V
vern_humphrey
Guest
“Bureaucracy is like kudzu – it grows.”
Uncle Herbivore
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Uncle Herbivore
W
Wolseley
Guest
If the teachers and staff at Columbine had been armed and trained, they could have taken out Kelbold and Harris before they had a chance to do so much damage.Columbine HIgh School massacre:
(snip)
Adequate licensing laws would have made it harder to buy these guns second hand ie. made it an offence for those selling them to sell to an unlicensed individual.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
This has happened in several cases.If the teachers and staff at Columbine had been armed and trained, they could have taken out Kelbold and Harris before they had a chance to do so much damage.
Someone present either had a hand gun on them or had one in their car where they could get it. They ended the incident promptly either by shooting the killer OR by holding them until the police arrived.
These incidents tend to be hushed up by the media because the media does not want the word to get out that guns in the hands of civilians do save lives.
[If memory serves, one of the saves was by a woman security guard.]
[Me talking: if the pilots had had handguns in the cockpits of the hijacked planes on 9/11, they could have injured or killed the lead hijacker when they stormed the cockpit. Airline cockpits are tight spaces and when the guy with the box cutter was breaking in, one or both pilots could have had their pistols ready. Instead, the bureaucrats of our nanny state are still afraid that if pilots have guns … well, they might hijack their own plane. No joke.]
More then that.Are you also suggesting that … possibly … criminals will not give up their guns … in addition to creating a whole new category of criminals?
A law banning guns will make more criminals.
T
troop1819
Guest
The nanny state kills initiative, and rewards bad behavior. I don’t believe it is a coincidence that the increase in single parent households and teen pregnancies coincided with the establishment of the welfare state. Passing off the problem of poverty onto the government is both irresponsible and inefficient. The social safety net has become a way of life for generations and has created a class of people who no longer believe in their ability to improve their lives. There is no one size fits all solution to poverty and it is naive to think that any government will ever be truly serving anyone’s best interests outside ot their own ability to sustain their internal fiefdoms. Not only do government programs not end poverty, they sustain it and create a dependent class.
How can you not see it.Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from a friend, Mark Manes for $500. Manes was jailed after the massacre for selling a handgun to a minor,[39] as was Philip Duran, who had introduced the duo to Manes.[40]"
(my emphasis)
Adequate licensing laws would have made it harder to buy these guns second hand ie. made it an offence for those selling them to sell to an unlicensed individual.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Firearms
There were laws already in place. They were sold the firearms illegally. No amount of written law would have stopped someone already content to violate the law.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I don’t understand this – the pilot is in sole command. He has the lives of literally eveyone on the plane in his hands. He has control of a highly complex machine, and is trusted to use judgement in any case affecting the safety of the plane and its passengers. Should he decide to commit murder, he could kill thousands of people with no other weapon than his aircraft.
So how come he can’t be trusted with a .357 Magnum revolver?
So how come he can’t be trusted with a .357 Magnum revolver?
I’ll trust his judgement.So how come he can’t be trusted with a .357 Magnum revolver?
But I’ll only trust him with the revolver if I am convinced he can effectively use it safely in the close confines of a passenger jet.
So once the classes, psychological screening, and certifications are in place…bring in the guns.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Ah, aren’t pilots already subect to psychological screening? How could we entrust such a dangerous machine and so many lives – on a daily basis – to someone who wasn’t screened?I’ll trust his judgement.
But I’ll only trust him with the revolver if I am convinced he can effectively use it safely in the close confines of a passenger jet.
So once the classes, psychological screening, and certifications are in place…bring in the guns.
As for training, what training do you recommend? Please list your training objectives in the usual task-condition-standard format.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
The burden of proof is on you as you made the statement about bureaucracy in general.I know for a fact that it is true.
[How are you going to prove a negative??? Hmmm???]
It would also be helpful for posters to cease and desist from using pejorative language such as “your right-wing ideology commands that you hate government in all shapes and forms”.
I try to avoid personalizing my stating the inherent limitations of bureaucracy.
Ah, I see. I speak about your ideology and I’m “personalizing.” Go it.Thankyouandhaveaniceday.
Double standard much?
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
[Actually, the pilots wouldn’t even need a .357 Magnum cartridge. Just some pistol with a large diameter, short range, short bullet with a small amount of powder in the cartridge. No supersonic or long range or armor piercing. At a three foot range, they would just need something that would work at that range.]I don’t understand this – the pilot is in sole command. He has the lives of literally eveyone on the plane in his hands. He has control of a highly complex machine, and is trusted to use judgement in any case affecting the safety of the plane and its passengers. Should he decide to commit murder, he could kill thousands of people with no other weapon than his aircraft.
So how come he can’t be trusted with a .357 Magnum revolver?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Sure – but my question stands: How can we trust pilots with huge aircraft and hundreds of passengers, but we cannot trust them with a simple handgun?[Actually, the pilots wouldn’t even need a .357 Magnum cartridge. Just some pistol with a large diameter, short range, short bullet with a small amount of powder in the cartridge. No supersonic or long range or armor piercing. At a three foot range, they would just need something that would work at that range.]
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
That’s exactly the wording of the question that the liberals and other nanny / bureaucratic staters refuse to answer.Sure – but my question stands: How can we trust pilots with huge aircraft and hundreds of passengers, but we cannot trust them with a simple handgun?
But, really, I think the actual answer is that the nanny / bureaucratic staters are kind of believers in majick.
They can’t really explain anything. But they just “feel” what the right solution is.
No guns.
Period.
And if bad guys get guns, the bureaucrats will crack down even harder on the good guys.
“If it looks good on paper, it doesn’t matter what the reality is.”
… it’s almost a case of societal schizophrenia …
C
cynic
Guest
You were trying to prove the recent handgun ban had led to an increase in violent crime, which can’t be true because Britain had already “enacted a long series of victim disarmament acts – to the point that one cannot carry any implement for self-defense”. Illogical.You fail to get it.
From the 1920s forward, Britian has enacted a long series of victim disarmament acts – to the point that one cannot carry any implement for self-defense. And there is a strong correlation between those acts and Britain’s rising victimization rate.
.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Dead wrong – the more you have reduced the ability of the citizen to defend himself, the higher your victimization rate has risen.You were trying to prove the recent handgun ban had led to an increase in violent crime, which can’t be true because Britain had already “enacted a long series of victim disarmament acts – to the point that one cannot carry any implement for self-defense”. Illogical.
Now, you can tap dance all you want, but that’s a fact. England has the highest victimization rate of any industrialized nation. Do you deny that?
I’ll make you a deal – you concentrate on your country’s problems, and we’ll concentrate on ours. We won’t give you advice unasked for, and you don’t give us advice.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
There are lots of examples, ignored by the Main Stream Media, of folks defending themselves with guns.
nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp
In this case, AC stands for Armed Citizen.
Here is a link to the archives for Armed Citizen news items:
nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp
In this case, AC stands for Armed Citizen.
Here is a link to the archives for Armed Citizen news items:
nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
C
cynic
Guest
How can you reduce an ability that didn’t exist in the first place? They couldn’t carry handguns around prior to the ban, nor could they have one at the ready in their homes. Hence a ban on handgun ownership effects nothing.Dead wrong – the more you have reduced the ability of the citizen to defend himself, the higher your victimization rate has risen.
.
Links to the data that proves it would be helpful. Otherwise it’s easy to assume this is just wishful thinking on your part.Now, you can tap dance all you want, but that’s a fact. England has the highest victimization rate of any industrialized nation. Do you deny that?
.
…free forum, and I can express an opinion on gun control without telling anybody to do anything.I’ll make you a deal – you concentrate on your country’s problems, and we’ll concentrate on ours. We won’t give you advice unasked for, and you don’t give us advice.
C
cynic
Guest
But the two shotguns were bought by a friend who got them from a gun show.How can you not see it.
There were laws already in place. They were sold the firearms illegally. No amount of written law would have stopped someone already content to violate the law.
A
anthony022071
Guest
I’m not a proponent of banning guns but…Dead wrong – the more you have reduced the ability of the citizen to defend himself, the higher your victimization rate has risen.
Now, you can tap dance all you want, but that’s a fact. England has the highest victimization rate of any industrialized nation. Do you deny that?
What percentage of English citizens had guns before the gun laws were passed? It must have been miniscule. There would only be a correlation between the gun laws and the higher victimization rate if a significant percentage of the population had guns before the laws were passed.
And given the illegal means in which they already obtained firearms, another law would do the trick??But the two shotguns were bought by a friend who got them from a gun show.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.