Erebus
Member
Than why is it when the bullets start to fly the first people called are men with guns?
"Guns are not a solution"
- Thread starter Guido2006
- Start date
- Status
PennsyPlinker
Member
What he means is he hasn't figured out the answer. Actually, he does know what the answer is, but refuses to admit it to himself, which is the problem with this type of person. As has already been mentioned by Prince Yamato, all he is doing is complaining about people who have a solution that does not fit his world view. Therefore, it cannot be a valid solution. So the hand wringing continues...
Guitargod1985
Member
Wow, that's a great analogy, except that Oreos and such contain sugar and fat, which cause weight gain. Guns, by contrast, do not cause crime.
You know, it never ceases to amaze me how utterly foolish and ignorant these anti-gunners are, while simultaneously proclaiming how they are so much more educated and intelligent.
I think this author should shut his mouth and let everyone believe he is a fool, rather than opening his trap and removing all doubt.
cnorman18
Member
predictions
Here are a few modest predictions and some logical conclusions:
(1) Sometime in the next year or two, there will be another mass shooting in the United States.
(2) It will happen in a place where guns are already not allowed.
(3) Anti-gun activists will once again conclude that we need to ban guns everywhere.
(4) No one in the mainstream press will comment on the bizarre logic thus exhibited.
(5) On the contrary: liberal pundits will remark on the "insanity" of our gun laws, without noticing the astonishing irony involved in such statements.
Conclusions:
(1) Places where guns are not allowed are dangerous.
(2) One should avoid such places as diligently as possible.
(3) Home schooling is a very good idea.
(4) Online college degrees are looking pretty good, too.
(5) Common sense is no longer particularly common.
When will it dawn on leftists and anti-gun activists that lawbreakers are not affected by new laws--because they are "law-breakers"?
Can I get a big "DUH"?
Here are a few modest predictions and some logical conclusions:
(1) Sometime in the next year or two, there will be another mass shooting in the United States.
(2) It will happen in a place where guns are already not allowed.
(3) Anti-gun activists will once again conclude that we need to ban guns everywhere.
(4) No one in the mainstream press will comment on the bizarre logic thus exhibited.
(5) On the contrary: liberal pundits will remark on the "insanity" of our gun laws, without noticing the astonishing irony involved in such statements.
Conclusions:
(1) Places where guns are not allowed are dangerous.
(2) One should avoid such places as diligently as possible.
(3) Home schooling is a very good idea.
(4) Online college degrees are looking pretty good, too.
(5) Common sense is no longer particularly common.
When will it dawn on leftists and anti-gun activists that lawbreakers are not affected by new laws--because they are "law-breakers"?
Can I get a big "DUH"?
Thernlund
Member
Ever see a movie called Idiocracy w/ Luke Wilson. Completely stupid movie, but it has it's funny parts. I bet that world began with gun control.
[email protected]
Member
Yes... of course all we have to do is keep the guns out of public gatherings... I mean, it's not like a few people with utilitarian, innocent items like, say for instance, box-cutters, have ever caused any problems with large groups of people... :banghead:
DanO
DanO
okiebuckout
Member
My reaction
Ignore this
Ignore this
Last edited:
so, the problem is. . . .
the teachers?
Doesn't sound as if the writer enjoyed school much, does it?
And drawing attention to the unrelated bad acts (sex with students) of a very few teachers makes no more sense than citing the fact that a small number of Law Enforcement Officers have committed unrelated offenses as grounds for disarming all officers.
the teachers?
Doesn't sound as if the writer enjoyed school much, does it?
And drawing attention to the unrelated bad acts (sex with students) of a very few teachers makes no more sense than citing the fact that a small number of Law Enforcement Officers have committed unrelated offenses as grounds for disarming all officers.
Prince Yamato
Member
Since crazy people and sex offenders are prohibited from owning firearms by federal law, the student's arguments are yet again baseless. He thinks that he is smart. He obviously knows the laws better than us "cooky NRA people". The thing is, he doesn't have the slightest clue about anything. Like another poster mentioned, there will probably be another school shooting sometime soon and you'll get the same reaction by the typical airheads.
ranger335v
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 3,797
Deacon Blues: " ...extend the idea of arming teachers to arming university students as well."
Nonsense. No one, least of all the NRA recommends arming "all" teachers or students or anyone else, arming those incapable of using firearms effectively - and properly - should avoid them as surely as they would avoid live electrical circuits.
But, it is clear to even a liberal that having victims curl into fetal balls and pleading, "Please don't hurt me too bad" is totally ineffective. Allowing those few who wish to defend themselves, and others if need be, IS a practical response to the increasing violence modern PC think has unleased.
Anyone who feels that violence begets violence had better believe it, especially if that violence is aimed at me and any innocents within my possible area of protection. No child or woman will ever be abandoned to the claws of the goblins within my sight. I won't knowingly allow anyone to be harmed by any bully without challange, lethal challange if need be.
Both liberals and criminals should beware of real men, some of us are still around. I am a man and have lived as a man, not as a craven coward crawling on my knees. It's because of real men that weepy liberals can safely sleep in their soft beds.
Nonsense. No one, least of all the NRA recommends arming "all" teachers or students or anyone else, arming those incapable of using firearms effectively - and properly - should avoid them as surely as they would avoid live electrical circuits.
But, it is clear to even a liberal that having victims curl into fetal balls and pleading, "Please don't hurt me too bad" is totally ineffective. Allowing those few who wish to defend themselves, and others if need be, IS a practical response to the increasing violence modern PC think has unleased.
Anyone who feels that violence begets violence had better believe it, especially if that violence is aimed at me and any innocents within my possible area of protection. No child or woman will ever be abandoned to the claws of the goblins within my sight. I won't knowingly allow anyone to be harmed by any bully without challange, lethal challange if need be.
Both liberals and criminals should beware of real men, some of us are still around. I am a man and have lived as a man, not as a craven coward crawling on my knees. It's because of real men that weepy liberals can safely sleep in their soft beds.
Erebus
Member
I posted this responce on my gun blog and comments section of the article
This is a response to an oped by Josh Wilder titled Guns are not a solution. It was published in the Daily Collegian on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.
If guns aren't the solution then why is it when the bullets start to fly the first people called are people with guns?
Israel allows it's teachers to arm themselves and allow armed parents and community members to guard the schools in shifts set up by those community groups. They send armed chaperons on field trips and they teach the students gun safety. All these guns around the kids and they haven't had a school shooting since the late 70's.
http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm
Mass shooters attack schools because there are full of defenseless targets. Look at the record of mass shootings, and attempted mass shootings and a disproportionate number occur in so called "gun-free zones". Places where law or policy dictates that the people within are disarmed. The thing they most strikingly have in common is they ended when people with more guns arrived. Either through the suicide of the shooter or through the action of the new arrivals.
Name calling doesn't really reinforce you argument, it merely demonstrates you have no rebuttal other than insults.
I have seen no one advocating the shooting of misbehaving students. Please site your source. Or was this comment meant to be one of those logical big boy comments?
You have this comparison all wrong. Eating Oreos, Ring Dings, and peanut butter cups causes weight gain, not the mere presence of them. Your buddy has to take an active roll in his weight gain. Your buddy has to choose to eat them. In the same vein guns do not cause shootings. People choosing to point a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger is what causes shootings. If the mere presence of a firearm caused a shooting wouldn't we have large numbers of shootings at gun shows, gun stores, police stations, and military bases? After all there are large numbers of guns and people at all those locations. A cupcake sitting on a table will make no one gain weight, and a gun sitting on a table will cause no one to get shot. And while there is not anyone running around force feeding people cupcakes there are people running around shooting people.
The best way to avoid getting shot is to not be in the place that the shooting occurs. Whether that method is never going to that location or flight from it when the shooting starts. While since we have no idea when or where the shootings are going to occur(although past history indicates that "gun-free zones" are the most common locations) and we may not have the opportunity, or in some cases the ability, to flee we must be prepared to mitigate that occurrence. The second best way to avoid being shot is to be able to meet that force with equal or superior force. A new Meatloaf song comes to mind, "In the land of the pigs the butcher is king". That's because the butcher is the only one with a knife. My father has said to me, "If the deer had guns you wouldn't catch me in the woods". These two statements demonstrate two things. If those that would kill go unchallenged what reason do they have to stop? And, the presence of overwhelming opposition can be a deterrent. Unless someone is completely crazy they aren't going to attempt to kill large numbers of people in a place where there would be a large amount of opposition. Which is why the mass shooters don't attack places like police stations, gun shops, gun shows, or military bases. Why should they when gun restrictions have provided them with ample locations filled with easily accessible defenseless victims. Foxes love chicken coops.
Yet I don't see you advocating their removal. If you are afraid that they are unhinged enough to shoot a child for no reason then do they really belong in a classroom at all? What is stopping them from bringing a gun into the school in their briefcase or handbag now? If they really wanted to shoot a student what is stopping them now? The same laws that have stopped all the previous school shooters?
No actually it misses it completely. No one is advocating that you force anyone to carry a gun on campus. What is being advocated is that you allow those that have gone through the background checks and the training to get a permit to carry.
The cost alone is prohibitive. Many schools can't afford sports equipment but you think they can afford metal detectors and "bulletproof" vests for every student? First of all there is no such thing as a bulletproof vest. They are all bullet resistant. Most rifle rounds go through all but the most expensive vests. Vests also only protect the body not the head. The shooter can just continue to fire until he hits the head. Shields on desks? I would love to see your design. Metal detectors will tell you who is trying to sneak a gun into the school. The nut-job that approaches the school with gun(s) drawn will not be deterred. Unless the operator of the metal detector is armed, remember you said guns are not a solution, it only insures that operator is the first victim. And again metal detectors are very expensive and require trained paid operators. I see very little common sense in these "solutions". Sitting in a classroom catching bullets in my "bulletproof" vest for the 15 minute average time it takes the police to arrive is not a solution to me. And I don't give a damn about feeling safer, I want to actually be safer.
This is a response to an oped by Josh Wilder titled Guns are not a solution. It was published in the Daily Collegian on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.
If guns aren't the solution then why is it when the bullets start to fly the first people called are people with guns?
Israel allows it's teachers to arm themselves and allow armed parents and community members to guard the schools in shifts set up by those community groups. They send armed chaperons on field trips and they teach the students gun safety. All these guns around the kids and they haven't had a school shooting since the late 70's.
http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm
Mass shooters attack schools because there are full of defenseless targets. Look at the record of mass shootings, and attempted mass shootings and a disproportionate number occur in so called "gun-free zones". Places where law or policy dictates that the people within are disarmed. The thing they most strikingly have in common is they ended when people with more guns arrived. Either through the suicide of the shooter or through the action of the new arrivals.
Name calling doesn't really reinforce you argument, it merely demonstrates you have no rebuttal other than insults.
I have seen no one advocating the shooting of misbehaving students. Please site your source. Or was this comment meant to be one of those logical big boy comments?
You have this comparison all wrong. Eating Oreos, Ring Dings, and peanut butter cups causes weight gain, not the mere presence of them. Your buddy has to take an active roll in his weight gain. Your buddy has to choose to eat them. In the same vein guns do not cause shootings. People choosing to point a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger is what causes shootings. If the mere presence of a firearm caused a shooting wouldn't we have large numbers of shootings at gun shows, gun stores, police stations, and military bases? After all there are large numbers of guns and people at all those locations. A cupcake sitting on a table will make no one gain weight, and a gun sitting on a table will cause no one to get shot. And while there is not anyone running around force feeding people cupcakes there are people running around shooting people.
The best way to avoid getting shot is to not be in the place that the shooting occurs. Whether that method is never going to that location or flight from it when the shooting starts. While since we have no idea when or where the shootings are going to occur(although past history indicates that "gun-free zones" are the most common locations) and we may not have the opportunity, or in some cases the ability, to flee we must be prepared to mitigate that occurrence. The second best way to avoid being shot is to be able to meet that force with equal or superior force. A new Meatloaf song comes to mind, "In the land of the pigs the butcher is king". That's because the butcher is the only one with a knife. My father has said to me, "If the deer had guns you wouldn't catch me in the woods". These two statements demonstrate two things. If those that would kill go unchallenged what reason do they have to stop? And, the presence of overwhelming opposition can be a deterrent. Unless someone is completely crazy they aren't going to attempt to kill large numbers of people in a place where there would be a large amount of opposition. Which is why the mass shooters don't attack places like police stations, gun shops, gun shows, or military bases. Why should they when gun restrictions have provided them with ample locations filled with easily accessible defenseless victims. Foxes love chicken coops.
Yet I don't see you advocating their removal. If you are afraid that they are unhinged enough to shoot a child for no reason then do they really belong in a classroom at all? What is stopping them from bringing a gun into the school in their briefcase or handbag now? If they really wanted to shoot a student what is stopping them now? The same laws that have stopped all the previous school shooters?
No actually it misses it completely. No one is advocating that you force anyone to carry a gun on campus. What is being advocated is that you allow those that have gone through the background checks and the training to get a permit to carry.
The cost alone is prohibitive. Many schools can't afford sports equipment but you think they can afford metal detectors and "bulletproof" vests for every student? First of all there is no such thing as a bulletproof vest. They are all bullet resistant. Most rifle rounds go through all but the most expensive vests. Vests also only protect the body not the head. The shooter can just continue to fire until he hits the head. Shields on desks? I would love to see your design. Metal detectors will tell you who is trying to sneak a gun into the school. The nut-job that approaches the school with gun(s) drawn will not be deterred. Unless the operator of the metal detector is armed, remember you said guns are not a solution, it only insures that operator is the first victim. And again metal detectors are very expensive and require trained paid operators. I see very little common sense in these "solutions". Sitting in a classroom catching bullets in my "bulletproof" vest for the 15 minute average time it takes the police to arrive is not a solution to me. And I don't give a damn about feeling safer, I want to actually be safer.
Erebus
Member
Well I tried to post my response in the comments section of the article but it keeps telling me I am not logged in.
I log in, put in my comments, click post, put in the security code image thing, and then it take me to a page that says I am not logged in and my comments have not appeared. I guess they don't like me or something.
I log in, put in my comments, click post, put in the security code image thing, and then it take me to a page that says I am not logged in and my comments have not appeared. I guess they don't like me or something.
MrPeter
Member
First he uses an insult, mind you, a clear fallacy in an argument - name calling or attacking a person/organization instead of their argument, and then he asks those nut jobs to act like adults.
Little hypocritical there, aren't we?
RaferJanders
Member
No not to your problems. Better to have one or fifty and not need them, then need one and not have one.
XLMiguel
Member
OK, Josh, today's assignment is to compare & contrast the events and outcome of the shootings at Perl, MS, and Appilachin School of Law (where guns were available to the good guys) and any other two school shootings in the last ten years (where guns were only available to the perpetrators), vis a vis your premise . . .
jrfoxx
Member
This guy has NO idea what he's talking about, so I'd just ignore him.
The rest of you have already pointed out all his other lies, errors, misleads, etc.
Not True.We have state preemption, and in OR, if you have a CHL, you can carry in schools.Her problem isnt that its illegal in her district,or anywhere else in Oregon, it's that she could be fired for violating school policy.
Also untrue.It's the Oregon Firearms Federation backing her in the suit, NOT the NRA.AFAIK, the NRA declined to help, or is at least sitting this one out.The OFF has been sending out regular updates on this; I haven't seen or heard anything from the NRA.In fact, this "author" is the first person I know of who has even mentioned the NRA in connection to this issue.
The rest of you have already pointed out all his other lies, errors, misleads, etc.
Mr. Wilder your article disappoints me. You start your article by calling
people wacky NRA nut jobs. I don't know what umass teaches, but I sure
like to think colleges teach students to support their academic positions
without childish name calling.
You day dream and imagine scenarios that you think might happen. While
you're in fantasy land I'm looking at real world data. We have 48 states
that allow concealed carry. Some have for a year, some have for decades.
If these permit holders are a hazard to public safety you should be able
to demonstrate through this data that these overworked off the wall
teachers have caused problems already with their concealed carry permits
in places they are allowed to carry.
Lets try some common sense next since you like it. Have you worn body
armor or talked to anyone who has? Talk to some police officers and see
how many want to wear it off duty and decide how many students would put
up with it. You've also mentioned at least 2 school shootings that
involved hostage situations or executions. How does body armor keep a man
man from shooting a student in the head?
Next you mention metal detectors and common sense. How big is the umass
campus? Can you imagine metal detectors at the door of every building as
you move between classes? How about when guns slip past? Why is the guy
who plans to shoot a bunch of people not going to just shoot the person
running the metal detector and walk right past?
The real common sense here is to realize that there will always be crazy
people who wish to do harm to others. When he strikes his victims will
have whatever is around them to try to defend their lives with. If you've
disarmed them, the will be helpless.
Lets use some common sense and college level thinking and drop the name
calling and imagined scenarios. We've got a huge data set of people that
carry concealed weapons, and in some states at schools. Show me why it is
a real problem and not just an imagined one.
people wacky NRA nut jobs. I don't know what umass teaches, but I sure
like to think colleges teach students to support their academic positions
without childish name calling.
You day dream and imagine scenarios that you think might happen. While
you're in fantasy land I'm looking at real world data. We have 48 states
that allow concealed carry. Some have for a year, some have for decades.
If these permit holders are a hazard to public safety you should be able
to demonstrate through this data that these overworked off the wall
teachers have caused problems already with their concealed carry permits
in places they are allowed to carry.
Lets try some common sense next since you like it. Have you worn body
armor or talked to anyone who has? Talk to some police officers and see
how many want to wear it off duty and decide how many students would put
up with it. You've also mentioned at least 2 school shootings that
involved hostage situations or executions. How does body armor keep a man
man from shooting a student in the head?
Next you mention metal detectors and common sense. How big is the umass
campus? Can you imagine metal detectors at the door of every building as
you move between classes? How about when guns slip past? Why is the guy
who plans to shoot a bunch of people not going to just shoot the person
running the metal detector and walk right past?
The real common sense here is to realize that there will always be crazy
people who wish to do harm to others. When he strikes his victims will
have whatever is around them to try to defend their lives with. If you've
disarmed them, the will be helpless.
Lets use some common sense and college level thinking and drop the name
calling and imagined scenarios. We've got a huge data set of people that
carry concealed weapons, and in some states at schools. Show me why it is
a real problem and not just an imagined one.
woodybrighton
member
the obvious solution is to to make sure nut jobs can't get hold of guns.
that worked in the uk but less than 1% of the population owned hand guns (and a lot of those were full on target pistols not concealable handguns)
but any way we haven't had another school shooting.
That isn't going to happen stateside for obvious reasons not least I doubt anyone knows where all the handguns are.
So given that the population has easy access to firearms and nobody's going to pay to put security barriers around every school and campus and armed guards allowing CCW trained teachers to carry is better than just banning guns from school premises cause somebody intent on mass murder is really going to obey the don't bring a gun to school rule
the other thing thats harder and more nebulous is finding out what makes spree killers do what they do and how to spot and help such people before they snap
that worked in the uk but less than 1% of the population owned hand guns (and a lot of those were full on target pistols not concealable handguns)
but any way we haven't had another school shooting.
That isn't going to happen stateside for obvious reasons not least I doubt anyone knows where all the handguns are.
So given that the population has easy access to firearms and nobody's going to pay to put security barriers around every school and campus and armed guards allowing CCW trained teachers to carry is better than just banning guns from school premises cause somebody intent on mass murder is really going to obey the don't bring a gun to school rule
the other thing thats harder and more nebulous is finding out what makes spree killers do what they do and how to spot and help such people before they snap
What measure are you basing that off of?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece
Erebus
Member
Not really possible. Even the strictest methods will not be perfect. It's the law of averages, eventually one will beat the system. Even in the UK it will eventually happen. And everyone will be shocked that it happened again.
And you think when the laws passed in the UK that they got absolutely every gun? Do you think they actually knew where 100% of the guns were? Or even do now? Gun crime in the UK is soaring and all the bans in the world will not stop it.
I would allow anyone with a permit to carry at schools. The parent walking the halls conducting whatever business they are there for is no threat armed or not. And as you say someone that is intent on mass murder will not hesitate to carry the murder weapon right past the "No Guns Allowed" sign.
If they aren't concerned with the life terms or the death penalty that mass murder will bring does any one actually believe that the penalty for carrying a weapon into a school is even acknowledged? Many suicide once the police arrive. So if they are not concerned with getting killed than there is no effective deterrent except perhaps high probability of failure. That will only push them to select another "softer" target such as a mall with a "No Guns Allowed" policy. The key is to be prepared to stop them everywhere. Someone who is crazy enough to commit mass murder and than suicide will not be deterred. They will select the "softest" target they can find and attack there. Right now legally mandated "Gun Free Zones" make the target selection process quite easy.
Respectfully, anti's don't think, they feel. That's why logical argument fails to convert them. You can't use logic to change a person's position if they've arrived at that position without logic.
Sometimes I think the most effective response to an anti is to just say "I feel much safer having a gun on my person." Not "I am much safer.." but "I feel much safer."
This leaves the anti with no choice but to either conceed your feelings, or introduce logic into the discussion. If they attempt to inject logic into the discussion, they're yours. (providing you have armed yourself with the facts.)
1911 guy
Member
Guns are not the answer. Usually. I believe it was Clint Smith who said that violence is seldom the answer, but when it is, it's the only answer.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked