WTH is wrong with some people??? Shooting at CT Elementary School - Page 37 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pj67coll · #**541** 12-17-2012, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

That presents a much greater problem for the individual teacher on a daily basis. A problem that most won't want to accept.

Yes it does but then this is not a lightweight issue.

Quote:

Putting them in locked storage boxes where only a select few have the key would be a better solution, although admittedly not quite as expeditious when and if needed.

That's the problem. Unless you have on on your person it's useless in a situation we are discussing. It would be like having police officers leave their guns in the car until they go and check out the situation and figure out if they need them or not. Ludicrous.

I used to carry a pistol on me for years before I left SA. It's no big deal frankly assuming you are responsible about it. The problem would be in finding the responsible people, and agreeing on weapon type and carrying method.

But then of course I'm sure there would still be such an outcry from much of the public that it could never happen anyway.

- Peter.

JB3 · #**542** 12-17-2012, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

Yet, more people die in car accidents.

sure, and more women are killed by angry husbands with home protection firearms than actually killed by intruders.

MagnumPI · #**543** 12-17-2012, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

sure, and more women are killed by angry husbands with home protection firearms than actually killed by intruders.

And still more women are killed in car accidents than even that. I've made the case to ban all guns, you're the moderate.

Botnst · #**544** 12-17-2012, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

NY state requires all vehicles on property to have plates. I doubt its the only one.

Its a small argument, but it does serve to show that the rules are different everywhere. I found that particular NY rule to be a problem personally. Im sure you could hide one on a big enough piece of property, but it wasnt unusal for cops to go around looking down driveways for unregistered cars

I like rules being different everywhere. It is the purpose of federalism -- to allow states to make rules that fit their own needs. The needs of Vermont have some needs in common with Arizona but I doubt anybody would argue that all laws in AZ must be applied in VT. Or vice versa. To make laws universal is to oppress some for the benefit of others. We like it when it agrees with our own perceptions and tolerate when it seem close to what we believe. When it goes beyond some unknown point, the oppressed people build resentment. Resentment toward the national government is unhealthy to a free society.

So we have a relief valve of sorts -- we let states figure it out as much as possible. But sometimes in our rush to cure what we perceive to be a national ill we perpetrate a greater ill on people who may not agree with us.

Botnst · #**545** 12-17-2012, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

And still more women are killed in car accidents than even that. I've made the case to ban all guns, you're the moderate.

Banning men makes more sense.

Jorn · #**546** 12-17-2012, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Same with cops, right?

Basically, they are human after all. But you might hope cops are trained well; doubt teachers have time for that with their ever increasing work load.

MagnumPI · #**547** 12-17-2012, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Banning men makes more sense.

Soon. We'll all be transsexual be hipsters in the future.

JB3 · #**548** 12-17-2012, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

It's ridiculous because you've already assumed all other things would be equal. They wouldn't.

Why is it impossible to consider the scenario with different weapons at the hands of the attacker?

If all things wouldn't be equal, lets say he had a knife, what wouldn't be different, and most importantly, do you think all the differences in such a scenario would still work out to a busload of kids murdered?

thats the questions you should be asking yourself. Take the immediately accessible weapons out of the mix, and do you really think he would have killed so many people so fast? Do you think he would have even tried?

Do you think he would have settled for just his mother? or maybe just a few people? Any way you slice it, change the weapon, and less people would probably be dead.

MagnumPI · #**549** 12-17-2012, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

Basically, they are human after all. But you might hope cops are trained well; doubt teachers have time for that with their ever increasing work load.

Precisely. It would be easier to teach the MPs the federal curriculum.

Botnst · #**550** 12-17-2012, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

Basically, they are human after all. But you might hope cops are trained well, doubt teachers have time for that with their increasing work load.

I wonder what the homicide rate is for cops. Is it higher or lower than the populace? I don't know but I'll give it a look.

-----------------

Got it! http://www.policemisconduct.net/2010-npmsrp-police-misconduct-statistical-report/#_Excessive_Force

5.0 per 100k for the general population.
5.5 per 100k in the LEO population.

JB3 · #**551** 12-17-2012, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

And still more women are killed in car accidents than even that. I've made the case to ban all guns, you're the moderate.

no way it would happen. Better to fight the battle that could be won, or at least compromised

MagnumPI · #**552** 12-17-2012, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Why is it impossible to consider the scenario with different weapons at the hands of the attacker?

If all things wouldn't be equal, lets say he had a knife, what wouldn't be different, and most importantly, do you think all the differences in such a scenario would still work out to a busload of kids murdered?

thats the questions you should be asking yourself. Take the immediately accessible weapons out of the mix, and do you really think he would have killed so many people so fast? Do you think he would have even tried?

Do you think he would have settled for just his mother? or maybe just a few people? Any way you slice it, change the weapon, and less people would probably be dead.

No, not any way you slice. It would have been a different situation, a different attack... Pretty much everything would have been different. But if we're debating trivial hypotheticals, what would have happened if Sandy Hook had been a military academy, with soldiers working the front desk? And plenty of people must be learning something at military academies, they've been around for ages.

JB3 · #**553** 12-17-2012, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Banning men makes more sense.

this is exactly what my sister said. She pointed out that all these massacres are always at the hands of men.

Her vision is that no men would be allowed to own any guns at all, and women can have whatever they want, but in locked fingerprinted storage devices to keep the men away from them.

MagnumPI · #**554** 12-17-2012, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

no way it would happen. Better to fight the battle that could be won, or at least compromised

Why wouldn't it happen? UK did it. Germany did it at one point. Australia's done it. North Korea, even pulled it off. And they're dirt floor broke!

Brian Carlton · #**555** 12-17-2012, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

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.

Like I said, your mother is the one to coddle you, not I. Apparently, you're unable to take a good discussion without getting your feelings all hurt............your mother will help you with that.

If you really believe that I'm the mad internet hatter with no manners, you've really grown up in the dark. I've simply pointed out the errors in your ridiculous assertions which you continue to make.

So, you admit that he could kill plenty of people with a shotgun, but you assert that the number would have been reduced? You make two assumptions here:

1) That he cannot get an illegal handgun or semi-automatic rifle.

2) That he doesn't spend additional time in the facility killing people. AFAIK, he only spent about three minutes. He had a good ten minutes.

I conclude that your argument for a reduced body count due to the shotgun is weak, at best. You absolutely fail to reduce the number of incidents. You simply attempt to reduce the number of casualties. This fails to effectively solve the underlying problem.

Now, in your last paragraph, you reverse yourself and agree that tightening gun laws would not have any effect.

So, on the one hand, you want to tighten gun laws...........and on the opposite hand you agree that they won't have an effect, but you must do something so that's what you'll do.

Sorry, but I refer back to the original statements regarding what reactionary people will do when "something needs to be done of some kind".