Author Topic: Dumb panic is now A-OK (Read 2642 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #75 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:26:21 PM »

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

Charon · « **Reply #76 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:27:47 PM »

Quote

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

BTW · « **Reply #77 on:** February 13, 2007, 03:07:18 PM »

Quote

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?

Kieran · « **Reply #78 on:** February 13, 2007, 03:55:23 PM »

So... just curious (and since red herring arguments are vogue) how do you fellas feel about Iran gaining nukes?

C'mon... grab the bait...

Shamus · « **Reply #79 on:** February 13, 2007, 04:52:24 PM »

Quote

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

rpm · « **Reply #80 on:** February 13, 2007, 05:21:12 PM »

Quote

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.

Chairboy · « **Reply #81 on:** February 13, 2007, 05:35:05 PM »

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.

Sixpence · « **Reply #82 on:** February 13, 2007, 06:33:28 PM »

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.

Sixpence · « **Reply #83 on:** February 13, 2007, 06:34:05 PM »

Quote

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

rpm · « **Reply #84 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:28:08 PM »

Quote

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?

john9001 · « **Reply #85 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:38:19 PM »

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.

Sixpence · « **Reply #86 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:38:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
You say they called in bomb threats. You go first, link?

lol, you hypocrite!

Chairboy · « **Reply #87 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:43:05 PM »

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?

Sixpence · « **Reply #88 on:** February 13, 2007, 08:45:37 PM »

Quote

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.

Kieran · « **Reply #89 on:** February 13, 2007, 08:56:14 PM »

Quote

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!