Another school Shooting Nevada

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Gotta admit, i did lol at this.

Rat, why does everyone have to be an elitest or hippy who want resonable gun control? I just think the unfortuanately some dont deserve the right to bear arms and some arms should be unbearable because we as a nation abuse these powerful weapons too often.

People often resort to insults when they've got nothing else.

[Giantone]

People need to see this .......


Kids & Guns - YouTube

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

People often resort to insults when they've got nothing else.

I resort to insults just cos.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I resort to insults just cos.

Cos you've got nothing and acting out like a child is your MO.

Lame.

[firstdown]

Most teachers have more education then cops but some find it hard that if one desired they could take traing to safely carry a gun. I also hear about hitting others but I would guess that 100% of the other people would be getting the hell out of they way and ducking from the assult in the first place.

You guys do know that Utah allows teachers to carry and I think they have been for 12 yrs now.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Burglary is less of a trauma than mass shootings of kids.

Are burglaries counted as violent crime? No. That makes your argument invalid.

Originally Posted by Lotus

But if you would like to argue that you would prefer to have masses of dead kids than burglaries, go ahead.

Ah, the 'Pretentious Douche' school of rhetoric! Go milk a Unicorn.

p.s. I'm from the 'E Cartman' school, myself.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Are burglaries counted as violent crime? No. That makes your argument invalid.



Ah, the 'Pretentious Douche' school of rhetoric! Go milk a Unicorn.

p.s. I'm from the 'E Cartman' school, myself.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Once again, instead of engaging in reason, you engage in personal attack. As Matty indicated, such is the resort of those who have no argument.

Please bring a rational argument armed with data to the table or admit that you have no such argument.

[firstdown]

200 Utah educators take class on handling, having concealed gun in class - CNN.com



Anger over map of gun permit owners "Guns have no place in our schools. Period," Dennis Van Roekel and Randi Weingarten, the presidents of the two biggest U.S. teachers' unions, said in a joint statement. "We must do everything we can to reduce the possibility of any gunfire in schools, and concentrate on ways to keep all guns off school property and ensure the safety of children and school employees.

But to Clark Aposhian -- president of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, which ran Thursday's event in West Valley City -- it's a matter of giving teachers, school administrators, janitors and others the same rights, when licensed, to carry a concealed weapon in their place of work as others have.

"What we're talking about is not arming teachers," he said, contending that the approach of locking doors and hiding behind a desk "just isn't doing it anymore." "We're simply not taking away that ability of lawful self-defense within a school."

For 12 years, Utah educators have been able to do just that, even if only a small fraction do bring guns into their workplace. The state's concealed weapon law allows for a person to have, on his person or in a secure lockbox, a weapon inside a school, Aposhian said.

If they do have a loaded gun, their principals, school districts, and local police departments wouldn't even know, given the restrictions in place limiting who is told about who has a concealed weapons permit.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Once again, instead of engaging in reason, you engage in personal attack.

Simply answer my question. Is burglary a violent crime?

If not, which we both agree it's not, why are you using a deliberately skewed measure to underwrite your argument?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Simply answer my question. Is burglary a violent crime?

If not, which we both agree it's not, why are you using a deliberately skewed measure to underwrite your argument?

Yes, I would argue that burglary is a violent crime. That is why I used it as an example. But I am happy to let you have your way and agree that it is not. No problem. You win that one.

So let's use your own example of assault from post 21 and paste it into my challenge:

Assault is less of a trauma than mass shootings of kids. But if you would like to argue that you would prefer to have masses of dead kids than assaults, go ahead. However, if you are not willing to make this argument, then you logically must recognize that reducing mass gun violence against kids is a priority and that the Australian solution responds to this.

So which is worse, assaults or bunches of dead kids?

If you say "dead kids," then you should support the Australian solution, because that is precisely what the Aussies stopped.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Yes, I would argue that burglary is a violent crime. That is why I used it as an example.

The legal definition would prove you wrong.

Originally Posted by Lotus

But I am happy to let you have your way and agree that it is not. No problem. You win that one.

So let's use your own example of assault from post 21 and paste it into my challenge:

So which is worse, assaults or bunches of dead kids?

Due to the rarity of 'bunches of dead kids' I'll go with 'assault', even though I'd compare it with rape for a more honest discussion.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

The legal definition would prove you wrong.



Due to the rarity of 'bunches of dead kids' I'll go with 'assault', even though I'd compare it with rape for a more honest discussion.

Fine. You prefer dead kids over a potential marginal rise in assaults. I'm glad that I am not one of your kids.

Notice that the potential marginal rise in assault and rape does not have a clear correlation with the Aussie gun ban, as Matty indicated. But even if I grant that correlation, you still choose dead kids.

Most people would be horrified to make that choice, and the same goes with if we talked about rape. Assault and rape, which are deplorable, happen to individuals, usually adults. Also, in the case of Australia we are talking only about a marginal rise. Conversely, mass shootings, the subject of this thread, involve bunches of people, often kids. And the Aussies basically ended such events.

And if you think that shootings of multiple kids is a "rarity," as you say, I suggest that you read a newspaper. Or just read the title of the thread. It has happened multiple times this year and we are still only in October.

I'll never forget that you argued that more kids should die.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Fine. You prefer dead kids over a potential marginal rise in assaults. I'm glad that I am not one of your kids.

I prefer a *miniscule* possibility of mass murder to the horrendous rise across the board in violent crime afflicted on those in society least able to defend themselves. Here's an article from WSJ, inculding numbers that can easily be verified.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

Originally Posted by Lotus

Notice that the potential marginal rise in assault and rape does not have a clear correlation with the Aussie gun ban, as Matty indicated. But even if I grant that correlation, you still choose dead kids.

I choose the rational position of LESS.

Originally Posted by Lotus

Most people would be horrified to make that choice

It was your hysterically hypothetical question, I'm not out there killing kids.

Originally Posted by Lotus

and the same goes with if we talked about rape. Assault and rape, which are deplorable, happen to individuals, usually adults.

What does that mean?

Originally Posted by Lotus

Also, in the case of Australia we are talking only about a marginal rise.

No, YOU'RE talking about marginal, without substantiating that number. Stop telling lies.

Originally Posted by Lotus

Conversely, mass shootings, the subject of this thread, involve bunches of people, often kids. And the Aussies basically ended such events.

You're not very good with numbers, are you? How many people died in the Australian massacre? 35 dead, 21 wounded. Now how many THOUSANDS of people have their lives irrevocably changed because someone bigger, stronger than them imposed themselves violently?

Originally Posted by Lotus

And if you think that shootings of multiple kids is a "rarity," as you say, I suggest that you read a newspaper. Or just read the title of the thread. It has happened multiple times this year and we are still only in October.

Or we could look at the facts with a little bladder control:



Without minimizing the pain and suffering of the hundreds of who have been victimized in senseless attacks, the facts say clearly that the has been no increase in mass killings, and certainly no epidemic. Occasionally, we have witnessed short-term spikes with several shootings clustering close together in time.
In the 1980s, we had a flurry of postal shootings, and the 1990s included a half dozen schoolyard massacres. Other than the copycatting reflected in these cases, the clustering of mass murders is nothing more than random timing and sheer coincidence.


You're far too emotional to discuss the topic, you lack clarity. It must be difficult being as scared as you are so I should cut you some slack.

Originally Posted by Lotus

I'll never forget that you argued that more kids should die.

J/K! You're still the fantasy world dwelling, bed-wetting, hysterical, hyperbole hurling, intellectual pygmy I've grown to love.

Stick to facts and stop making shit up.

p.s Dear Matty, I hope this meets my quota for insults, my style of rhetoric is extremely hostile (duh!) as opposed to Lotus' syrup-coated line of utter pus. People are free to ignore the thread, contribute, wade in swinging or sit on the sidelines and laugh.

[NC_Skins]

I still think many of you are off the mark on how to deal with issues. Even if you take away all guns, there still will be mass murder. Taking away guns is only putting a band-aid on the situation. It's like trying to take away violent video games to combat violence.



Also, would you want to be in a situation where only your government/military was allowed to have weapons? Obviously you all put way too much faith into those corrupt assholes, and should be thinking about big picture of things down the road. Such blind faith has caused a many of people to become slaves.

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I still think many of you are off the mark on how to deal with issues. Even if you take away all guns, there still will be mass murder. Taking away guns is only putting a band-aid on the situation. It's like trying to take away violent video games to combat violence.



Also, would you want to be in a situation where only your government/military was allowed to have weapons? Obviously you all put way too much faith into those corrupt assholes, and should be thinking about big picture of things down the road. Such blind faith has caused a many of people to become slaves.

I think a lot of people here, except for a few, believe that taking or adding guns won't solve anything. There are always a few on each extreme.