Active Users:325 Time:15/05/2024 06:50:42 AM
Care to prove that negative? The burden to do so is on you as the person who made the assertion. Joel Send a noteboard - 26/12/2012 06:47:07 PM
Anyway, it is not "more guns makes us safer," because police are already armed; it is just a matter of saying school shootings justify putting some there.

If the suggestion has merit, wtf cares whence it came? But more importantly, when they propose something reasonable and you automatically attack it because of the source, it is YOU, not they, who sound like you are shilling for a personal agenda. Either the idea has merit or not (obviously I think it does) and that is the basis on which it should be addressed. Attacking it simply because it is the NRAs is a classic ad hominem beneath you.

if mother theresa says we need more guns to make us safer from homicidal lunatics with a small arsenal, maybe it would be a more serious response to such a tragedy. the NRA continues to insist that more and more people should have a gun, when the examples of australia, canada and scotland have shown that having limited access to guns actually works at preventing massacres. putting the twist on the suggestion that these new guns will be held by trained individuals does not change the fact that it is still "let's get even still more guns into peoples' hands". this is the only thing the NRA can suggest every time someone is killed in a public shooting spree, that we somehow could have prevented it if only there were more guns available to everyone. if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, at some point the insanity must be recognized if we are going to get beyond the increasingly regular mass shootings.

That is the thing though: They are not suggesting giving guns to anyone who does not already have both a gun and training to use it. Cops, retired cops and military reservists? That is not "more guns," but the SAME NUMBER of guns born by the SAME NUMBER of trained users. The only change is WHERE they are.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
the NRA shows it is an asylum overrun by lunatics - 22/12/2012 04:40:26 PM 1159 Views
I do not see why calling for armed cops at schools is an unreasonable response. - 22/12/2012 04:53:06 PM 676 Views
I can think of two reasons off the top of my head - 22/12/2012 05:38:19 PM 715 Views
OK... - 22/12/2012 06:58:42 PM 677 Views
If someone is shooting at you having a gun to shoot back seems like a good idea - 26/12/2012 06:10:07 PM 527 Views
The effectiveness issue aside - 22/12/2012 06:13:30 PM 580 Views
Re: The effectiveness issue aside - 22/12/2012 06:59:36 PM 666 Views
If you think it would solve the debate then probably - 22/12/2012 07:09:42 PM 623 Views
Nothing will ever truly end the debate, but we can greatly reduce or end its justification. - 22/12/2012 08:03:39 PM 590 Views
If it's shown to work - 23/12/2012 12:25:38 AM 667 Views
columbine had two armed guards on the day of the shooting. they were both immediately fired upon... - 23/12/2012 12:49:30 AM 557 Views
I have never seen any mention of them among the injured or dead (or at all.) - 23/12/2012 01:09:38 AM 706 Views
A fuller account of Gardner - 23/12/2012 10:27:24 AM 760 Views
Nice link. - 23/12/2012 02:27:30 PM 563 Views
Re: Nice link. - 23/12/2012 03:15:24 PM 538 Views
at last count, over 99,000 schools in the US - 23/12/2012 12:45:30 AM 616 Views
What is public safety worth to you? - 23/12/2012 12:54:04 AM 542 Views
it's not entirely a matter of cost, although that factors into it. - 23/12/2012 01:01:50 AM 474 Views
There are many cases where armed cops ended mass shootings. - 23/12/2012 01:28:25 AM 489 Views
there are none where an armed guard placed there *before* the shooting had any effect - 23/12/2012 01:36:42 AM 601 Views
Kind of a Catch-22; if they PREVENT shootings, shootings can only occur in their absence. - 23/12/2012 01:52:03 AM 675 Views
ok, here is my last word on the subject - 23/12/2012 02:06:49 AM 599 Views
9 people injured vs. 20 people dead. - 23/12/2012 02:34:00 AM 530 Views
it is still "more guns makes us safer" which has yet to prevent a single massacre in this country - 23/12/2012 02:41:56 PM 658 Views
Peter Odighizuwa comes to mind, that's also horrible logic - 23/12/2012 08:27:46 PM 540 Views
[citation needed] - 25/12/2012 04:54:14 PM 536 Views
Fair enough - 25/12/2012 09:06:43 PM 876 Views
Care to prove that negative? The burden to do so is on you as the person who made the assertion. - 26/12/2012 06:47:07 PM 504 Views
It doesn't have to be a full time gaurd standing looking dangerous. - 26/12/2012 06:12:14 PM 631 Views
People die from all sort of causes - 22/12/2012 07:27:53 PM 597 Views
Cars require training, certification and licensing, too; why should guns not? - 22/12/2012 08:25:43 PM 735 Views
Do bombs require certification? - 22/12/2012 09:21:25 PM 822 Views
i say this with all due respect -- eat a bag of dicks - 23/12/2012 01:04:08 AM 620 Views
That was pretty damn respectful under the circumstances. - 23/12/2012 01:10:04 AM 576 Views
The lack of intellect displayed here is to be expected - 23/12/2012 04:01:32 AM 586 Views
so according to you we should just make life illegal since everyone is going to die from something.. - 23/12/2012 07:25:05 AM 519 Views
Obviously you didn't put pay attention - 23/12/2012 01:40:17 PM 536 Views
no, you said "fuck it because people die anyway". there is a big difference - 23/12/2012 02:46:46 PM 528 Views
As usual, you are wrong on so many fronts... - 27/12/2012 10:39:04 PM 843 Views
Dicks and stones - 23/12/2012 03:54:25 AM 723 Views
FYI - I gave moondog a 30-day time-out via the ignore function. - 23/12/2012 05:48:13 AM 475 Views
FYI -- you didn't post to this board for 30+ days - 23/12/2012 07:21:44 AM 482 Views
I'm not sure it's about guns. - 23/12/2012 06:08:50 PM 546 Views

Reply to Message