Gun Control

bmb777 · Dec 21, 2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illinibob

Good point, you'd need more guns than just one. I go back to arming a few kids, just not revealing which ones so that a gunman wouldn't know which kindergartners he has to take out first.

Way to rival AHS for one of the dumbest posts of the day. Ive never said nor seen anyone oon here say to arm teachers is the answer. Arming kids isnt even worth a response

bmb777 · Dec 21, 2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaman

You're thinking like a logical person. How many of the mass murderers are well enough grounded in reality to plan and execute an attack on kids in school that starts by killing the guard? I have no idea. They would have to find and kill the officer first and that might be difficult.

A lot of these shootings are planned in advance. Its not a stretch to assume if they knew there was one armed officer their plan would be to kill him first..

DaytonIllini · Dec 21, 2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmb777

Way to rival AHS for one of the dumbest posts of the day. Ive never said nor seen anyone oon here say to arm teachers is the answer. Arming kids isnt even worth a response

Don't even bother with the liberals. They think the second amendment killed those kids. They don't understand that the first amendment killed them too. That movies, video games, violence and ever ratcheting up of the sexuality to ever younger kids all plays roles in the development of brains.

A liberal will tell you that you should not spank your kids, that you should not let them ride a bike without a helmet, that vaccines cause autism, that you shouldn't eat bleu cheese when you are pregnant or a host of other Black Swan nonsense. But suggest that Hollywood or Blizzard Entertainment might have some culpability? Forget it. That nonstop violence could rewire a developing brain? Heresy! Oops, a lot of liberals don't believe in God. Can you say 'heresy'? Is it politically correct?

Liberals want nutjobs walking the streets. Heck they want criminals walking the streets. We cannot lock them away Dayton. That would be cruel....

Liberals want to pretend that gun jumped into Adam's hands and made him kill those kids. That it wasn't being the product of divorce. After all we know the nuclear family is not something to aspire towards.

To react to this tragedy we could:

Ban guns.
Ban lunatics.
Ban having children.
Ban sending kids to school.

Or we could apply a modicum of common sense. We could realize that this was a rare event with multifactorial causality and that tragic as it was, it was probably not preventable.

pizzaman · Dec 21, 2012, 03:20 PM

Merry Christmas everyone. I'm checking out for the weekend and holiday and really don't want to even think about guns for the next few days. Be happy we're all still here and have a basketball team that's worth watching.

Leonardite · Dec 21, 2012, 04:07 PM

Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, prohibition of drugs isn't working, and prohibition of guns won't work. Criminals will be criminals, no matter how many laws we pass.

nyillinois · Dec 21, 2012, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

I don't think that more guns are the answer, but google Kennesaw, GA. They instituted a law requiring the head of house to own a gun in 1982 and they haven't had a gun related death since. They've also seen crime drop significantly.

TO BE CLEAR, I DON'T SEE THIS AS CAUSE AND EFFECT, I'm simply saying that gun availability does not directly lead to violence.

N=1

AHSIllini32 · Dec 21, 2012, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -josh-

I see the endless debate still continues. If guns are banned it wont effect me because i'm not giving mine up, even if i have to go bury it in my parents backyard in the middle of nowhere.

Which would all but mitigate the reason for having one no?

nyillinois · Dec 21, 2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

I was referring more to the "How dare you look towards us when it is SO clearly video games!" tenor of the press conference.

I thought NRA's stance would be:
Video games don't kill people. People kill people.

AHSIllini32 · Dec 21, 2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonardite

Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, prohibition of drugs isn't working, and prohibition of guns won't work. Criminals will be criminals, no matter how many laws we pass.

It's not about taking guns away from criminals!!

AHSIllini32 · Dec 21, 2012, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Don't even bother with the liberals. They think the second amendment killed those kids. They don't understand that the first amendment killed them too. That movies, video games, violence and ever ratcheting up of the sexuality to ever younger kids all plays roles in the development of brains.

A liberal will tell you that you should not spank your kids, that you should not let them ride a bike without a helmet, that vaccines cause autism, that you shouldn't eat bleu cheese when you are pregnant or a host of other Black Swan nonsense. But suggest that Hollywood or Blizzard Entertainment might have some culpability? Forget it. That nonstop violence could rewire a developing brain? Heresy! Oops, a lot of liberals don't believe in God. Can you say 'heresy'? Is it politically correct?

Liberals want nutjobs walking the streets. Heck they want criminals walking the streets. We cannot lock them away Dayton. That would be cruel....

Liberals want to pretend that gun jumped into Adam's hands and made him kill those kids. That it wasn't being the product of divorce. After all we know the nuclear family is not something to aspire towards.

To react to this tragedy we could:

Ban guns.
Ban lunatics.
Ban having children.
Ban sending kids to school.

Or we could apply a modicum of common sense. We could realize that this was a rare event with multifactorial causality and that tragic as it was, it was probably not preventable.

Yeah but I'm the one making things up...hypocrisy at it's finest.:rolleyes:

nyillinois · Dec 21, 2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Don't even bother with the liberals. They think the second amendment killed those kids. They don't understand that the first amendment killed them too. That movies, video games, violence and ever ratcheting up of the sexuality to ever younger kids all plays roles in the development of brains.

A liberal will tell you that you should not spank your kids, that you should not let them ride a bike without a helmet, that vaccines cause autism, that you shouldn't eat bleu cheese when you are pregnant or a host of other Black Swan nonsense. But suggest that Hollywood or Blizzard Entertainment might have some culpability? Forget it. That nonstop violence could rewire a developing brain? Heresy! Oops, a lot of liberals don't believe in God. Can you say 'heresy'? Is it politically correct?

Liberals want nutjobs walking the streets. Heck they want criminals walking the streets. We cannot lock them away Dayton. That would be cruel....

Liberals want to pretend that gun jumped into Adam's hands and made him kill those kids. That it wasn't being the product of divorce. After all we know the nuclear family is not something to aspire towards.

To react to this tragedy we could:

Ban guns.
Ban lunatics.
Ban having children.
Ban sending kids to school.

Or we could apply a modicum of common sense. We could realize that this was a rare event with multifactorial causality and that tragic as it was, it was probably not preventable.

This is called politicizing the issue.

AHSIllini32 · Dec 21, 2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonardite

You're saying banning guns would decrease gun related deaths. Dayton is saying banning alcohol would decrease drunk driving related deaths.

How does that not match up?

If this whole "ban guns" thing is about saving lives for you, why aren't you for banning alcohol? Is it because you don't own a gun and maybe enjoy a cold alcoholic beverage every once in awhile? Or are you just going along with the "ban guns" thing cause that's what all your liberal friends are doing?

He's also saying more people should have guns...follow yet?

AHSIllini32 · Dec 21, 2012, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmb777

Way to rival AHS for one of the dumbest posts of the day. Ive never said nor seen anyone oon here say to arm teachers is the answer. Arming kids isnt even worth a response

:laugh::laugh: Yet another insult.

So it's okay for you guys to over-exaggerate certain points but when someone else does it, it's "one of the dumbest posts of the day"? Makes sense.

nyillinois · Dec 21, 2012, 05:55 PM

I cannot understand the logic in proposing an armed guard at every school.

Isn't 2nd amendment there to protect us (the people) from the government (if and when required) and keep a sort of 'balance of power' ?
Getting 100,000 armed government guards in our schools would go against this logic, won't it?

AHSIllini32 · Dec 21, 2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

You claimed that I said more guns should be given out. That was made up.

What insult are you talking about? I don't even understand your posts half the time. It is almost as if you are arguing with what you think people are saying rather than what they actually say.

As for your article, which one? I would gladly look at it. I am unaware of any evidence that gun control laws have reduced violence above the background reduction going on nationally.

This article:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

The Newyorker article about gun control

Hemenway has discovered, as he explained in this interview with Harvard Magazine, that what is usually presented as a case of self-defense with guns is, in the real world, almost invariably a story about an escalating quarrel. “How often might you appropriately use a gun in self-defense?” Hemenway asks rhetorically. “Answer: zero to once in a lifetime. How about inappropriately—because you were tired, afraid, or drunk in a confrontational situation? There are lots and lots of chances

DaytonIllini · Dec 21, 2012, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyillinois

N=1

1 > 0 though which is the batting average of the counter-argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyillinois

I thought NRA's stance would be:
Video games don't kill people. People kill people.

Nicely played.

DaytonIllini · Dec 21, 2012, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyillinois

This is called politicizing the issue.

But you see the difference is this is a Gun Control thread not a eulogy for children like the other thread. This is removed from the incident by some period of time.

If you want any reference that it was a bad idea to politicize the other thread you'll note two posters banned as I feared would happen.

DaytonIllini · Dec 21, 2012, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

He's also saying more people should have guns...follow yet?

I asked you to show me where I said that and you answered with crickets. Find me that post.

I am not calling for more guns. For instance people like you should never be allowed access to firearms. I am all for screening before allowing ownership.

DaytonIllini · Dec 21, 2012, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyillinois

I cannot understand the logic in proposing an armed guard at every school.

Isn't 2nd amendment there to protect us (the people) from the government (if and when required) and keep a sort of 'balance of power' ?
Getting 100,000 armed government guards in our schools would go against this logic, won't it?

Just chalk it up to one of the many things in life you don't understand.

illinibob · Dec 21, 2012, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Just chalk it up to one of the many things in life you don't understand.

Like multifactorial causality.

DaytonIllini · Dec 21, 2012, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

This article:

It's an interesting article. The author in part uses Canada as an example of success. It's hard to get exact #'s but it appears that if we use 1974-5 as a baseline (just prior to gun control in Canada) there are now about 45% as many murders as there was. That sounds like a resounding success for gun control.

OTOH, during that same period of time the murder rate in the US dropped by 47%. Since gun laws were liberalized in the US people could claim that gun law relaxation has been a boon to murder rates dropping.

I think what the data taken together shows though is that gun availability probably had nothing to do with the declines in Canada or in the USA.

I cannot speak to Scotland and Australia tonight.

DaytonIllini · Dec 21, 2012, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illinibob

Like multifactorial causality.

Sure Bob. I'll give you a hint though. I wouldn't want you to travel through life without understanding that.

Quote:

Causality
(Causation; Enabling Factors; Multifactorial Causality; Multiple Causation; Predisposing Factors; Reinforcing Factors)

http://www.lookfordiagnosis.com/mesh...usality&lang=1

It's a British medical term. We use multifactorial causation here more commonly. My training was by a number of Brits. They insisted on gray and a few other terms that are hard to shake.

bmb777 · Dec 22, 2012, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Don't even bother with the liberals. They think the second amendment killed those kids. They don't understand that the first amendment killed them too. That movies, video games, violence and ever ratcheting up of the sexuality to ever younger kids all plays roles in the development of brains.

A liberal will tell you that you should not spank your kids, that you should not let them ride a bike without a helmet, that vaccines cause autism, that you shouldn't eat bleu cheese when you are pregnant or a host of other Black Swan nonsense. But suggest that Hollywood or Blizzard Entertainment might have some culpability? Forget it. That nonstop violence could rewire a developing brain? Heresy! Oops, a lot of liberals don't believe in God. Can you say 'heresy'? Is it politically correct?

Liberals want nutjobs walking the streets. Heck they want criminals walking the streets. We cannot lock them away Dayton. That would be cruel....

Liberals want to pretend that gun jumped into Adam's hands and made him kill those kids. That it wasn't being the product of divorce. After all we know the nuclear family is not something to aspire towards.

To react to this tragedy we could:

Ban guns.
Ban lunatics.
Ban having children.
Ban sending kids to school.

Or we could apply a modicum of common sense. We could realize that this was a rare event with multifactorial causality and that tragic as it was, it was probably not preventable.

the one question I would want liberals who want to ban assault weapons is this.....if assault weapons were banned, how would that stop school shootings?

dont forget, Columbine happened during the time we had an assault weapons ban.

I sure hope after this shooting we pass laws making it illegal to kill 26 children. <-----sarcasm in case someone thinks I was serious.

bmb777 · Dec 22, 2012, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

It's not about taking guns away from criminals!!

so you want criminals to have guns?

bmb777 · Dec 22, 2012, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

:laugh::laugh: Yet another insult.

So it's okay for you guys to over-exaggerate certain points but when someone else does it, it's "one of the dumbest posts of the day"? Makes sense.

pot meet kettle.

Dec 21, 2012, 04:07 PM	#80
Leonardite Location: Eyes on Portland Posts: 912	Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, prohibition of drugs isn't working, and prohibition of guns won't work. Criminals will be criminals, no matter how many laws we pass. __________________ "People willing to trade their Freedoms for Security deserve neither and will lose both."- Ben Franklin The Real Me

Dec 21, 2012, 03:20 PM	#79
pizzaman Location: Northwoods of Wisconsin Posts: 1,786	Merry Christmas everyone. I'm checking out for the weekend and holiday and really don't want to even think about guns for the next few days. Be happy we're all still here and have a basketball team that's worth watching.

Dec 21, 2012, 05:55 PM	#89
nyillinois I was born at a very early age Posts: 194	I cannot understand the logic in proposing an armed guard at every school. Isn't 2nd amendment there to protect us (the people) from the government (if and when required) and keep a sort of 'balance of power' ? Getting 100,000 armed government guards in our schools would go against this logic, won't it?