- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Welcome to the land of inconsequence!But I doubt if the damn gun lovers know how to read and write.
Welcome to the land of inconsequence!But I doubt if the damn gun lovers know how to read and write.
Yes, but the point isn't where they happen, but where they do not.And that none of those are places people are likely to be packing either. At least not when compared to military bases and police stations.
Depends on whether they knew about it or not. Do you notice how extremely specific and unlikely your scenarios are getting?
1. DARE days are scheduled ahead of time - the students are made aware of them before hand.
2. DARE days are quite common.
3. Answer the question.
Yes, but the point isn't where they happen, but where they do not.
They both do and to not happen at places where people have ready access to guns, but they do NOT happpen where they DO have that access.
Yes, but the point isn't where they happen, but where they do not.
They both do and to not happen at places where people have ready access to guns, but they do NOT happpen where they DO have that access.
But I doubt if the damn gun lovers know how to read and write.
Why are insanse people SO much less likely to be found where there are people with guns than where there are not?Mass shootings have nothing to do wtih the second amendment for either side of the argument. It has to do with insane people killing people and where they are more likely to be found.
Possibly true, but this only means that the number of shotings would be less, in proportion to the number of people.And yet the places where they do have access have lower concentrations of people, either always or over time, than the places without.
Why are insanse people SO much less likely to be found where there are people with guns than where there are not?
What highly secure areas?Umm, because people in general are less likely to be found in highly secured areas. Just a guess though....
What highly secure areas?
Gun shows? The national matches? NG bases?
Possibly true, but this only means that the number of shotings would be less, in proportion to the number of people.
Show that the number of people is proportional to the number of shootings.
I see you changed your argument from 'highly secured areas' to 'not enough people'.Police stations, national guard bases and gun shows don't happen with enough frequency to even be considered.
Always there? yes. The rest? No.A school is always there, always populated, and always left with unfettered access.
You keep saying that. Repeating it doesnt make it true.The issue of mass shootings isn't a 2nd amendment issue. It's a crazy people killing people issue so its likely to happen where A) crazy people have unfettered access and B) where there are a lot of other people coming and going all the time.
Like... what?That is taking what I am saying way beyond what I am saying. To put it another way, there are more factors at work than availability of guns.
Like... what?
And how do those factors not also apply to places where there are guns?
I see you changed your argument from 'highly secured areas' to 'not enough people'.
But, whatever. Show this to be true.
Always there? yes. The rest? No.
You keep saying that. Repeating it doesnt make it true.
Statistically speaking, schools are at the safest levels they've been in two decades, and are proportionally much safer than anywhere else the average kid will be during a 24 hour period.
My assessment was based on how you presented it. Now that you've added more description to the study, you'll notice that it's quite different from where you started. At first you made it seem like the study was about law abiding citizens themselves, but now it's the area where these law abiding citizens are found.
I'm just going off on what you are presenting here.
Yeah but we can't let pesky facts get in the way of a good guns, Gawd, and glorrray rant, now can we?
Yeah but we can't let pesky facts get in the way of a good guns, Gawd, and glorrray rant, now can we?
Usually the problem with gun nuts is not facts, it's that they overvalue guns. Guns are a right, that does not mean you should sleep with it. This thread goes beyond that, and shows a gun nut with trouble with facts too.
Usually the problem with gun nuts is not facts, it's that they overvalue guns. Guns are a right, that does not mean you should sleep with it. This thread goes beyond that, and shows a gun nut with trouble with facts too.
I thought your position was, that it was none of your business who or what I sleep with? :mrgreen: