20k foot view of school shooting

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
"all the gun nuts are passing them back and forth oohing and ahing."

We who are not gun nuts worry about nuts who ooh and ah over guns.

[/ QUOTE ]
Worry about the nuts with guns, not the gun nuts.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. There is no "gun free area" in areas with adequate police protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't honestly think this is true? There are millions of areas where it will take the police several minutes to respond while you are pretty much free to go on a rampage as much as you want until they get there (I don't think this is a good thing -- but unless you want to pay 100% taxes there is no way around it other than letting law-abiding citizens carry their own guns for protection).

True, we have decent police protection that prevents hundreds or thousands of people from being killed in a shootout, but for a motivated individual, the situation like we saw in VT would be fairly easy to repeat (and I am not trying to take away from the tragedy here -- I think it is tragic, but there is just not an easy solution to this).



[/ QUOTE ]

Just for some statistics, here in the UK the total number of deaths (recorded obv) from firearms injuries in the 10 years 1994-2003 was 2,270 the fairly draconian gun control rules brought in after Dunblane in 1997 seem to be having the effect of saving 100-150 lives a year, guns have never been as popular here as in the US.

This statistics have been taken from an anti-gun source, but appear to have been read out in the UK parliament at some point so they should be accurate.

I understand there were ~29,500 deaths (EDIT 17,000 suicides) from firearms injuries in the USA in 2001 alone, from a population 5 times bigger than ours.

Basically you are talking about 250-300 thousand people getting killed every 10 years as a price for the right to bear arms, I don't think it's worth it, maybe you do. If I missed anything or oversimplified then my apologies.

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Long term trends in the U.S. indicate that murder rates are on the decline. The effect of disarming U.S. citizens of guns on suicide rates is unknowable IMO. Anyway it's easy to talk about disarming U.S. citizens of guns in the abstract, quite another matter from a practical point of view. Estimates are that there are over 200,000,000 guns in the U.S. Coupled with incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge it's doubtful the government would ever undertake such an action. There's ample evidence IMO that governments in the U.S. aren't up to the task. The problems with "gun free zone" are well discussed in other posts.

[RacersEdge]

I think that a school environement should have a small percentage of students - maybe 10-15% - armed and trained in gun use. So in the VT case, each classroom would have had 2-3 armed students. If the shooter knew this was the case, maybe nobody dies.

[BearHustler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the statement: "if only some armed citizens were around when this shooter started killing people, they could have stopped him" to be true, you have to give people permission to carry guns and use them when their judgement tells them that it is correct to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who has to give this permission?

How is it this person's responsibility and privelege to decide whether to give this permission?

Do I need permission to eat a banana? Talk to my neighbor? Invite friends over to watch the game?

Where do I apply for the appropriate permits?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Who has to give this permission?

[/ QUOTE ]

The government. In a law.

[ QUOTE ]
How is it this person's responsibility and privelege to decide whether to give this permission?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that's how a democracy works.

[ QUOTE ]

Do I need permission to eat a banana? Talk to my neighbor? Invite friends over to watch the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
Where do I apply for the appropriate permits?


[/ QUOTE ]

If said law would be passed, these practical issues would need to be resolved. I don't know the American model well enough to tell you how it would work.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You *might* wake up tomorrow and do something "bad" or "stupid"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's why I would NEVER bring a gun into the house where I live with my family.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you have heavy blunt objects? Knives? Glass windows?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I would feel safe when my kids play in a rock garden, but not in an armory full of loaded guns.

I would have some sharp kitchen knives, preferrably out of the children's reach.

I haven't heard of anyone who has been killed by a glass window, ever.

Those comments cover the "accident"-ground. As far as intentional harm is concerned, all of them (especially the glass windows) would require much greater physical strength, skill, motivation and dedication to kill someone than pulling the trigger of a gun would.

[ QUOTE ]
None of this points to any advocacy of arming people. I can choose to get a gun for myself without requiring you to get one. I have not seen one person advocate a policy where you would be compelled to possess a firearm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a quick grab:

[ QUOTE ]

I think that a school environement should have a small percentage of students - maybe 10-15% - armed and trained in gun use. So in the VT case, each classroom would have had 2-3 armed students. If the shooter knew this was the case, maybe nobody dies.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

But you telling me that I'm too stupid or evil to make decisions for myself isn't arrogant, unnecessary, or disrespectful?

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you that the way you reply makes you look stupid. The fact that good people can do evil things is certainly a good argument for government regulation of gun posession. As far as making decisions for yourself go: I believe that if you want to be part of a society, you have to give up certain personal freedoms in exchange for other profits. In this example: giving up the right to walk around with guns and shooting people because you believe that they are committing a crime that should be stopped by lethal force.


As a general reply to your questions: did you think any of them really contributed to this discussion? Did you honestly not know the answer to any of them? Is it just a tactic of yours to twist other people's words and then spewing retarded questions based on statements they never made? I don't know if you are just a troll/attention whore or just have some strange views of society and want to vent them without rational thoughts backing them up. I can't really figure it out. I just know it's irritating and unconstructive.

To all: is this a troll or is this just the way it goes in this forum? Guess I'll go back to the way things were and forget about this place.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
To all: is this a troll or is this just the way it goes in this forum? Guess I'll go back to the way things were and forget about this place.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the way it goes in this forum. PVN is trying to convince you to become an anarcho-capitalist: someone who thinks all government is evil or unnecessary and that society can be organized around unregulated capitalism. Its too bad you're leaving, I liked reading your posts.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who has to give this permission?

[/ QUOTE ]

The government. In a law.

[ QUOTE ]
How is it this person's responsibility and privelege to decide whether to give this permission?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that's how a democracy works.

[/ QUOTE ]

That provides no normative justification. It's nothing more than "because I said so."

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I would feel safe when my kids play in a rock garden, but not in an armory full of loaded guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then don't let your kids play in an armory full of loaded guns. What does this have to do with restricting people from owning firearms? I don't buy twinkies for my kids, but I'm not out crusading to take them away from anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None of this points to any advocacy of arming people. I can choose to get a gun for myself without requiring you to get one. I have not seen one person advocate a policy where you would be compelled to possess a firearm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a quick grab:

[ QUOTE ]

I think that a school environement should have a small percentage of students - maybe 10-15% - armed and trained in gun use. So in the VT case, each classroom would have had 2-3 armed students. If the shooter knew this was the case, maybe nobody dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha. You found one. Good show. Did you notice that post was after my post where I said nobody was advocating that?

I'll tell you now that I don't advocate arming anyone, and most of the people here are not advocating it, either.

Opposing restrictions on possession is not advocating that people actively arm other people.

Do you see the difference between the converse and the contrapositive?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you telling me that I'm too stupid or evil to make decisions for myself isn't arrogant, unnecessary, or disrespectful?

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you that the way you reply makes you look stupid. The fact that good people can do evil things is certainly a good argument for government regulation of gun posession.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I'd go so far as to say this argument makes you look stupid - because the fact that people can do evil things is a good reason that people need guns for defense. Further, you still haven't shown us how government has any legitimate business deciding this question in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as making decisions for yourself go: I believe that if you want to be part of a society, you have to give up certain personal freedoms in exchange for other profits. In this example: giving up the right to walk around with guns and shooting people because you believe that they are committing a crime that should be stopped by lethal force.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's inherent about "a society" that requires this? There have certainly been societies in the past where this wasn't required, so it's obviously not a requirement for a society to exist.

You don't like guns. That's fine. If you would prefer only to associate with other people who don't like guns, that's fine with me too. If you want to make other people give up firearms as a condition of interacting with you, go right ahead.

Now explain how you go from these personal preferences to using force against people who don't like your rules.

[ QUOTE ]
As a general reply to your questions: did you think any of them really contributed to this discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as much as what I replied to.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you honestly not know the answer to any of them? Is it just a tactic of yours to twist other people's words and then spewing retarded questions based on statements they never made? I don't know if you are just a troll/attention whore or just have some strange views of society and want to vent them without rational thoughts backing them up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are the rational thoughts backing up your strange views taht people are too dumb and too evil to make decisions for themselves? Is it just a tactic of yours to spew adhominem without rational thoughts backing them up?

[ QUOTE ]
I can't really figure it out. I just know it's irritating and unconstructive.

To all: is this a troll or is this just the way it goes in this forum? Guess I'll go back to the way things were and forget about this place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the way it goes. Your positions will be questioned. This is not a tea party. Bye, take your ad hominem with you.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
PVN is trying to convince you to become an anarcho-capitalist

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect! I am only trying to point out that the policies he advocates are unjustifiably aggressive. I don't care if he's a commie or a democrat or none of the above, as long as he isn't out trying to make other people do stuff they don't want to do.

[BearHustler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To all: is this a troll or is this just the way it goes in this forum? Guess I'll go back to the way things were and forget about this place.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the way it goes in this forum. PVN is trying to convince you to become an anarcho-capitalist: someone who thinks all government is evil or unnecessary and that society can be organized around unregulated capitalism. Its too bad you're leaving, I liked reading your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I see. Like a hippy with a gun?

So wouldn't it be more useful if the people who believe in democracy could discuss these issues without their threads being derailed by guys you can't reason with?

I mean, I assume most of the posters here are interested in talking about the way our lives are organized and how they can be altered through political means. So what's the value of someone like this messing it up? I mean, to be fair, did he even write one sentence that added anything worth reading?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Its too bad you're leaving, I liked reading your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you disliked posts in which posters called other posters names like "stupid" and "troll". [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So wouldn't it be more useful if the people who believe in democracy could discuss these issues without their threads being derailed by guys you can't reason with?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you can't reason with me is your failing. It's good that you can be honest about it, at least.

I mean, I asked you for a reasonable justification for the policies you advocate, and all I got was "that's the way it works". Very reasoned.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, I assume most of the posters here are interested in talking about the way our lives are organized and how they can be altered through political means. So what's the value of someone like this messing it up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I messed up your private planning session for bossing other people around and violently imposing your personal preferences on them?

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, to be fair, did he even write one sentence that added anything worth reading?

[/ QUOTE ]

More personal attacks instead of "reasoned" response. Standard.