The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

<script type='text/javascript' src='http://CBSDAL.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/WNVideo.js?rnd=604295;hostDomain=video.dallas.cbslocal.com;playerWidth=615;playerHeight=395;isShowIcon=true;clipId=8079560;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=Education;advertisingZone=;enableAds=true;landingPage=;islandingPageoverride=false;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDscript_EMBEDDEDscript;controlsType=fixed'></script><a href="http://video.dallas.cbslocal.com" title=""></a>

 

I used to live next door to that guy and his family back before his star had waned (late 90's). Not really your stereotypical gun nut, but also really a nutty professor type with a bit of tumultuous domestic life (thin walls).

It's pretty safe to say that he's a bit of an outlier these days. Maybe he's right and everybody else and all the other evidence is wrong. And maybe climate change is fake too. But not really.

 

Really? You are thinking that exchanging gunfire in a crowded dark movie theatre with a loud movie playing and tear gas is going to be the safest thing? Not even Roxran thought that was a good idea.

 

This was addressed by myself and others before.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7450407&postcount=51

 

I have to admit I am open to the idea of arming teachers. I think in the case of a remote rural school district it could make a difference but at the same time I would like to see it very heavily regulated with intensive training of the school staff and safeguards regarding access to the weapons.

Anyway as I've said before these psychos aren't necessarily picking their targets because they think people aren't armed. As noted there was an armed security deputy at Columbine that exchanged fire with one of the shooters. Base personnel exchanged fire with Nidal Hasan at Ft. Hood and there was a CHL carrier at the Giffords' shooting.

 

You would be fiddling with the symptoms, trying to fight fire with fire.

Curing the disease would mean fighting mental illness and taking weapons out of private citizens' hands.

Plus...Franchise Blade with a gun in the classroom? Uuuuuuh...

 

I'm surprised you would say this. Crazy.

 

There are 6 million teachers in the US and under 1 million cops. We've all heard about cops involed in wrongful death shooings. My guess is that it just takes just one "mentally ill" teacher having a bad day, teaching an undisciplined classed, who's legally packing... to change your mind.

 

Arming every teacher is ridiculous and nobody would even suggest that. It would be completely voluntarily and strict restrictions would be required. If a teacher feels competent enough to draw in a dangerous situation, then im all for it. The reality is that the vast majority of teachers will not want to do this.

Just keep in mind that the body counts will only get worse as we go on. I would say that nearly every shooter has been an amateur. Further, most have been planning in advance. Its only a matter of time before one pulls off a 100+ body count.

 

If the vast majority of teachers won't do it, then what use is that? By sheer odds, it's only effective against random shooters if enough teachers were packing... then you have the problem I stated. I don't know what the answer is, but arming teachers is not absolutely not it.

 

Why not realize that any comparable country that doesn't have guns in the world has way less gun crime than the USA?

Why are pro gunners so stupid?

 

This country is insane.

 

why is that insane? over-protective maybe.....

 

Gun ownership tends to coincide with being aggressive by nature, reactionary, and also paranoid.

These 3 qualities do not tend to travel along with intelligence.

 

lol so true

 

Is this an accurate representation of the behavior of people with concealed carry permits?

 

There's this neat thing called hyperbole. You should check it out one of these days.

 

That's not entirely true. I'm pragmatic, prudent and am generally not afraid on much things in this world. Why I own guns is that I genuinely enjoy shooting at the range. It's a stress reliever and far better to my health than the other options; cigarettes or booze. I consider myself pretty responsible when it comes to gun ownership. All my guns are kept in a safe.

I'm one of those who thinks there are alternatives to banning guns out all right. I live in California and I think we have a reasonable balance here. No clips over 10 rounds for any gun and rifles require an auto lock for magazines. The zealous mechanical safety requirements on handguns are a bit little too much though.

 

Which is why I said "tends to" and "does not tend to" instead of "always/never".

 

I'm in an email debate with this lawyer chick I went to high school with. Please help me name this fallacy:

Me: We need stricter gun control laws.
Her: The only people who will abide by gun control laws are law abiding citizens, and not criminals. No, I'd rather come to a gun fight with a GUN, instead spouting off about a law saying you can't use those.
Me: What kind of logic is that? Then why have have laws at all?

I see the obvious flawed logic. But, I'd like to slap this 'lawyer' with her use of a fallacy. Something she should no plenty about.