...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Well no. Have you given thought to the training or readiness of anyone that would be armed. One of the issues I have with anyone owning a gun is that most people, including those extreme gun "enthusiasts", is that most of them are not psychologically stable enough, nor have they received enough regular training to be able to react and return fire in a calm enough state of mind to not: shoot other civilians, damage some part of the surrounding that leads to injury or death, or injure themselves. The gun issue is primarily a social issue then a rights issue.
@ Deavon, the only person I can think of who would be in a calm state of mind in a high stress, flight or fight situation is called a Psychopath. I strongly suggest you give those types a wide berth.
When did you start feeling that your unalienable rights were "social issues"? Free speech is a social issue? Voting is a social issue? Freedom from religion is a social issue? Or is it that you are not an American?
The first 10 Amendments are called "The Bill of Rights", reading them may help you understand the difference between our "Rights" and social issues.
I'm all for training, you will be surprised how little training most police officers get, most of them carry a loaded weapon on duty and a lot of them off duty. You may want to check with your local City Government official regarding that.
A guy I knew joined the Police Force after high school because he "wanted to shoot somebody".
Suppose someone described as above intervened after the Newtown shooter had killed 10 got in a firefight with him and accidentally killed 2 children before downing the shooter. You seem to be maintaining that that would be a bad outcome whereas I would view it as 8 children saved at the cost of two. People who reason as you do seem to view the real goal as minimizing the damage the intervening party rather than minimizing the overall body count.
The math works for me. Your math seems to be based on making sure the intervening party has no blood on his hands rather than reducing the total body count.
What is your reasoning?
It saves the intervening party from a public hearing?
I'm reading this link and reviewing the footnote links as I do, I'm not done yet, but I click on one of the footnote links and it sent me to the article I'm reading, LOL (that was funny, it reminded me of the bible referring to itself for proof.) LOL
OK, back to reading....
Have you every heard the term "Data Mining"?
You start with the conclusion you want and then go find some supporting data.
Well this is a good example of how to do it.
Damn my eyes hurt.
"When the Framers penned "the right to bear arms" their point of reference was a single shot musket; not a 100 round auto-loading assault rifle."
Or a 3000 round/min helicopter mounted gatling gun.....
I would laugh but your lack of knowledge about the Framers of the Constitution and the history of your own country is disheartening and saddens me.
You're right, they were fucking idiots, if only they had had the Mayan calender all would be right with the world.
They may have realized that the conditions in the future would change, and decided to leave behind a living document that could be changed if need be.
Which is exactly what they did.
If you don't like the First Amendment change it, a national religion sounds wonderful.
I doubt it, I'm old and set in my ways.
The only advice I can offer is don't be sensitive or take things personally.
If I change my picture will that make you feel less concerned?
There you go, I changed the picture.
And don't worry, I limit myself to ONLY 10 high-capacity magazines per gun, I ain't one o' those funking gun nuts for doG's sake. :)
In case the deer start multiplying too fast?