A teacher with gun training should be able to nail the bad guy with little risk to the students, bear spray.... Yeah... No. Lol
'Gun training' is vastly over rated.
Seriously? You honestly think Miss Crotchpot the sixty year old bespectacled lady is going to pull out her 9mm and bust some caps in a two way range when a shooter busts in? Cool as a cucumber under fire she will draw simply draw and engage the shooter (who isn't going for the armed teacher first, for some reason) and cap him one as a stone faced killer would?
Who can use the bear spray in a hurry if the teacher gets whacked? ANYONE
Who can employ the firearm? Very few of the kids.
There's a reason the military carry out contact drills over and over and over, and even that doesn't always work out.
There are restrictions I find reasonable.Exactly!
For example, I could live with California's gun laws being adopted by the federal government, because while I do not like many of the gun laws we have in California, they are fairly reasonable...
My Ruger KP345 carry gun is California legal. I specifically chose it for the safety features, and it is a great gun. My next pistol probably won't have the same features, but this one will stay my carry gun.
That said, California has horrible carry laws. I definately wouldn't want those here in Montana. It is bad enough that Califirnians move here, see me carrying my gun and call the cops.... every time. Then they get pissed at me when the cops laugh at them for not knowing that open carry is legal.
A teacher with gun training should be able to nail the bad guy with little risk to the students, bear spray.... Yeah... No. Lol'Gun training' is vastly over rated.
Seriously? You honestly think Miss Crotchpot the sixty year old bespectacled lady is going to pull out her 9mm and bust some caps in a two way range when a shooter busts in? Cool as a cucumber under fire she will draw simply draw and engage the shooter (who isn't going for the armed teacher first, for some reason) and cap him one as a stone faced killer would?
Who can use the bear spray in a hurry if the teacher gets whacked? ANYONE
Who can employ the firearm? Very few of the kids.There's a reason the military carry out contact drills over and over and over, and even that doesn't always work out.
And even in a world that legal guns were banned, do you think cops would be able to get there to stop the killings? At least Miss Cotchpot has more of a chance than the people that only exist to pick up the pieces.
Can the kids use the bear spray? Sure... if they are trained in it's use. It is not a pick up and spray item. Plus, you'd be using bear spray in an enclosed space. The body count would possibly go up.
Maybe you should go get some bear spray and read the package before you advocate it's use in a school classroom. Lol
But if I want to purchase more guns, then it would effect me, do you honestly believe a ban on high capacity MAGAZINE would help things? So you make the guy change mags more often... In a gun free zone that won't matter because he'd have all the time in the world.I point again at Jarad Loughner, overpowered by unarmed bystanders while he reloaded. Guns aren't magic. A armed man with an unloaded gun is not invulnerable to anything but another gun. He didn't have "all the time in the world".
Different scenerio than an enclosed movie theater or classroom. That was around politicians. Do you expect people in a theater or classroom to do the same? Nope. He'd have all the time in the world. Yet, in Aurora, the gun jammed due to a mag issue.
Also, I am not sure Loughner had actual training. I specifically cause jams and mag issues in order to train myself to deal with them.
Anyway, as I said.. I didn't want a huge debate... so I am done. I have no problem with PMs though... it's just if I want to debate guns... Paizo is not the place, I have plenty of accounts on gun forums.
I am well knowledgable about murder-suicides.
You're either not knowledgeable enough to be making the statements that you are making, or your closely-held belief in firearms ownership is preventing you from using that knowledge appropriately. I will demonstrate.
I have been on the scene at quite a few of them. As I stated, only one of those used a legal gun. Most of them were done by felons.
Your anecdotes are not evidence.
But considering murder-suicides can also be done by stabbing, or drowning, or suffocating, or sitting in a running car in a closed garage... and numerous other ways.
Blaming the gun is a form of scapegoating.
No, it isn't.
The overwhelming majority of murder-suicides involve firearms. Warren-Gorden et al. established that most murder-suicides are male-on-female and are carried out with a firearm. Furthermore, it was established that access to a firearm is one of the strongest predictors of murder-suicide incidence. This is critical, because it demonstrates that those without access to firearms tend not to resort to other methods to commit murder-suicides.
The National Institute of Justice has the following to say about the role of firearms in murder-suicide:
The data are clear: More incidents of murder-suicide occur with guns than with any other weapon. Access to a gun is a major risk factor in familicide because it allows the perpetrator to act on his or her rage and impulses.
In 591 murder-suicides, 92 percent were committed with a gun. States with less restrictive gun control laws have as much as eight times the rate of murder-suicides as those with the most restrictive gun control laws.
Compared to Canada, the United States has three times more familicide; compared to Britain, eight times more; and compared to Australia, 15 times more.
The Violence Policy Center has established a figure of 89.5% for the likelihood that a murder-suicide will be carried out with a firearm. The Violence Policy Center concludes its report with the following:
The most common catalytic component in murder-suicide is the use of a firearm. Firearms allow shooters to act on impulse. Every major murder-suicide study ever conducted has shown that a firearm—with its unmatched combination of high lethality and easy availability—is the weapon most often used to murder the victims, with the offenders then turning the gun on themselves. In this study, access to a gun was the critical component for almost all of the murder-suicides. Of the 46 murder-suicides with more than one homicide victim, 38 were firearm-related. The presence of a gun allows the offender to quickly and easily kill a greater number of victims. If there had not been easy access to a firearm, these deaths may simply have been injuries or may not have occurred at all. Efforts should be made to restrict access to firearms where there is an increased risk of murder-suicide, for example where an individual has a history of domestic violence and/or has threatened suicide. State and local officials, including judges, should aggressively enforce laws that currently prohibit individuals with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction or who are the subject of a restraining order for domestic violence from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
I have emphasized the portion that you should pay especially close attention to.
The idea that the widespread availability and ease of access to firearms that is encouraged by modern American gun culture - fostered by the NRA and those who align themselves with the NRA's agenda - bear no responsibility for appallingly high rates of murder-suicide (note the sickening disparity between familicide rates in the United States versus other countries outlined by the NIJ above) is a dangerous fiction. Those who continue to insist that firearm availability is blameless are, in turn, themselves responsible for the continued inability of the country to effectively legislate in order to address the problem.
I will be clear, Mead Gregorisson: This thread is not a safe place for your beliefs, because there are people in this thread who are both more knowledgeable than you, and who are more willing to track down evidence and research than you are. Your beliefs are grounded in a rejection of evidence for no reason beyond an unwillingness to challenge closely-held beliefs which you cannot fathom being truly wrong.
I have plenty of accounts on gun forums.
Of course you do.
|
Guns have an effect, but then again as shown by your evidence, these people are acting on impulse. We should be teaching our kids to act rationally, and without impulse, without even including the gun issue.
This boils down to culture. Solve the problem at the source and the symtoms dissappear.
Besides, with these incidents being so rare, you really make it sound like a much bigger problem then it really is.
People who proffessionally go to the scene of such incidents are more reliable as a source of information then some guy who reads paperwork all day. That said any one individual sees only a localized view.
One individual's personal experience is irrelevant in the face of an honestly-conducted, professional study of the topic.
In any case he said the guns were illegal, not that they weren't used.
He said that availability of firearms is irrelevant because murder-suicide offenders could just as easily use any number of other methods to accomplish the same thing. That is false. The evidence clearly shows that availability of firearms is a strong predictor of murder-suicide incidence.
Why are you defending him? He is wrong.
Guns have an effect, but then again as shown by your evidence, these people are acting on impulse. We should be teaching our kids to act rationally, and without impulse, without even including the gun issue.
Sure. Do that. But also enact responsible and reasonable gun control legislation. Don't pretend that teaching your kids to act rationally is an acceptable substitute for gun control.
This boils down to culture. Solve the problem at the source and the symtoms dissappear.
Guns and gun culture are inseparable.
Besides, with these incidents being so rare, you really make it sound like a much bigger problem then it really is.
Stop making excuses for the tolerance of murder. Murder-suicides kill as many as 1,500 people per year in America.
|
|
A teacher with gun training should be able to nail the bad guy with little risk to the students, bear spray.... Yeah... No. Lol'Gun training' is vastly over rated.
Seriously? You honestly think Miss Crotchpot the sixty year old bespectacled lady is going to pull out her 9mm and bust some caps in a two way range when a shooter busts in? Cool as a cucumber under fire she will draw simply draw and engage the shooter (who isn't going for the armed teacher first, for some reason) and cap him one as a stone faced killer would?
Who can use the bear spray in a hurry if the teacher gets whacked? ANYONE
Who can employ the firearm? Very few of the kids.There's a reason the military carry out contact drills over and over and over, and even that doesn't always work out.
If gun training was a class in school, more kids could use that gun then could use the mace (which also has safeties).
Besides, if the old lady was gonna lock up and not use the gun, she wouldn't use the mace either, because she locked up.
And the mace, because the cultural view of it, would be likely to be misused, where as the gun is much less likely to be misused.
What you advocate, is ensureing everyone is a casualty, with a chance of death, and likely long term medical problems, vs. The shooter, possibly a couple others being dead.
And either of those results would only occur if the teacher didn't lock up, and the chances of locking up, go down with training.
So, no, training and guns are no more magic then bad guys with guns, but the bad guy also has a chance of locking up when faced with possible death, so guns for good guys levels the field, rather then leaving the advantage in the criminals hands.
|
|
People who proffessionally go to the scene of such incidents are more reliable as a source of information then some guy who reads paperwork all day. That said any one individual sees only a localized view.One individual's personal experience is irrelevant in the face of an honestly-conducted, professional study of the topic.
In any case he said the guns were illegal, not that they weren't used.He said that availability of firearms is irrelevant because murder-suicide offenders could just as easily use any number of other methods to accomplish the same thing. That is false. The evidence clearly shows that availability of firearms is a strong predictor of murder-suicide incidence.
Why are you defending him? He is wrong.
First, Study done by statistics is only as good as the information used. Not everything gets reported to all the right places, and the research done even when done right can miss things, or get contaiminated information, and without direct observation, such contimination can easily go unnoticed. Also the guys there on the scene have better information then ANY bookworm sitting at a desk. I already granted that there info would be limited to the scenes they were at.
Also, I wasn't just defending him, I was setting the record straight, you can't call your arguement sound if you are not even argueing against what he actually said.
So, no, training and guns are no more magic then bad guys with guns, but the bad guy also has a chance of locking up when faced with possible death, so guns for good guys levels the field, rather then leaving the advantage in the criminals hands.
Becoming effective (to any significant degree) with a firearm in a crisis situation requires repetitive, regular training and practice, and is one of the reasons we have professional police and military forces. It is not the sort of thing that can be implemented in elementary schools, nor would it be an effective use of our children's time at school. Our national education situation is perilous enough as it is. We do not need gun rights advocates hijacking public education to deflect deserved criticism of American gun culture.
|
|
Guns have an effect, but then again as shown by your evidence, these people are acting on impulse. We should be teaching our kids to act rationally, and without impulse, without even including the gun issue.Sure. Do that. But also enact responsible and reasonable gun control legislation. Don't pretend that teaching your kids to act rationally is an acceptable substitute for gun control.
This boils down to culture. Solve the problem at the source and the symtoms dissappear.Guns and gun culture are inseparable.
Besides, with these incidents being so rare, you really make it sound like a much bigger problem then it really is.Stop making excuses for the tolerance of murder. Murder-suicides kill as many as 1,500 people per year in America.
Being reasonable and rational isn't a substitute for gun control, it reduces an already slim need for gun control. I believe in having some regulations, I just don't agree with them being hefty and strict regulations.
I was referencing culture in general, not just gun culture. AKA, you can have a culture that needs tight gun control, and you can have culture that doesn't need it.
The concept of world without bad guys is a pipe dream, it's not a tolerence of murder, it's the realization of the fact that bad people will always exist and they will do bad things, and whatever state you see as normal will bias your perception of what is a little bit of bad vs a lot of bad, therefore you need to step back and think logically and reduce your bias.
You should always act to reduce bad things, but you also have to know when doing so will only make matters worse elsewhere. You can never reduce it to zero, so draw a line and realize, that if people ever reached it they would say you had hadn't gone far enough simply because of how used to it they are.
If we lived in aworld where 1 in 10 people died every year, and then we came to america as it is now, the drop in death would be so large, it would be mind boggling, just remember, because you are used to something being at a certain level, doesn't make that amount some magic number to reference.
Remember, put a frog in hot water it will jump out, if you put it in normal water then heat it slowly, the frog will sit and boil to death. You need to step back, grab a thermometer and use it measure the temperature, since your own senses can only see relative and not objective.
First, Study done by statistics is only as good as the information used. Not everything gets reported to all the right places, and the research done even when done right can miss things, or get contaiminated information, and without direct observation, such contimination can easily go unnoticed.
Then look at the studies and explain where the information was mischaracterized or falsely reported. Or, better yet, conduct a similar study to verify or debunk the results. Until then, please keep your impotent criticism of the research process to yourself.
We have peer review for a reason, and it's much harsher than you posting, "But studies can be wrong!" to an internet message board.
Also the guys there on the scene have better information then ANY bookworm sitting at a desk.
Not when it comes to reliable statistics, they don't. And that's what we're talking about.
I already granted that there info would be limited to the scenes they were at.
Which means it's anecdotal, and therefore worthless compared to actual statistical evidence.
You don't have to keep going. This is the point where most people would stop.
Also, I wasn't just defending him, I was setting the record straight, you can't call your arguement sound if you are not even argueing against what he actually said.
I've explained quite clearly both what he said, and why what he said is wrong. I haven't mischaracterized his argument, and I haven't glossed over anything that he said. He claimed things that were patently false, and I went through the trouble to correct that.
The concept of world without bad guys is a pipe dream, it's not a tolerence of murder, it's the realization of the fact that bad people will always exist and they will do bad things,
I have already explained, quite clearly, and with sound evidence, that people are more likely to do bad things - namely, homicide - if they have access to a firearm, and that people are more likely to do these bad things in environments where gun control laws are lenient or non-existent than they are to do these bad things in environments where gun control laws are more robust. I'm not sure why you've decided to repeatedly ignore that evidence (actually, that's a lie; we all know why you're ignoring it), but it stops here.
I'm not going to address anything else you say until you read the above and acknowledge it (and I want you to appreciate the level of restraint it takes for me to hold back, because I really want to dive into the rest of what you just said). You don't get to refute it, because you don't have any evidence to refute it with. So you can choose to acknowledge it, and we can move on, or you can ignore it, and we can roundly mock you for it.
Your call.
The kicker is, of course, that when you acknowledge what I am telling you, you can no longer say things like, "Bad people will always exist and they will do bad things no matter what," because that's a really stupid and really dangerous idea.
|
|
So, no, training and guns are no more magic then bad guys with guns, but the bad guy also has a chance of locking up when faced with possible death, so guns for good guys levels the field, rather then leaving the advantage in the criminals hands.Becoming effective (to any significant degree) with a firearm in a crisis situation requires repetitive, regular training and practice, and is one of the reasons we have professional police and military forces. It is not the sort of thing that can be implemented in elementary schools, nor would it be an effective use of our children's time at school. Our national education situation is perilous enough as it is. We do not need gun rights advocates hijacking public education to deflect deserved criticism of American gun culture.
It's like riding a bike, come back after being gone and you might be rusty, but you remember the basics.
Besides, the education isn't about or even focused on this use, the increased (even if just a minor increase) of the ability to act in a crisis of any type is just a side effect what I would like to see implemented
Scott, don't bother. Don't engage. Don't make eye contact. Just back away slowly. Remember who you're talking to. It's not worth it.
If you keep giving people chances, they'll keep disappointing you until they don't.
It's like riding a bike, come back after being gone and you might be rusty, but you remember the basics.
The basics do not include the muscle memory and instinct-overriding focus necessary to act effectively in a crisis.
Stop pulling things out of an imaginary bag of holding. You don't actually know what you're talking about.
Besides, the education isn't about or even focused on this use, the increased (even if just a minor increase) of the ability to act in a crisis of any type is just a side effect what I would like to see implemented
Then implement a focused, physical exercise regimen. Many martial arts disciplines do exactly what you outline above, without the added side effect of encouraging a culture that worships guns as much as the flag. Oh, and with the added side effect of going a very, very long way towards addressing the country's ridiculous childhood obesity crisis.
|
|
I never said they didn't have an effect, I just said that you can't reduce things to zero, and that there are more factors then just gun control.
You seem to believe that I am pointing to things I am not.
Murder-suicides is the biggest thing that would be reduced by gun laws, and alternatives exist to that solution.
You also have yet to refute the fact that the majority of gun related murders (except the murder suicides) are done with illegal guns by people who aren't allowed guns.
I'm am not saying that gun control laws don't work, I am saying that they are not the only recourse, and the problem you keep trying to solve is a minor problem that doesn't need the biggest hammer you can find.
There is nothing wrong with statistics, just saying those on ground higher quality info but with more limited scope, while those looking at stats have lower quality info but a larger scope. AKA take both with a grain of salt as neither will ever be a perfect answer.
You seem to believe I'm advocateing everything he says is right, but actually am advocating that one should take it into consideration, without ignoring any information based on who it came from.
Note: last post was ninjad
The concept of world without bad guys is a pipe dream, it's not a tolerence of murder, it's the realization of the fact that bad people will always exist and they will do bad things,I have already explained, quite clearly, and with sound evidence, that people are more likely to do bad things - namely, homicide - if they have access to a firearm, and that people are more likely to do these bad things in environments where gun control laws are lenient or non-existent than they are to do these bad things in environments where gun control laws are more robust. I'm not sure why you've decided to repeatedly ignore that evidence (actually, that's a lie; we all know why you're ignoring it), but it stops here.
I'm not going to address anything else you say until you read the above and acknowledge it (and I want you to appreciate the level of restraint it takes for me to hold back, because I really want to dive into the rest of what you just said). You don't get to refute it, because you don't have any evidence to refute it with. So you can choose to acknowledge it, and we can move on, or you can ignore it, and we can roundly mock you for it.
Your call.
The kicker is, of course, that when you acknowledge what I am telling you, you can no longer say things like, "Bad people will always exist and they will do bad things no matter what," because that's a really stupid and really dangerous idea.
Wow, you are so full of yourself. Lol It's cute that you think you explained anything when all you did is make a bunch of crap up like a smartass.
My guess is your have never been employed in a first responder position in your life. So you have probably never been to a scene where a firearm was used. You probably think it is like what you see on Law & Order. ;)
|
|
I don't believe in glorifying guns, but neither do believe in treating guns like some sort of evil devices created by the devil.
Guns are dangerous and available, thus everyone should receive basic training to dispel myths and fear, and more importantly to teach safety when dealing with them.
Everyone should know how to clear a gun, even if they don't expect to ever use that knowledge, because no one can say with certainty, what knowledge they will never need.
You're either not knowledgeable enough to be making the statements that you are making, or your closely-held belief in firearms ownership is preventing you from using that knowledge appropriately. I will demonstrate.
You do that.
The overwhelming majority of murder-suicides involve firearms. Warren-Gorden et al. established that most murder-suicides are male-on-female and are carried out with a firearm. Furthermore, it was established that access to a firearm is one of the strongest predictors of murder-suicide incidence. This is critical, because it demonstrates that those without access to firearms tend not to resort to other methods to commit murder-suicides.
Last I checked I never said the majority of murder-suicides did not involve firearms. That you screw up your first quote that bad invalidates your entire post. Great job, bucko!
I will be clear, Mead Gregorisson: This thread is not a safe place for your beliefs, because there are people in this thread who are both more knowledgeable than you, and who are more willing to track down evidence and research than you are. Your beliefs are grounded in a rejection of evidence for no reason beyond an unwillingness to challenge closely-held beliefs which you cannot fathom being truly wrong.
Dude, you can't even get the first quote right and you think you are more knowledgable? Well sure you are knowledgable when you put words into my mouth, because I had no knowledge of those words to begin with.
All that evidence you found was towards things "I NEVER SAID".
Now, like I told that one guy that tried to be a smartass earlier, if you are going to attempt it... make sure you are on the ball.
So next time you wish to draw me back into the debate with your superior argu... hehehe.. can't even finish....
Anyway, have a great New Years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, you are so full of yourself. Lol It's cute that you think you explained anything when all you did is make a bunch of crap up like a smartass.
Oh, yeah.
The studies I quoted and linked to by Warren-Gordon et al., the National Institute of Justice, and the Violence Policy Center are all totally things I just made up like a smartass.
Do you even hear yourself?
My guess is your have never been employed in a first responder position in your life.
You're absolutely right, I haven't! And thank goodness. I don't think I could handle the stress.
I do, however, have a four-year degree in this exact field. So while I'm not an expert, I am well-qualified to recognize that your arguments are terrible.
So you have probably never been to a scene where a firearm was used. You probably think it is like what you see on Law & Order. ;)
Oh, actually, that's not true.
Anyway, that's totally irrelevant, since I'm not debunking your ridiculous position with my own expertise (hint: I'm debunking it with three separate studies by experts in their field). I gave you the evidence and a chance to counter it with your own. You didn't (and, honestly, I don't think anyone thought you would), so that's done. You can, of course, still provide your own evidence.
Really.
Go for it.
Oh, yeah.
The studies I quoted and linked to by Warren-Gordon et al., the National Institute of Justice, and the Violence Policy Center are all totally things I just made up like a smartass.
Do you even hear yourself?
I never said you made them up either, I stated you posted them to counter an argument that I DID NOT EVEN MAKE!
Are you drunk?
You're absolutely right, I haven't! And thank goodness. I don't think I could handle the stress.
That's obvious. You do seem a bit high-strung and shrieky.
I do, however, have a four-year degree in this exact field. So while I'm not an expert, I am well-qualified to recognize that your arguments are terrible.
Except you haven't been countering my arguments. You have been countering some argument made by some person somewhere that wasn't me. While I believe you have a 4 year degree, I don't understand how you got the degree when you can't even comprehend what I did and did not say.
Oh, actually, that's not true.Anyway, that's totally irrelevant, since I'm not debunking your ridiculous position with my own expertise (hint: I'm debunking it with three separate studies by experts in their field). I gave you the evidence and a chance to counter it with your own. You didn't (and, honestly, I don't think anyone thought you would), so that's done. You can, of course, still provide your own evidence.
Really.
Go for it.
You haven't debunked my position, because the position you are debunking is not mine. You still don't grasp that. Lol
Scott... btw my name is Scott, too..
I can honestly say that everything you said about murder-suicides is correct. :) Firearms are more often used than anything else.
I can say you are correct, because I never stated otherwise.
Last I checked I never said the majority of murder-suicides did not involve firearms. That you screw up your first quote that bad invalidates your entire post. Great job, bucko!
Did you read what I posted? (Of course you did, you just ignored the part that actually mattered) The point of that paragraph wasn't that the majority of murder-suicides involved firearms. The point was that firearm availability is a strong predictor of murder-suicides, indicating that those who commit murder-suicides would not be as likely to commit them if they did not have access to a gun, which is something you claimed was not true.
But, y'know, hey, that's cool! No big deal, right!
Dude, you can't even get the first quote right and you think you are more knowledgable?
I don't think I'm more knowledgeable. At this point, I'm certain of it.
Well sure you are knowledgable when you put words into my mouth, because I had no knowledge of those words to begin with.
On that count, you're right. At this point I'm pretty sure I'm using some words that you truly have no knowledge of.
All that evidence you found was towards things "I NEVER SAID".
You said that blaming guns is a form of scapegoating because murder-suicides can be committed in any number of ways. I explained that that's ridiculous because all of the evidence demonstrates that when guns are removed from the equation, incidence of murder-suicide decreases dramatically.
Now, I'll pause here, because I've literally explained the above three times in the last page. This will be the fourth time. That's three more times than I should have had to. (And, if I were the sort to expect you to have researched your own closely-held positions before forming them, it would be four more times than I should have had to) I just want you to keep that in mind.
Also, scare-quotes? Really? Don't be one of those people who just throws them around like confetti without having any idea how they're used. The way in which you used them implies that you actually think you said the things I said you said.
Now, like I told that one guy that tried to be a smartass earlier, if you are going to attempt it... make sure you are on the ball.
I'm fine, and I'm pretty sure part of you knows it. Your criticism really doesn't mean a whole lot to me, I'm afraid. I don't respect your position (because it's wrong and groundless), but more importantly, I don't respect you because you have demonstrated a pretty basic lack of intellectual honesty. You didn't have to do that, and you've had a lot of chances to avoid cementing that, but you've chosen poorly.
So next time you wish to draw me back into the debate with your superior argu... hehehe.. can't even finish....
This time, do what you said you would do, and retire from this argument. It's not a good place for you to be.
Anyway, have a great New Years.
You too.
I never said you made them up either, I stated you posted them to counter an argument that I DID NOT EVEN MAKE!
Are you drunk?
My girlfriend and I are enjoying some hot sake at the moment while we unwind tonight. But no, sorry.
That's obvious. You do seem a bit high-strung and shrieky.
No, I just get weirded out around blood.
Except you haven't been countering my arguments.
Sure I have - the most important one, in fact: your claim that those who commit murder-suicides would simply choose another method if firearms were not available.
You have been countering some argument made by some person somewhere that wasn't me.
No, it's yours. I've quoted it for you a couple times now, just in case you try to tell me you didn't make it.
While I believe you have a 4 year degree, I don't understand how you got the degree when you can't even comprehend what I did and did not say.
I know exactly what you said. And you know that I know.
You haven't debunked my position, because the position you are debunking is not mine. You still don't grasp that. Lol
Lol
Scott... btw my name is Scott, too..
I can honestly say that everything you said about murder-suicides is correct. :) Firearms are more often used than anything else.
Do you think that's all that I said? That I spent paragraphs on that one little factoid? I'm honestly curious. Actually, I'm not curious. I'm just daring you to tell me that that's all I said. I want to see you say it.
Did you read what I posted? (Of course you did, you just ignored the part that actually mattered) The point of that paragraph wasn't that the majority of murder-suicides involved firearms. The point was that firearm availability is a strong predictor of murder-suicides, indicating that those who commit murder-suicides would not be as likely to commit them if they did not have access to a gun, which is something you claimed was not true.
But, y'know, hey, that's cool! No big deal, right!
I never said that if they didn't have access to a gun, that they would be just as likely to do it. I simply stated there are other ways to do it. Those that I listed, have actually happened.
/facepalm
I don't think I'm more knowledgeable. At this point, I'm certain of it.
But what are you more knowledgable about? You are still trying to debunk things I never said. This is getting silly.
On that count, you're right. At this point I'm pretty sure I'm using some words that you truly have no knowledge of.
Right, because I have never been to college. Nope, never. Never been to USF, UCF, PSC and I am not currently enrolled at the University of Montana-Missoula.
You can't understand that you aren't debunking me, but you think you are more knowledgable. Priceless.
You said that blaming guns is a form of scapegoating because murder-suicides can be committed in any number of ways. I explained that that's ridiculous because all of the evidence demonstrates that when guns are removed from the equation, incidence of murder-suicide decreases dramatically.
Yes, it is scapegoating because murder-suicides CAN happen other ways. I never stated the other ways were as likely. But I have been at the scenes of some of them. So what am I supposed to do, claim they never happen?
Now, I'll pause here, because I've literally explained the above three times in the last page. This will be the fourth time. That's three more times than I should have had to. (And, if I were the sort to expect you to have researched your own closely-held positions before forming them, it would be four more times than I should have had to) I just want you to keep that in mind.Also, scare-quotes? Really? Don't be one of those people who just throws them around like confetti without having any idea how...
And I have now explained even more that you are basically arguing with your imaginary friend, because you certainly aren't arguing with what I said.
As for the quotes. I am using an iPad. It's not the most forum friendly piece of equipment.
I never said that if they didn't have access to a gun, that they would be just as likely to do it. I simply stated there are other ways to do it.
And then you stated that, because of that, blaming the guns is a form of scapegoating. I demonstrated that it isn't scapegoating because guns actually do influence incidence of murder-suicide. It's not scapegoating. I don't know why I need to repeat myself continually. It's not scapegoating, firearm availability actually makes murder-suicide more likely. You get that, right? All I care about is that you get that.
Yes, it is scapegoating because murder-suicides CAN happen other ways. I never stated the other ways were as likely. But I have been at the scenes of some of them. So what am I supposed to do, claim they never happen?
Do you even know what scapegoating means?
I mean, what the hell?
You understand that if firearm availability is demonstrated to increase likelihood of murder-suicide, firearm availability can be reasonably said to bear some responsibility for murder-suicide incidence, right? And that if firearm availability bears some responsibility for murder-suicide incidence, it isn't scapegoating to point that out, right?
What is going on here?
My girlfriend and I are enjoying some hot sake at the moment while we unwind tonight. But no, sorry.
Awesome, have fun.
No, I just get weirded out around blood.
I get weirded out around mayo. It happens.
Sure I have - the most important one, in fact: your claim that those who commit murder-suicides could simply choose another method if firearms were not available.
Fixed. Changed the 'w' to a 'c'.
No, it's yours. I've quoted it for you a couple times now, just in case you try to tell me you didn't make it.
So... my argument is something I never said.
I know exactly what you said. And you know that I know.
The question is whether or not you comprehend what I said, because it certainly seems like you don't.
How am I supposed to take a position that I didn't say, nor believe, to debate your position?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get weirded out around mayo. It happens.
Me, too! Look, common ground! We're both Scotts and we hate mayo!
I need to get started on Uncharted 3 (which, frankly, takes precedence over internet arguments), so I'm out for the night, but I really encourage you to go back through the last page and piece together what's being said. If you're being intellectually honest, you need to acknowledge that firearm availability bears some responsibility for incidence of murder-suicide, and that the evidence demonstrates that tighter firearms regulation is likely to decrease murder-suicide rates.
Acknowledge that, and we're cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/facepalm
Scott... you are much much drunker than you think. I am sick of trying to point out to you that I didn't say what you claim I said.
How about I end it with. You win. Whatever you say. Whatever argument you want me to have, I'll take it just so you can prove me wrong.
As I said. Enjoy your time with your girlfriend. Enjoy the Sake. I have mead, myself... just opened it now.
Can the kids use the bear spray? Sure... if they are trained in it's use. It is not a pick up and spray item. Plus, you'd be using bear spray in an enclosed space. The body count would possibly go up.Maybe you should go get some bear spray and read the package before you advocate it's use in a school classroom. Lol
Curiously, Google turns up nothing about Bear Spray being so highly dangerous, just a lot of info on it being used quite frequentlyon human beings.
In fact, the only quote I managed to find was
"While there are no substantiated cases of anyone dying directly from pepper spray, if other health problems are present (asthma, heart irregularities, etc.) the affected person should consult a doctor or health care professional to ensure no ancillary problems are incurred".
Source - http://www.redhotpepperspray.com/effects-of-pepper-spray.html
So I don't think your position is too solid on that one, and even if if every single kid in the room was bearsprayed in the face at point blank range you'd still have had less dead than 32.
In fact, all the links I could find seem to suggest that Bear Spray works wonders on stopping home invaders, random dudes you don't like and even girls in nightclubs staking claims on hit guys (hi Canada!)
Doesn't seem real hard to use either, and as you already stated, you dont have to be real precise once that sucker is triggered.
Bear Spray >>>> Guns in a classroom, I put it to you to now substantiate your comments.
/facepalm
Scott... you are much much drunker than you think.
I've had like two of those little cups of sake, so...no. Trust me, if I were drunk, everyone would know.
thejeff would be all like, "Scott, go home, you're drunk." He's my Jiminy Cricket.
I get weirded out around mayo. It happens.Me, too! Look, common ground! We're both Scotts and we hate mayo!
I need to get started on Uncharted 3 (which, frankly, takes precedence over internet arguments), so I'm out for the night, but I really encourage you to go back through the last page and piece together what's being said. If you're being intellectually honest, you need to acknowledge that firearm availability bears some responsibility for incidence of murder-suicide, and that the evidence demonstrates that tighter firearms regulation is likely to decrease murder-suicide rates.
Acknowledge that, and we're cool.
Then let us both stop with the snide comments and just agree that some additional gun laws won't hurt anything.
Then let us both stop with the snide comments and just agree that some additional gun laws won't hurt anything.I get weirded out around mayo. It happens.Me, too! Look, common ground! We're both Scotts and we hate mayo!
I need to get started on Uncharted 3 (which, frankly, takes precedence over internet arguments), so I'm out for the night, but I really encourage you to go back through the last page and piece together what's being said. If you're being intellectually honest, you need to acknowledge that firearm availability bears some responsibility for incidence of murder-suicide, and that the evidence demonstrates that tighter firearms regulation is likely to decrease murder-suicide rates.
Acknowledge that, and we're cool.
Agreed. Enjoy your mead, and forget that I said anything about not respecting you.
Curiously, Google turns up nothing about Bear Spray being so highly dangerous, just a lot of info on it being used quite frequentlyon human beings.
In fact, the only quote I managed to find was
"While there are no substantiated cases of anyone dying directly from pepper spray, if other health problems are present (asthma, heart irregularities, etc.) the affected person should consult a doctor or health care professional to ensure no ancillary problems are incurred".
Source - http://www.redhotpepperspray.com/effects-of-pepper-spray.html
So I don't think your position is too solid on that one, and even if if every single kid in the room was bearsprayed in the face at point blank range you'd still have had less dead than 32.
I've been sprayed with it by a drunken friend. I survived. I have asthma.
But it can kill those that are weaker than me. Just as cologne and perfume can. I got chewed out once for going to work with axe body spray.
Is it likely to kill the kids? No.
Do you want to take that chance when a maniac with a gun is also in the room? Your eyes and the kids eyes burning from the pepper floating in the air. You not even being able to see the intruder any longer...
A man got mauled by a black bear here this summer. He survived because he used bear spray. But he got mauled. And he got messed up by the spray, too.
In fact, all the links I could find seem to suggest that Bear Spray works wonders on stopping home invaders, random dudes you don't like and even girls in nightclubs staking claims on hit guys (hi Canada!)
Well yes, but chances are in a home invader scenerio, you aren't in a room full of 20+ children. I'd use it to stop a home invader if I didn't have my shotgun.
But at 45 bucks a pop, I'd rather save it for bears and use my shotgun shells.
Doesn't seem real hard to use either, and as you already stated, you dont have to be real precise once that sucker is triggered.Bear Spray >>>> Guns in a classroom, I put it to you to now substantiate your comments.
And just watch the kid press the button, it doesn't come out... he looks at it... and it comes out.
Agreed. Enjoy your mead, and forget that I said anything about not respecting you.Then let us both stop with the snide comments and just agree that some additional gun laws won't hurt anything.I get weirded out around mayo. It happens.Me, too! Look, common ground! We're both Scotts and we hate mayo!
I need to get started on Uncharted 3 (which, frankly, takes precedence over internet arguments), so I'm out for the night, but I really encourage you to go back through the last page and piece together what's being said. If you're being intellectually honest, you need to acknowledge that firearm availability bears some responsibility for incidence of murder-suicide, and that the evidence demonstrates that tighter firearms regulation is likely to decrease murder-suicide rates.
Acknowledge that, and we're cool.
Cheers! I admit when I get my dander up I can be an ass.
You are actually making a pretty solid case for the Bear spray to be honest, and I am glad to see you have moved off claiming it is so deadly and dangerous. A minute ago you were suggesting the body count would go up and Bear Spray kills people.
I'd also point out that at $45 a pop retail, it is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than issuing a sidearm per teacher.
Seems like you make a solid case for the Spray there Mead, thanks for the info.
I think I'll wrap up with the last part here:
"Is it likely to kill the kids? No."
And thats the bottom line.
You are actually making a pretty solid case for the Bear spray to be honest, and I am glad to see you have moved off claiming it is so deadly and dangerous. A minute ago you were suggesting the body count would go up and Bear Spray kills people.
I'd also point out that at $45 a pop retail, it is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than issuing a sidearm per teacher.
Seems like you make a solid case for the Spray there Mead, thanks for the info.
I think I'll wrap up with the last part here:
"Is it likely to kill the kids? No."
And thats the bottom line.
I'll admit I was stretching the danger factor a bit. But only because I'd prefer that scenerio never be tested.
Would guns in the classroom be better? I dunno. I guess we'll find out soon in Utah or Arizona.
Generally firearms aren't issued except to police and military. I signed on with an armed security company when I moved here summer '11. While I didn't stay because I got very very sick... I only got hired because I had my own gun.
More than likely the armed teachers in Utah and Arizona will supply their own guns. And armed teachers will all be volunteers. I doubt they will make it mandatory.
45 bucks is expensive when it can only be used once, instead of having a mag full of bullets. Plus you still missed the part of you not being able to see the bad guy when your eyes are being effected. His would be, too. But he'd still have a gun and could also start firing wildly... and even more pissed off.
I just don't think it is the best option. I admit though, I don't have a better one.