...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Yeah, I thought about it a bit more and decided to make clear I didn't mean just rent-a-cops.
Of course you did. You realized your original premise was suspect after I responded. So you switched premises and blamed your own inadequate thinking and lack of clarity on my dumbness and stupidity while citing your smarts.
I don't believe I characterized your attitude toward the 2nd Amendment. Did I?
"Harden one target and the shooter simply finds another." Not in an instance like this one. This was about his mother and his school, it seems. I'm not sure a shoot-up in a movie theater would have made his day in much the same way.
You're straining rather hard to miss the point...
In much the same way, it seems, that, according to some, if the price of keeping defensive guns out of school is a few massacres, so be it.
... which is that gun rights in a free society are inexorably linked to mass killings like this one.
It's nothing like the same way. You say 'keeping defensive guns out of school equals massacres' but that's an assumption. What evidence do you offer to support that? Or are you just thin-air sure of it, like before?
And that despite not really offering any logical response to the notion that a few guns in the right hands might have meant only 5 or 10 or 15 kids dead rather than 20 kids.
Of course I did. I agreed in my original post, my last post, and now again here, that more guns might help. I'm simply not ignoring that 'fewer guns' is an option that might help too.
If the best you can do is say we need to ban guns as the only solution,
And thus you attribute this to me again, despite a readily-available transcript which shows I said absolutely nothing of the kind. Your integrity is just as impressive as your smartness.
What's not to like about this guy?!
Unseen, you are not a member of the NRA or a gun owner, have you any training with guns or have you ever been in a situation where deadly force was being used? Military at all?
Can't say that I have, but if your point is going to be I don't know what I'm talking about, that's irrelevant, because I'm sure some people with that sort of background hold similar views.
Of course it is irrelevant to someone who has no clue, to your point as an example you could point to xians but many of them agree in their view.
When I divine what your point is (assuming I do) I may have a response.
Arming more people might lower the body count. But so might disarming more people.
Yeah. Hey. Listen! Guys! Seriously, listen. I have an idea, it's a little unconventional so bear with me alright. So, what if we, listen, what if we.. wait for it.... ban murder?
What a profound point! *jerking off motion*
Laws are mostly applied in retrospect. We don't give people tickets for thinking about exceeding the speed limit or thinking about going on a shooting rampage.
"Arming more people might lower the body count. But so might disarming more people. Nutcases like this young man in Connecticut would be a good start. That, I would call worthwhile."
I can agree with that.
What I find disturbing is the fact that the young mans mother thought that teaching a socially challenged troubled individual how to use firearms was a good idea.
That boggles my mind.
Which admittedly is no big accomplishment.
Now define how you are going to disarm Nutcases.
Are you going to disarm non-Nutcases who just happened to be related to a Nutcase?
Who decides if you are a Nutcase?
Who decides if you are too close to a Nutcase to be allowed to exercise your rights and own a gun?
There are two rooms,
In the first room there are 100 people, 99 sane people and 1 Nutcase.
In the second room there are 100 people, 99 sane people and 1 Nutcase.
In the first room everyone has a loaded Glock 17.
In the second room only the Nutcase has a loaded Glock 17.
In both rooms the Nutcase starts shooting people.
In which room is it most likely the Nutcase will be shot dead?
If you had to be in one of the two rooms which one would you choose to be in?