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

Brian Carlton · #1 12-18-2012, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

It didn't, they are dead.

However, when timmy the put upon 17 year old goes ape and wants to off his classmates with his dads 45, only to find that its gone as part of Mr. Dropnosky's laws, and he doesn't know how to get a gun, so chooses some other method that results in less people killed or no deaths at all, maybe rules of the kind I am proposing would have some value to you.

No solution will solve all the problems Brian, but it might do you good to actually consider ideas even if reprehensible to you for their potential merits, even if not complete and total for all uses of weapons.

Exactly.

The scenario that you indicated is realistic and, if you could eliminate all handguns, including dads target shooting .45, your proposed solution would have merit to eliminate the very narrow scenario that you stated above.

I've certainly considered your idea and the idea itself is not reprehensible to me. Because you're unable to read what I post and process it, I'll say it again.........this time in bold:

I couldn't care less if Mr. Dropnosky's laws resulted in the elimination of all automatic handguns because in this state, I cannot legally carry one anyway.

The problem with your proposal is that it is a pipe dream. It's about as unrealistic as you could possible get in this country. Nobody is going to go for anything that restricts their ability to own a firearm. You'd be lucky to get gun registration in place in every state of the union. So, I wish you'd kindly quit with these over the top recommendations that have absolutely no basis in reality.

Like I originally said............"you and your kind"............all kinds of proposals...........all of them basically worthless in this society.

JB3 · #2 12-18-2012, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Exactly.

The scenario that you indicated is realistic and, if you could eliminate all handguns, including dads target shooting .45, your proposed solution would have merit to eliminate the very narrow scenario that you stated above.

I've certainly considered your idea and the idea itself is not reprehensible to me. Because you're unable to read what I post and process it, I'll say it again.........this time in bold:

I couldn't care less if Mr. Dropnosky's laws resulted in the elimination of all automatic handguns because in this state, I cannot legally carry one anyway.

The problem with your proposal is that it is a pipe dream. It's about as unrealistic as you could possible get in this country. Nobody is going to go for anything that restricts their ability to own a firearm. You'd be lucky to get gun registration in place in every state of the union. So, I wish you'd kindly quit with these over the top recommendations that have absolutely no basis in reality.

Like I originally said............"you and your kind"............all kinds of proposals...........all of them basically worthless in this society.

hey, now you are talking instead of attacking, good move. Guess you got fed?

So what would be achievable in this society? armed teachers? pill boxes in the hallways?

Do you understand where I am going when I say that moves like that are moves just like the patriot act, and are a way to limit our rights dressed in protection for all?

What I advocate (and if you see the prior post, you see I don't believe such restrictions would happen, but it would be nice) is modification of a SINGLE right in the provisions of the 2nd amendment

the narrow scenario is the one where big groups of people are getting killed. If such a plan only worked in a narrow scope, it would still be something

pj67coll · #3 12-18-2012, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

So what would be achievable in this society? armed teachers?

Do you understand where I am going when I say that moves like that are moves just like the patriot act, and are a way to limit our rights dressed in protection for all?

In what way do you see an armed teacher as an infringement on your rights?

- Peter.

JB3 · #4 12-18-2012, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

In what way do you see an armed teacher as an infringement on your rights?

- Peter.

the same way I see the patriot act. None of these armed teacher ideas individually are infringements, but what it does is set the stage for yet more restriction ideas, and greater control of general public under the guise of safety.
I see it as another step on the road to hell paved with good intentions.

Personally, lets say we do arm teachers, and lets say the next mass shooting, the teacher, writing on a math board, is shot anyway, along with his or her students without time to react, setting the stage for more and greater invasions of liberty and privacy in the name of defense of the children, until ultimately, we have maximum security prisons for schools, and once we do that, what public area do we armor next?

What personal freedom do we remove to make sure these public areas are not at risk? You see when im going?

These are steps towards a police state as an ultimate consequence

2ndly, I just don't find the idea realistically workable. If more people are harmed by their self defense guns in the home statistically than those that use them on intruders, how can we say the introducing large numbers of guns into schools would not result in a greater number of deaths by accident than mass shootings prevented?

JamesDean · #5 12-18-2012, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

t
Personally, lets say we do arm teachers, and lets say the next mass shooting, the teacher, writing on a math board, is shot anyway, along with his or her students without time to react, setting the stage for more and greater invasions of liberty and privacy in the name of defense of the children, until ultimately, we have maximum security prisons for schools, and once we do that, what public area do we armor next?
?

What happens if the teacher goes off the rails and decides he/she's had enough of these stupid rotten brat kids?

What kind of learning environment is that for a kid? Hell what if a kid gets the idea to nab the gun and take care of some business?

How would this whole discussion look if Lamza (I think that was his name) didnt use a gun but rather used home built pipe bombs? Or a chemical he made from some household stuff or whatnot.

I'm not saying gun control/regulation is a bad/good thing I'm just saying even with laws/regulations..if this kid wanted to kill a bunch of people...he could have well found a way. Perhaps the gun was just the "easiest".

pj67coll · #6 12-18-2012, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

None of these armed teacher ideas individually are infringements, but what it does is set the stage for yet more restriction ideas, and greater control of general public under the guise of safety.

Except that you are not controlling the public, you are merely allowing teachers to be armed on campus as opposed to the current situation where they are not allowed to be armed which is in fact a greater interference and control than if they were.

Quote:

I see it as another step on the road to hell paved with good intentions.

And do you think the supporters of the 2nd see your attitude as any different?

Quote:

Personally, lets say we do arm teachers, and lets say the next mass shooting, the teacher, writing on a math board, is shot anyway,

That's precisely why I suggested several armed staff members per campus. You need a "critical defensive mass". These nutjobs are not going to engage in protracted gun battles with armed opponents. Everytime they are confronted by armed people they kill themselves. So confront them early and get them killed soon. Wether by staff shooting back or by their own hand when they realize the game is up.

Quote:

What personal freedom do we remove to make sure these public areas are not at risk? You see when im going?

Well, you clearly have no problem removing the personal freedom to live by the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, so frankly I don't see why you'd have any problem with the removal of other freedoms.

Quote:

These are steps towards a police state as an ultimate consequence

Actually, they would be the precise opposite of a police state. A state where the citizenry is able to protect itself from harm is not a police state especially if it's not subject to the dictates of said state as to how and where it may defend itself.

Quote:

2ndly, I just don't find the idea realistically workable. If more people are harmed by their self defense guns in the home statistically than those that use them on intruders,

That is a false statement. The idea that every time a gun is used in self defence it's reported to the police is inaccurate (I said used, not necessarily fired or fired to injurious or lethal effect).

Quote:

how can we say the introducing large numbers of guns into schools would not result in a greater number of deaths by accident than mass shootings prevented?

That is a valid question. If teachers were to carry guns there would have to be stringent requirements regarding them. Certain types of guns are safer than others and some would be more and others less suitable for the task in a school environment. Ultimately of course the most important factor is the teacher themselves.

I don't know that it is a feasible option, but it seems better in my mind than providing whack jobs with giant soft targets called "gun free zones"

- Peter.

JB3 · #7 12-18-2012, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Except that you are not controlling the public, you are merely allowing teachers to be armed on campus as opposed to the current situation where they are not allowed to be armed which is in fact a greater interference and control than if they were.

Until it doesn't work. Until the first armed teacher gets shot anyway through total surprise, then its the next step

Quote:

And do you think the supporters of the 2nd see your attitude as any different?

I don't. I however see them as so wedded to a single interpretation of the 2nd, that they will refuse to consider a large number of minor adjustments which simply make good sense and do not infringe rights of ownership. Cmbdiesel has posted several of them.

Quote:

That's precisely why I suggested several armed staff members per campus. You need a "critical defensive mass". These nutjobs are not going to engage in protracted gun battles with armed opponents. Everytime they are confronted by armed people they kill themselves. So confront them early and get them killed soon. Wether by staff shooting back or by their own hand when they realize the game is up.

Most of these mass shootings are quick. These guys get in, do the biggest amount of damage possible, then off themselves. I still think even a teacher based reaction squad would be too slow to force an issue, and always be surprised, meaning some if not most would go down.

Quote:

Well, you clearly have no problem removing the personal freedom to live by the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, so frankly I don't see why you'd have any problem with the removal of other freedoms.

I haven't proposed eliminating the amendment, only updating it and making certain things either impossible or harder to get. Big difference in what you are attributing to me.

Quote:

Actually, they would be the precise opposite of a police state. A state where the citizenry is able to protect itself from harm is not a police state especially if it's not subject to the dictates of said state as to how and where it may defend itself.

Pipe dreams. The teachers are state employees, which for this reaction squad you propose would probably end up with police or military training, which limits their utility as a teacher 100fold. Teaching has been described to me by multiple teachers as one of the hardest professions there are, my own sister after teaching for 3 years said that law school was actually easier, so consider what you are assuming would be an extra easy to bear load on already over worked public employees.
The only way it would work is dedicated "teachers" who are really security professionals.

Quote:

That is a false statement. The idea that every time a gun is used in self defence it's reported to the police is inaccurate (I said used, not necessarily fired or fired to injurious or lethal effect).

All I can do is look at the data and draw conclusions from the facts presented. Easy enough to claim statistical data is flawed because of an unmeasurable, unverifiable, and un stated secret record of thousands of incidents that you are sure, makes the statistics tip in your favor.

Quote:

That is a valid question. If teachers were to carry guns there would have to be stringent requirements regarding them. Certain types of guns are safer than others and some would be more and others less suitable for the task in a school environment. Ultimately of course the most important factor is the teacher themselves.

I don't know that it is a feasible option, but it seems better in my mind than providing whack jobs with giant soft targets called "gun free zones"

- Peter.

I partially agree, I believe gun free zones to also be a pipe dream, though I do not believe the answer is to dump more guns into gun free zones.

MS Fowler · #8 12-18-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Until it doesn't work. Until the first armed teacher gets shot anyway through total surprise, then its the next step

I don't. I however see them as so wedded to a single interpretation of the 2nd, that they will refuse to consider a large number of minor adjustments which simply make good sense and do not infringe rights of ownership. Cmbdiesel has posted several of them.

Look up the definition of "infringe". Everything you propose infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. What you consider "adjustments" are actually infringements.

retmil46 · #9 12-18-2012, 12:58 PM

Gents, let's try a different tangent on this -

In this tragedy, we've been assuming that the only response is to fight fire with fire - armed teachers, armed guards, etc, armed with similar lethal weapons to the attacker.

What about fighting fire with water?

There's been several advances in NONLETHAL weapons and methods, ostensibly for riot, crowd, and prison control, over the past decade or so.

Many of these methods, used to incapacitate an attacker until the LEO's arrive, might be quite acceptable to teachers, parents, and the population as a whole - whereas lethal weapons on school grounds most probably would not - and much more likely to be used, from a psychological standpoint, as the person employing said device KNOWS that they can only incapacitate, not kill.

Ideas?

JamesDean · #10 12-18-2012, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Gents, let's try a different tangent on this -

In this tragedy, we've been assuming that the only response is to fight fire with fire - armed teachers, armed guards, etc, armed with similar lethal weapons to the attacker.

What about fighting fire with water?

There's been several advances in NONLETHAL weapons and methods, ostensibly for riot, crowd, and prison control, over the past decade or so.

Many of these methods, used to incapacitate an attacker until the LEO's arrive, might be quite acceptable to teachers, parents, and the population as a whole - whereas lethal weapons on school grounds most probably would not - and much more likely to be used, from a psychological standpoint, as the person employing said device KNOWS that they can only incapacitate, not kill.

Ideas?

This is an interesting idea. I think I've seen some audio solutions that can incapacitate. What if the school was rigged up for that and in the event the entire school is incapacitated and the LEO' are called automatically?

What about some kind of knock-out gas?

retmil46 · #11 12-18-2012, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

This is an interesting idea. I think I've seen some audio solutions that can incapacitate. What if the school was rigged up for that and in the event the entire school is incapacitated and the LEO' are called automatically?

What about some kind of knock-out gas?

Even more basic than that.

What two senses did the young gent need to know he was even remotely aiming at one of his intended targets?

SIGHT and SOUND.

Turning off the hall lights, throwing a couple of smoke canisters in his vicinity, and continuously sounding the school's fire alarm or class bell, could have ended or severely curtailed his rampage depending on the circumstances - he might even have panicked and left the building altogether, if sufficently dazed disoriented and confused.

JB3 · #12 12-18-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Even more basic than that.

What two senses did the young gent need to know he was even remotely aiming at one of his intended targets?

SIGHT and SOUND.

Turning off the hall lights, throwing a couple of smoke canisters in his vicinity, and continuously sounding the school's fire alarm or class bell, could have ended or severely curtailed his rampage depending on the circumstances - he might even have panicked and left the building altogether, if sufficently dazed disoriented and confused.

maybe some kind of blackout system for the windows? only way that would work is total darkness, not just darker. Lots of schools have excellent natural light

cmbdiesel · #13 12-18-2012, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Gents, let's try a different tangent on this -

In this tragedy, we've been assuming that the only response is to fight fire with fire - armed teachers, armed guards, etc, armed with similar lethal weapons to the attacker.

What about fighting fire with water?

There's been several advances in NONLETHAL weapons and methods, ostensibly for riot, crowd, and prison control, over the past decade or so.

Many of these methods, used to incapacitate an attacker until the LEO's arrive, might be quite acceptable to teachers, parents, and the population as a whole - whereas lethal weapons on school grounds most probably would not - and much more likely to be used, from a psychological standpoint, as the person employing said device KNOWS that they can only incapacitate, not kill.

Ideas?

I like the sounds of this.
Are there any broad area devices?
Maybe even tear gas. Think most parents would allow their kids to get tear gassed rather than shot?

JB3 · #14 12-18-2012, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

The problem with your proposal is that it is a pipe dream. It's about as unrealistic as you could possible get in this country. Nobody is going to go for anything that restricts their ability to own a firearm. You'd be lucky to get gun registration in place in every state of the union. So, I wish you'd kindly quit with these over the top recommendations that have absolutely no basis in reality.

Like I originally said............"you and your kind"............all kinds of proposals...........all of them basically worthless in this society.

this I find interesting, and its interesting in that you refuse to discuss something if you deem it unlikely. Ever heard of the idea of give them an inch and they take a mile?

The idea is ask for what you actually want, and compromise with something that everyone can deal with, but no one actually likes. The problem is that 2nd amendment folk don't want to even discuss it, and people like yourself don't think its worth even discussing apart from limited and weak resolutions like the 1000 yard rule, which are obviously worthless, but acceptable to the gun proponents.

Ask for a mile, and take an inch. I see no reason why a lively discussion about the mile couldn't be had, in both directions. Apparently, just because you can't carry a handgun, and people still get shot, you can't have any discussion on it.

All Ive been saying is what I want to see happen. Don't mistake that I recognize that what will actually happen, is nothing, or nothing effectual at least. On that, we agree, but our difference is that I don't use that knowledge in scathing attacks on any ideas.

Brian Carlton · #15 12-18-2012, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

this I find interesting, and its interesting in that you refuse to discuss something if you deem it unlikely. Ever heard of the idea of give them an inch and they take a mile?

As an engineer, I do not behave in that manner. I do not ask for a mile when it is perfectly clear to me that the mile cannot be achieved. If an inch is achievable, I obtain the inch.

In your case, the mile is not achievable and the inch isn't worth the effort it takes to obtain it.

But, go right ahead and continue your BS. It is exactly that..........your mile solutions will never happen and your inch solutions on the supply side are less than worthless as far as a reduction in gun violence is concerned.