• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA Newtown response [W:818]

Re: NRA Newtown response

Good for gun sales, not so much for reducing the number of homicides with guns. Gun fanatic logic - if you have a problem with rats, get bigger and faster rats.

Wrong all-together. If you have a problem with rats, go get cats.



But I will remember that apparently you think of our combat veterans as big, fast, rats. An interesting insight into the left-wing mindset. Well done being a positive spokesman for your beliefs :thumbs:
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

As I have noted before, there was a Resource officer at Columbine High School who exchanged fire with the shooters and it did no good.

On the contrary, that officer (a sherrifs' deputy) got into a gunfight that delayed the shooters for some time, allowing many students to escape, and then he organized the evacuation before SWAT came on-scene, allowing many more to escape. Students survived that day because Columbine had an armed first-responder on-scene.

You seem to have the interesting notion that because he didn't Rambo-Style kill two shooters who were using home-made explosives with his pistol that he was ineffective. Apparently you do not consider saving childrens' lives to be a metric of success? Only dead bodies count as your metric?

He was not able to stop them. A Resource Officer typically carries a small side arm, whereas school shooters typically use assault weapons. Resource Officers are usually outgunned.

You will get no argument from me that armed first responders in a school should have biometric access to semi-automatic carbines, and that there should desireably be two so that they can operate as a buddy-team; or split up to have one handle the shooter while the other covers an evacuation of students.

Furthermore, a drawn out gun battle in the halls of a school is likely to cause additional deaths due to crossfire.

Actually it will cause fewer deaths because the shooter will be aiming at a trained responder rather than masses of children. It's not as if the shooter was going to be meditating in the middle of the hallway absent an armed responder - he's going to be firing into as many people as are available as rapidly as he can.

That is why police typically respond to these kinds of situations with a SWAT team that uses precision to bring down the suspects quickly and efficiently.

...except that woops SWAT takes a while to show up and don't typically have intimate knowledge of the schools the way that shooters often do. If you want to argue that we should camp a SWAT team at each school....


....Wait a minute. SWAT isn't taking these guys out with hugs. I thought you people were against armed first responders? Which is it? Should we have armed responders taking these guys out? Or not? Is your argument really just that we should instead give active shooters a "head start" of however long it takes SWAT (assuming that there even is one) there and organized?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Wrong all-together. If you have a problem with rats, go get cats.

But I will remember that apparently you think of our combat veterans as big, fast, rats. An interesting insight into the left-wing mindset. Well done being a positive spokesman for your beliefs :thumbs:

I have no beef with veterans, my son just completed 20 years in the Air Force. I was talking about guns. As US statistics show when compared with other rich countries, more guns do not lower gun deaths.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

It only takes one owner of a dog to be crazy for me to pin dog owners as likely to go crazy....


We can play this ignorant ass game all ****ing day.


So now both deuce and CriticalThought are on the list of people who don't trust combat veterans to be sane based on a few CNN specials..... who else?

When it comes to allowing someone to be a Resource Officer, I don't trust anyone who hasn't gone through a formal mental health exam, background check, and full training of how to be a Resource Officer. Just assuming that combat veterans or retired police officers are qualified to be Resource Officers is ridiculous. If you are going to be given free license to walk around a school with a gun then there needs to be some serious scrutiny about your capacity to do so and you should be required to posses the specialized knowledge needed to perform that job.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

On the contrary, that officer (a sherrifs' deputy) got into a gunfight that delayed the shooters for some time, allowing many students to escape, and then he organized the evacuation before SWAT came on-scene, allowing many more to escape. Students survived that day because Columbine had an armed first-responder on-scene.

That is not how I remember it. Could your provide some reference to support this assertion?

Actually it will cause fewer deaths because the shooter will be aiming at a trained responder rather than masses of children. It's not as if the shooter was going to be meditating in the middle of the hallway absent an armed responder - he's going to be firing into as many people as are available as rapidly as he can.

What is going to happen is they are going to give some untrained combat veteran a sidearm and he is going to shoot off like crazy when a mass shooter shows up and end up hitting children in classrooms through the walls as if he were off on some battlefield without having to care about civilians in the proximity.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

When it comes to allowing someone to be a Resource Officer, I don't trust anyone who hasn't gone through a formal mental health exam, background check, and full training of how to be a Resource Officer. Just assuming that combat veterans or retired police officers are qualified to be Resource Officers is ridiculous. If you are going to be given free license to walk around a school with a gun then there needs to be some serious scrutiny about your capacity to do so and you should be required to posses the specialized knowledge needed to perform that job.

This is the problem with people like you.......

You are too busy trying to show how awesome your ability to "Critically Think" is that you fail to realize that maybe.... just maybe...... the mention that retired police officers or combat veterans being interested in the job ISN'T THE FULL EXTENT OF THE IDEA BEHIND HIRING THEM INTO SUCH A ****ING POSITION!!!!!!!!!

I don't think anyone here has claimed that no furthur evaluation or training would be needed........

Jesus ****ing Christ you people take **** way too god damned literally around here.

Use your brain.

Personally I think this is just a cop out because you got called out on calling all combat vets crazy.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

That is not how I remember it. Could your provide some reference to support this assertion?



What is going to happen is they are going to give some untrained combat veteran a sidearm and he is going to shoot off like crazy when a mass shooter shows up and end up hitting children in classrooms through the walls as if he were off on some battlefield without having to care about civilians in the proximity.

Hmm...

Schools must have changed Mr. Take Everything So Goddamn Literally....

Because every time I have ever been in a school.... all the walls were SOLID FREAKING BRICK/CONCRETE/BLOCK...
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

That is not how I remember it. Could your provide some reference to support this assertion?

Glad to do so

.. [The Deputy] traded fire (that is, he drew fire) with Harris for an extended period of time, during which Harris’s gun jammed. The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before the SWAT teams and the rest of the cavalry arrived, and before Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the library. Harris and Klebold had an assault plan — a sloppy plan, but a plan nonetheless. They had dozens of IEDs, some of which detonated, others of which did not. And there were two of them. In this highly chaotic tactical environment, the deputy acted both bravely and prudently, and who knows how many lives he saved by engaging Harris...​


What is going to happen is they are going to give some untrained combat veteran a sidearm and he is going to shoot off like crazy when a mass shooter shows up and end up hitting children in classrooms through the walls as if he were off on some battlefield without having to care about civilians in the proximity.

:lol: what? Firstly, we are pre-screening for training when we select combat veterans - these are people who have trained and deployed and carried weapons against the enemy, not 38 year old beer-gutters who think that they are rambo because they wear Army/Navy Surplus Store cammies to the gun show. Secondly, it's as easy as requiring an annual active-shooter-response recertification. No one has advocated putting un trained personell behind guns in schools - on the contrary, we are saying expand upon the current program that one-third of all schools in the United States ALREADY have of putting trained armed personnel inside the school.

However, I notice that you are still unable to answer the point - which is that any trained first responder who draws the shooters' fire is by definition drawing that shooter away from his mission to maximize the civilian body-count and thus results in fewer casualties rather than more.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

When it comes to allowing someone to be a Resource Officer, I don't trust anyone who hasn't gone through a formal mental health exam, background check, and full training of how to be a Resource Officer.

Agreed full-heartedly, and I would add annual required training and re-certification to that list.

Just assuming that combat veterans or retired police officers are qualified to be Resource Officers is ridiculous.

No, they are simply a pool that has already established a level of training and ability to operate under stress that is significantly superior to the general populace. They've also (again, we are weeding out the problem children) demonstrated an ability to integrate with small teams in a security situation, and take the initiative in the defense others. They are also a pool whose skills (kill bad guys, protect good guys) leave them currently suffering from high unemployment, which means that this is an excellent chance for us to let one problem solve another.

If you are going to be given free license to walk around a school with a gun then there needs to be some serious scrutiny about your capacity to do so and you should be required to posses the specialized knowledge needed to perform that job.

No one has argued otherwise. Oh, except for this one guy who claimed that veterans were just big, ugly, fast, rats, and another who seemed to suggest that they were a bunch of psychotic nutcases who were going to go crazy and start slaughtering children. Some on the left, it seems, never matured beyond the vietnam-era chants of 'baby-killer'.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

I have no beef with veterans, my son just completed 20 years in the Air Force. I was talking about guns. As US statistics show when compared with other rich countries, more guns do not lower gun deaths.

Yes, as the same statistics show, however, lower guns also do not lower violence. America's higher rates of violence are just as strong compared to other industrialized nations when you control for guns as when you don't.

But we aren't trying to effect a society-wide-can't-we-all-hug-each-other solution here - such a solution would likely have nothing to do with guns, anyway, and much more to do with how we raise our children. We are simply trying to foment an effective response to very specific forms of violence that tend to take place in so-called "gun-free" zones.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Yes, as the same statistics show, however, lower guns also do not lower violence. America's higher rates of violence are just as strong compared to other industrialized nations when you control for guns as when you don't.

The country is more concerned now with the needless slaughter of innocent people than they are with people only being injured.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

thankyou! i know you didnt say that but thats what im hearing all on the news, its blaming the guns and blaming the video games
but nobody is blaming the shooter and its not that I need a 100 round clip although my dad is a hunter and does use guns though im
not sure what he has because he locks his guns and is responsible. what i dont think the government should take away the rights that
we have been given. we dont need less rights now jmho

So blame the shooter. The shooter would have never got a hold of the guns had his mother been a proper gun owner and kept them safe. She knew that her son had issues ! So there is no need fo ra 100 clip, your father is hunter. So what your saying is I dont need a 100 clip, my father hunts and does need an assult rifle. Thats preety much par for the course from what I have been hearing. No rights have been taken away from you at all.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

The country is more concerned now with the needless slaughter of innocent people than they are with people only being injured.

every time someone destroys one of your emotobabbles you resort to speaking "for the country" for the masses, and appealing to the group think of the unlearned and the ignorant.

its silly and worthless in debate and is a sign you have lost
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

So blame the shooter. The shooter would have never got a hold of the guns had his mother been a proper gun owner and kept them safe. She knew that her son had issues ! So there is no need fo ra 100 clip, your father is hunter. So what your saying is I dont need a 100 clip, my father hunts and does need an assult rifle. Thats preety much par for the course from what I have been hearing. No rights have been taken away from you at all.

lets speculate since that is what you are doing. Nutjob son intends to kill mom and wipe out a school. Mom has the guns locked in a 4000 dollar safe that would take a professional safe cracker 3 hours to crack-and since that safe is alarmed, the cops would be there long before Willie Sutton breaches the lock. So nutjob son creeps on mom and puts a kitchen knife to her throat and tells her to open the safe or he cuts her throat.


same result-and I suspect you'd be still whining about her owning guns.

why do you people always bring up hunting-that has no more relevance than golf clubs. YOu are IN NO POSITION to tell others what they need for self defense. 100 round MAGAZINES tend to jam and the rifle in question was not designed (magazine release catch for example) to accept the Beta Mag. but it was designed to function with its STANDARD CAPACITY magazine which is was 30 rounds and that is what most police departments issue to their CIVILIAN employees for SELF DEFENSE against CRIMINALS in a CIVILIAN URBAN environment. Which means such rifles with 30 round magazines are just as useful for people such as me
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Turtle,

Since this did not happen and is nothing more than a start to a great fiction novel on your part. Lets state the facts. One her sonTwe had a full time special needs counciler in high school. Two his own brother has been qouted a number of time that his brother had mental disabilities. So for a gun owner to even have weapons in the house with some one that has a history of mental problems is not a responcible gun owner.

You have got to be kidding golf clubs to hunting lol. Let me know next time when someone goes hunting or on a killing spree with a 7 iron. I have every much right as you do to tel others about self defence. Thats why! there are no need for 100 round magizines let alone 30, one could make the case for as little as 8. The ar-15 was never design as a hunting rifle niether was a glock. Your delusions on this subject are quite disturbing at best and are nonsence. So you need a 30 round mag for exactly what? Hunting, this self defence you keep going back to? Exactly what is the point. Police are the only ones that need these weapons and the military period. The idea that you need a 30 round clip silly.

The point of the discussion about the NRA responce. The responce was made by an idioit that runs an organization who's sole excistance is to scare people into buying more guns period end of file. They did not start out that way, plus I think we are all going to see a change in the NRA really soon. More level headed members are going to start stepping forward and taking control back from the wingnuts in charge now. The speech that man gave was silly and a waste of time, had he any logical points he would have allowed questions. However, we all got a good look at the irrational behavior of the NRA leadership. thewhole point to the speech was blame everything else. Which has typically been the responce by conservatives for the last six years.

why do you people always bring up hunting-that has no more relevance than golf clubs. YOu are IN NO POSITION to tell others what they need for self defense. 100 round MAGAZINES tend to jam and the rifle in question was not designed (magazine release catch for example) to accept the Beta Mag. but it was designed to function with its STANDARD CAPACITY magazine which is was 30 rounds and that is what most police departments issue to their CIVILIAN employees for SELF DEFENSE against CRIMINALS in a CIVILIAN URBAN environment. Which means such rifles with 30 round magazines are just as useful for people such as me[/QUOTE]
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

ar15a3tacticalcarbinepi.jpg

800pxmini14gb.jpg


Which one of these weapons should be banned as an assault rifle?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Which one of these weapons should be banned as an assault rifle?

HEY! That is my schtick!!!!!!
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Why would it work? there is no evidence to even suggest it would, and we have numerous examples of this - the UK comes first to mind.

Killers are killers, if a gun isn't round they will use anything as a weapon in a rage. I saw a lunatic at a bar one time go ballistic and throw a dart at a guy (he was fine) but if he was closer he probably would have killed him wit a dart (or maybe something else in reach that wasn't a gun).

No evidence? Now, you can say that you are too lazy to find the evidence. You can say that you read all the evidence but do not find it compelling. You can say you read the evidence but find faults as follows (inserting, of course, your relevant cites). You can say that you have read the evidence but just want to continue to believe what you believe. You can not, however, say with a straight face and intellectual integrity, that no such evidence exists, because it does.

Gun control: The gun control that works: no guns | The Economist
Is Gun Control Likely To Reduce Violent Killings?
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Clearly we read the same articles, just at different times. :)

I didn't even read an article......

I only thought about it because I was looking in to buying a Mini 14 for quite a while.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

I didn't even read an article......

I only thought about it because I was looking in to buying a Mini 14 for quite a while.

Cool. Both rifles above have the exact same specifications from mag size, rate of fire, velocity, and caliber.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Cool. Both rifles above have the exact same specifications from mag size, rate of fire, velocity, and caliber.

The Mini-14 Mags are made of a heavier but stronger material (at least the ones from Ruger), but the barrel isn't as thick, which causes the Mini-14 to lose accuracy after several repeat shots of fire. But we are talking an inch or so at over a hundred yards...... not significant enough to make a difference in some freak's mass shooting episode.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

ar15a3tacticalcarbinepi.jpg

800pxmini14gb.jpg


Which one of these weapons should be banned as an assault rifle?

Which ever gun uses the incredibly fast and incredibly destructive .223 ammo. That ammo allong with all guns that use it need to be banned.
 
Last edited:
Re: NRA Newtown response

IMO, we have a "recipe" for the mass shootings that occur in this country (unlike Canada) that makes sense. The movies, the video games, the drugging of our children, untreated mental illness, the absence of fathers in our homes, our 50% divorce rate, children being raised by TV sets and computers being some. If I thought harder, I could come up with more.

I agree with the formula above PLUS (or the more, as you put it) to include the availability of guns designed to kill multiple humans..... The problem is complex; as is the solution. Those that think it is only the guns are as clueless as those that think the guns are blameless.

If we ban guns in this country, only the bad guys will have guns. I'm not comfortable with that. I wonder why no one goes berserk at gun shows. I'm just sayin'...;)

nice cliche. These little slogans always sound so cute, but they trivialize the issue (which they are designed to do) and thus are the domain of the shallow. The fact is that no one is suggesting banning guns... most are suggesting making guns harder to obtain or maybe banning certain types of firearms (or extended clips), the banning of which will not compromise 2nd Amendment rights.

The headline might read like this: "Man goes berserk at gu. Never mind."

Remember the Columbine kids obtained their guns through a Denver gun show. If that loophole had been closed, their feat would have been a bit more difficult (not impossible by any means) to pull off.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Which ever gun uses the incredibly fast and incredibly destructive .223 ammo. That ammo allong with all guns that use it need to be banned.

Your kidding right?
 
Back
Top Bottom