Moderator: Community Team
Great points. Simply put, gun sales and gun ownership have been rising very fast over the last 5 years, and the murder rate has been dropping even faster over the last 5 years (despite the Great Recession)Ray Rider wrote:Hmm, looks to me like assault deaths in the US are declining just fine as it is. With it at an all-time low since the 60s even in spite of the assault weapons ban expiring in 2004, it seems safe to say that gun availability has little to do with the issue.Metsfanmax wrote:I don't think that's an accurate assumption:saxitoxin wrote: - From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words, 0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health. [/list]
...
** figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period[/size]
Firstly, correlation doesn't prove causation. You should know that.Metsfanmax wrote:For comparison: in general, there is a positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates (in general, not just considering spree shootings).saxitoxin wrote:Okay, if 100% of spree shooting deaths occurred during 2002-2012, and none occurred from 1984-2002, then the per-capita spree shooting fatality rate increases to 0.9 per 1 million, versus Finland's 4.8 per 1 million. That seems tenuous but I'll concede that point, if you like.Metsfanmax wrote:I don't think that's an accurate assumption:saxitoxin wrote: - From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words, 0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health. [/list]
...
** figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period[/size]
Secondly, isn't this that "study" that was debunked a long time back because it counted suicides as homicides?
Did you even read the post, or did you only find the one sentence that mentioned your dumbass name and ignore the f*ck out of the rest of it? I mean, seriously...the whole latter half of my post ANSWERED THAT FUCKING QUESTION.Phatscotty wrote:Well Woodruff, you may say guns in schools is insane, but you can try to give a good answer to the same question Macbone has not gotten around to yet....
What other alternatives exist that can prevent a massacre like this one?
It's a simple question.Woodruff wrote:Did you even read the post, or did you only find the one sentence that mentioned your dumbass name and ignore the f*ck out of the rest of it? I mean, seriously...the whole latter half of my post ANSWERED THAT FUCKING QUESTION.Phatscotty wrote:Well Woodruff, you may say guns in schools is insane, but you can try to give a good answer to the same question Macbone has not gotten around to yet....
What other alternatives exist that can prevent a massacre like this one?
Jesus Christ, you're a deluded f*ck. That certainly hasn't changed.
Yes, and the answer lies in the post you're still fucking ignoring, you twit.Phatscotty wrote:It's a simple question.Woodruff wrote:Did you even read the post, or did you only find the one sentence that mentioned your dumbass name and ignore the f*ck out of the rest of it? I mean, seriously...the whole latter half of my post ANSWERED THAT FUCKING QUESTION.Phatscotty wrote:Well Woodruff, you may say guns in schools is insane, but you can try to give a good answer to the same question Macbone has not gotten around to yet....
What other alternatives exist that can prevent a massacre like this one?
Jesus Christ, you're a deluded f*ck. That certainly hasn't changed.
To answer the question you seem to be trying to pretend was your original question...Phatscotty wrote:We know that some people think teachers with guns are a bad idea, but is there anyone who can actually explain why it's a bad idea (without degenerating into gutter speak)?
It's a simple question, Woodruff, and no, you did not answer it. I think you are scared because you are unable to answer it, and you got caught with your pants down (again).Woodruff wrote:Yes, and the answer lies in the post you're still fucking ignoring, you twit.Phatscotty wrote:It's a simple question.Woodruff wrote:Did you even read the post, or did you only find the one sentence that mentioned your dumbass name and ignore the f*ck out of the rest of it? I mean, seriously...the whole latter half of my post ANSWERED THAT FUCKING QUESTION.Phatscotty wrote:Well Woodruff, you may say guns in schools is insane, but you can try to give a good answer to the same question Macbone has not gotten around to yet....
What other alternatives exist that can prevent a massacre like this one?
Jesus Christ, you're a deluded f*ck. That certainly hasn't changed.
I did answer it. I'm sorry that you're incapable of reading your own posts, but you should go back and take a look...if you can comprehend the writing there, you might find it fascinating stuff, as it would give you a glimmer...just a glimpse...into your own mind. It's quoted here...so just go up to the top of this post and read it. Simple enough, really.Phatscotty wrote:It's a simple question, Woodruff, and no, you did not answer it. I think you are scared because you are unable to answer it, and you got caught with your pants down (again).Woodruff wrote:Yes, and the answer lies in the post you're still fucking ignoring, you twit.Phatscotty wrote:It's a simple question.Woodruff wrote:Did you even read the post, or did you only find the one sentence that mentioned your dumbass name and ignore the f*ck out of the rest of it? I mean, seriously...the whole latter half of my post ANSWERED THAT FUCKING QUESTION.Phatscotty wrote:Well Woodruff, you may say guns in schools is insane, but you can try to give a good answer to the same question Macbone has not gotten around to yet....
What other alternatives exist that can prevent a massacre like this one?
Jesus Christ, you're a deluded f*ck. That certainly hasn't changed.
No, I don't make you look like an angel at all.Phatscotty wrote:I think you are just lying, so you can bully and vent your hatred and your intolerance and try to fill that hollow place in your black heart. You are making the angriest of red-faced knuckle-dragging whiskey-breath Republicans looks like angels
It sounds like you are implying that the teacher will just leave the gun laying out on the desk?Woodruff wrote:To answer the question you seem to be trying to pretend was your original question...Phatscotty wrote:We know that some people think teachers with guns are a bad idea, but is there anyone who can actually explain why it's a bad idea (without degenerating into gutter speak)?
It's a brilliant idea to have handguns where gang-banging teenagers roam. That's simply brilliant. Where will the teachers keep these handguns where they can access them within their classrooms but where the students cannot?
You're just a caricature.Phatscotty wrote:my solution based statement: more guns in schoolssaxitoxin wrote:OK, that's a fair point, but it's not a position I'm advancing or willing to defend since it's not a solutions-based statement.Phatscotty wrote:not to mention, all this BS about tougher gun laws totally lets the murderer off the hook/blames something other than the murderer. It's the person using the object, not the object.
Anyone who believes either of these signs has any chance of preventing this sort of a tragedy is dangerously stupid.Phatscotty wrote:
It would only sound like that to a lunatic. Were you going to try to address the issue with any seriousness? For instance, perhaps you could answer the question I asked instead of trying to build up a strawman. That'd be a nice change of pace, but unfortunately not one I believe you're capable of.Phatscotty wrote:It sounds like you are implying that the teacher will just leave the gun laying out on the desk?Woodruff wrote:To answer the question you seem to be trying to pretend was your original question...Phatscotty wrote:We know that some people think teachers with guns are a bad idea, but is there anyone who can actually explain why it's a bad idea (without degenerating into gutter speak)?
It's a brilliant idea to have handguns where gang-banging teenagers roam. That's simply brilliant. Where will the teachers keep these handguns where they can access them within their classrooms but where the students cannot?
Iliad wrote:You're just a caricature.Phatscotty wrote:my solution based statement: more guns in schoolssaxitoxin wrote:OK, that's a fair point, but it's not a position I'm advancing or willing to defend since it's not a solutions-based statement.Phatscotty wrote:not to mention, all this BS about tougher gun laws totally lets the murderer off the hook/blames something other than the murderer. It's the person using the object, not the object.
And giving guns to teachers is an awful idea. Incredibly awful, risky action that would bring even more violence. Classrooms are not the place for guns.
Not to mention the fiscal side. You want to train, equip and upkeep 1-2 armed teachers? In every public school in America? I'm sure that'll be fiscally sustainable. But why stop at 1-2 armed teachers. Why not just have a squad of marines jogging around every school instead. That's obviously preferable to considering cutting back gun laws.
I'm forced to agree with the professional opinion of Woodruff.
Well, gee whiz Woodruff. If you were a criminal about to commit some crime, which one would you choose?Woodruff wrote:Anyone who believes either of these signs has any chance of preventing this sort of a tragedy is dangerously stupid.Phatscotty wrote:
you still dodge the question, in favor of arguing from a total losers perspective. Are you almost done acting like a child?Woodruff wrote:It would only sound like that to a lunatic. Were you going to try to address the issue with any seriousness? For instance, perhaps you could answer the question I asked instead of trying to build up a strawman. That'd be a nice change of pace, but unfortunately not one I believe you're capable of.Phatscotty wrote:It sounds like you are implying that the teacher will just leave the gun laying out on the desk?Woodruff wrote:To answer the question you seem to be trying to pretend was your original question...Phatscotty wrote:We know that some people think teachers with guns are a bad idea, but is there anyone who can actually explain why it's a bad idea (without degenerating into gutter speak)?
It's a brilliant idea to have handguns where gang-banging teenagers roam. That's simply brilliant. Where will the teachers keep these handguns where they can access them within their classrooms but where the students cannot?
Except that it wouldn't. It would decrease the violence of the extreme cases (the shootings such as this one) while exponentially increasing the potential violence of day-to-day schooling in every school in America. That's a horrible tradeoff.Phatscotty wrote:How would it bring more violence? Please explain your statementIliad wrote:You're just a caricature.Phatscotty wrote:my solution based statement: more guns in schoolssaxitoxin wrote:OK, that's a fair point, but it's not a position I'm advancing or willing to defend since it's not a solutions-based statement.Phatscotty wrote:not to mention, all this BS about tougher gun laws totally lets the murderer off the hook/blames something other than the murderer. It's the person using the object, not the object.
And giving guns to teachers is an awful idea. Incredibly awful, risky action that would bring even more violence. Classrooms are not the place for guns.
Not to mention the fiscal side. You want to train, equip and upkeep 1-2 armed teachers? In every public school in America? I'm sure that'll be fiscally sustainable. But why stop at 1-2 armed teachers. Why not just have a squad of marines jogging around every school instead. That's obviously preferable to considering cutting back gun laws.
I'm forced to agree with the professional opinion of Woodruff.
Training and equipping teachers is a lot cheaper than hiring 1-2 extra security guards, if you want to talk about the fiscal side. I would bet that many teachers are already trained, and already have fire-arms, and if they aren't many would do it simply because it's the right thing to do, and it will make the students safer.
If I were a criminal about to commit some crime, I would ignore both signs. Kids in school laugh about the idea of alarm company signs on windows and things like that...even they are smart enough to recognize that a sign is meaningless. You could learn something from them.Phatscotty wrote:Well, gee whiz Woodruff. If you were a criminal about to commit some crime, which one would you choose?Woodruff wrote:Anyone who believes either of these signs has any chance of preventing this sort of a tragedy is dangerously stupid.Phatscotty wrote:
I can only hope that someone on this site will show up to argue your position who isn't mentally retarded. That way, maybe a discussion can actually happen.Phatscotty wrote:you still dodge the question, in favor of arguing from a total losers perspective. Are you almost done acting like a child?Woodruff wrote:It would only sound like that to a lunatic. Were you going to try to address the issue with any seriousness? For instance, perhaps you could answer the question I asked instead of trying to build up a strawman. That'd be a nice change of pace, but unfortunately not one I believe you're capable of.Phatscotty wrote:It sounds like you are implying that the teacher will just leave the gun laying out on the desk?Woodruff wrote:To answer the question you seem to be trying to pretend was your original question...Phatscotty wrote:We know that some people think teachers with guns are a bad idea, but is there anyone who can actually explain why it's a bad idea (without degenerating into gutter speak)?
It's a brilliant idea to have handguns where gang-banging teenagers roam. That's simply brilliant. Where will the teachers keep these handguns where they can access them within their classrooms but where the students cannot?
You are 100% full of shitWoodruff wrote:If I were a criminal about to commit some crime, I would ignore both signs.Phatscotty wrote:Well, gee whiz Woodruff. If you were a criminal about to commit some crime, which one would you choose?Woodruff wrote:Anyone who believes either of these signs has any chance of preventing this sort of a tragedy is dangerously stupid.Phatscotty wrote:
As do you.Phatscotty wrote:So, you make a few assumptions.
Because it will happen. If the handgun is going to be in a location that is accessible to the teacher in the event of a shooting of this nature, it's presence will become known. It's unavoidable over time.Phatscotty wrote:#1, that the students would know where the gun was kept. Why in the world do you assume that?
Why would you assume that I'm assuming anything of the sort? That's just a stupid question on your part.Phatscotty wrote:#2 you assume that the gun would be stored out in the open?
Apparently, the kind of drugs that don't allow me to make up shit while ignoring everyone else's statements about a very serious situation. Maybe it just comes from the kind of foods I eat, but I sure wish you'd partake.Phatscotty wrote:#3 what kind of drugs are you on?
I guess since I live in the real world, I recognize that a sign offers zero protection for a home or business. It's a useless gesture. Yes, I am serious.Phatscotty wrote:You are 100% full of shitWoodruff wrote:If I were a criminal about to commit some crime, I would ignore both signs.Phatscotty wrote:Well, gee whiz Woodruff. If you were a criminal about to commit some crime, which one would you choose?Woodruff wrote:Anyone who believes either of these signs has any chance of preventing this sort of a tragedy is dangerously stupid.Phatscotty wrote:
