Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on February 10, 2007, 03:14:11 PM
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
america, land of the fearful, home of the unbrave.
-
I'd rather be fearful and investigate everything, than fearless and wrong.
-
i'll investigate them beer cans with a substance in them:aok :aok :aokbeer:aok :aok :aok :cool: :noid :noid
-
Prior to 5 & 1/2 years ago we would have all called it crazy investigations to think commercial airliners would be used as tools of war. Or to think that a box cutter was a dominate weapon. Or a large battery and some wires could be disguised as a bomb and control hundreds. Or a match put to to sole of a shoe could kill hundreds...Or how about a bottle of vitamin water mixed with KY gelly creating a massive chemical reaction? 5 and 1/2 years ago, all of those would be dumb to investigate. So where do you draw your line on legitimate and Ludicrous?
-
""Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror," are perpetrated for a political goal (as opposed to a hate crime or "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".""
if you are afraid , they have won.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
See Rules #4, #5
Thats not the case but you've pretty much demonstrated you don't want to know why certain situations are suspicious and others aren't. You just want to be right, and you want to be right by calling people fraidy cats and not presenting a reason. You lost the other argument because your point made no sense. You had to resort to name calling, and its revisited here.
Now if you really want me to explain how unidentified liquid in a can on a porch is different than unidentified electronic devices placed on the support beams of overpasses, I will. But quite frankly, I think its fairly obvious you are trying to group two unlike incidents.
Whereas its very uncommon to have unidentified electronic devices on the support beams of overpasses, its fairly common to have cans with unidentified liquids on a porch. That seems apparent to me.
Try the gun website on your own. You can do it:D
-
Conversation about gun website shuts down school
:rofl
Oh my *bleep*ing god...
is it me or is school "officials"(90% are hired idiots/mooks) are getting even dumber
:confused: :rofl
wish a conversation about guns could shut down my school:furious
-
Some of the conversations my buds and I had at school would have made those school administrators go catatonic:
"Man...I hit that sucker at 300 yards."
"Have any trouble trackin' him down?"
"Nah...he left a good blood trail. Didn't go far either."
"Didn't take more'n ten minutes to skin him out. Skinnin' knife had a good gut-hook on it."
"Ya'll goin' back this weekend?"
"Yep...but I got to buy some more shells. All I got left is 150 grain Remington Core-locks....but they don't put em down quick enough to suit me."
-
same here Shuckins
hell once the school finds out about some ppl going on my site and looking at the page of some weapons i like and what i think about them...those school officials would probably crap themselfs :rofl
-
Originally posted by Wes14
:rofl
Oh my *bleep*ing god...
is it me or is school "officials"(90% are hired idiots/mooks) are getting even dumber
:confused: :rofl
wish a conversation about guns could shut down my school:furious
If you read the story, you'd realize that it wasn't the school officials who did it, but a parent. A parent heard about it, and then called into a news station.
The situation blew up, rumors took over and the school officials decided to cancel school in order to not have chaos on their hands.
-
Nice find Chairboy! LOL you guys gotta realize PICKENS is an area thats not know for the bightest bulbs in the pack! and they still keep it in the family if ya know what i mean!
Sad to admit it but i live 20 miles north of there in NC.
-
dont u mean the dimmest bulbs in the pack?:D
-
Chairboy,
A man walked into an Amish school, took all the girl students captive, assaulted a couple, then killed himself. Straight outta the blue.
Now say what you want about "fraidy cats", but parents WILL be concerned about their kids whenever guns are discussed at school. If you haven't been paying attention the last few years, I'm sorry. Whackos walking into public schools and opening fire seems to be the suicide du jour.
More to the point, this is misrepresented. The parent called a news station. No chance for the school to do anything at all but avoid a panic, which would have been far worse. Many of the kids would have been pulled out because of parents' concerns anyway. Always, ALWAYS better safe than sorry.
I used to be against gun control. No more. I am a teacher in a small town elementary school; I know there isn't a darn thing we can do to stop any crazy from walking in off the street and pumping a few rounds into some kids before he ends himself. And, sadly, it's happened all too often these last 10 years.
Times change; when too many people abuse rights, then rights have to be limited. Sad, but true.
-
legalize concealed handguns for teachers?:D
-
<>
thats because they know there are no guns in schools, only kids and unarmed mooky teachers. I don't think i have ever heard of a "whacko" walking into a police station to play shoot em up.
-
Hmm, I guess the only question is what type of gun do we give the kindergartner?
-
Oh, and Chairboy, while we are on the subject, those two kids are not in the clear yet. There are surveillance tapes at the subway station where the first device was called in, and guess what? They have the kid with the dredlocks on those tapes filming the police arriving at the scene, and filming the whole ordeal.
Gee, I wonder how they knew what was going to happen eh? They also stated they didn't know what was going on and the panic it has caused. What a tangled web we weave eh?
-
Originally posted by john9001
<>
thats because they know there are no guns in schools, only kids and unarmed mooky teachers. I don't think i have ever heard of a "whacko" walking into a police station to play shoot em up.
That very situation happened in Tucson. One of the guys that had been a primary instructor when I went to the academy wanted to spend the last 3 months before retiring working the front desk at the main PD station downtown. At that time it was an open lobby with an uncontrolled door. Just inside the door was the front desk Officer. One of the usual downtown "characters" that had previously been harmless wandered in. She got inside babbled a bit then shot the Desk Officer. Fortunately Schantz survived the incident and so did the assailant. She was chased and later shot in the butt by one of the Detective Sgt.'s who had been near the lobby. Of course she was determined to be incapable of assisting in her defense and was not charged criminally.
Since then there has been a grenade tossed in the front of the station. That forced construction of a wall in place of the glass front of the building. Now visitors go through a metal detector and are screened by an Officer behind an armored poticullis.
I'm sure chairboy would say that the department was being paranoid about some harmless incidents.
-
Is there jail time for calling in a false threat?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/55_1171165510_hhhh.jpg)
-
I used to be against gun control. No more. I am a teacher in a small town elementary school; I know there isn't a darn thing we can do to stop any crazy from walking in off the street and pumping a few rounds into some kids before he ends himself. And, sadly, it's happened all too often these last 10 years.
You can be comforted by the fact that far more children will be struck by lightening and killed this year than will be killed in such abnormalities as the Amish school shooting. Not to mention the enormously greater number at risk from mommy or daddy on a short fuse after a bad week. But hey, don't let hard factuality get in the way of emotion where my rights are concerend.
The odds do change somewhat if you count inner city violence involving 17-year-old gang bangers, but then they're not the type to obey laws -- firearm or narcotic or any other that doesn't suit their needs. In fact, every such shooting in Chicago or DC involves disobedience of the most rigid gun laws in the nation. Now, color me crazy, but I say that if we solve inner city social problems (or at least get some progress accomplished) then gun violence becomes much less of an issue. Of course, even in a City like chicago there are only 400 total homicides per year with a population of 3 million.
Times change; when too many people abuse rights, then rights have to be limited. Sad, but true.
On our way to saving the children, please be sure to add the 1st amendment to the list (all those pedophiles and such, not to mention being the very motivator of those media circus shootings) and the 4th (identify the potential threat well before anyone knows a threat exists -- wiretaps for all!), since all of our rights should hinge on the small subset of the population that abuses those rights (vs stuff like individual responsibility and punishment).
BTW, at the school that had the panic, it was noted a student was found stabbed in a bathroom the previous year. Gang bangers kill each other with knives all the time, at least around here.
Charon
-
Originally posted by BTW
Hmm, I guess the only question is what type of gun do we give the kindergartner?
Glue guns. Those people have to be messed up mentally to be able to deal with those kids.
-
Originally posted by john9001
<>
thats because they know there are no guns in schools, only kids and unarmed mooky teachers. I don't think i have ever heard of a "whacko" walking into a police station to play shoot em up.
I've always wondered about that. Why go on a rampage in a school killing unarmed children when you can have much more fun in a police station? How can killing defenseless kids be any challenge? And if you're going to kill yourself anyway why not pick victims that shoot back? Would make your final minutes a lot more exiting.
Anyways ... back to the issue of America losing to terrorism.
-
Originally posted by john9001
if you are afraid , they have won.
We have an army half way around the globe because we are afraid of being attacked again.
So I guess they won before we even got there. Why don't you support our troops?
-
Originally posted by john9001
if you are afraid , they have won.
Damn right, seven words sum it up perfectly.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Is there jail time for calling in a false threat?
I'm sorry, just where does it say they called in a threat? I must have missed that part. Of course the cops are pissed he was videotaping them acting like fools.
Ladies and Gentlemen, for the first time anywhere I'm proud to present the Mighty RPM Art Players:
[Ext] Suburban Boston Train Station. A crowd has gathered to gawk at police activity. Two young wierdos start a conversation.
Wierdo #1: Dude, WTF is going on?
Wierdo #2: Oh man, they're jacking with some terrorist thermonuclear device Saddam Hussein sent from the grave!!
Wierdo #1 No way!!
Wierdo #2 Yes way!!
(BPD SWAT team hikes past the crowd.)
BPD SWAT: HUT, HUT, HUT, HUT, HUT, HUT, HUT, HUT!!!
Wierdo #1 Holy ****!! Wow, I mean wow! I was just here 3 weeks ago!
Wierdo #2 No kidding, what for??
Wierdo #1 You know that underground marketing place over on South 23rd? They had me hang some lite brites for Cartoon Network.
(BPD Bomb Squad van screeches to a halt sending loose gravel flying thru the crowd)
Wierdo #1 Duuude, I'm taping this ****!
Wierdo #2 Sweeeet
Wierdo #1 Look! I think I can see the terrorist device!! It's got Duracells!!!
Wierdo #2 Coppertops? OMFG!!! It's worse than I thought, that's Al Queda's calling card!!!!
Wierdo #1 Wait, it's, it's...
Wierdo #2 What, what?
(BPD helicopter buzzes the crowd)
Wierdo #1 You're not gonna believe this.
Wierdo #2 Not gonna believe what?? And my name is Sean, do you understand that Peter?
Peter: Yeah, yeah I know...anyway...You know those lite brites I told you about? The ones I got paid to hang up 3 weeks ago?
Sean: Yeah? What about them.
Peter: Looks like that's what the cops are jacking with.
Sean: No ****ing way!!
Peter: Yes way!!
Sean: OMFG!! That's awesome!
(A random cop voice comes over a loud speaker)
Random Cop: FIRE IN THE HOLE!!!
Peter: I think I dated her once...
Sean: Dude that's awesome!!
Random Cop: IN 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
(A loud BANG!)
Sean: There goes your lite brite.
Peter: Dude, it was for America and the American way of life.
(BPD SWAT team hikes past in opposite direction)
BPD SWAT: HUT, HUT,HUT,HUT,HUT,HUT,HUT,HUT!!!
Sean: Sweet!
Peter: No Dude, it's super sweet.
End scene.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm sorry, just where does it say they called in a threat? I must have missed that part. Of course the cops are pissed he was videotaping them acting like fools.
They filmed police arriving. Read the article I posted.
"The photographs debunk statements both men made that they had not realized the guerilla marketing effort to promote a cartoon network program had sparked widespread chaos"
"Their presence at the first of more than a dozen calls from people who found the devices 'proves intent' to cause panic"
Gee, they just happened to be there with a camera when police arrived, what a coincidence!
C'mon rpm, it doesn't take much of a detective to figure out what happened, they called in a hoax bomb threat and filmed the reaction.
And i'll take a quote from his lawyer "that's what he does, he videotapes things"
You and Chairboy just can't admit you were wrong, it reminds me of an episode of south park:
Kyle: Cartman, you really were abducted!
Cartman: No I wasn't!
Kyle: Dude, there's a 60 foot antenna sticking out of your ass!
Cartman: I dont know what you're talking about
-
I'm with rpm on this. The Boston PD is just po'd because they've been made to look like fools on national tv.
Wonder if the Boston city government will ban the sale of Lite-Brites because they are a dangerous subversive device?
-
I don't want to flog a dead horse.
If a news station catches a whiff of a possible school shooting in progress, they will descend on the school with vans, choppers, photographers, and reporters. That kind of thing tends to get noticed. When it does, some of the kids are going to lose it. Now as a school official you have to decide how best to deal with the situation. Do you try to keep the kids there and then face the wrath of the parents who think you needlessly endangered their children, or do you send them home and face the wrath of the parents who think you are being silly? I'd say play it safe. Even if you know there is no shooter, you now have to deal with the psychological damage done. You may not be aware of this, but some of those little guys panic over the monthly tornado, earthquake, and fire drills we are required by law to run. Imagine what it would be like if they see SWAT teams outside.
We have lockdown procedures in place should we get wind of a possible threat internally; not that they would do any good. If someone wants to bust into ANY school and start killing people, they can and will successfully. They are by nature open to the public. Every parent knows this.
What IS absurd is how this incident is being strung by the original poster to be related to the war on terrorism. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. As far as I know, no Islamic fundamentalist group has claimed credit for any of the myriad school shootings we've had in the last 10 years. It is a completely domestic, home-grown problem. We are killing our own.
There is no way every teacher needs to carry a concealed weapon. No way. Can you imagine what would happen if a teacher shot someone? Can you really? The police are questioned every single time they shoot a suspect, and public opinion is usually against the policeman. The police are trained to use the gun, and more importantly, WHEN to use it. What some of you are suggesting is allowing someone untrained in even the rudiments of law enforcement to carry a gun, and allowing tacit approval to shoot "when the conditions call for it". You think that is sane? Really?
Hey, I hate the idea of giving up freedoms, I really do. However that gives me no excuse to stick my head in the sand and ignore what I see going on around me.
-
Balderdash Kieran. How do you think the Israelis maintain security in their schools?
I'll tell you how....it's really very simple. They arm their school personnel. They are NOT untrained boobs who don't know a threat when they see it. Those teachers and the school children under their supervision are trained in emergency procedures for those times when a terrorists might enter the school and start shooting.
They Fight Back. And Win.
Here in the U.S., we eulogize the heroic teachers who shield their students in such situations with their own bodies......
......which is a pity since they have NO other options.
The tragedy at Columbine could have been rendered a LOT less bloody by a couple of steely-eyed teachers with nothing more than .22 caliber pistols.
-
I wonder if the 'artist' is going to film himself being deported
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Balderdash Kieran. How do you think the Israelis maintain security in their schools?
I'll tell you how....it's really very simple. They arm their school personnel. They are NOT untrained boobs who don't know a threat when they see it. Those teachers and the school children under their supervision are trained in emergency procedures for those times when a terrorists might enter the school and start shooting.
They Fight Back. And Win.
Here in the U.S., we eulogize the heroic teachers who shield their students in such situations with their own bodies......
......which is a pity since they have NO other options.
The tragedy at Columbine could have been rendered a LOT less bloody by a couple of steely-eyed teachers with nothing more than .22 caliber pistols.
So let me get this straight... you are comparing America to Israel?
We don't having bombings in discos or exploding buses on a regular basis. We don't have border skirmishes that result in deaths on a regular basis. We do not have the homogeneous society that has a united resolve to do whatever it takes to eliminate the very real threat that exists within the society.
In short, we have very little in common with Israel in terms of the hyper-awareness they are forced to live in.
We will never arm teachers in our classrooms. Ain't gonna happen. Do you think any school system could surivive the multi-million dollar lawsuit that would follow any shooting? Or even fighting (and winning) the court battle?
And besides...
Wasn't this whole thread about "the terrorists winning" and "unreasonable fear"? Doesn't it seem like arming teachers (and everyone else in society) is pretty much a knee-jerk reaction to fear? It's insanity.
-
What's insanity is the assumption that there is NOTHING that can be done to keep such violence out of the school or to negate it when it shows up in the schools.
What does it matter whether the threat comes from terrorists or Kliebold and Harris? What do you suggest the schools do when the watermelon hits the fan? Call 911? Wait for the SWAT teams to arrive.....study maps of the school in order to develop an attack plan....which takes a lot of TIME?
How many have to die in the interim because you aren't willing to trust your fellow man to make the correct decisions in an emergency?
If you're so worried about a teacher making a mistake in such a situation, have them go through crisis training first.....annually qualify with a pistol....learn self defence techniques.
Just cease the hand-wringing about what might happen and take the necessary precautions to prevent it. Nothing that has been done in the nation's schools up to this point is adequate to meet the threat.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
We will never arm teachers in our classrooms. Ain't gonna happen. Do you think any school system could surivive the multi-million dollar lawsuit that would follow any shooting? Or even fighting (and winning) the court battle?
sounds like you care more about law suits than children's lives.
however, i do agree about teachers having guns, i don't want no gun-phobic teacher having a gun , they will put their eye out.
-
John,
What I am saying is the legal red tape alone assures me teachers with guns will never happen. Please, don't try to assign anything else to my sentiments regarding the safety of children.
Shuckins,
Wringing my hands? Refute my points logically taking into account the society in which we live. Not a single thing you've suggested regarding violence in schools is even remotely possible in our country.
We will never allow teachers to carry guns.
We haven't the resources to "intruder proof" any single building, let alone the myriad buildings a school corporation may have.
I live in a poor, rural county in Indiana, yet we have 8 elementaries, 3 middle schools, and one high school in the northern half of the county alone. The southern half adds another 3 elementaries, a middle school, and a high school. That is a lot of ground to cover, now isn't it? How many guards does that take? What kinds of structures need to be in place in each building to guarantee an intruder cannot shoot a door or window out to get in? Metal detectors... what do they cost, and what difference do they make anyway?
Now try to imagine trying to cover the greater metropolitan areas of Chicago, L.A., New York....
Tough enough to keep enough qualified teachers on hand as it is, and now we are going to spend money on guards, barriers, metal detectors, etc. All so you can keep your guns. Tell me, who is making more sense here?
Like it or not, this isn't Israel. People in Israel accept that if you act out of the expected you stand a very real chance of being shot and killed on the spot. People in America do not feel that way. Apples and oranges.
Anyway... if we aren't supposed to be afraid, why should we arm teachers?
-
We will never arm teachers in our classrooms. Ain't gonna happen. Do you think any school system could surivive the multi-million dollar lawsuit that would follow any shooting? Or even fighting (and winning) the court battle?
I don't think he's talking about arming teachers. He's talking about letting them have CCW's on school property.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I don't think he's talking about arming teachers. He's talking about letting them have CCW's on school property.
Allowing that is arming teachers.
-
No, arming teachers is giving them guns.
-
<>
teachers don't need guns there, them ol farm boys got guns an know how to use them.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, arming teachers is giving them guns.
Semantically, but effectively, allowing CCW for teacher in schools is arming teachers. I think the key issue is whether or not armed teachers would solve more problems than it creates. We can't keep sexual predators off the teaching roles. Do we really want to start arming unstable teachers that slip through the cracks? Of all the schools in this country, how many have be subjected to terrorist attacks? What is the chance of allowing an unstable teacher to carry a gun to school compared to the chance of a few armed teachers being in the right place to stop a terrorist attack? I think the chance of having a few hundred unstable teaches in schools throughout the US with guns is more realistic than having an armed teacher (or teachers)stop a terrorist attack. Embassies protected by armed marines have been fodder for terrorists. Why do you think teachers would fair any better?
-
BTW...do you have a problem with arming a few hundred unstable police officers?
Or do you feel that teachers are, somehow, inherently more unstable than the average police officer?
An officer who is sent to a home with a volatile situation in progress is five times as likely to make a mistake and shoot the wrong person as the homeowner themselves.
In a violent crisis situation occurring in a public school, the police and SWAT teams would only get there in time to fill up their body bags.
The Israelis manage to prevent similar things from happening, but you profess to believe that Americans are incapable of doing the same thing.
So, what solution do you propose, other than to put 911 on the school's telephone speed dials?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
BTW...do you have a problem with arming a few hundred unstable police officers?
Or do you feel that teachers are, somehow, inherently more unstable than the average police officer?
An officer who is sent to a home with a volatile situation in progress is five times as likely to make a mistake and shoot the wrong person as the homeowner themselves.
In a violent crisis situation occurring in a public school, the police and SWAT teams would only get there in time to fill up their body bags.
The Israelis manage to prevent similar things from happening, but you profess to believe that Americans are incapable of doing the same thing.
So, what solution do you propose, other than to put 911 on the school's telephone speed dials?
Brother!
You are no longer trying to debate rationally. Stop putting words in my mouth.
I never said teachers are unstable- I said the public would never tolerate teachers shooting anyone for any reason.
I said Americans are not homogeneous enough to tolerate what Israelis tolerate. We simply have different conditions.
I have said we cannot keep people from walking off the streets and into our schools with guns. We haven't the resources to do it.
I have stated this is my reasoning for my change of heart regarding gun control.
Simple enough to follow?
Hey, you can be for guns if you want to be. I can tell you with authority you haven't the slightest idea of what goes on in a school from the professional end of things. You haven't offered a thing that is remotely possible in any school corporation. And you can't, because nothing short of limiting the number of guns available in this country will help make schools, public offices, post offices, etc. safer from insane folks hell bent on going out in a flame of glory. Honestly, the way a few of you fellows talk, a few kids here or there are a small price to pay to keep your weapons.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
They filmed police arriving. Read the article I posted.
"The photographs debunk statements both men made that they had not realized the guerilla marketing effort to promote a cartoon network program had sparked widespread chaos"
"Their presence at the first of more than a dozen calls from people who found the devices 'proves intent' to cause panic"
Gee, they just happened to be there with a camera when police arrived, what a coincidence!
C'mon rpm, it doesn't take much of a detective to figure out what happened, they called in a hoax bomb threat and filmed the reaction.
And i'll take a quote from his lawyer "that's what he does, he videotapes things"
You and Chairboy just can't admit you were wrong, it reminds me of an episode of south park:
Kyle: Cartman, you really were abducted!
Cartman: No I wasn't!
Kyle: Dude, there's a 60 foot antenna sticking out of your ass!
Cartman: I dont know what you're talking about
I read the article you posted, I read the article online the day it was printed. Nowhere do I see where BPD has any evidence at all that they called in a bomb threat. BPD has'nt even accused them of calling in a bomb threat, only placing the devices. Only you have "connected the dots" and accused them of calling in a bomb threat. Has Paul Revere arrived with the Caller ID info yet? I know things work slower up there, but does it really take 2 weeks to get Caller ID info at Boston 911 HQ?
I find it quite reasonable that he taped the hoopla, especially since he knew it was a lite brite and not a terrorist weapon. Good God man, he could win $100,000 on America's Funniest Videos. I see no intent to cause panic. If that was the idea, why did they wait 3 weeks. Why were'nt they screaming "BOMB!!" instead of quietly watching?
As for refusing to admit what is painfully clear, I'm afraid the shoe is on the other foot my friend. Boston has a long history of blowing things way out of porportion, hence the phrase "banned in Boston". Face it, Massachusetts is full of whiney girly men that love to make mountains out of molehills.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I read the article you posted, I read the article online the day it was printed.
lol, you go to boston.com everyday?
BPD has'nt even accused them of calling in a bomb threat, only placing the devices.
No, they say the evidence "proves intent to cause panic" , that's a crime.
Only you have "connected the dots" and accused them of calling in a bomb threat.
As where the DA has not dropped charges, I think they are connecting the dots too.
Has Paul Revere arrived with the Caller ID info yet? I know things work slower up there, but does it really take 2 weeks to get Caller ID info at Boston 911 HQ?
Why, do you have any info that they don't? If they reveal they do in the coming days, are you wrong?
I find it quite reasonable that he taped the hoopla, especially since he knew it was a lite brite and not a terrorist weapon.
In the words of the whiner line Glenn Ordway imitator " but honey bunch, you're making my point!"
Good God man, he could win $100,000 on America's Funniest Videos.
Or sell it to the marketing company
Why were'nt they screaming "BOMB!!" instead of quietly watching?
Because that would be the evidence that puts them away?
Face it, Massachusetts is full of whiney girly men that love to make mountains out of molehills.
Well, seeming to go to boston.com everyday, I see you have a fetish for whiney girlymen
-
Kieran,
I ask again....what plan would you substitute for arming teachers to protect the students in our school?
You said we don't have the resources to keep someone from coming in off the streets and shooting up our schools.
Conceding the point you made about the public never allowing teachers to carry weapons, I note that your only solution is to disarm the populace.
That will never fly either, and you know it.
As to your statement that the public would never stand for a teacher shooting anyone....are you kidding? Is there no instance in which a teacher would shoot an armed intruder in order to save the lives of his students that you could accept?
The problem with American society isn't that it is not homogenous enough to support an Israeli style system. The problem is that many urbanites have lost the instinct for self-preservation. Rather than handle such problems yourself, or allowing your fellow citizen to take a hand, you want the government to handle it....in essence relegating the citizen to the status of a sheep, who hopes the shepherd will arrive before the lion devours him.
How many victims died at Columbine during the time it took for the authorities to travel to the school, talk to witnesses, assess the situation, develop a plan of assault, and implement that plan? Too many.
But let us hang on to our politically correct views about all this....regardless of the consequences.
-
kieran... when we could bring our rifles to school and the autoshop teacher and woodshop teacher kept 45 autos in their lockers... there were no school shootings..
viking has a point on the gunmen...
there are no shootings at ranges or police stations or army bases... The reason there are shootings at school is because of the wimps like yourself who have disarmed the schools and put a "come and get us we are helpless little sheep" sign out on the front lawn.
It is important that brave men with will remain armed because you are too cowardly and useless to defend yourself or others with arms. You don't have the will to do your duty to yourself or others. That is fine but you are crossing the line into being evil when you try to disarm those who do have the courage and the will. I wouldn't want you teaching any children.
My grand daughter will be going to catholic school next year. That won't stop you from taking away peoples rights but it will give her a decent education and make her think a little. I will teach her how to defend herself with firearms. Maybe someday she will save one of your helpless spawn.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
BTW...do you have a problem with arming a few hundred unstable police officers?
Or do you feel that teachers are, somehow, inherently more unstable than the average police officer?
An officer who is sent to a home with a volatile situation in progress is five times as likely to make a mistake and shoot the wrong person as the homeowner themselves.
In a violent crisis situation occurring in a public school, the police and SWAT teams would only get there in time to fill up their body bags.
The Israelis manage to prevent similar things from happening, but you profess to believe that Americans are incapable of doing the same thing.
So, what solution do you propose, other than to put 911 on the school's telephone speed dials?
Hopefully the chances of arming unstable police officers is a lot less than arming unstable civilians. What I mean is, becoming a police officer requires extensive training, and I believe some psychological testing. Acquiring a CCW licence requires a gun safety class and about $200 (depending on the state, requirements range from strict to "if you haven't killed anyone in the last year"). It seems the the police training is a finer safety net than a gun safety class. If it isn't, our police training must be terrible.
Another thing to consider is such a plan would require federal intrusion into states rights. Not all states allow CCW licences. Would it be federally mandated?
-
No need to mandate anything, but removing federal restrictions would help.
Hoisted by your own petard, eh, BTW?
-
Hopefully the chances of arming unstable police officers is a lot less than arming unstable civilians. What I mean is, becoming a police officer requires extensive training, and I believe some psychological testing. Acquiring a CCW licence requires a gun safety class and about $200 (depending on the state, requirements range from strict to "if you haven't killed anyone in the last year"). It seems the the police training is a finer safety net than a gun safety class. If it isn't, our police training must be terrible.
Since all but two states have some form of CCW, then you should be able to show an increased incidence of misuse -- road rage, etc. if your theory is correct. As far as I've heard, there is none. No wild west, no shootouts over a parking place, etc. Now CCW wouldn't be a top priority for me, even if I didn't live in one of the two states where it's not allowed. Statistically, outside of gang territority violent crime just isn'tmuch of an issue to be concerned about. But, I wouldn't live in fear under such a system and would probably feel safer.
Frankly, as statistics indicate both the overblown concern and any knee jerk reaction to such rare events are not warranted. And around here, educators would tend to be afraid of firearms to begin with having typically suburban upbringings with their exposure to firearms being almost entirely gleaned from television; movies and the sensational media.
FWIW, we just had four teens killed in a single DWI accident in the area. Roughly equal to the Amish death toll. No politicians are calling for a return to prohibition though, even though the misuse of alcohol is killing our children.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Since all but two states have some form of CCW, then you should be able to show an increased incidence of misuse -- road rage, etc. if your theory is correct. As far as I've heard, there is none. No wild west, no shootouts over a parking place, etc. Now CCW wouldn't be a top priority for me, even if I didn't live in one of the two states where it's not allowed. Statistically, outside of gang territority violent crime just isn'tmuch of an issue to be concerned about. But, I wouldn't live in fear under such a system and would probably feel safer.
Frankly, as statistics indicate both the overblown concern and any knee jerk reaction to such rare events are not warranted. And around here, educators would tend to be afraid of firearms to begin with having typically suburban upbringings with their exposure to firearms being almost entirely gleaned from television; movies and the sensational media.
FWIW, we just had four teens killed in a single DWI accident in the area. Roughly equal to the Amish death toll. No politicians are calling for a return to prohibition though, even though the misuse of alcohol is killing our children.
Charon
I don't know every state law regarding CCW, but I do know the circumstances in which a weapon can be carried vary from state to state. E.g., a concealed weapon can't be carried into a state building in Kansas, So even though Kansas provides a CCW license, allowing teachers to carry weapons in school would require changing Kansas state law. Other states require a "need" or high risk profession (e.g., a person who routinely carries large sums of money) to get a CCW license. Again, allowing teachers to carry weapons would require changing state law. Would it be federally mandated?
As far as incidence of violence as it relates to the number of CCW licenses issued, it hard to find unbiased statistics. Of course I can find incidents where convicted felons have secured CCW permits and committed murder with the firearm, but because the cases are shown out of context, the incidents are meaningless other than to show it does happen.
Do you have any statistic that show the number of CCW licenses issued and the violent crime incidence in a year for the states that have CCW? I don't think you can say there is no cause/effect on just a gut feeling or the fact that you haven't heard of highway shootouts.
I'd be curious of the raw data - Number of permits issued and the incidence of violent crime.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Kieran,
I ask again....what plan would you substitute for arming teachers to protect the students in our school?
You said we don't have the resources to keep someone from coming in off the streets and shooting up our schools.
Conceding the point you made about the public never allowing teachers to carry weapons, I note that your only solution is to disarm the populace.
That will never fly either, and you know it.
As to your statement that the public would never stand for a teacher shooting anyone....are you kidding? Is there no instance in which a teacher would shoot an armed intruder in order to save the lives of his students that you could accept?
The problem with American society isn't that it is not homogenous enough to support an Israeli style system. The problem is that many urbanites have lost the instinct for self-preservation. Rather than handle such problems yourself, or allowing your fellow citizen to take a hand, you want the government to handle it....in essence relegating the citizen to the status of a sheep, who hopes the shepherd will arrive before the lion devours him.
How many victims died at Columbine during the time it took for the authorities to travel to the school, talk to witnesses, assess the situation, develop a plan of assault, and implement that plan? Too many.
But let us hang on to our politically correct views about all this....regardless of the consequences.
I have stated my plan- gun control. You don't have to like it, but that is my opinion.
No, it isn't about what *I* accept as a permissable shooting, it's what the *public* will accept. You can't tell me the press wouldn't eat up a shooting incident. You can't tell me the folks with an axe to grind against public education wouldn't immediately tramp all over it. You can't tell me the family(ies) of the deceased wouldn't sue to high heaven. It should be patently obvious that police forces all over the country face the exact same scrutiny, and they are trained to use the weapons. If the public will not tolerate shootings in the course of doing their jobs, how much less so would it be for teachers? You are kidding yourself if you think for a second it is even remotely possible. Our country isn't now and won't in the forseeable future be ready for armed teachers.
I am not an urbanite. I have no problem with the concept of defending myself, and have said many times I would shoot anyone threatening my family. Your comment here is misguided. I don't want "the government to handle it". I have a choice to make- arm everyone or arm no one. Seems like I'll choose the lesser of the evils. I am not happy about our country coming to this, but it clearly is coming.
Your Columbine example is an non sequitur at best, and at worst it illustrates my point. Whether or not teachers were armed, those kids would have managed to kill a few classmates before they themselves were taken out. Your "solution" might or might not have saved lives, but it couldn't have saved them all. My solution might have saved them all.
-
FWIW, we just had four teens killed in a single DWI accident in the area. Roughly equal to the Amish death toll. No politicians are calling for a return to prohibition though, even though the misuse of alcohol is killing our children.
Were the kids raped first? Just curious.
Apples and oranges.
-
Exactly how would you implement your plan? Confiscation? In the face of the kind of opposition that would arise if you tried it? Confiscating from the druggies, and gangsters, and pimps, and tens of millions of law-abiding citizens who fervently believe in the second amendment? Riigghht!
What would you say to the elderly who would no longer be able to defend themselves within their homes? Move into gated communities?
What's to prevent some punks from bringing butcher knives and swords into a school?
Kieran...the bottom line is...the government CANNOT protect us. They can't be everywhere at once and they often don't arrive in time to prevent a violent crime from taking place.
You say you have no problems with shooting someone who is threatening your family. Great...neither do I. On that we agree. And yet you would deny that right to everyone....via gun-control. You can't advocate it for yourself and at the same time state that others are not capable of handling the same responsibility.
I haven't advocated just arming teachers willy-nilly. If you read my posts you will see that I have advocated intensive training for those willing to undertake the responsibility. They are just as intelligent and capable of making life-and-death decisions as the police, who are, after all, only human and prone to make mistakes.
-
Kieran, your whole argument is based on the teachers shooting the school kids, are teachers really that inept? maybe its the teachers that need to be changed.
-
Do you have any statistic that show the number of CCW licenses issued and the violent crime incidence in a year for the states that have CCW? I don't think you can say there is no cause/effect on just a gut feeling or the fact that you haven't heard of highway shootouts.
I'd be curious of the raw data - Number of permits issued and the incidence of violent crime.
Well, what about you and your gut feeling? There doesn’t seem to be much of a grass roots call to repeal these laws. Hell, even the anti-gun Chicago Tribune is somewhat bullish on this issue. There is Lott’s study from the University of Chicago…
1. A comprehensive national study in 1996 determined that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. (10)
2. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and
* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly. (11)
10. John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago, (13 July 1996). See also Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996).
11. Ibid.
Regardless, there doesn’t seem to be much of an issue with CCW people going on rampages, since the Brady Campaign is even weaker than usual in its hand wringing rationale over this issue… “People might misuse it!” "Surveyed non-gun owners feel scared!" If they can’t even manufacture bogus statistics like the “crime traces” used for their AWB efforts, for example, then the case much be exceedingly weak.
Were the kids raped first? Just curious.
Apples and oranges.
No, not apples and oranges in the least. You want to take away or seriously dilute my Constitutional rights based upon an incident where a gunman killed four students. It’s only “apples and oranges” if you see a distinction between “saving the children” from gun violence and saving them from the ravages of alcohol, which would mean far greater personal restrictions (or even prohibition) on something you may actually enjoy doing yourself. If you like hard apple cider, then it’s really great to see a gun as an orange :) Maybe you're not a drinker, but just have an emotional disconnect. Regardless, a life is a life, and a loss is a loss and we have to make choices as a society. Hopefully those will be made on the basis of fact and not emotion or ignorance. I won't hold my breath.
1. More children will be killed by lightening in any given year than will be killed in incidents similar to the Amish incident.
Statistics are fragmented, but here's one trumpeted by gun control supporters: Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths. (Journal of American Medical Association, December 2001). That's roughly 37 per year, and this includes gangland slayings and slayings not necessarily in the school itself.
Roughly 100 people are killed each year from lightening. Don't know the percentage of children, but when you look at a total population of 300 million I think you can say that they are at least roughly comparable. If you could factor out just those intruder scenarios or where a shooting took place inside the school and not just on school grounds, or on the way to and from school, lightening deaths would be far greater.
2. The general, broader risk to children from alcohol is directly comparable to the risk from firearms, including the fact that much of the firearm death affecting the “children” involves inner city criminal gangland activity.
Three teens are killed each day when they drink alcohol and drive.1 At least six more die every day from other alcohol-related causes.2
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 6,002 young people ages 16-20 died in motor vehicle crashes in 2003. Alcohol was involved in 38% of these deaths.3
In 2003, 3,571 young drivers ages 16-20 died in motor vehicle crashes. Of these, 1,131 - approximately 32% - had been drinking, and 26% were legally drunk at the time of the crash.4 http://camy.org/factsheets/index.php?FactsheetID=7
Alcohol has been reported to be involved in 36 percent of homicides, 12 percent of male suicides, and 8 percent of female suicides involving people under 21—a total of about 1,500 homicides and 300 suicides in 2000. Homicide is the second leading cause of death for 15- to 24-year-olds6 (Reducing Underage Drinking, 61). http://camy.org/factsheets/index.php?FactsheetID=13
Underage drinking is a factor in nearly half of all teen automobile crashes, the leading cause of death among teenagers. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/3557.html
That adds up to roughly 3,285 total alcohol related deaths among teens using the first bullet point (no pun intended). I don’t think it even counts younger children killed by others under the influence. By comparison, in 1998 (a higher crime year I believe) firearms accounted for 3,761 deaths of children aged 19 and under. Pretty much the same direct level of threat, give or take a small percentage. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:7pUNhdpQJiYJ: preventionpathways.samhsa.gov/pdfs/fact_yfirearms.pdf+death+firearms+youth&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=48&gl=us
The rape point you bring up in the “apples and oranges” quote also has a strong alcohol angle.
ndividuals under the age of 21 commit 45 percent of rapes, 44 percent of robberies, and 37 percent of other assaults,7 and it is estimated that 50 percent of violent crime is alcohol-related8 (Reducing Underage Drinking, 61).
- n college campuses 95 percent of all violent crime and 90 percent of college rapes involve the use of alcohol by the assailant, victim, or both9 (Reducing Underage Drinking, 61). http://camy.org/factsheets/index.php?FactsheetID=13
Further, for comparison, some 2000-3000 children are killed by their parents or caretakers each year.
All out of a population of 300 million people. My children are at far greater risk from somebody’s happy hour than they are from a legal gun owner.
Charon
-
<<3,285 total alcohol related deaths >>
they were not killed by alcohol, they were killed by automobiles.
just the facts mam.
-
Actually John, 2/3 were apparently killed by non driving alcohol related incidents. I don't know though, if that includes passangers vs. the driver, etc. ( I would suspect it does, along with suicide which is also typicaly included with gun fataility statistics)
BTW, I have no interest in alcohol prohabition, I would just like to see responsible firearm ownership considered equal to responsible drinking, where you punish the criminally irresponsible.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
BTW, I have no interest in alcohol prohabition, I would just like to see responsible firearm ownership considered equal to responsible drinking, where you punish the criminally irresponsible.
Charon
i agree with that.
-
Wait a minute, let me get this straight, people who call other people paranoid want armed teachers.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Kieran, your whole argument is based on the teachers shooting the school kids, are teachers really that inept? maybe its the teachers that need to be changed.
Are you serious? LOL, that piece of logic takes the cake.
The school example is only an extreme example of the problems guns pose in our society. The fact is we can't arm everyone in our society and not expect some kind of backlash. That's like giving every country nuclear weapons as a deterrent against war. Not a particularly bright idea, agreed?
-
Charon, your argument would carry weight if the Amish shooting was the only shooting in the last 10 years- and that's not even close to true. Google it. You'll find a dozen or so in nothing flat. There's a striking similarity to most of them, too... lax control on weapons makes them accessible to people who shouldn't have them.
Heck... let me Google that for ya...
Timeline of school shootings worldwide (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html)
Now cull through there and see how many events there have been. Total the number of people killed. Wow. Nearly 70 people killed in American schools since 1996.
Is that a small enough price to pay for your freedom? Wanna sacrifice your kid so others can keep their guns? I don't.
-
i don't want to arm everyone, you for example should never have a gun.
-
Sigh, it is the story that will not die...
OK, here we go...Originally posted by Sixpence
I read the article you posted, I read the article online the day it was printed.
lol, you go to boston.com everyday?
No, I read Google News everyday.
BPD has'nt even accused them of calling in a bomb threat, only placing the devices.
No, they say the evidence "proves intent to cause panic" , that's a crime.
You keep dancing around the fact you said they called in a threat and went to see the reaction. So far YOU are the only one saying that. Get yer story straight. Were they there? Of course they were. Did they make a call? So far no evidence to say they did, Nada, none, zip, zilch.
Only you have "connected the dots" and accused them of calling in a bomb threat.
As where the DA has not dropped charges, I think they are connecting the dots too.
Has Paul Revere arrived with the Caller ID info yet? I know things work slower up there, but does it really take 2 weeks to get Caller ID info at Boston 911 HQ?
Why, do you have any info that they don't? If they reveal they do in the coming days, are you wrong?
Response to the last two questions. See previous reply.I'm not typing the same thing over and over. This is like argueing with a woman fer cripes sake. This same question has come up 3 or 4 times but you do a tap dance every time. If they reveal they have Caller ID of them calling in a bomb threat, I'll admit I was wrong. I'm man enough to admit my mistakes, unlike BPD.
I find it quite reasonable that he taped the hoopla, especially since he knew it was a lite brite and not a terrorist weapon.
In the words of the whiner line Glenn Ordway imitator " but honey bunch, you're making my point!"
What, that they did'nt scream BOMB and try to scare everyone? He taped them running around looking like fools, nothing more.
Good God man, he could win $100,000 on America's Funniest Videos.
Or sell it to the marketing company
Oh really? What would the marketing company do with it??
Why were'nt they screaming "BOMB!!" instead of quietly watching?
Because that would be the evidence that puts them away?
Or because they were not trying to incite a panic?
Face it, Massachusetts is full of whiney girly men that love to make mountains out of molehills.
Well, seeming to go to boston.com everyday, I see you have a fetish for whiney girlymen [/B]
The only fetish I have involves a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader and a jar of honey. As I said before, try reading Google News. They have lots of storys from lots of sources. I stand by my statement of Boston's lack of cajones.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I read the article you posted, I read the article online the day it was printed.
lol, you go to boston.com everyday?
BPD has'nt even accused them of calling in a bomb threat, only placing the devices.
No, they say the evidence "proves intent to cause panic" , that's a crime.
Only you have "connected the dots" and accused them of calling in a bomb threat.
As where the DA has not dropped charges, I think they are connecting the dots too.
Has Paul Revere arrived with the Caller ID info yet? I know things work slower up there, but does it really take 2 weeks to get Caller ID info at Boston 911 HQ?
Why, do you have any info that they don't? If they reveal they do in the coming days, are you wrong?
I find it quite reasonable that he taped the hoopla, especially since he knew it was a lite brite and not a terrorist weapon.
In the words of the whiner line Glenn Ordway imitator " but honey bunch, you're making my point!"
Good God man, he could win $100,000 on America's Funniest Videos.
Or sell it to the marketing company
Why were'nt they screaming "BOMB!!" instead of quietly watching?
Because that would be the evidence that puts them away?
Face it, Massachusetts is full of whiney girly men that love to make mountains out of molehills.
Well, seeming to go to boston.com everyday, I see you have a fetish for whiney girlymen
The only girl in this thread is yourself still carrying on from the other thread. Let it go! They overreacted and WILL be the laughing stock for awhile.
-
70 people killed in American schools over the last 10 years.
An average of 7 a year....
...how many of those were gang-related?
The number killed in alcohol-related incidents during that same period are around 35,000....five-hundred times as many. If you are really all that concerned about the safety of our school-children, perhaps you should start a movement to ban alcohol....or automobiles...or both.
Sounds to me as if your support to ban guns is woefully misplaced. Of course, we all know prohibition didn't work. What makes you think gun-control would work?
-
Shuckins beat me to it. Roughly the underage death toll from alcohol during a single week. Not to mention the thousand people killed by lightening during that 10-year period. Perhaps we need a prohibition on being outdoors during a thunderstorm? We would have one if the politicians could make it work. Vote for Bob Smith... he's tough on lightening!
And, out of a population of 300 million. We're talking lottery ticket odds here. The reality is that unless you are a gangbanger in an urban war zone you have little real risk of meeting a violent death at the wrong end of a gun. Even innocent people in those neighborhoods have a slim chance of such a death. Is it a ****ty existance -- absolutely. But illegal firearm violence is a symptom, not a cause or a cure.
BTW, I personally know of at least two (and one probable) friends who have died directly from alcohol. Not a one from a firearm incident. Demographically, if I did know a firearm victim, it would probably be a suicide victim. Where, although we have a higher rate of firearm suicides, our overall suicide rate is comprable, and perhaps even less (can't remember), compared to other developed nations.
And we haven't even touched the 1st Amendment. Virtually all of these vanity shootings -- Colombine, the Amish deal, any number of others -- were committed with the sole intent of going out with the maximum amount of media exposure. I mean, we've had firearm ownership for well over two hundred years, yet it's only in the media age that we see these "blaze of glory" killings. So, we should sensibly restrict the news media in covering such cases, I suppose. Not to mention the action hero films and blazing machine gun cop shows that glorify violence (not even remotely related to real life crime) night after night. Violent video games are on the list, of course. Can't rely on parents to read the warning lables, so let's just ban them completely.
Then we can move on to the threat the Internet poses to our children (politicians are already testing these waters). Pedophiles roaming Myspace, hate groups recruiting at vile Web sites (the ADL is all over that one)... books like The Turner Diaries inciting the Oklahoma City Bombing (and a number of other hate crimes). Sure 99 percent of people use the Internet responsibly, but we NEED to protect our children from that 1 percent that might misuse the Internet because, as a parent, I can't be held responsible for monitoring my child's internet usage.
In today's world, my rights end where someone's feelings begin -- facts be dammed. And the majority of the responsible must suffer for the irresponsible minority since personal accountability has gone out the window where society's ills are concerned. You don't win elections by blaming the voters and telling them to get their **** together.
Wanna sacrifice your kid so others can keep their guns? I don't.
Actually, I want my kid to grow up with individual rights as a free, responsible American. He has more to fear from the knee jerk reactions of his fellow citizens that give up a broad range of freedoms for some politician's spin on "safety," than he does from something like legal, responsible gun ownership. The facts bear this out, and I'm not even that good at math.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The only girl in this thread is yourself still carrying on from the other thread. Let it go! They overreacted and WILL be the laughing stock for awhile.
Hey, mashyourbum is adding nothing again
-
Originally posted by rpm
Were they there? Of course they were. Did they make a call? So far no evidence to say they did, Nada, none, zip, zilch.
Again, how would they know to be there unless they knew there was a call, do they have mole at the BPD?
-
A news statement read by what was either the Chief or other high level admin. uniformed representative of the BPD stated they had received numerous calls about the devices. The rest of the statement was not broadcast so I have no other info other than that. It was a brief bit on a non Boston TV station. I don't recall now whether it was a NY station or CNN. Since I get both East and West coast feeds on my satelite TV I can watch some of the local NYC news casts.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Again, how would they know to be there unless they knew there was a call, do they have mole at the BPD?
From what I understand, it was the train station around the corner from their office.
-
Originally posted by rpm
From what I understand, it was the train station around the corner from their office.
lol, they have an office? Where?
-
Originally posted by Charon
Actually, I want my kid to grow up with individual rights as a free, responsible American. He has more to fear from the knee jerk reactions of his fellow citizens that give up a broad range of freedoms for some politician's spin on "safety," than he does from something like legal, responsible gun ownership. The facts bear this out, and I'm not even that good at math.
Charon
I'll accept that as a "yes".
Oh, check this (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/13/salt.lake.shooting.ap/index.html) out. It wasn't a school, but you get the idea.
-
I'll accept that as a "yes".
No, a common sense risk assessment shows that your fear of firearms is far overblown compared to the real risk, using worst case scenario numbers. I don't have that blind fear. My son is more at risk from a skateboard, a receptionist after happy hour, or, frankly, lightening if you're talking about a school shooting scenario.
Oh, check this out. It wasn't a school, but you get the idea.
Yeah. In a population of 300 million events like this occasionally, and rarely occur. Far more rare than a drunk taking out a family by crossing the center line. So, unless you are a total hypocrite, then you must have an equal outrage over the fact that alcohol is still available for sale given its ready misuse. Check This Out (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0702130209feb13,1,6250914.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true)
You'll also note that the shooter in your link used a common hunting shotgun, which no one SAYS thay want to ban, and that the media fully covered the event. I would say the 1st Amendment played an even greater role in this shooting than the firearm. No media coverage, no "glory" and perhaps he just sticks the shotgun in his mouth and gets done with it.
Charon
-
Alcohol isn't designed to kill. It may do that, but it isn't designed that way.
Anyway, it's all a red-herring argument. Stick to the point.
I mean, it comes to the point where you have to use common sense. There is no defense against someone in a public place (schools, malls, discos, etc) walking in with a gun and killing as many people as he/she can before being done in themselves. Yeah, yeah, yeah, people would kill with knives or clubs then. Sure they would, but they wouldn't be as effective at it, would they? Your solution? Arm anyone who wants a gun? That's just nuts, and you know it.
Really, it has come to the point of all-or-nothing, hasn't it?
We could suggest more laws to tighten gun ownership, but as the laws that are in place now are not enforced, what's the use of enacting more unenforced law?
We could enable CCW in all workplaces for all ages (anyone employed), but you have to have enough common sense to see that is impossible. Don't you? What kind of bureaucracy would be necessary to assure the workers getting the guns aren't themselves nuts? The same ineffective one that is in place now? So, dispensing with the idea of allowing all to CCW, what's left? Armed guards? How many per building? What would be enough to ensure safety? What cost?
In short, your solutions involve raising everyone's alertness levels to hypersensitive, then handing them guns. That's crazy. And that's the point. No matter how you slice it, your ideas wind up unworkable because of the state of our society or nature of people themselves. As hard as it is to embrace this idea, some people just shouldn't own guns.
But... I have been called to task to defend why I have changed my gun control stance from anti to pro. I can sum it up very simply; I am tired of reading about crazy people walking into a group of innocents and opening fire. You think the infrequency of these occurances is acceptable. I don't. It's not likely either of us are going to change our minds on the issue. Bringing up stats about lightning strikes, alcohol related deaths, or any such diversionary tactics are just that, diversions.
Just try to imagine if your kid was in that mall last night. I know, I know, it couldn't happen... but it did to someone, didn't it? Well, that was someone else...
-
<< Just try to imagine if your kid was in that mall last night. I know, I know, it couldn't happen... but it did to someone, didn't it? Well, that was someone else...>>
we need to close the malls , they are evil crime filled places.
-
kieran... I will admit it... I think the few cases of nut jobs committing murders with guns is not good enough reason to take the freedom away from 300 million citizens.
I also think that anyone who is that nuts will figure out how to make a bomb or... really scary... just mow em all down with a car or truck.
The mall incident that just happened was stopped by an off duty cop with a concealed handgun.
All the school shootings have one thing in common.. they were finally stopped with a firearm.
you don't have the guts or the brains to defend our children from insane people but....that's ok... not everyone does. About 10% will apply for cc permits even in israel. I imagine the percent would run about the same for teachers... not all are as bad as you. surely there must be a few who have the will and desire to protect themselves and others.
I don't mind that you are weak... or even that you have an opinion... when you are given the opportunity to limit my rights tho... then you are a dangerous enemy.
If my grand daughter were ever shot at school then I would place the blame where it belongs... on the stupid policies that kept guns away from those that could have helped her and.... on you for giving them the power to do so.
One thing victims of mad gunmen all have in common is that they pray that someone with a gun will stop the killing.
I feel a hell of a lot safer knowing citizens around me may be armed than knowing that you and your ilk will all trample me in your panic to get away.
lazs
-
But... I have been called to task to defend why I have changed my gun control stance from anti to pro. I can sum it up very simply; I am tired of reading about crazy people walking into a group of innocents and opening fire. You think the infrequency of these occurances is acceptable. I don't. It's not likely either of us are going to change our minds on the issue. Bringing up stats about lightning strikes, alcohol related deaths, or any such diversionary tactics are just that, diversions.
Just try to imagine if your kid was in that mall last night. I know, I know, it couldn't happen... but it did to someone, didn't it? Well, that was someone else...
You want to piss on the rights of Americans to "save the children." Yet, apparently saving the children is only important to you if it doesn't interfere with things that you personally enjoy. Nothing new there, welcome to America. "Your rights end where my feelings begin."
It's not a diversion to point out that alcohol poses as great, if not a far greater risk to our children not involved in inner city gang activity. If you're not just a total hypocrite, then you would find both issues comprable and equally bad and deserving similar treatment. I could respect that, even though I would disagree with prohabition, which doesn't have a particularly strong track record as a cure to an ill.
As for "killer guns" -- alcohol's only use other than an intoxicant is as an industrial solvent and similar commercial/industrial applications. You could easily ban the consumption of alcohol with out impacting any of the "good" it does. It's negative impact on society is well established, and the "good people" of the land even outlawed it at one point. But, apparently to you, a child killed by alcohol is somehow less dead, or less devastating than one killed by a firearm.
Not to mention the real risk to YOUR kids is far greater from alcohol, assuming that you are not involved in the gangland drug trade. The link I posted covered an intoxicated driver that took the lives of four teenage passengers last weekend. Every bit as dead as the Amish girls or the people in that mall, and far more likely to impact your or my life. As I already pointed out, alcohol has already taken at least two of my friends -- mall/school shootings = 0. Even on these boards, personal DUI related incidents come up from time to time. Real life shootouts = 0.
It's not a diversion to point out that the source of your great fear is less of an issue than death from lightening -- that's called a fact. You must live in terror of bikes and skateboards, swimming pools and any object or bite of food that could become lodged in a throat. For that matter, non impaired teenage drivers are far more terrifying. Statistically, if you're terrified of an Amish school repeat you should dammed well be terrified of these events.
We have a population of 300 million. For every sensational incident the news media splashes across the screen, there are 299,999,999 non incidents that make up our boring, daily life.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Well, what about you and your gut feeling? There doesn’t seem to be much of a grass roots call to repeal these laws. Hell, even the anti-gun Chicago Tribune is somewhat bullish on this issue. There is Lott’s study from the University of Chicago…
Regardless, there doesn’t seem to be much of an issue with CCW people going on rampages, since the Brady Campaign is even weaker than usual in its hand wringing rationale over this issue… “People might misuse it!” "Surveyed non-gun owners feel scared!" If they can’t even manufacture bogus statistics like the “crime traces” used for their AWB efforts, for example, then the case much be exceedingly weak.
Charon
I read the study and it seems pretty thorough and objective. Maybe there is something to be said for arming some teachers in schools. But I think there are still plenty of questions to b e asked about that idea. The Lott study doesn't clear up everything, e.g., because CCW laws produce a 10% decline in certain types of crimes (mostly crimes of opportunity)would arming teachers prevent terrorism in schools? That's specifically what I was addressing. A planned terrorist strike is a different animal than preventing a "hot burglary." The study shows CCW laws make the criminals adapt their behavior. Property crimes actually go up because criminals adopt low risk crime. But how would this affect a terrorist situation at school?
A terrorist act at school is not a crime of opportunity. Its a chosen target specifically chosen to create horror. Its not like the terrorists are going to go to an easier place down the street like a Taco Bell. They need that specific institution (the school) to create that gut wrenching horror they want to create. But having armed teachers would make them adapt to the situation. What would that be? A bloodier attack? A more random without warning attack? Would arming teachers stop the attacks or change the attacks?
I can see how the CCW could reduce the amount of home invasion type robberies. But is this effect transferable to a terrorist situation in a school?
In short, would it just be a false security, feel good measure?
-
So... just curious (and since red herring arguments are vogue) how do you fellas feel about Iran gaining nukes?
C'mon... grab the bait...
-
Originally posted by Kieran
So... just curious (and since red herring arguments are vogue) how do you fellas feel about Iran gaining nukes?
C'mon... grab the bait...
As long as they pass a proper background check and have a current CCW. alls cool.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
lol, they have an office? Where?
Around the corner from the freakin train station!! Jeez, it was all over a week ago. Search your precious boston.com and it's in one of those storys. It was a week ago anyway.
-
Some folks see the bogeyman and conspiracy in every shadow. I think the gentleman is saying that he has cracked the case that Boston's finest have been unable to, and is suggesting coquettishly that the guy who put up the sign called it in as a bomb threat to garner attention.
The Boston PD doesn't think he did that. Sixpence, have you considered calling them up and helping 'em crack the case?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, perhaps something better than a "wink wink, nudge nudge" would help us change our minds.
-
Last I knew, being at the scene of the crime before the crime and as the crime happens is pretty strong evidence in any case, but maybe that's just me.
What you want is for the 'artist' to actually come out and say it, any other evidence just doesn't go along with your agenda. Even if he did come out and say it you would say he is only saying it as part of a plea bargain with the BPD.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Around the corner from the freakin train station!! Jeez, it was all over a week ago. Search your precious boston.com and it's in one of those storys. It was a week ago anyway.
You said they have an office and say there are links, post em
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, I guess we should just ignore the phone calls. Bomb threats, just a harmless prank
You say they called in bomb threats. You go first, link?
-
some fool in tampa called in a fake bomb threat about the football stadium, he used his home phone and called 911 enhanced, (enhanced gives the operator the name and addy of the caller), his was promptly arrested.
-
Originally posted by rpm
You say they called in bomb threats. You go first, link?
lol, you hypocrite!
-
Sixpence, you're making the claim that they called in the threats, but you haven't provided a shred of evidence. Why should we try and prove a negative?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Sixpence, you're making the claim that they called in the threats, but you haven't provided a shred of evidence. Why should we try and prove a negative?
What that has to do with an office at a subway station i'll never know. The threats were called in, they were there before police arrived, waiting to film it.
They said they weren't there, you believed them. They said they didn't know they caused panic, you believed them. Now you insist on convincing yourself they didn't make or have a hand in making the calls, we'll see how that plays out.
You know they did it, but it doesn't fit your agenda.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
As long as they pass a proper background check and have a current CCW. alls cool.
shamus
Heh. I'm betting a fair number of the "don't take my rights away" crowd would be staunch supporters of taking away another country's "right" to pursue nuclear energy/weaponry.
I mean, statistically speaking, only about 100,000 people out of 6 or 7 billion have been killed by atomic weapons. That means my chances of getting all blowed up by an atomic bomb is miniscule- that's only about 0.001% of the population! Why, I have a better chance of being hit by lightning, getting killed by a drunk driver, or maybe even getting cancer from second-hand smoke. No need to worry at all!
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
The threats were called in, they were there before police arrived, waiting to film it.
Oh, now your teleporting them to the scene before they were there. Why don't you invent some more facts to back up your paranoid case.
BTW, I may be wrong about the office. (Take note I can admit being wrong, can you??) I know I read it somewhere, but the stories are so old I can't find them. I did manage to find THIS STORY (http://www.post-trib.com/news/246567,Bombo.article) that says someone called him and told him about the police activity at the station.
Still waiting on your links to the stories about police knowing Berdovsky and Stevens called in a "BOMB THREAT". You know they did'nt do it, but it doesn't fit your agenda.
Quit trying to hijack this thread and take it back to the Baastin got pwnd thread. I'm thru commenting on this in this thread.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I did manage to find THIS STORY (http://www.post-trib.com/news/246567,Bombo.article) that says someone called him and told him about the police activity at the station.
Hmm, let's see, the article reads "Prince said Berdovsky had received a call that morning from a friend who told him there was a bomb threat at a transit station."
Then it reads "He said Berdovsky was unaware it involved one of the electronic devices"
Then how did he know which transit station to go to out of hundreds?
I'm thru commenting on this in this thread.
brawk! brawk!
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
brawk! brawk!
Take it to the other thread.