Active Users:318 Time:04/04/2025 12:24:06 AM
Care to prove that negative? The burden to do so is on you as the person who made the assertion. Joel Send a noteboard - 26/12/2012 06:47:07 PM
Anyway, it is not "more guns makes us safer," because police are already armed; it is just a matter of saying school shootings justify putting some there.

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

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

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

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

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
the NRA shows it is an asylum overrun by lunatics - 22/12/2012 04:40:26 PM 1273 Views
I do not see why calling for armed cops at schools is an unreasonable response. - 22/12/2012 04:53:06 PM 794 Views
I can think of two reasons off the top of my head - 22/12/2012 05:38:19 PM 822 Views
OK... - 22/12/2012 06:58:42 PM 795 Views
If someone is shooting at you having a gun to shoot back seems like a good idea - 26/12/2012 06:10:07 PM 636 Views
The effectiveness issue aside - 22/12/2012 06:13:30 PM 684 Views
Re: The effectiveness issue aside - 22/12/2012 06:59:36 PM 778 Views
If you think it would solve the debate then probably - 22/12/2012 07:09:42 PM 739 Views
Nothing will ever truly end the debate, but we can greatly reduce or end its justification. - 22/12/2012 08:03:39 PM 698 Views
If it's shown to work - 23/12/2012 12:25:38 AM 782 Views
columbine had two armed guards on the day of the shooting. they were both immediately fired upon... - 23/12/2012 12:49:30 AM 669 Views
I have never seen any mention of them among the injured or dead (or at all.) - 23/12/2012 01:09:38 AM 817 Views
A fuller account of Gardner - 23/12/2012 10:27:24 AM 883 Views
Nice link. - 23/12/2012 02:27:30 PM 667 Views
Re: Nice link. - 23/12/2012 03:15:24 PM 648 Views
at last count, over 99,000 schools in the US - 23/12/2012 12:45:30 AM 730 Views
What is public safety worth to you? - 23/12/2012 12:54:04 AM 651 Views
it's not entirely a matter of cost, although that factors into it. - 23/12/2012 01:01:50 AM 586 Views
There are many cases where armed cops ended mass shootings. - 23/12/2012 01:28:25 AM 584 Views
there are none where an armed guard placed there *before* the shooting had any effect - 23/12/2012 01:36:42 AM 728 Views
Kind of a Catch-22; if they PREVENT shootings, shootings can only occur in their absence. - 23/12/2012 01:52:03 AM 777 Views
ok, here is my last word on the subject - 23/12/2012 02:06:49 AM 718 Views
9 people injured vs. 20 people dead. - 23/12/2012 02:34:00 AM 630 Views
it is still "more guns makes us safer" which has yet to prevent a single massacre in this country - 23/12/2012 02:41:56 PM 753 Views
Peter Odighizuwa comes to mind, that's also horrible logic - 23/12/2012 08:27:46 PM 641 Views
[citation needed] - 25/12/2012 04:54:14 PM 632 Views
Fair enough - 25/12/2012 09:06:43 PM 1008 Views
Care to prove that negative? The burden to do so is on you as the person who made the assertion. - 26/12/2012 06:47:07 PM 622 Views
It doesn't have to be a full time gaurd standing looking dangerous. - 26/12/2012 06:12:14 PM 739 Views
People die from all sort of causes - 22/12/2012 07:27:53 PM 714 Views
Cars require training, certification and licensing, too; why should guns not? - 22/12/2012 08:25:43 PM 845 Views
Do bombs require certification? - 22/12/2012 09:21:25 PM 934 Views
i say this with all due respect -- eat a bag of dicks - 23/12/2012 01:04:08 AM 731 Views
That was pretty damn respectful under the circumstances. - 23/12/2012 01:10:04 AM 682 Views
The lack of intellect displayed here is to be expected - 23/12/2012 04:01:32 AM 704 Views
so according to you we should just make life illegal since everyone is going to die from something.. - 23/12/2012 07:25:05 AM 621 Views
Obviously you didn't put pay attention - 23/12/2012 01:40:17 PM 663 Views
no, you said "fuck it because people die anyway". there is a big difference - 23/12/2012 02:46:46 PM 633 Views
As usual, you are wrong on so many fronts... - 27/12/2012 10:39:04 PM 950 Views
Dicks and stones - 23/12/2012 03:54:25 AM 837 Views
FYI - I gave moondog a 30-day time-out via the ignore function. - 23/12/2012 05:48:13 AM 575 Views
FYI -- you didn't post to this board for 30+ days - 23/12/2012 07:21:44 AM 576 Views
I'm not sure it's about guns. - 23/12/2012 06:08:50 PM 658 Views

Reply to Message