Moderator: Community Team
What do you think is more important -- to reduce the number of people who die in spree shootings, or the number of people who die in gun-related violence in general, including all of the isolated incidents?Phatscotty wrote:we should be worried about eliminating the possibility that someone can wipe out almost 30 people, completely unopposed...
I think if people knew there were armed people in schools, they would not target schools nearly as much
Without question - it's simply a matter of statistics.Phatscotty wrote:are we really more worried about an accident than we are these mass shootings that actually happen (unlike the anticipated accident)Evil Semp wrote:Until an accident happens. So to answer your question NO!Phatscotty wrote:like I said, there are already schools where the teachers carry their guns at all times. That means it's a good idea so far?Evil Semp wrote:You bet your sweet ass I am. It is because accidents happen. The more weapons you put around kids the bigger chance an accident will happen.Phatscotty wrote: It seems you guys are more worried about the teachers than the psycho mass murderers...that's fucked up.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1216076
It will only take one accidental killing of a child by a teacher to make this a bad idea.
So you favor eliminating all guns.Phatscotty wrote:we should be worried about eliminating the possibility that someone can wipe out almost 30 people, completely unopposed...
Whichever one allows him to push his God-fearing, homosexual-hating, foot-on-the-throat-of-the-poor, gun-toting agenda, of course.Metsfanmax wrote:What do you think is more important -- to reduce the number of people who die in spree shootings, or the number of people who die in gun-related violence in general, including all of the isolated incidents?Phatscotty wrote:we should be worried about eliminating the possibility that someone can wipe out almost 30 people, completely unopposed...
I think if people knew there were armed people in schools, they would not target schools nearly as much
I think it's most important that people have a means to defend themselves at all times and in all places, whatever the situationMetsfanmax wrote:What do you think is more important -- to reduce the number of people who die in spree shootings, or the number of people who die in gun-related violence in general, including all of the isolated incidents?Phatscotty wrote:we should be worried about eliminating the possibility that someone can wipe out almost 30 people, completely unopposed...
I think if people knew there were armed people in schools, they would not target schools nearly as much
Perhaps you meant 'principals'?Just one honest question,if nearly 300 million guns aren't enough,how many will be?This whole absurd scenario reminds me of the first rule of how to get out of a hole.Stop digging..Phatscotty wrote:I also think it would work somewhat even if we just say that there are teachers and principles armed, even if they really aren't armed...
I don't know why you guys are obsessed with there being 300 million guns here, when it's clear you aren't able to process that information. Your fear of guns and implication that the gun is evil interferes with your thought processes the way only a religious fundamentalist who hears God talking can relate.chang50 wrote:Perhaps you meant 'principals'?Just one honest question,if nearly 300 million guns aren't enough,how many will be?This whole absurd scenario reminds me of the first rule of how to get out of a hole.Stop digging..Phatscotty wrote:I also think it would work somewhat even if we just say that there are teachers and principles armed, even if they really aren't armed...
So you would think that we should arm more people even if arming these people more resulted in more gun deaths?Phatscotty wrote:I think it's most important that people have a means to defend themselves at all times and in all places, whatever the situationMetsfanmax wrote:What do you think is more important -- to reduce the number of people who die in spree shootings, or the number of people who die in gun-related violence in general, including all of the isolated incidents?Phatscotty wrote:we should be worried about eliminating the possibility that someone can wipe out almost 30 people, completely unopposed...
I think if people knew there were armed people in schools, they would not target schools nearly as much
I don't think it's realistic for you to assume that the people we are talking about here, teachers/principles/guards, are going to go on shooting sprees, or shoot people that will result in more gun deaths.Metsfanmax wrote:So you would think that we should arm more people even if arming these people more resulted in more gun deaths?Phatscotty wrote:I think it's most important that people have a means to defend themselves at all times and in all places, whatever the situationMetsfanmax wrote:What do you think is more important -- to reduce the number of people who die in spree shootings, or the number of people who die in gun-related violence in general, including all of the isolated incidents?Phatscotty wrote:we should be worried about eliminating the possibility that someone can wipe out almost 30 people, completely unopposed...
I think if people knew there were armed people in schools, they would not target schools nearly as much
that is not realisticcrispybits wrote:and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too
I didn't assume that, but I certainly don't have the evidence to suggest that it would result in fewer gun deaths. What I am asking is, if such evidence did exist, like if the number of accidental deaths due to the increased number of guns outweighed the number who died in shooting sprees, would you still support it?Phatscotty wrote: I don't think it's realistic for you to assume that the people we are talking about here, teachers/principles/guards, are going to go on shooting sprees, or shoot people that will result in more gun deaths.
Everything I say is based on cautious respect for the fact that guns are tools of violence. There's nothing pretty about owning guns, whether a criminal is shooting someone in a burglary or whether the homeowner shoots the criminal in self-defense. Death is always ugly to me.I think everything you say is based on "guns are bad, guns are the problem, guns are evil..." if you admit that to be the case, then understand we aren't going to be communicating very well. Just bein honest
It makes sense to me that the more guns, the more possibilities for accidents, so I wouldn't even dispute that. I would only put less weight into the evidence than you might because I wouldn't even compare the accident rate unless it were even close to the violent crime rate/homicide rate/burglary rate/car-jacking rate etc etc etc etc There are also unforseen consequences down the road, such as if there are less guns or no guns, there would be less people able to use them for protection, therefore more victims of whatever edge the criminals have over the law abiding. What about the victim rate?Metsfanmax wrote:I didn't assume that, but I certainly don't have the evidence to suggest that it would result in fewer gun deaths. What I am asking is, if such evidence did exist, like if the number of accidental deaths due to the increased number of guns outweighed the number who died in shooting sprees, would you still support it?Phatscotty wrote: I don't think it's realistic for you to assume that the people we are talking about here, teachers/principles/guards, are going to go on shooting sprees, or shoot people that will result in more gun deaths.
I think everything you say is based on "guns are bad, guns are the problem, guns are evil..." if you admit that to be the case, then understand we aren't going to be communicating very well. Just bein honest
I don't disagree with that too much, again I just put more weight into the perspective that it's human nature that is ugly, and should not be ignored.Metsfanmax wrote:Everything I say is based on cautious respect for the fact that guns are tools of violence. There's nothing pretty about owning guns, whether a criminal is shooting someone in a burglary or whether the homeowner shoots the criminal in self-defense. Death is always ugly to me.
but that isn't reality either. Guns are usually concealed, and sometimes are in a safe and not being carried at all. And the children who see a gun everyday is not automatically as scared as you are. Maybe some understand it's for protection, maybe others understand it's all about who has the gun, and for what reason.muy_thaiguy wrote:I need to make this clear, I have no problem with people privately owning guns, so long as they are responsible and have had background checks.
But putting guns in schools? Yeah, because every 5 year old needs to see a gun-toting guy everyday. Brilliant idea. Let the kids live in fear, as the guns would be a daily reminder that they are not safe.
I wonder about any country where it is "unrealistic" to make damn sure mentally ill people with violent tendencies find it near impossible to get hold of weapons of that effectiveness.Phatscotty wrote:that is not realisticcrispybits wrote:and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too
a weapon is a weapon. you just want to cut down the murderers effectiveness, but that does nothing for prevention, while it does make it harder for people to protect themselvescrispybits wrote:I wonder about any country where it is "unrealistic" to make damn sure mentally ill people with violent tendencies find it near impossible to get hold of weapons of that effectiveness.Phatscotty wrote:that is not realisticcrispybits wrote:and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too
except for there are a lot of American Liberals who have a similar understanding as American Conservatives and everyone inbetween as to the purpose of our second amendment, and on that we are united, just as with the first amendment.gordon1975 wrote:can Amendments be bad and wrong? as in unchangeble ? could alway just ban bullets
bit of a politicians answer,yes or no?Phatscotty wrote:except for there are a lot of American Liberals who have a similar understanding as American Conservatives and everyone inbetween as to the purpose of our second amendment, and on that we are united, just as with the first amendment.gordon1975 wrote:can Amendments be bad and wrong? as in unchangeble ? could alway just ban bullets
Reasonable points, Metsfanmax... If the numbers of accidental deaths in schools increased because teachers or administrators were carrying, then no, I wouldn't support them carrying.Metsfanmax wrote:I didn't assume that, but I certainly don't have the evidence to suggest that it would result in fewer gun deaths. What I am asking is, if such evidence did exist, like if the number of accidental deaths due to the increased number of guns outweighed the number who died in shooting sprees, would you still support it?Phatscotty wrote: I don't think it's realistic for you to assume that the people we are talking about here, teachers/principles/guards, are going to go on shooting sprees, or shoot people that will result in more gun deaths.
Everything I say is based on cautious respect for the fact that guns are tools of violence. There's nothing pretty about owning guns, whether a criminal is shooting someone in a burglary or whether the homeowner shoots the criminal in self-defense. Death is always ugly to me.I think everything you say is based on "guns are bad, guns are the problem, guns are evil..." if you admit that to be the case, then understand we aren't going to be communicating very well. Just bein honest
