Conquer Club

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

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

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:

Evil Semp wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:It seems you guys are more worried about the teachers than the psycho mass murderers...that's fucked up.

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.

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.

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?

Until an accident happens. So to answer your question NO!

are we really more worried about an accident than we are these mass shootings that actually happen (unlike the anticipated accident)

Without question - it's simply a matter of statistics.

Phatscotty wrote:we should be worried about eliminating the possibility that someone can wipe out almost 30 people, completely unopposed...

So you favor eliminating all guns.

Metsfanmax wrote:

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

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?

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:

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

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?

I think it's most important that people have a means to defend themselves at all times and in all places, whatever the situation

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...

Sheriff Arpaio sending armed posse to protect schools

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...

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..

chang50 wrote:

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...

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..

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.

In this case, I only wish that 1 teacher/principle at Sandy Hook elementary school had 1 gun. Maybe even the teachers who charged Lansa with absolutely nothing in their hands....basically understanding they were living the last seconds of their lives, but coping with the reality there was absolutely nothing they could do to stop the shooting of an entire classroom of children. So they charged the shooter, barehanded, and became another number in the death total.

Yes, it was an act of heroism by these teachers, I would only prefer one of them had a gun, and could be a hero AND still be alive, and perhaps shaved the death total to 22, 17, 12, or even 6....if one of those people who charged Lansa had a gun and was trained (farrrrr more trained than Lansa) the Sandy Hook tragedy would still be a tragedy, but perhaps 15 children, or even just 2 children, would have been saved by a miracle as well.

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

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

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?

I think it's most important that people have a means to defend themselves at all times and in all places, whatever the situation

So you would think that we should arm more people even if arming these people more resulted in more gun deaths?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

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

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?

I think it's most important that people have a means to defend themselves at all times and in all places, whatever the situation

So you would think that we should arm more people even if arming these people more resulted in more gun deaths?

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

and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too

crispybits wrote:and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too

that is not realistic

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 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?

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

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.

Metsfanmax wrote:

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 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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Phatscotty wrote:

crispybits wrote:and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too

that is not realistic

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.

crispybits wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

crispybits wrote:and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too

that is not realistic

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.

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 themselves

You would have a point if America was an island, or did not have a Second Amendment...

can Amendments be bad and wrong? as in unchangeble ? could alway just ban bullets

gordon1975 wrote:can Amendments be bad and wrong? as in unchangeble ? could alway just ban bullets

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.

Phatscotty wrote:

gordon1975 wrote:can Amendments be bad and wrong? as in unchangeble ? could alway just ban bullets

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.

bit of a politicians answer,yes or no?

Like it or not, I'll go ahead and bet there will be at least one gun carried into every school by a teacher or staff come wednesday.

Metsfanmax wrote:

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 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?

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

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.

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.

But if you mean overall accidental deaths in the U.S. increasing because more people bought guns and didn't bother to learn how to take care of their tool, then no, it wouldn't change my mind about more people carrying, even in schools, for protection, but it might make me think the government should turn the NRA into a government office that provided REQUIRED training (rather than merely voluntary) for those who wish to purchase and/or carry.