military women tried stopping him with her 9mm and ended up getting shot, but again she had the chance and opportunity to stop this man, didn't succeed but at least had the chance to do so, not everyone will succeed every time, but the opportunity shouldn't be taken from us.
What's your point here? I've seen these kind of statements a lot in the last few days and they seem to suggest that the only reason why someone commits an atrocity is to become famous and that fame is a benefit unto itself.
This is the media-reduced perspective of the paranoid.
And why don't you suggest, at the very least, that teachers learn rescue tactics in addition to receiving gun training?
The answer to that question is that you are obsessed with guns and violence. The only solution you have proposed is to arm people, not even to train people in additional skills that may be useful in such a situation.
That is why the only solution you can possibly conceive of to what happened is very similar to the problem itself, because it comes from a similar mode of thought.
I saw you say that Hitler and Stalin's strength came because their populations were unarmed. I don't think that argument was made once in Hannah Arendt's The Origin's of Totalitarianism even though it fits into a pretty common but paranoid rhetoric of right-wing psychos who are generally inclined towards approving of fascism in various forms (by, for example, militarizing every aspect of social life including elementary schools - and this sort of thing IS discussed by Hannah Arendt in her book).
it will never work. Americans are in an arms race with their neighbors.
First, what is your suggestion on why people keep trying to ONE up the last guy on mass murders? i mean who targets innocent children..it seems this is a possible reason, to go out with a bang, to be left known. Maybe its not, but its something to look into. I mean try to put yourself in their shoes, and understand why they do this...was this guy mad at innocent kids? WHY?..why would he want to do something this atrocious ?...Maybe so he will be remembered ? I mean who's going to forget the guy that killed the innocent kids...??really.. tell me a reason you may think..its a suggestion not a direct answer but a possibility
And i do suggest training, idk if i put it in here, this isn't the only forum i go one but...
I think teachers should have the right to carry their guns on school premises, the conditions are , i think they need to be trained to deal with hostile situations that could take place. Thats not limited to just point aim shoot. That would be any situation and multiple ways to escape it or protect yourself.
Second, If you were in a situation where an armed gun man burst into your house, and you had the opportunity to have one call, who are you going to call? an ARMED police officer?...or maybe an ambulance to take your dead ass out the house?...
I am realistic, i am not saying give everyone guns and thats going to make a safe place, i am saying that people need to have the RIGHT, the RIGHT....
again for dumb fucks that can not comprehend, we need to have the RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT......to carry on our persons at all times. So if you WANT to, not mandatory, up to you, but if you do want to carry and train to protect yourself then you can..
if you dont want to carry, if every teacher in america doesn't want to carry..fuck it dont carry...i just dont want to hear fking complaints that guns are the problem when you refuse to protect yourself...
sometimes you have to fight fire with fire...
if you think you can stop a gunman with your hands, or you can run and escape any and every time, then the best of luck to you...More than likely id try to escape myself in a craze shooting like that....idk havent been there yet..but if i cant run, or i dont have time too, i can try to save my own life with my personal side arm...
As far as the Hitler/Stalin, i didn't say their strengths were simply due to gun laws, but it makes it a lot easier when you can't put up a fight.
I haven't read the book mentioned, but i will look into it and see what's what.
Call me a gun crazed, i do love them, they are an awesome time, they serve many purposes ...and with all great things come some bad things..
it is what it is..But , what i find funny, is 9/10 , the anti gunners, have never even shot a gun, or learned a thing about them. They form an opinion based of the media. Guns are bad, they kill. But they also protect.
Again, its also funny the mass people aren't anti tobacco, anti car travel, anti alcohol..
any one of those things destroy more lives yearly then guns..
I've read they were at least 2 people in the theatre that were armed at the time
Colombine had armed secuirity that got into crossfire with one of the guys. Neither hit each other so those shots went askew of there target.
So obviously armed security doesn't seem to solve the problem.
If police can shoot the wrong person. WHat makes you think having armed security won't have the same problems. And when a kid accidentally gets shot watch how quick the NRA people like you or whoever approved that idea will try and blame the individual who did the shooting and ignore the whole MORE guns isa ridiculous solution
So who's to pay for these special ricochet bullets. Do they also not go through wall and magically only hit who you want them too.
Having armed security is the quickest way to make sensible parents homeschool your children
As if that's the best solution a school board can come up with I don't want them educating my children
Wasn't the mom he killed a teacher at the school? Maybe it was jealousy of the mom caring for the children more than him so that's revenge.
Anti Tobacco you are killing yourself There's a reason they are banning smoking in pretty much any public place.
Anti car travel is not comparable it's only dangerous when you do what it's not supposed too Guns are made to kill that's there purpose
Anti Alchohol actually alchohol doesn't really kill allot of people.
And it's not about anti gun it's realizing that the ease to get guns is not logical. The type of guns you can get is not logical either. It's not about banning any and every gun but realizing things need to change from what they have now. And more guns is definatly not the answer
@ both of your comments, first im not saying put armed security, im saying give the people the that work at schools the right to carry if they choose too. Dont make schools , gun free zones. If legal law abiding citizens want to carry in/around schools, they should be able to. And no im not saying that any and all people that are armed can/will stop something. The point is give them the opportunity. We know what happens when NO ONE is around. We also know what can happen if someone is around...which may or may not stop the person, but i think its worth having them be able to try then not at all.
The ease of getting guns depends on states, background checks are usually the very least for purchasing a gun from any store. Florida is also known as the gunshine state for a reason, and i think the laws here on obtaining a firearm are good enough. New Jersey, where i believe this kid was from? Is the second hardest state to obtain a firearm, again the kid stole it, hes a criminal. The process of getting them isn't the issue, criminals will get guns however they want...get that through your head...
criminals will NOT STOP BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS SO!..
thats why people murder, thats why people sell drugs...they dont give a fuck about the law...a killer wont stop at a gun free zone because its a gun free zone..
NOW , on to your type of guns. The types of guns used is really just the like of the gun. These kills could of EASILY been done with a hand gun..again get this through your head...a semi automatic rifles advantage is 100+ meters. When you are within 50 meters of a target, a hand gun is PLENTY to kill. Just because the choice of weapon happens to be a civilian ar-15, doesn't mean we don't need these style guns...we do...
first and foremost, tyranny is the biggest reason for "military" style weapons for civilians.
Other things like the LA Riots, a man was on his roof with a "assault rifle" protecting his home...
these things DO happen. How do you stop 100 people from looting your house with just you and your wife or wife and kids...protecting them..how do you do that with a hand gun..You COULD, but only if you are experienced and practice and have enough magazines ready to go. A lot of people don't do that though...i guess thats their loss but again i think the reason is plenty good enough
another reason, like most people on these forums, you guys probably live in urban or even suburban neighborhoods...so maybe a semi auto rifle is not needed, however the entire country does not live like this..
there are people who live in the country, woods, animal threats...bears, coyotes things of that nature..
and again most of you probably have NO experience with guns, yet you think you know wtf you're talking about..
A bolt action rifle, is not going to be a great weapon if a pack of coyotes are your issue, you can shoot them with relative speed if again you practice, however most people panic in situations, will fumble and may only get one or two rounds off, that may not be enough to stop the threat..
Others hunt, while it may not of been very popular back in the day to hunt with semi auto rifles like SKS, AK47s AR15s, thats changing, a lot of people who hunt boars and things like that, do use these powerful semi auto's to take down boars, which are mean aggressive fuckers that if you do get attacked, your getting fucked up..
there's reasons, there's laws...theres BEEN assault weapon bans (94-04), overall this has been reviewed and nothing changed..
the gun laws are fine, the problem imo is restricting law abiding citizens where they can carry a weapon.
The only other thing i can add to that, is making a gun class mandatory before owning your first firearm. Take the four hour class, learn how to use one correctly etc. Thats the only thing i can honestly say is an issue. Here in florida you only need to take the class for your concealed carry permit, other wise you can simply own a weapon..
This sounds like a terrible idea, when did you buy the gun? Have you even shot it? The idea is that you practice with the gun enough (with live ammo and dry-firing) so that handling the gun is second nature. After that you could probably safely use it to protect your homestead
I grew up around guns actually, not in a street sense but my dad was really into them. I kind of hate them actually but I got one because someone in my neighborhood got robbed at the time. I'd know what to do in a situation like that, not that there's ever a likely chance I'll be in one.
Way to automatically assume though.
Well, i don't think im assuming wrong, but i think you're assuming that because you grew up with them that you'll be efficient with yours having never shot it.
I mean, do you even know if it's in working condition?..
Also if you grew up around guns, you should know sometimes guns are finicky with different types of ammos, some guns will chew through anything, where others will jam, ftf(fail to fire) , fte(fail to extract) ...all these things can be an issue that could end up with you being the victim in the end.
for instance with my xd40, the gun will fte if you're either "limp wristing" or possibly if an inexperienced woman shoots it ..(this is how i figured it out) and i believe it only happens with my Promag 20rd mags.
i haven't had it personally happen to me and if i wasn't trading it today for an AR15 upper, id find out...but i'll get another one and test etc.
(market is ridiculous for ar15 parts/guns because of this "ban" so im trading a gun i only paid $300 for an upper that right now could fetch ~$700-800)
Having SS protecting the president of the united states is a little bit differnt than allowing a teacher have a gun on him and expecting him to protect against another massacre
Nopbody is speaking of banning all guns in the world but restricting who has guns and what guns. THe secret service are still not carrying some of the weapons these guys can
He took them from his mother. He shouldn't have been able to access those type of weapons. We know what could happen at the Colo,bine they had armed personel which didn't help and as they shot and didn't hit the target they could have went anywhere.
I still can't comprehend that you believing allowing teachers having weapons increases the problem It's actually safer for armed trained secuirity at schools than to have random teachers have guns.
What's ridiculous is putting all the guns in the school when negative things come from you people like you and the NRA are going to wipe there hands and pretend like the arming of people have nothing to do with the negativity
How many gun owners are just like him. He's not breaking the law by not practicing the law, so him having a gun can definatly be more dangerous than not having a gun for that purpose. So if he's a teacher you will support him bringing his gun to your kids school and believe he will be prepared when a tragedy occurs in the heat of the moment to be able to do the right thing with no other casualties?
You support this stuff based on YOUR training with guns and not the training of just a regular normal gun owner
There's a reason law enforcement doesn't support the idea of everyone having a gun to protect themselves from break ins.
Definitely understand where you're getting at and do agree, that is def why i don't think teachers should simply be allowed to carry, but if they do mandatory training like i mentioned previously and use bullets that do no ricochet, then i think they should have their right to do so...i also think they should have to continue the mandatory training so they stay sharp IF, and ONLY IF, they want to carry on school premises..
and yes, i do think that training should be mandatory for gun owners, i don't think we shouldn't be allowed to have "assault" weapons..but i think people who've never owned should take a class before being able to purchase their first weapon...almost like a driver lic...i would agree with that, i do think people should be better trained when purchasing a weapon , and as a responsible gun owner they should want to do these things..
so, overall i think that should be the proposal, instate some sort of "driver lic" for all gun owners(not just the simple talk to you class, but a class that teaches, demonstrates then makes you show proper techniques, common ways to fix issues, and show how to safely discharge a firearm from empty)..that would make more revenue for the govt. to benefit, people would learn how to shoot correctly..im for that 100%, but also with that i think there shouldn't be limits on where you can carry
It would help if the media didn't treat death counts like they were some sick kind of high score. For example, there was talk how this was the 2nd biggest school shooting in US history. Maybe if they didn't act like Virginia Tech set the bar that some psycho may try and beat.
Plus I think that negative attention is better than no attention. That's why little kids misbehave when they don't get recognized. These pathetic psychotic fucks that shoot up the schools would rather be a celebrity (albeit a negative one) than to be a pathetic psychotic fuck who kills himself in his basement because nobody knows/cares who he is.
I think that violent video games/TV shows/movies may desensify violence, but I don't think it causes these incidents. I mean I just went on a few rampages on Grand Theft Auto and I'm not going to go out and buy a gun and try it for real, especially since I can't do a "Wanted Level Cheat" to get myself out of it. These sick actions require a lot of planning and things that media isn't involved with.
More Guns, More Mass Shootings
For people who believe arming is the solution read up on actual facts
Separate names with a comma.