Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Carlton
Apparently, you confuse me with your mother. She'll be all kind and nice and warm to you at all times, even when you're wrong.
I call you on your BS and you don't like it. I understand that, but don't confuse my attack on your fallacies with being obnoxious.
So, you'd be happy if the CT gun laws were tougher. Now, exactly how tough to they need to be before an individual such as Lanza is prevented from getting his hands on an illegal gun or a rifle or a shotgun? I'm assuming you will not attempt to ban rifles and shotguns, correct? If you can satisfactorily answer this one point, I'll have a bit more respect for you...........
I never suggested doing "nothing". Again, another failure to read on your part. I stand by the position that attempting to tighten existing gun laws will have absolutely no effect on the random violence perpetrated against an assembled group of sitting ducks.
They didn't suggest a "police state". They suggested that four or five teachers could be trained to use a firearm and said firearms could be at a readily available locked point in the school. This would take the folks in the school out of the "sitting duck" category. If publicized, it would also cause the DB a bit of pause before he tried to attack such a facility.
|
look, I understand you are mad as hell, and like to spew your vitriol on the internet and so on. Thats fine. However, I think you could learn some manners in discussion, you remind me of a bratty kid with your pissyness, and if you want, id be happy to spank you, feed you, or burp you, just let me know. Maybe you just need a kiss?
I haven't said any BS, im not sure where you read that in my original post, but apparently you can't actually discuss without spitting up, which is a shame.
Correct, I believe that arming teachers, police and military style schools setups, armored desks, high capacity weapons for certain teachers, ect, are all steps towards a police state, and steps from actually educating these kids.
I would be happy with no handguns, and no automatic or semiautomatic rifles available. Shotguns I don't have much problem with, and yes, he could certainly kill plenty of people with a shotgun, but I doubt the sheer number he murdered in this circumstance, which would be an improvement of some kind at least?
Yes, you pointed out that you think that tightening gun laws would have no effect on the possibility of these types of massacres, and if you read my post originally, you would find that I agreed with that and said that I would expect any effect of gun legislation to be multiple generations from now.
The point is, something needs to be done of some kind, and those are my opinions. You don't agree, fine, but act like an adult and respond accordingly for once.