Moderator: Community Team
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
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)
Phatscotty wrote:we should be worried about eliminating the possibility that someone can wipe out almost 30 people, completely unopposed...
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?
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?
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...
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..
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
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?
crispybits wrote:and if Lansa hadn't had a gun, then 18-20 of those children would have been saved by a miracle too
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
gordon1975 wrote:can Amendments be bad and wrong? as in unchangeble ? could alway just ban bullets
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.
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.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: bigtoughralf