PDA

View Full Version : Actually preventing tragedy


Maestro Pistolero
12-15-2012, 8:38 AM
Msnbc today is openly discussing how to stigmatize and publicly shame gun ownership. NY Senator Carolyn (the shoulder-thing that goes up) McCarthy planning new sweeping assault gun ban that that makes the previous AWB pale in comparison.

CA state Senator Yee reintroducing his failed ban on AR bullet buttons, which make ARs into fixed magazine rifles, thus making them legal in CA. There are an estimated half-million such expensive rifles that would be banned ex-post-facto.

They will talk about everything EXCEPT what would actually prevent or limit mass killings.

They will prevent, demonize and shame the ONLY thing that could have saved lives.

Hiring retired LE/armed security as my LE/LT brother suggested is the only thing I am aware of that would limit or stop such an attack. If they don't want students having to learn in a militaristic environment, fine. Have the guards conceal the weapons and make sure the officers hired have the appropriate personalities/demeanors.

In a country with 330 million guns and an amendment protecting them, NO amount of supply-side gun control would ever make the slightest dent in curtailing these tragedies. You cannot take a supply-side approach to an issue where the supply is unlimited. But that won't slow the gun banners one bit.

Again, the one thing that could really protect children is the one thing they won't do.

Mitch
12-15-2012, 8:54 AM
I don't even think that is a profitable path for discussion.

I wish people would simply get it through their heads that these are FREAK OCCURRENCES and they cannot be prevented. But no, we as a species don't seem to think that way.

If you continue to move high school cheerleaders around to football games, eventually a bus full of them will go over an embankment and a half dozen will die. It cannot be prevented, except by not busing cheerleaders around. The only way to protect classrooms and playgrounds full of young children from crazed maniacs, be they armed with guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks) or knives (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/china-school-attack_n_2298430.html) or cars (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/05/local/me-34116), is to stop gathering young children together into classrooms and playgrounds.

The only rational way to look at these incidents is the same we we view accidents. We can think of ways to reduce the possibility of a recurrence, or to minimize the effects of a recurrence, but we never fool ourselves into believing the accident won't happen again.

Gun control obviously won't prevent this from recurring (Norway has pretty good gun control, after all). One way to mitigate the effects of a recurrence is to allow teachers to arm themselves, but that will have very limited effect since very few teachers will actually do so and in any case most of these homicidal nuts are no more concerned about armed teachers than they are the death penalty. Putting an armed guard in every classroom is impractical, expensive and a huge overreaction to something that happens extremely rarely.

All of us, even our children, take big risks every time we walk out our front doors. And the fact is, we here in middle class America take far fewer risks on a daily basis than do most people in the rest of the world. If would be nice if folks could grow up a little and look at the big picture. But folks don't do that. Even if they did, the media would still goad them on to worry about freak occurrences because it helps sell newspapers.

tcrpe
12-15-2012, 8:57 AM
Actually preventing tragedy

Our government is not interested in preventing tragedy so much as it is interested in exploiting tragedy.

Just watch

Californio
12-15-2012, 9:04 AM
Its Mental Illness and they don't want to talk about it or address the Financial Burden that society bears because of it. 10% of the population has mental illness ranging from simple depression to full blown schizophrenia. The truth only about .01% of the 10% or less will ever do any violence and an even smaller percentage will commit acts that takes lives.





Msnbc today is openly discussing how to stigmatize and publicly shame gun ownership. NY Senator Carolyn (the shoulder-thing that goes up) McCarthy planning new sweeping assault gun ban that that makes the previous AWB pale in comparison.

CA state Senator Yee reintroducing his failed ban on AR bullet buttons, which make ARs into fixed magazine rifles, thus making them legal in CA. There are an estimated half-million such expensive rifles that would be banned ex-post-facto.

They will talk about everything EXCEPT what would actually prevent or limit mass killings.

They will prevent, demonize and shame the ONLY thing that could have saved lives.

Hiring retired LE/armed security as my LE/LT brother suggested is the only thing I am aware of that would limit or stop such an attack. If they don't want students having to learn in a militaristic environment, fine. Have the guards conceal the weapons and make sure the officers hired have the appropriate personalities/demeanors.

In a country with 330 million guns and an amendment protecting them, NO amount of supply-side gun control would ever make the slightest dent in curtailing these tragedies. You cannot take a supply-side approach to an issue where the supply is unlimited. But that won't slow the gun banners one bit.

Again, the one thing that could really protect children is the one thing they won't do.

Maestro Pistolero
12-15-2012, 9:07 AM
I wish people would simply get it through their heads that these are FREAK OCCURRENCES and they cannot be prevented. But no, we as a species don't seem to think that way.Agreed. But there is naturally a discussion is about what can DO. We might as well propose something that might actually deter an on-site school attack.

Mitch
12-15-2012, 9:16 AM
Agreed. But there is naturally a discussion is about what can DO. We might as well propose something that might actually deter an on-site school attack.

You are suggesting we play the game. That we make our suggestions, not because we actually have any confidence in their efficacy, but as a counterpoint to the confiscatory solutions from the "other side."

Well, that's probably the way you do it in politics, but leave me out. I will not propose a false solution as part of some rhetorical argument. There's too much of that crap as it is. I will always examine an issue to the best of my ability (or patience) and draw the apparent conclusions. Sometimes when you do this your earlier assumptions get challenged. Whoa.

dave_cg
12-15-2012, 9:19 AM
Its Mental Illness and they don't want to talk about it or address the Financial Burden that society bears because of it. 10% of the population has mental illness ranging from simple depression to full blown schizophrenia. The truth only about .01% of the 10% or less will ever do any violence and an even smaller percentage will commit acts that takes lives.

Agreed.

And the attitude change needs to start here on CalGuns. I've seen a lot of posts here from people who don't take mental health problems seriously, or think its just some kind of behavior issue and that people just need to get their act together.

The mentally ill are hurting, and need help -- they can't just "walk it off". If you saw a man on the street with a broken arm, you wouldn't tell him to pull his socks up and walk it off. You'd get appropriate help.

If we all treated the mentally ill we encounter more like the way we treat a random stranger with a broken arm, we'd be a big step ahead.

Maestro Pistolero
12-15-2012, 9:27 AM
You are suggesting we play the game. That we make our suggestions, not because we actually have any confidence in their efficacy, but as a counterpoint to the confiscatory solutions from the "other side."

For me, it's simpler than that. I just want to see measures that actually help keep schools safer. I believe a couple of vetted, carefully chosen retired LE would be an effective means of limiting the harm if not stopping such attacks outright. There doesn't even have to be a school shooting to get a safety/security benefit from this approach. What drug dealer is going to lurk around a school when a cop is watching them?

vantec08
12-15-2012, 9:29 AM
Here's a sample of what's coming -- http://homebrewedtheology.com/its-time-to-repeal-the-2nd-amendment.php

COTUS is very specific on how to change it -- call a Constitutional Convention, 37 states must ratify any product thereof. Anything less is legislating by judiciary, or by political whim or fancy. Sorry antis -- the 2nd is on the books -- period. Whether there should BE a 2nd is fair game, in a Constitutional Convention.

mrdd
12-15-2012, 9:36 AM
Here's a sample of what's coming -- http://homebrewedtheology.com/its-time-to-repeal-the-2nd-amendment.php

COTUS is very specific on how to change it -- call a Constitutional Convention, 37 states must ratify any product thereof. Anything less is legislating by judiciary, or by political whim or fancy. Sorry antis -- the 2nd is on the books -- period. Whether there should BE a 2nd is fair game, in a Constitutional Convention.

Which shows that what the liberals really want to do is rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Nothing new here.

They are just using this tragic event as a method of advancing their real agenda.

tcrpe
12-15-2012, 9:52 AM
"Someone left the door open, and the wrong dogs came home."

mrdd
12-15-2012, 9:58 AM
I don't even think that is a profitable path for discussion.

I wish people would simply get it through their heads that these are FREAK OCCURRENCES and they cannot be prevented. But no, we as a species don't seem to think that way.

If you continue to move high school cheerleaders around to football games, eventually a bus full of them will go over an embankment and a half dozen will die. It cannot be prevented, except by not busing cheerleaders around. The only way to protect classrooms and playgrounds full of young children from crazed maniacs, be they armed with guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks) or knives (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/china-school-attack_n_2298430.html) or cars (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/05/local/me-34116), is to stop gathering young children together into classrooms and playgrounds.

The only rational way to look at these incidents is the same we we view accidents. We can think of ways to reduce the possibility of a recurrence, or to minimize the effects of a recurrence, but we never fool ourselves into believing the accident won't happen again.

Gun control obviously won't prevent this from recurring (Norway has pretty good gun control, after all). One way to mitigate the effects of a recurrence is to allow teachers to arm themselves, but that will have very limited effect since very few teachers will actually do so and in any case most of these homicidal nuts are no more concerned about armed teachers than they are the death penalty. Putting an armed guard in every classroom is impractical, expensive and a huge overreaction to something that happens extremely rarely.

All of us, even our children, take big risks every time we walk out our front doors. And the fact is, we here in middle class America take far fewer risks on a daily basis than do most people in the rest of the world. If would be nice if folks could grow up a little and look at the big picture. But folks don't do that. Even if they did, the media would still goad them on to worry about freak occurrences because it helps sell newspapers.

Yes, this is a real point that should be understood by everyone.

The world is a dangerous place. All of us that are alive are at risk - deal with it. The fact that we are even here having this conversation is an anomaly - the universe as a whole does not need any of us.

We can't stop freak incidents like this from happening, just like we cannot stop people, even children, from dying in common everyday accidents.

While the incident yesterday was tragic and sad, the number of children who lost their lives is of the same order as the number of children in the same age group who died yesterday in automobile accidents in the U.S. And, even more died in other common everyday accidents. And, this happens every single day.

You cannot stop it, it is a fact of life.

M. D. Van Norman
12-15-2012, 10:02 AM
I wish people would simply get it through their heads that these are FREAK OCCURRENCES and they cannot be prevented.

Quoted for truth.

speedrrracer
12-15-2012, 10:35 AM
Even LE won't stop a murder / suicide. Heck, if you're willing to give up your life, isn't there a saying about how such a man could assassinate the President?

If we can't protect the President from a suicidal assassin, we certainly can't protect a million kids scattered all around the nation.

The only solution is to get to the root of the problem -- mental illness. It will cost trillions and take many decades to even come close to an understanding. Most aren't willing to undertake anything so difficult.

So, we keep getting these "cheap and easy" proposals from opportunists who don't have the courage to face what's really wrong.

mrdd
12-15-2012, 10:42 AM
If you want to get into what chain of events led to the incident yesterday, you need to look at the family. But, that won't stop freak incidents from happening.

Mitch
12-15-2012, 10:44 AM
The mentally ill are hurting, and need help -- they can't just "walk it off". If you saw a man on the street with a broken arm, you wouldn't tell him to pull his socks up and walk it off. You'd get appropriate help.

If we all treated the mentally ill we encounter more like the way we treat a random stranger with a broken arm, we'd be a big step ahead.

You might enjoy this article. I did, and I never gave the subject much thought before.

http://www.ocweekly.com/2012-12-06/news/lisa-becker-project-q-tip-homeless/

IVC
12-15-2012, 11:20 AM
And the attitude change needs to start here on CalGuns. I've seen a lot of posts here from people who don't take mental health problems seriously, or think its just some kind of behavior issue and that people just need to get their act together.

This is a straw man argument that is popping up a lot. Blaming "mental illness" deflects the blame from "gun did it," but at the cost of the same logical fallacy.

dave_cg
12-15-2012, 11:44 AM
You might enjoy this article. I did, and I never gave the subject much thought before.

http://www.ocweekly.com/2012-12-06/news/lisa-becker-project-q-tip-homeless/

Excellent article. Thanks much for the link. It clearly explains the issues.

Until I had to deal with a mentally ill employee, I never thought much about it, either. My experience with him changed everything. He had a break on my watch -- totally not his fault. It was the three most hellish days of my life, but I came out of it with new understanding and sympathy.

Back in the "bad old days" it was too easy to get someone committed. Now it is too hard to identify and help people who need it, so we have hurting people starving and sleeping under bridges in a land of plenty. I'm convinced that gun owners need to lead the charge on education about mental health, because we have far more to lose than the average person. It is in our own selfish interest to care.

dave_cg
12-15-2012, 11:49 AM
This is a straw man argument that is popping up a lot. Blaming "mental illness" deflects the blame from "gun did it," but at the cost of the same logical fallacy.

What about the argument is straw man? Name a mass shooting where the shooter wasn't eventually found out to be mentally ill.

And I can find you plenty of posts here on CalGuns where the idea of mental illness is dismissed and the poster thinks the person needs to simply clean up his behavior and act civilized. Clue: The mentally ill are not capable of that kind of thought process. They are not in control of their own minds.

spdtiger
12-15-2012, 11:51 AM
WAITTTTT HOW THE HELL DID HE GET HER GUNS, I THINK THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND LOCK UP ALL THERE GEAR UP AND KNOW WHO TO TRUST IN CASE YOU NEED TO GET TO THE ARMS YOU NEED, SO MANY GUNS GETTING STOLEN AND USED FOR CRIMES LIKE THIS,

taperxz
12-15-2012, 12:17 PM
Msnbc today is openly discussing how to stigmatize and publicly shame gun ownership. NY Senator Carolyn (the shoulder-thing that goes up) McCarthy planning new sweeping assault gun ban that that makes the previous AWB pale in comparison.

CA state Senator Yee reintroducing his failed ban on AR bullet buttons, which make ARs into fixed magazine rifles, thus making them legal in CA. There are an estimated half-million such expensive rifles that would be banned ex-post-facto.

They will talk about everything EXCEPT what would actually prevent or limit mass killings.

They will prevent, demonize and shame the ONLY thing that could have saved lives.

Hiring retired LE/armed security as my LE/LT brother suggested is the only thing I am aware of that would limit or stop such an attack. If they don't want students having to learn in a militaristic environment, fine. Have the guards conceal the weapons and make sure the officers hired have the appropriate personalities/demeanors.

In a country with 330 million guns and an amendment protecting them, NO amount of supply-side gun control would ever make the slightest dent in curtailing these tragedies. You cannot take a supply-side approach to an issue where the supply is unlimited. But that won't slow the gun banners one bit.

Again, the one thing that could really protect children is the one thing they won't do.

THIS IS the best solution!

We are willing to buy guns to protect our families at home and abroad. Children spend 12-15 years of their lives in these schools where we think they are safe:facepalm: I would have no problem being taxed to have armed security at a school or have teachers/ admins armed and trained.

For those of you who say that would not work or would not be a deterrent, you are blasting our own premise that being armed in public would also not be a deterrent (in a shall issue world).

Common sense would tell you that IF the first person you met in a school was an armed LE, are you saying that would not be a deterrent to criminal activity? If thats the case why should anyone carry a gun outside the home??

speedrrracer
12-15-2012, 12:38 PM
This is a straw man argument that is popping up a lot. Blaming "mental illness" deflects the blame from "gun did it," but at the cost of the same logical fallacy.

I think you are unclear on the meaning of "Straw man argument". Such an argument occurs when one attacks a similar, but incorrect representation of the position put forth by the other side.

Is it not an incorrect representation of the other side's position to say they feel more gun control is warranted to help stop these incidents. Also, we are not attacking their position, we are offering what we believe to be a superior proposal, one supported by evidence, which we find lacking in their solution.

While mental illness has not been shown to be 100% predictive in all such cases, the preponderance of anecdotal evidence suggests the correlation warrants further investigation.

Certainly in the Conn. case, to which this thread is presumably referring given it's timing, is a clear case of mental illness. The murderer committed suicide in the end -- suicide is a mental disorder as defined by the DSM and ICD.

IVC
12-15-2012, 12:53 PM
What about the argument is straw man? Name a mass shooting where the shooter wasn't eventually found out to be mentally ill.

"Name a mass shooting where the shooter didn't use a gun." The straw man is that the argument only replaces "gun" with "mental illness" and
deflects to another issue without providing any evidence of causality.

And I can find you plenty of posts here on CalGuns where the idea of mental illness is dismissed and the poster thinks the person needs to simply clean up his behavior and act civilized. Clue: The mentally ill are not capable of that kind of thought process. They are not in control of their own minds.

This is now another straw man. Yes, you're correct in your statement, but it does't establish any support that it is the cause of these massacres.

IVC
12-15-2012, 1:02 PM
Also, we are not attacking their position, we are offering what we believe to be a superior proposal, one supported by evidence, which we find lacking in their solution.

While mental illness has not been shown to be 100% predictive in all such cases, the preponderance of anecdotal evidence suggests the correlation warrants further investigation.

If you are going to use correlation, guns and shootings have correlation of 1.0, so no other issue can have higher correlation. In both cases the "evidence" is used incorrectly.

Antis destroy us on these simple arguments since they point to the correlation with guns. Unless we attack the concept of "inference by correlation" for the junk science it is, we cannot win that argument.

n2fooz
12-15-2012, 1:07 PM
How about the fact that banning guns would make America a "gun free" zone. Now consider that V-Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Elementary etc... were ALL gun free zones. When was the last time there was a shooting spree in a Police station, Gun Store or firing range where virtually everyone is carrying a gun?

Hopalong
12-15-2012, 1:20 PM
The fact is, guns and mental illness

In and of themselves, are not the problem

Just as gasoline and matches, in and of themselves, are not a problem

It's the combination

You can't ban guns, mental illness, gasoline and matches

I think the answer lies in arming these schools in some way.

Whether it be with police, armed guards, marshals. or willing and able teachers.

And LET IT BE KNOWN, that these folks are able and willing to defend themselves.

I don't think these perpetrators are looking for a fight, they are the epitome of cowards

They are looking for the defenseless.

superbart3000
12-15-2012, 2:07 PM
I was reading on yahoo news about the tragic shooting and right underneath the story, was another story of a guy that stabbed 22 people in china, in a slashing spree. But that was not headline news because it wasn't in our own backyards and knife laws are not a hot button issue. Horrible people are everywhere, and if we ban guns, they will find other means to hurt others.

speedrrracer
12-15-2012, 2:11 PM
If you are going to use correlation, guns and shootings have correlation of 1.0, so no other issue can have higher correlation. In both cases the "evidence" is used incorrectly.

Correlation is a time-honored starting point for many of the theories on which modern science has been built. Dismiss correlation and we might still be using leeches and blaming 'bad humors in the air' for disease transmission. The fallacy lies in thinking it represents causation. As long as we test rigorously and scientifically, there's no innate evil in using correlation as a muse.

And to address the 1.0 correlation mentioned above, it's illegitimate in the larger framework of mass murders. Of course shootings always involve guns by definition, but mass murders only always involve humans, since a mass murder can be effected in many ways.

Therefore the only legitimate source of complete correlation is people (unless we don't care about stopping, say, the Hillside Stranglers or the Timothy McVeighs of the world) I'm suggesting common sense dictates we take our science in that direction, and someone else can study the risk presented by inanimate objects animating themselves (which is the position of guns+shooting).


Antis destroy us on these simple arguments since they point to the correlation with guns. Unless we attack the concept of "inference by correlation" for the junk science it is, we cannot win that argument.

Disagree on "destroy us." They destroy their own credibility, since any 3 year-old understands about inanimate objects, so that particular correlation won't pass the sniff test.

As for winning the argument, I'm not sure what you mean. We cannot stop them from whipping the like-minded into a frenzy with logical fallacies and emotion. We might be able to educate those few closer to the fence with observations such as yours, but most are too far gone to let a little reason get in their way.

Victory, as I see it, is typically going to have to wait for the more sober confines of a courtroom or laboratory.

Californio
12-15-2012, 2:25 PM
This is a straw man argument that is popping up a lot. Blaming "mental illness" deflects the blame from "gun did it," but at the cost of the same logical fallacy.

Virginia Tech - known mental issues, health care provider/family/school failed to notify.

Arizona - known mental issues, health care providers/family/school failed to notify.

Colorado - having mental issues, school failed to notify.

California - Federal Gov failed to notify.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-31-postal-shooting_x.htm

Connecticut - know mental issues, health care/family failed to notify
Gun store did not sell but guns stolen from, to be determined.

California - know mental issues - health care/family failed to notify
11 years latter out but for how long

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Vista_massacre

mrdd
12-15-2012, 2:34 PM
Connecticut - know mental issues, health care/family failed to notify

It is not clear that there were known mental health issues. Some people thought he was odd, but to kill his mother with her own guns, then go on a rampage at a school he attended a decade before? Does anybody seriously think this chain of events could have been foreseen?

Maybe the family could have done more, but the family was broken!

Californio
12-15-2012, 2:42 PM
It is not clear that there were known mental health issues. Some people thought he was odd, but to kill his mother with her own guns, then go on a rampage at a school he attended a decade before? Does anybody seriously think this chain of events could have been foreseen?

Maybe the family could have done more, but the family was broken!

It has been reported that he tried to buy a rifle at a gun store this month, it is not clear that the guns used, 2 semi-auto pistols and a rifle left in the car belonged to his Mother.

His brother's quotes about autism and mental illness has not been fully developed, but I bet just as in Colorado that it becomes clearer next week.

IVC
12-15-2012, 2:56 PM
Disagree on "destroy us." They destroy their own credibility, since any 3 year-old understands about inanimate objects, so that particular correlation won't pass the sniff test.

Read the comments under any left-leaning source and you'd be surprised at the number of sub-3-year-olds with wrinkles. ;)

As for winning the argument, I'm not sure what you mean. We cannot stop them from whipping the like-minded into a frenzy with logical fallacies and emotion.

We cannot stop them, but we can make them own the consequences of incorrect inference.

The dumbest retort to "if he didn't have a gun he couldn't commit the mass murder" (correlation to guns) is to say "he could've used something else" (he didn't, and you implicitly agree with the validity of correlation to guns), or "guns don't kill, people kill" (you just lost the correlation argument, while admitting validity of the correlation in the first place).

The proper way to handle it is to have them own their own argument as in "the guns were already completely banned not only on the school grounds, but in the surrounding 1,000 ft perimeter, so why didn't that save the kids?"

Now their argument of "guns kill" becomes irrelevant since there is already a law that they advocate, it just doesn't work in practice. Correlation or any other argument, they have to own and justify the result.

speedrrracer
12-15-2012, 4:52 PM
Read the comments under any left-leaning source and you'd be surprised at the number of sub-3-year-olds with wrinkles. ;)

Now I'm glad I avoid those things :eek:



The proper way to handle it is to have them own their own argument as in "the guns were already completely banned not only on the school grounds, but in the surrounding 1,000 ft perimeter, so why didn't that save the kids?"

Now their argument of "guns kill" becomes irrelevant since there is already a law that they advocate, it just doesn't work in practice. Correlation or any other argument, they have to own and justify the result.

My fear is they will perceive such as moving the argument back to square one.

Your argument -- "'Guns kill' is fail -- you have laws already in place and they don't work."

does not counter their argument from day 1 -- "Yes the current laws don't work. We need far more laws creating much tighter restrictions, outright bans, total confiscation, repeal of the 2nd, etc".

Since both parties agree that the status quo isn't working, how would you counter their belief that, e.g., a repeal of the 2nd + confiscation (compensated, to eliminate the 5th Amendment issue) is the best way forward?

mrdd
12-15-2012, 5:00 PM
Since both parties agree that the status quo isn't working, how would you counter their belief that, e.g., a repeal of the 2nd + confiscation (compensated, to eliminate the 5th Amendment issue) is the best way forward?

I disagree that the status quo is not working. This is an anomalous incident. The unfortunate thing is that he chose to infiltrate an elementary school to do his killing. A good indication on why that happened has yet to be presented.

This was a horrible and tragic event, but it is not a time for panic.

SPaikmos
12-15-2012, 5:38 PM
The problem is that we (human beings) are subject to the laws of nature.
"Survival of the fittest" and "Kill or be killed" being among them.

We try to create order and safety through abstract constructs such as laws and society. It allows us to accomplish great things when we work cooperatively, and most people buy into the social contract.

However, when someone decides not to play by the rules, whether it be a mentally ill person, a suicidal terrorist, or simply a bear that wants to eat you, you are SOL. People forget that the laws and society we create are nice abstractions, but they don't replace the actual laws of nature.

The solution, IMHO, is not to put security guards in every classroom; that moves us towards a police state. No, the true solution is to teach each other how to defend themselves from an early age. Having armed teachers is a start, and having armed parents would be good too. I would go so far as to allow any child over the age of 8 to bring their BB gun or 22 rifle to school, as long as they could demonstrate gun safety with it.

As for the children under 8, well, they're screwed. I guess you have to draw the line somewhere, even an infant is going to need some external help to protect them.

Not a perfect solution, but it's what I'd go for. Too bad that we (the collective we, citizens of the USA) seem to be going in the opposite direction, proposing to disarm everyone.

jeffrice6
12-15-2012, 6:00 PM
How about the fact that banning guns would make America a "gun free" zone. Now consider that V-Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Elementary etc... were ALL gun free zones. When was the last time there was a shooting spree in a Police station, Gun Store or firing range where virtually everyone is carrying a gun?

Exactly! Make this exact same argument every time the subject comes up ~ Well said

a1c
12-15-2012, 6:05 PM
This is a straw man argument that is popping up a lot. Blaming "mental illness" deflects the blame from "gun did it," but at the cost of the same logical fallacy.

It's not blaming mental illness. It's not excusing the act. It's explaining it.

And it just happens that mental health care in this country has been neglected within the past 3 decades.

Strategically, for us, it is smarter to focus on that issue than stubbornly refusing to discuss the whole thing, and dismiss is as a freak accident. That attitude does not work with the people who are affected by it, because they will argue that this is a far more common occurrence in the US than in countries that have gun control.

So we have to explain that gun control is not going to work anyway, and that there is however something that can be done, and that is working on the societal problems that trigger this kind of tragedy.

IVC
12-15-2012, 6:05 PM
Now I'm glad I avoid those things :eek:

Touche :). I'll say, though, the phrase is "keep you friends close, your enemies closer."

"Yes the current laws don't work. We need far more laws creating much tighter restrictions, outright bans, total confiscation, repeal of the 2nd, etc".

You cannot take something that doesn't work, apply it twice as much and expect it to work. The tightest possible restriction already exists, precisely at the school where the shooting happened. This is equivalent of the total confiscation and complete lack of 2A on and around the school.

It's up to antis to explain why it doesn't work, not up to us - they own that law.

Since both parties agree that the status quo isn't working, how would you counter their belief that, e.g., a repeal of the 2nd + confiscation (compensated, to eliminate the 5th Amendment issue) is the best way forward?

Compensation eliminates 5th, but doesn't eliminate 2nd. Apart from that, I'd counter that *until* it's repealed, it's the law of the land and they better get used to it. I would also remind them that repealing 2nd has as much chance of passing as a constitutional amendment banning taxes and abortion.

TangoCharlie
12-15-2012, 6:41 PM
There is a pointlessness to a 2A group providing insight on a pro-2A website. Rather than all agree here, why don't the more well-spoken of us visit the the more mainstream news forums, MSNBC, CNN,local news, etc, and repeat these points where it might do something. There are a lot of fence-sitters out there and some of these points would be well digested there....

GREASY357
12-15-2012, 6:47 PM
There is a pointlessness to a 2A group providing insight on a pro-2A website. Rather than all agree here, why don't the more well-spoken of us visit the the more mainstream news forums, MSNBC, CNN,local news, etc, and repeat these points where it might do something. There are a lot of fence-sitters out there and some of these points would be well digested there....

++1

dave_cg
12-15-2012, 7:38 PM
I would go so far as to allow any child over the age of 8 to bring their BB gun or 22 rifle to school, as long as they could demonstrate gun safety with it.

My father-in-law once said: "We had strict rules about guns in school, too. First off, you had to be at least in the 6th grade to bring a gun to school, and there was no hunting during recess."

Different times.

Sutcliffe
12-16-2012, 10:30 AM
Gun Control is merely who is ALLOWED to own guns.

oldhoosier
12-16-2012, 10:49 AM
All of what we talk about is contained within a seething mass of, probably, trillions of opinions, beliefs (which are the most dangerous parts of human beings), experiences and perspectives. The human brain does not tolerate confusion well, so operates on its own simple explanations and eventually strategies for dealing with reality. As much as we want to simplify things to 'understanding", this will never happen with two or more people present.
We are left with a Gordian Knot which cannot be cut or untangled.
As much as we have our perspectives, we must also deal with the perspectives of the others who have the most strongly held and dearly defended beliefs opposed to ours.

I want to pose a suggestion and a challenge.

This is in hope that it will find its way to other message boards and that we don't put our heads in the sand at this time of crisis for gun owners. We have reached the tipping point. We are being demonized in the popular media, in our personal relationships and across the world.

Rather than the divisive, blaming and polarized name calling that always happens on this issue, I would like to see people willing to step up and work together on this very real and critical problem.
There are no easy answers. I suggest we petition our President and other NRA members to invite the NRA to participate with a multi-faceted and continuing task-force to change the current situation we all face. Who better understands firearm safety than us?

Now is the time for The NRA and all of the members to step into the leadership to assist with legal, acceptable and workable solutions.
We always talk about what we cannot do or tolerate. Let's hear more suggestions what "might" work.

I am the NRA, and as a responsible and experienced gun owner, I know we have a lot to offer to the task of gun safety in this country. The doors to the asylum have fallen off the hinges. We all need to stop saying "Ain't it Awful!" and come together for mutual aid. We all have a right to be safe. That is one reason mopst of us own firearms! I know that there are others out there who will be willing to step into the fray. If we are warriors, then we have a worthy cause.

If you disagree, then argue among yourselves. If you can participate in this effort, then get your name out here and lets get to work.

nomidlname
12-16-2012, 11:06 AM
Hiring retired LE/armed security as my LE/LT brother suggested is the only thing I am aware of that would limit or stop such an attack. If they don't want students having to learn in a militaristic environment, fine. Have the guards conceal the weapons and make sure the officers hired have the appropriate personalities/demeanors.

I have a much better solution. It's very simple actually. Give the entire school staff, including the janitors the option to conceal carry.

Every single teacher goes through massive background checks, mental checks, and supposedly continuing education. They educate and care for 18+ children everyday. All they need is minor training in firearms safety, firearms retention, and of course target acquisition.

I must ask... what could possibly be a resonable objection to arming them? With this amount of training and background checks they'll be better suited to keep the children safe than any law enforcement officer could ever be.

Solution Continued should be provided with the first is to allow all law abiding citizens the right to conceal carry where ever they go. This will add to the security of all.

Remove the free fire zoes and make it safer for everyone.

This solution adhears to my/your right to self defense and costs no additional money to hire "security guards"

IMO this is the only reasonable gun control available.

speedrrracer
12-16-2012, 12:06 PM
I must ask... what could possibly be a resonable objection to arming them?


First, you can't arm people who don't want to be armed. Do you really think the ultra-liberal Wellesley College grads who teach at these high-end prep schools want to be anywhere near the Devil, aka a gun?

So your idea is rejected at the outset. These are people who believe it is the government's job to babysit them, not people who would take up arms to protect what they value.

Secondly, and this was widely mentioned in the media coverage yesterday, these people don't even want armed guards at their schools. They don't want to learn in a (I think this was the quote) "militarized atmosphere".

I should note; however, that I agree with you philosphically. No police force can be everywhere at once -- the only way for everyone to optimize their personal chances of safety is to take their safety into their own hands.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 12:59 PM
First, you can't arm people who don't want to be armed. Do you really think the ultra-liberal Wellesley College grads who teach at these high-end prep schools want to be anywhere near the Devil, aka a gun?


Teachers who refuse to be armed need to be asked this very simple, straightforward question: why, as caretakers of our children, are they not willing to do what it takes to protect the children? Why are they insistent on putting their own personal beliefs above the need to protect the children?

Teachers such as the one you describe should be fired, because they are insisting on neglecting perhaps the most important thing: the protection of the children. In the face of another incident such as the one in Connecticut, wouldn't it be criminal negligence for them to be unarmed due to their insistence of placing their personal beliefs above the protection of the children?

mkane
12-16-2012, 1:48 PM
Great idea, arm everyone. Wild West all over again. I can read the headlines now, 52 innocent dead, shooter escapes.

wjc
12-16-2012, 1:56 PM
My father-in-law once said: "We had strict rules about guns in school, too. First off, you had to be at least in the 6th grade to bring a gun to school, and there was no hunting during recess."

Different times.

Different people, too.

There was responsibility and the acknowledgment of consequences for your actions and reverence for a certain type of behavior. Our society today is too self-serving and shallow in the following of that belief system.

People were also more familiar with firearms as they were still a large part of daily life, getting food, etc.

ElvenSoul
12-16-2012, 2:13 PM
How about morality and accountability?

What happened to those values.

Leadership by example. Just look at our Political, Sports, Social, and Economic Leaders. Is it any wonder that we are failing as a Nation?

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 2:15 PM
Great idea, arm everyone. Wild West all over again. I can read the headlines now, 52 innocent dead, shooter escapes.

Tell me: where do you get your ideas about the "wild west"?

Maestro Pistolero
12-16-2012, 3:35 PM
Great idea, arm everyone. Wild West all over again. I can read the headlines now, 52 innocent dead, shooter escapes.
What on earth are you talking about ?

Unfortunately, I do not see the political will in the educational community to arm teachers and/or staff, much as I think it's worth considering. I believe the level of training required for a teacher to be effective and safe, while not insurmountabe, may exceed the willingness of most to submit to it. Many parents would NEVER trust an armed teacher with their child, though in reality, they are placing the lives of their children in the hands of the school and teachers anyway.

rolo
12-16-2012, 4:32 PM
If you are going to use correlation, guns and shootings have correlation of 1.0, so no other issue can have higher correlation. In both cases the "evidence" is used incorrectly.

Antis destroy us on these simple arguments since they point to the correlation with guns. Unless we attack the concept of "inference by correlation" for the junk science it is, we cannot win that argument.

Please. You and your anti friends are making this about firearms when it's about spree killing. The firearm isn't the problem, it's victim disarmament through GFSZ's and a culture that sensationalizes violence through ad nauseum reportage. Everyone in America knows who Klebold and Harris are, but none remembers a single name of the victims.

Spree killers have exactly one thing in common, mental illness. You MUST be mentally ill to commit an incivility like this. People with merely average coping skills do not turn to violence as a solution to their problems.

I was reading on yahoo news about the tragic shooting and right underneath the story, was another story of a guy that stabbed 22 people in china, in a slashing spree. But that was not headline news because it wasn't in our own backyards and knife laws are not a hot button issue. Horrible people are everywhere, and if we ban guns, they will find other means to hurt others.

In China, where private ownership of firearms is completely banned, knives, vehicles and homemade explosives are the most common form of spree killing. Take away firearms and you're left with even more indiscriminate means.


Victory, as I see it, is typically going to have to wait for the more sober confines of a courtroom or laboratory.

We've already had that victory in the courtroom and they refuse to recognize it. People are still arguing about Roe v. Wade, thirty years later for crying out loud! A courtroom victory doesn't mean anything to those who oppose it.

speedrrracer
12-16-2012, 5:37 PM
Teachers who refuse to be armed need to be asked this very simple, straightforward question: why, as caretakers of our children, are they not willing to do what it takes to protect the children?

This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong in America today. You expect other people to do everything for you.

Teachers are not caretakers of your children. You are the caretaker of your children, and as a parent, you do not get to lay this burden off on anyone else -- ever.

Teachers are educators of children, nothing more. To expect them to also serve as your child's bodyguard is unreasonable and irresponsible.

What's more, your statement is callous and offensive, because it disregards the incredible sacrifice shown by many of the staff in the recent Conn. shooting -- educators who laid down their lives to protect someone else's children. Those staff are truly heroes..

Lastly, forcing arms on those who don't want them is as tyrannical as stripping arms from those who wish them. That's not how free societies behave.

HappyCamper781
12-16-2012, 8:05 PM
Thank you, Speedracer, for the explosive ingress of common sense. :)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, maybe more strict requirements for securing one's firearm when in storage might have helped? Who knows.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 8:22 PM
This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong in America today. You expect other people to do everything for you.

Teachers are not caretakers of your children. You are the caretaker of your children, and as a parent, you do not get to lay this burden off on anyone else -- ever.


I fully agree when the parent has that choice. But the law takes that choice out of the hands of parents when the parents cannot homeschool their kids.



Teachers are educators of children, nothing more. To expect them to also serve as your child's bodyguard is unreasonable and irresponsible.


Then who do you suggest should be their bodyguard? The parents? Your statement above suggests that parents should sit in the classrooms with their children as protectors, since that duty does not fall onto the teachers or, by your words, onto anyone else.



What's more, your statement is callous and offensive, because it disregards the incredible sacrifice shown by many of the staff in the recent Conn. shooting -- educators who laid down their lives to protect someone else's children. Those staff are truly heroes..


I agree with this too, more than you can know.

I should have more fully qualified my question. It is intended to be addressed to those teachers who would refuse to consider being armed, or having arms made available to them, as a means of defending the children from an attack such as the one under discussion.



Lastly, forcing arms on those who don't want them is as tyrannical as stripping arms from those who wish them. That's not how free societies behave.

Really?

Can teachers still teach without passing certain tests, taking certain types of training, getting certain types of certification, and so forth? By your argument, they should be able to teach without any of that. Forcing things on people is, after all, not how free societies behave, right?

Protection of the children is an implied duty on the part of anyone who is given custody of them. And when the chips are down, it's clear that teachers are willing to fulfill that role, because that's precisely what they attempted to do in Connecticut. The problem wasn't their willingness, it was their ability. They simply lacked the necessary tools.

Why should we treat a teacher's refusal to be armed as any different than a refusal on their part to get their teaching certifications?


Now, if some other equally effective method for implementing real protection of the children is implemented, then the teachers needn't carry the responsibility of being armed. But just as the police can't be everywhere, so too can the armed guards at a school not be everywhere.

We already have an existence proof of the effectiveness of arming the teachers: Israel. If we have a problem and a known good solution, how is it anything other than negligence to refuse to implement that solution?

mag360
12-16-2012, 9:32 PM
Just let teachers carry if they want to. Outfitting a new class of school police with salaries and retirements is insane.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 9:42 PM
Just let teachers carry if they want to. Outfitting a new class of school police with salaries and retirements is insane.

It would most certainly be an improvement in areas that are already relatively supportive of the right to keep and bear arms.

But what of areas that are relatively supportive of restrictions on the right? Like oh, say, Connecticut?

The solution isn't going to be effective if nobody elects to carry.


That said, this latest tragedy shows that the teachers are willing to put their lives on the line for the kids. If they're willing to do that, then there's quite a lot of hope here. It may not be that hard to convince them that it's very much better for the children if they're carrying than if they're not.

IVC
12-17-2012, 12:01 AM
Please. You and your anti friends are making this about firearms when it's about spree killing. The firearm isn't the problem, it's victim disarmament through GFSZ's and a culture that sensationalizes violence through ad nauseum reportage.

You have it backwards. We are on the same side. My only point is that you don't fight junk science with junk science. Junk science is used to validate emotions.

We have the facts on our side. All we have to do is use them properly and we can win many an argument.

brian5271
12-17-2012, 12:24 AM
This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong in America today. You expect other people to do everything for you.

Teachers are not caretakers of your children. You are the caretaker of your children, and as a parent, you do not get to lay this burden off on anyone else -- ever.

Teachers are educators of children, nothing more. To expect them to also serve as your child's bodyguard is unreasonable and irresponsible.

What's more, your statement is callous and offensive, because it disregards the incredible sacrifice shown by many of the staff in the recent Conn. shooting -- educators who laid down their lives to protect someone else's children. Those staff are truly heroes..

Lastly, forcing arms on those who don't want them is as tyrannical as stripping arms from those who wish them. That's not how free societies behave.

I agree 100%

Here is link I came accross tonight ragrding this subject. A school district in Texas is going to alow teachers to carry. This was in the works long before this latest shooting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404721,00.html

I think this is a good approach.

speedrrracer
12-17-2012, 8:36 AM
I fully agree when the parent has that choice. But the law takes that choice out of the hands of parents when the parents cannot homeschool their kids.

Incorrect.Homeschooling is legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_in_the_United_States#Legality) in all 50 States. Nevertheless, homeschooling is a red herring argument.


Then who do you suggest should be their bodyguard?

A bodyguard, or the absence thereof, is a choice of the parents. The parents are responsible for their own children, always. If they choose to leave their children at a location, the parents are effectively saying, "I am shirking my duties as a parent because I believe the risk / benefit ratio to my child to be acceptable and I alone am responsible for this decision and it's consequences."



Can teachers still teach without passing certain tests, taking certain types of training, getting certain types of certification, and so forth?

Of course. Now failing to get such certifications may limit their career options, but that's their choice.

Protection of the children is an implied duty on the part of anyone who is given custody of them.

And the children were protected. The killer had to force his way into the school and then shoot his way through a plate-glass window. That elevated effort is proof of the protection.

Even if we put Seal Team 6 around a school, it wouldn't save the children from a missile strike on the school. Your argument requiring small arms is therefore pointless. The level of protection provided by a school is chosen by that school, and accepted implicitly by the parents who allow their children to attend that school.

The parents therefore maintain control over which level of protection they find acceptable for their own children.


We already have an existence proof of the effectiveness of arming the teachers: Israel. If we have a problem and a known good solution, how is it anything other than negligence to refuse to implement that solution?

And by the same stroke you have proof that it is ineffective: schoolchildren still die in Israel (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/06/29/palestinian_rocket_kills_two_israelis/).

The rocket in Sderot, a working-class Israeli town near Gaza, landed just yards from a pair of nursery schools, killing a 3- year-old boy...

Mulay El Raisuli
12-17-2012, 8:51 AM
There is a pointlessness to a 2A group providing insight on a pro-2A website. Rather than all agree here, why don't the more well-spoken of us visit the the more mainstream news forums, MSNBC, CNN,local news, etc, and repeat these points where it might do something. There are a lot of fence-sitters out there and some of these points would be well digested there....


Or, how about Facebook? With a little luck, what you post will be Shared by a couple of Friends. Who'll Share with two more people. Who'll Share with two more, & so on & so on.


How about the fact that banning guns would make America a "gun free" zone. Now consider that V-Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Elementary etc... were ALL gun free zones. When was the last time there was a shooting spree in a Police station, Gun Store or firing range where virtually everyone is carrying a gun?


The anti-Constitutionalists already have an answer to that: Guns come into Gun Free Zones from outside the zone. The solution is obvious: ban guns everywhere. All the shootings in New York are because of guns coming up from Virginia, remember?


All of what we talk about is contained within a seething mass of, probably, trillions of opinions, beliefs (which are the most dangerous parts of human beings), experiences and perspectives. The human brain does not tolerate confusion well, so operates on its own simple explanations and eventually strategies for dealing with reality. As much as we want to simplify things to 'understanding", this will never happen with two or more people present.
We are left with a Gordian Knot which cannot be cut or untangled.
As much as we have our perspectives, we must also deal with the perspectives of the others who have the most strongly held and dearly defended beliefs opposed to ours.

I want to pose a suggestion and a challenge.

This is in hope that it will find its way to other message boards and that we don't put our heads in the sand at this time of crisis for gun owners. We have reached the tipping point. We are being demonized in the popular media, in our personal relationships and across the world.

Rather than the divisive, blaming and polarized name calling that always happens on this issue, I would like to see people willing to step up and work together on this very real and critical problem.
There are no easy answers. I suggest we petition our President and other NRA members to invite the NRA to participate with a multi-faceted and continuing task-force to change the current situation we all face. Who better understands firearm safety than us?

Now is the time for The NRA and all of the members to step into the leadership to assist with legal, acceptable and workable solutions.
We always talk about what we cannot do or tolerate. Let's hear more suggestions what "might" work.

I am the NRA, and as a responsible and experienced gun owner, I know we have a lot to offer to the task of gun safety in this country. The doors to the asylum have fallen off the hinges. We all need to stop saying "Ain't it Awful!" and come together for mutual aid. We all have a right to be safe. That is one reason mopst of us own firearms! I know that there are others out there who will be willing to step into the fray. If we are warriors, then we have a worthy cause.

If you disagree, then argue among yourselves. If you can participate in this effort, then get your name out here and lets get to work.


This presumes rationality on the part of our opponents. And that real solutions are part of their agenda. Neither is true. Which is why it won't work. Which is what it HAS NOT worked. Every time we give ANYTHING to those people, it just inspires them to want even more. No, the best response to fight them even harder. See, next.


I agree 100%

Here is link I came accross tonight ragrding this subject. A school district in Texas is going to alow teachers to carry. This was in the works long before this latest shooting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404721,00.html

I think this is a good approach.


Completely wonderful. And something I Shared on Facebook. Which is being Shared by at least some of my Friends.


THIS IS the best solution!

We are willing to buy guns to protect our families at home and abroad. Children spend 12-15 years of their lives in these schools where we think they are safe:facepalm: I would have no problem being taxed to have armed security at a school or have teachers/ admins armed and trained.

For those of you who say that would not work or would not be a deterrent, you are blasting our own premise that being armed in public would also not be a deterrent (in a shall issue world).

Common sense would tell you that IF the first person you met in a school was an armed LE, are you saying that would not be a deterrent to criminal activity? If thats the case why should anyone carry a gun outside the home??


Can't beat the logic.


The fact is, guns and mental illness

In and of themselves, are not the problem

Just as gasoline and matches, in and of themselves, are not a problem

It's the combination

You can't ban guns, mental illness, gasoline and matches

I think the answer lies in arming these schools in some way.

Whether it be with police, armed guards, marshals. or willing and able teachers.

And LET IT BE KNOWN, that these folks are able and willing to defend themselves.

I don't think these perpetrators are looking for a fight, they are the epitome of cowards

They are looking for the defenseless.


Hence the need to reduce the numbers of the "defenseless."


I was reading on yahoo news about the tragic shooting and right underneath the story, was another story of a guy that stabbed 22 people in china, in a slashing spree. But that was not headline news because it wasn't in our own backyards and knife laws are not a hot button issue. Horrible people are everywhere, and if we ban guns, they will find other means to hurt others.


First, a correction. It wasn't 22 "people." It was 22 school children. Just one more incident in a continuing problem over there.

The anti-Constitutionalists aren't ignoring this story. On my Friends list at Facebook is "The other 98%" (because yes, you DO need to keep your enemies closer). Their spin on this is that the 22 kids stabbed in China ARE ALIVE, while the 20 kids shot in Connecticut ARE DEAD. Clearly & obviously then (in their minds) is what we need to do is to outlaw guns. BECAUSE KIDS CAN SURVIVE BEING STABBED!!!! Of course, this argument ignores the number of kids (quite a few, according to Wikipedia) who, of course, do NOT survive. But this is the 'logic' of the anti-Constitutionalists.


You might enjoy this article. I did, and I never gave the subject much thought before.

http://www.ocweekly.com/2012-12-06/news/lisa-becker-project-q-tip-homeless/


Inspiring. I wish her well.


The Raisuli

rolo
12-17-2012, 10:27 AM
You have it backwards. We are on the same side. My only point is that you don't fight junk science with junk science. Junk science is used to validate emotions.

We have the facts on our side. All we have to do is use them properly and we can win many an argument.

How's that working out for you? Convinced any rabidly anti-2nd people to see the light recently?

You can't count any argument on the internet as a win when the other side can just disengage by closing their browser. If they don't come around to your way of thinking, you haven't won anything! Minds are changed through action, not words. We have to take these people out into the world and show them what a real solution looks like. The need to see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears what success (or failure) looks like, it's not enough to mediate that experience through the internet.

One problem that must be overcome is the severe lack of basic technical or legal knowledge of the average American. Only through experiential education are we going to change that, the easiest way for the lay civil rights activist is to offer one on one personal instruction. Engage them with patience and persistence and moderation, reductio ad absurdum in a most delicate manner until they are willing to physically experience the processes that are required to own and use firearms in their locality.

So many of these people who are making ridiculous arguments are doing so from false premises, like believing that you can walk into any gunstore and walk out the same day loaded down with guns and ammo. We have to take them all the way back to first premises to show them that their entire worldview is wrong. It is much better to do this in person otherwise the lesson won't stick, it's too easy for them to slip away and avoid facing reality otherwise.

I'm repeating myself now, but the point stands. Unless you have brought them around to your position from theirs, you haven't won anything, indeed we all have lost.

IVC
12-17-2012, 10:43 AM
How's that working out for you? Convinced any rabidly anti-2nd people to see the light recently?

I'm having a hard time understanding your point. Are you saying that we should use "junk science" as a talking point in discussion of gun rights?

gorenut
12-17-2012, 11:07 AM
Morgan Freeman said:
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

speedrrracer
12-17-2012, 11:30 AM
Morgan Freeman said:

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."



That's a hoax. Freeman has denied making such a statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/morgan-freeman-denies-making-statement-school-shooting-013627371.html

chip3757
12-17-2012, 2:16 PM
Why do you suggest only retired LEO or Millitary?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0

chip3757
12-17-2012, 2:17 PM
Why do you suggest only retired LEO or Millitary?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0

rolo
12-17-2012, 3:33 PM
I'm having a hard time understanding your point. Are you saying that we should use "junk science" as a talking point in discussion of gun rights?

Winning arguments. How is that working for you? More importantly how is it working for us? You don't convince anyone of the soundness of your position by arguing over the internet. You have to be willing to frame a conversation in language they can understand. They literally do not speak your language and have different definitions for the words you're using thanks to a lack of technical knowledge. This is a war of education.

Make no mistake, there is a right side and a wrong side, but you aren't going to get anyone to change sides by lobbing precision munitions at them. You need to guide them across the minefield by hand, it's the only way.

sakosf
12-17-2012, 3:51 PM
I have neither read or heard that the actual buyer (mother) of the guns in CT had any mental health issues. Unfortunately, she apparently did not store all her guns in a gun safe. If she had done that and not shared the combination with anybody, then perhaps with tragic event could have been avoided

OIFVet03
12-17-2012, 4:06 PM
Yeah we do need to take the points to those places. Another thing is that they use these incidents as propaganda for gun control as a scapegoat to get the public off the issue of the crumbling economy.

Rangem4
12-17-2012, 4:09 PM
Agreed. But there is naturally a discussion is about what can DO. We might as well propose something that might actually deter an on-site school attack.

Ask for educators, janitors and administrators to take classes on how to properly handle school emergencies and the proper use of firearms and arm them. If there were armed educators in schools in the past think of how these events could have been mitigated. It is the only viable thing we can do with one other exception. It is a catch 22 in our society, if we identify a possible mentally unstable individual and try to stop a potential attack we have violated his privacy. Our laws are set-up to be reactionary not preventative. Therefore arming those in a position to make a difference is the only viable solution.
My wife is an educator and she told me there is a strong emotional drive to protect her students even more than her own in a classroom environment.

Rangem4
12-17-2012, 4:10 PM
Yeah we do need to take the points to those places. Another thing is that they use these incidents as propaganda for gun control as a scapegoat to get the public off the issue of the crumbling economy.

I think you may be on to something there.

The Geologist
12-17-2012, 4:28 PM
++1

Yes, but you would probably get bashed and then banned from their site for being logical about the whole thing.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-18-2012, 6:50 AM
Yes, but you would probably get bashed and then banned from their site for being logical about the whole thing.


Actually, I'm getting a good response, & a lot of Shares, on Facebook.


The Raisuli