R
Robert_Sock
Guest
How does this help solve the shootings in public malls and theaters, or any other public place people frequent?
- Status
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Exactly. Because we know with absolute certainty that americans are vastly superior to any other humans who’ve ever lived. Our politicians and leaders would never ever succumb to the temptaitons of power or prejudice. They alone, of all the people who’ve ever lived are completely immune to demonizing segments of the population. And we can be assured of this in perpetuity. So, given the almost saint-like qualities of US politicians there should be no qualms of doing away with one of the rights our founding fathers, silly men, determined to be an essential check and balance on government power for all future generations.
reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/governments.htm
The fact that governments have killed more of their own citizens than wars, is just completely irrelevant historical distraction. We know it can’t happen here, ever, ever, ever…
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Are you aware that the ban on assault weapons being advocated by Democrat liberals contains a grandfather clause provision exempting those who currently own one? And this doesn’t take into account the fact that the criminals will keep theirs. Are you also aware that people like Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein who advocate banning people from having guns want to keep theirs?
W
wondrousgnat
Guest
The constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms within “a well-regulated militia.” What is well-regulated? And doesn’t the 2nd Ammendment guarantee the right to grenade launchers and hand grenades since they are also arms?
In this era of trying to cut taxes we now are advised to spend money to put up barriers, install bullet-proof glass, metal detectors, hire armed guards, etc. to turn our schools into prisons for children. Is this what we really want for our country?
Let’s be Christian here. There are differing opinions and let’s treat each other with respect. Everyone is a good person with a good argument.
In this era of trying to cut taxes we now are advised to spend money to put up barriers, install bullet-proof glass, metal detectors, hire armed guards, etc. to turn our schools into prisons for children. Is this what we really want for our country?
Let’s be Christian here. There are differing opinions and let’s treat each other with respect. Everyone is a good person with a good argument.
meltzerboy
New member
Shouldn’t it be left up to the individual school principal and faculty or school district administrators, as well as parents, to decide whether it would be a good idea for their community, and, if so, how to implement this? Come on, Republicans, states’ rights, local issue, no?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I do not think the threat of school violence is sufficient for the expenditure of resources and trouble of the national debate.
Yes, these things are horrific, but they really are infrequent.
And, quite frankly, if armed guards prevented violence, then no armored cars would be robbed, not banks with guards would be robbed.
There was at least armed person at Gabby Giffords shooting and he did not pull his weapon because of the close quarters and ability to physically subdue the subject.
There was someone with a concealed carry weapon at that mall in Washington recently and he did not shoot because he did not have a clear shot and there were civilians behind the shooter.
So, the even when there are armed people present, it doesn’t always help.
Yes, these things are horrific, but they really are infrequent.
And, quite frankly, if armed guards prevented violence, then no armored cars would be robbed, not banks with guards would be robbed.
There was at least armed person at Gabby Giffords shooting and he did not pull his weapon because of the close quarters and ability to physically subdue the subject.
There was someone with a concealed carry weapon at that mall in Washington recently and he did not shoot because he did not have a clear shot and there were civilians behind the shooter.
So, the even when there are armed people present, it doesn’t always help.
S
SamH
Guest
Wow.
Read your post and tell me if you see the disconnect between the fist and last paragraph.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
How do you measure the incidents that were prevented from happening in the first place because of the deterrent value of the presence of an armed guard?
S
SamH
Guest
Just curious, why do they have armed guards and armored cars if they don’t work? Don’t banks know they could save a lot of money not bothering with that stuff?
J
J_Peterson
Guest
Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen before he shot his mom (also a law abiding citizen) with her own gun. If she didn’t own those guns and they weren’t legally available it would be much harder to do what he did. It wouldn’t be impossible for him to do it of course but hopefully he would have been noticed before actually pulling it off (the same way that a non farmer buying tons of fertilizer should set off alarm bells).
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
In the Oregon case, the shooter reacted to the ccw holder by stopping the killing, going into an elevator and committing suicide. The presence of the shooter ended the rampage.
Which is typical of how these things end. The shooter stops when confronted by armed opposition, either by giving up or killing himself. This is why police tactics have changed since Columbine from waiting for SWAT/group of officers to go in to the current tactics of first officer on scene goes in alone. The earlier the killer is confronted the quicker it is stopped.
This is why a lot of statistics don’t tell the whole story. Often they’ll point out the citizens rarely fire guns in self-defense, discounting the fact that in the vast majority of cases it’s simply presenting the weapon that stops the attack/violence/threat.
This is why CCWs are effective as deterrent for the lunatics, its why they seek out gun-free zones.
Which is typical of how these things end. The shooter stops when confronted by armed opposition, either by giving up or killing himself. This is why police tactics have changed since Columbine from waiting for SWAT/group of officers to go in to the current tactics of first officer on scene goes in alone. The earlier the killer is confronted the quicker it is stopped.
This is why a lot of statistics don’t tell the whole story. Often they’ll point out the citizens rarely fire guns in self-defense, discounting the fact that in the vast majority of cases it’s simply presenting the weapon that stops the attack/violence/threat.
This is why CCWs are effective as deterrent for the lunatics, its why they seek out gun-free zones.
W
wondrousgnat
Guest
Whose opinion have I insulted? People who want to cut taxes?
By the way, I have been a member of the NRA.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Depends on the type of bomb you’re talking about. You have to go through the proper licensing in order to own & use explosives, but civilians can become legal users of explosives. They are used in mining & demolition on a regular basis.
S
SamH
Guest
So we’ll violate everyone’s rights, limit their ability to defend themselves hoping it makes things a bit more difficult for the criminals to buy a weapon while making it infinitely more easy for them once they have one?
Just curious - do you think there is a national registry of farmers being kept somewhere in this country for fertilizer purchases?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I’m not advocating that position, so I don’t think I have to quantify that. If YOU think there is a deterrent value, it’s up to you to propose a metric to measure the sentinel effect.
It prevents some people from robbing them, but not everyone. So, they deter some people but not all.
My take on mass shootings is that our culture is steeped in violence, and going out in a blaze of glory is now an “accepted” or “normal” thing for a lunatic whacko, in terms of all of the other lunatics are doing it.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Yep. That would have really helped my 80 year old mother when facing the intruders intent on raping her.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
So, wouldn’t a viable solution to that problem be prohibiting any reporting on or publicizing the details of a shooting? If the motive is notoriety or ‘blaze of glory’, isn’t it logical to stop publicizing it to all the lunatics to stop attracting their attention? Make it so that it isn’t an “accepted” or “normal” thing.
Not my idea by the way, it was suggested by a British psychologist who, like you seem to, lays the blame for these primarily on the press coverage.
S
SamH
Guest
So you take the blaze of glory out of it. When the police show the overweight science teacher with glasses that took the shooter out before he could make himself famous the glory is gone. You look like another loser that got pwned.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
You misunderstand. I am not saying that these young men are looking for the press coverage, I am saying that press coverage tells these whackos what the proper outlet for their rage, their hurt, whatever, is.
We need mental health care for young men. Apparently, mental illness can show up or bloom in the late teens/early twenties. These young men need help - maybe involuntary commitment.
We also need to reign in this gun culture in the United States. I acknowledge the Second Amendment, but I also acknowledge how many times a year guns do violence to people.
S
SamH
Guest
Agreed the current over the top coverage is adding to the illusions of grandeur some the losers are dreaming about.
Did a reporter really steal a note that a 6 year old wrote to his friend that was being buried?
- Status