Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on January 1, 2013 at 5:05am

I would never kill Bambi, if I want meat I go to the market.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 1, 2013 at 10:42am

Bambi no, bossy yes.

Permalink Reply by Marc on January 1, 2013 at 10:37am

Way to demonstrate self-control Gregg. ;^)

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on January 1, 2013 at 12:30pm

I mostly work on breath and trigger control.  Paper targets fear me at the range.

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on January 1, 2013 at 3:17pm

Yea, but it got too expensive every time I tried to play Duck Hunt I had to buy another T.V.

I'll stick with the paper targets they're cheaper.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 9, 2013 at 12:36am

This video gives some interesting insight to this discussion: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Permalink Reply by James Cox on January 9, 2013 at 12:23pm

I think we need to consider the likelyhood that under these conditions, that more people could die because the shooter might consider using more advanced weapons than would generally be available, and use surprise and preparation to trump any opposition. As we prep to suppress any shooter, we are upping the ante for the shooter, and inadvertently motivating them for a greater negative effect. If the shooter figures that his risk is higher in this climate, he will consider that his act will likely be his last, so will attempt to increase the death count.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 9, 2013 at 2:58pm

There are some maybes there, whereas it's certain that if the shooter is shot at, it'll distract him from shooting the innocents, and if he's hit, it's fair to assume that some lives were saved. I think that if he's there to kill as many until someone kills him, he's already working on upping the body count to the max.

It's just beyond me the mental gymnastics people who oppose guns go through to deny they might help in just about any situation, even where it's obvious they would likely reduce the mortality rate. I'm pretty sure where parents can afford it, like in private schools for the well-to-do, they probably don't have this debate and have armed security. 

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 9, 2013 at 4:06pm

If the shooter is shot 'at' then who might end up being the victim of the rounds that are shot 'at' rather than hitting.  I guess I would be interested in looking at the stats of how many bank robbers are shot/stopped by armed guards in banks, how often that guard is the first person shot, and the level or armament used in robbing banks that have armed guards compared to banks with no guards.  We don't have armed guards in Canadian banks and I can't recall hearing of anyone ever being shot in a bank robbery.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 9, 2013 at 6:05pm

Heather, normally I can rely on you to be one of the more logical people here, but when guns are discussed, logic seems to go out the window. 

First, don't change the subject. We are talking about someone who has entered a school intending to kill as many children and teachers as possible before being shot himself. A bank robber is there to rob the bank, not to roll up a huge body count.

Why not start a thread about bank robberies.

This "friendly fire" argument is frequently brought up, and it seems to rest on the notion that you can't stop someone who's engaged in mass murder if even one party is shot by the party who came to stop it. The logic escapes me. If the point is that whoever intervenes must not have any innocent blood on his hand, even if he can save a great number of lives at the cost of one or two, I simply don't understand the logic. Help me.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 9, 2013 at 6:14pm

The logic, to me, is more practical experience than logic.  What do you think the odds are that the school guard is going to have a high level of firearm stress proficiency and be provided with ongoing training and support?

We have police forces in many cities that provide this sort of training to their top officers who are all prepared to respond quickly to a school shooting.  We'll never place guards of equal caliber in every single school, library, swimming pool, and chuckie cheese across the nation <- and THAT is what would be required for a 'more guns' solution to have an impact.

I think we just need to start engaging suicidal kids with some empathy, rather than calling them 'queer emos', and get to the bottom of what is making some teenagers want to die so badly that they spin right out and try to take as many people with them as they can.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 9, 2013 at 9:41pm

The original question didn't ask if it was practical to have an armed presence in schools, it was whether in the case of the Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter, might a couple of armed staffers have cut the death toll from 30 to 5, 10, 15, or 25?

I think clearly it might have. The answer is yes.

This shooting happened so quickly, over the course of 10 minutes, that unless the school had been situated across the street from the local constabulary, the arrival of the police turned out to have been irrelevant except that their arrival may have spurred him to turn the gun on himself.

Who needs police if 30 children and teachers can be killed before they get there? They become merely the cleanup crew. 

Any inquiry into what spurs some "queer emos" to spin homicidally out of control would likely result in laws to control violent music lyrics, violence in visual entertainment, and to "get God back into the schools."

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 50
• 51
• 52
• 53
• 54
• …
• 73
• Next ›
• Page