• 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!

School shooting this morning . . .

TurtleDude said:
1) several lies

a) the cop most likely decreased the number of casualties

b) one incident does not prove an armed officer is worthless any more than a patient who dies of a disease even though a protocol that saves 95% of the patients proves the therapy worthless

c) anything that makes a target a harder challenge normally will save lives
Click to expand...

The only lies are from you are suggesting you know, when you don't.

Columbine is a big school. One cop did not make much of a difference.... I agree that an example of one is not a prima facie argument.

http://www.businessinsider.com/there-were-police-officers-at-columbine-2012-12

Just as absurd as one example not being the whole argument, the notion of "anything that makes the target a harder challenge...." is also weak, as with all solutions, there has to be a cost benefit. A school district spending $1M to make something nominally harder is not cost effective and therefore not likely a solution....

You should just admit that 50-75 student deaths per year is an acceptable level of collateral damage for your unfettered gun rights....
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
The only lies are from you are suggesting you know, when you don't.

Columbine is a big school. One cop did not make much of a difference.... I agree that an example of one is not a prima facie argument.

Just as absurd as one example not being the whole argument, the notion of "anything that makes the target a harder challenge...." is also weak, as with all solutions, there has to be a cost benefit. A school district spending $1M to make something nominally harder is not cost effective and therefore not likely a solution....

You should just admit that 50-75 student deaths per you is an acceptable collateral damage for your gun rights....
Click to expand...

so you attended the national symposium on active shooter strategies that featured experts in the field and a complete analysis of why the current response to active shooters was changed due to Columbine?

you see at Columbine the traditional response was used-wait until the authorities had gathered sufficient forces to charge into the killing zone. Of course by then the scumbags had killed a bunch of people

as a result, the training is for the first armed responder to challenge the AS who is then more likely than not to fold up and either kill himself or be killed by the first responder

the 9-11 scenario also changed hijack scenarios. Before passengers were told not to resist and let HRTs or negotiators handle things That sort of thinking is why the WTC was destroyed and why the scumbags who took over the plane that was crashed into the countryside failed to kill even more people.

si I suspect I know far more about this subject than you do and people like you love hearing about school shootings because you can use the deaths of kids to whine about those evil NRA members you love to blame when the blame is more appropriate for the anti gun ninnies who create gun free zones
 
The 12 year old shooter's name was Jose Reyes. The Sparks police still refuse to state the name, but the Sparks City Attorney accidentally said the name when acknowledging to a local newspaper that Univision had already released the name. The police do state that the parents are cooperating with the "investigation." Who knows what that means. The names and/or nationalities of the two wounded 12 year olds have not been released. No motive released.

Very frustrating seeming veil of secrecy.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a moronic claim. the dead school children appear to be an acceptable cost for you lefties to impose gun free zones on us
Click to expand...

Actually, what is moronic is your inability to articulate what you feel.... I believer it is true that this is an acceptable collateral damage to maintain your unfettered gun rights. If not, then would you accept some type restriction IF you had reason to believe that it would reduce these kind of events.

Let's put this to the test and operate with the hypothetical. Put aside for one minute whether or not this is realistic..... and consider that proposition that there is a restriction or regulation on gun ownership that would lead to a significant reduction of school/public shootings. If so, would you endorse this? If you can answer "yes" then I back off; if you can not answer "yes" to this, which I bet you can not, then my original assertion that these are acceptable collateral damages to you stands.

So, I ask you, "if you knew, with reasonable certainty, that a particular gun restriction or regulation would lead to a reduction of public shootings, would you be in favor or said regulation/restriction?"
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Actually, what is moronic is your inability to articulate what you feel.... It is true that this is an acceptable collateral damage to maintain you unfettered gun rights. If not, then would you accept some restriction IF you reason to believe that it would reduce these kind of events.

Let's put aside for one minute whether or not this is realistic..... and concentrate on the hypothetical....... if, there was a restriction or regulation on gun ownership that would lead to a significant reduction of school/public shootings, would you endorse this? If you can answer "yes" then I back off; if you can not answer yes to this, then my original assertion that these are acceptable collateral damages to you stands.

So, I ask you, "if you knew, with reasonable certainty, that a particular gun restriction or regulation would lead to a reduction of public shootings, would you be in favor or said regulation/restriction?"
Click to expand...

The war on drugs and Chicago's gun bans have proven that the moronic desire by the left to harass the rights of honest people to keep and bear arms are just that-moronic desires to harass people the lefties don't agree with. Claiming that banning guns or all the incremental steps the left wants on its way to a ban will stop people who commit capital murder is just plain stupid

as I noted there are only two distinct types of gun banners

1) those who are too stupid to understand that their dream laws won't stop crime and

2) those too dishonest to admit that crime control is not what really motivates their desires to restrict honest people owning guns
 
upsideguy said:
You should just admit that 50-75 student deaths per year is an acceptable level of collateral damage for your unfettered gun rights....
Click to expand...

Why do you find it acceptable to act on all the peoples rights when one individual is the assailant in a school shooting? How can you possibly explain the reasoning behind your position? How is it a reasonable argument to make that one mans actions should affect the rights of all parties in a country? How does the government protect the rights of people by actively violating them?
 
Henrin said:
Why do you find it acceptable to act on all the peoples rights when one individual is the assailant in a school shooting? How can you possibly explain the reasoning behind your position? How is it a reasonable argument to make that one mans actions should affect the rights of all parties in a country? How does the government protect the rights of people by actively violating them?
Click to expand...

we could ask him why he isn't asking anyone who drives more than 20 MPH how many lives are an acceptable trade off so they can drive say 45 MPH

or asking the ACLU how many lives are an acceptable tradeoff so that prisoners can get reasonable bail or competent appointed counsel or that the feds cannot wiretap people without a warrant?

the fact is-anti gunners are mainly anti conservative christian white male (the perceived stereotypical gun owner) and they whine about rights that this group apparently cherishes while not whining about other rights that clearly are implicated in far more deaths
 
Henrin said:
Why do you find it acceptable to act on all the peoples rights when one individual is the assailant in a school shooting? How can you possibly explain the reasoning behind your position? How is it a reasonable argument to make that one mans actions should affect the rights of all parties in a country? How does the government protect the rights of people by actively violating them?
Click to expand...

I am not making any other assertion than it has become a matter of public opinion (and therefore public policy) that 50-75 school deaths per year are an acceptable level of collateral casualties in the quest to protect on unfettered gun rights.... I just want people to admit it, because that is what public policy is saying.

OK, maybe 75 is a bit high, perhaps is more like 25-50....... maybe if it got over 50, people would feel differently.
 
upsideguy said:
I am not making any other assertion than it has become a matter of public opinion (and therefore public policy) that 50-75 school deaths per year are an acceptable level of collateral casualties in the quest to protect on unfettered gun rights.... I just want people to admit it, because that is what public policy is saying.

OK, maybe 75 is a bit high, perhaps is more like 25-50....... maybe if it got over 50, people would feel differently.
Click to expand...

what a silly dichotomy

why don't you tell us what sort of laws would guarantee no more school shootings
 
upsideguy said:
I am not making any other assertion than it has become a matter of public opinion (and therefore public policy) that 50-75 school deaths per year are an acceptable level of collateral casualties in the quest to protect on unfettered gun rights.... I just want people to admit it, because that is what public policy is saying.

OK, maybe 75 is a bit high, perhaps is more like 25-50....... maybe if it got over 50, people would feel differently.
Click to expand...

You appear to not understand why your argument is contradictory and illogical at it's very foundation. There is many security measures that have been proposed and/or enacted into law that rest upon this foundation and all of them suffer from illogical thought. As you can not protect the people rights by declaring that in order to keep them safe we must restrain their actions, we must compel them into action, we must spy on them, and we must violate their person. Nothing that I can imagine is more illogical and contradictory than the very foundation of your position.
 
Henrin said:
Sorry, but when you brought up UK licensing laws and restrictions on firearms you destroyed your own argument.
Click to expand...

If you are going to say stupid stuff, please don't bother quoting me so I don't get emails telling me I was quoted. English have the right to bear arms. Period. USA has the right to bear arms. Period. Not all countries allow folks to have full auto non-registered weapons like Al Qaeda seems to have in Syria.
 
TurtleDude said:
what a silly dichotomy

why don't you tell us what sort of laws would guarantee no more school shootings
Click to expand...

Laws do not stop shootings. Return fire stops shootings. If you want to keep carnage to a minimum, then you have to return fire with a better trained person using a longer range weapon. Guardsmen with M4 Carbines might be a solid start for putting down untrained psychos with sidearms. Laws are for imprisoning people after the fact. They don't stop jack sh*t, as anyone who reads a newspaper these days can attest to.
 
upsideguy said:
So, I ask you, "if you knew, with reasonable certainty, that a particular gun restriction or regulation would lead to a reduction of public shootings, would you be in favor or said regulation/restriction?"
Click to expand...

I would think anyone that is half sane would be in favor of that. Anyone that thinks children being slaughtered is a reasonable price to pay for having the Second Amendment needs their heads examined. But most shootings probably involve illegal weapons or weapons that were not properly contained.
 
Snappo said:
If you are going to say stupid stuff, please don't bother quoting me so I don't get emails telling me I was quoted. English have the right to bear arms. Period. USA has the right to bear arms. Period. Not all countries allow folks to have full auto non-registered weapons like Al Qaeda seems to have in Syria.
Click to expand...

Yes, and yet those countries allow their military to have such weaponry. I find it very strange to trust the government with weapons you do not trust the people with.
 
TurtleDude said:
between us I am the one who actually understands using guns defensively. You on the other hand have admitted you have no clue about guns because you don't "need" one.

so when you argue how many rounds someone needs for self defense it is akin to a faith healer telling a licensed Medical Doctor what sort of pharmaceuticals he needs to treat an infection. You just are speculating because you don't understand the issue

and since you don't exercise your second amendment rights, you really have no clue how certain democrat party laws infringe on something you don't use

so you can make up stuff or speculate but you cannot talk from personal knowledge.
Click to expand...

Only in your mind.
 
SO...finally...now we know. As suspected...NOT a white kid...NOT from a middle to upper home...well..certainly nothing to make hay abou. Guess you have to let this one die...

Oh...and isnt it interesting that while the story in Sparks began with "GUN kills two at school shooting in Sparks Nevada", in Massachusetts, the story is "14 year old stabs his teacher"

Apparently knives, unlike firearms, lack the ability to independently commit murder.

Friend: Nevada Shooter Typical Kid, Not Loner - ABC News
 
Boo Radley said:
Only in your mind.
Click to expand...

What's that supposed to mean? He's right. He is experienced with firearms, and you are not, so when you talk about guns the source must be considered as amateur.

You can't know how many rounds it would take to somebody who is intent on attacking you. I've read plenty of stories of people who were high on drugs and shot 6 times or more before they go down. What if there is more than one home invader? What if there were 8 of them, and you only have 7 rounds? Then what smartie pants?
 
Boo Radley said:
Only in your mind.
Click to expand...

another wonderful response there.

tell us why anyone should value your opinions that 7 rounds is enough when

1) you admit you don't "need" a gun

2) every major league law enforcement agency, private security company and the military has switched from 6 shot revolvers or 7 shot pistols to 15-17 shot pistols for self defensive weapons
 
ChrisL said:
What's that supposed to mean? He's right. He is experienced with firearms, and you are not, so when you talk about guns the source must be considered as amateur.

You can't know how many rounds it would take to somebody who is intent on attacking you. I've read plenty of stories of people who were high on drugs and shot 6 times or more before they go down. What if there is more than one home invader? What if there were 8 of them, and you only have 7 rounds? Then what smartie pants?
Click to expand...

Democrat turds like andrew Cuomo-in reaction to a convicted killer killing firemen with 30 shot rifles-decided to limit honest citizens to 7 rounds and apparently Boo believes Cuomo was all wise and knowing
 
ChrisL said:
What's that supposed to mean? He's right. He is experienced with firearms, and you are not, so when you talk about guns the source must be considered as amateur.

You can't know how many rounds it would take to somebody who is intent on attacking you. I've read plenty of stories of people who were high on drugs and shot 6 times or more before they go down. What if there is more than one home invader? What if there were 8 of them, and you only have 7 rounds? Then what smartie pants?
Click to expand...

Which is not the point and has never been the point (BTW, so am I. Expert shot in the military and have done enough hunting to be experienced).

And yes, As I have worked on the streets with law enforcement, I do know something about it. The trouble on the internet is that our experiences are not clear to everyone. And frankly, if you've put seven bullets in someone, even someone on PCP, that person's threat level is greatly diminished even if still standing. In the real world, we are just not having the type of situations that require being extensively armed. And even if there was more than one home invader, the second you shoot one the others disperse. You can predict human behavior rather accurately. They don't just keep coming once shooting starts.

I'm not sure where you guys live, but in Atlanta GA, and Jacksonville Fla, I never needed to be armed at all, let alone to the teeth. Are you in a war zone?
 
TurtleDude said:
another wonderful response there.

tell us why anyone should value your opinions that 7 rounds is enough when

1) you admit you don't "need" a gun

2) every major league law enforcement agency, private security company and the military has switched from 6 shot revolvers or 7 shot pistols to 15-17 shot pistols for self defensive weapons
Click to expand...

Well, if you gave some content, I'd response like wise. But mostly you just insult and rant.

I don't need a gun. Don't know anyone who does. And having a gun is not a sign of intelligence. You prove that. ;) And we are not law enforcement, security, or any thing where dangerous situations are our job. Remember, I provided links on this earlier.
 
Boo Radley said:
Which is not the point and has never been the point (BTW, so am I. Expert shot in the military and have done enough hunting to be experienced).

And yes, As I have worked on the streets with law enforcement, I do know something about it. The trouble on the internet is that our experiences are not clear to everyone. And frankly, if you've put seven bullets in someone, even someone on PCP, that person's threat level is greatly diminished even if still standing. In the real world, we are just not having the type of situations that require being extensively armed. And even if there was more than one home invader, the second you shoot one the others disperse. You can predict human behavior rather accurately. They don't just keep coming once shooting starts.

I'm not sure where you guys live, but in Atlanta GA, and Jacksonville Fla, I never needed to be armed at all, let alone to the teeth. Are you in a war zone?
Click to expand...

what destroys your silly OPINION that 7 rounds is enough is that no one who is expert in this field agrees with you when it comes to their own employees and there is no credible studies that indicates people without disqualifying characteristics (to own weapons) are more likely to cause increased levels of mayhem with police sized magazines.

so your opinion has no validity on magazine capacity and runs contrary to everyone who understands this issue

all you have supporting the nonsense you have spewed is that of some leftwing Democrat pimps like Cuomo
 
TurtleDude said:
what destroys your silly OPINION that 7 rounds is enough is that no one who is expert in this field agrees with you when it comes to their own employees and there is no credible studies that indicates people without disqualifying characteristics (to own weapons) are more likely to cause increased levels of mayhem with police sized magazines.

so your opinion has no validity on magazine capacity and runs contrary to everyone who understands this issue

all you have supporting the nonsense you have spewed is that of some leftwing Democrat pimps like Cuomo
Click to expand...

yes, an apple is different than an orange. Repeating that is not a rebuttal.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, if you gave some content, I'd response like wise. But mostly you just insult and rant.

I don't need a gun. Don't know anyone who does. And having a gun is not a sign of intelligence. You prove that. ;) And we are not law enforcement, security, or any thing where dangerous situations are our job. Remember, I provided links on this earlier.
Click to expand...

you don't need most things you own

I needed a gun when I was mugged

and civilians who are not law enforcement make up most of the victims of violent crime
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom