Seems somebody at the Miami Herald wants you dead
...And his name is Leonard Pitts, Jr.
Leonard Pitts
He seems to think it would not be a good idea, in the case of schools coming under attack by crazy murderers as in Columbine or the Amish schoolhouse, to do anything at all to give the school a chance to defend itself until the heavy artillery of SWAT can come up.
It is a sorrowful thing to contemplate arming teachers and staff against assailants and multiple murderers, true. But how much sadder is it to be in a schoolroom -- supposed to be a place of safety, of personal growth -- and obliged to submit to murder to suit the whims of an editorial writer -- who isn't in the same room with you, getting murdered?
Shouldn't we have more options, aimed at actually saving innocent lives, than this?
How often do people come to school armed, wave a gun around, and not end up shooting people?
Or: How often does someone confront unarmed innocents with a gun and it end peacefully?
How do the peaceful ends compare with the violent ones, in terms of frequency?
How many of those would still end peacefully, if it became a standoff or a hostile confrontation?
There should be options, yes; but is escalation the only one?
School shootings are predominately a phenomenon of contemporary America -- they existed previously, and they exist elsewhere, but we have more. Shouldn't we address the root causes (what makes people want to shoot up our schools), rather than the symptoms (them, armed, in a school)?
When an armed crazy shows up, there is no time to consider "escalation." He's done all the escalation there can be, as it's now life and death. There is only time to consider his neutralization. He does not have to survive the neutralization process, period. Dead perp = instant deescalation. Surrendered perp, likewise. And that is what we want.
Address the root causes? There is but one: mental illness. You can't pass a law against insanity; our entire legal theory militates against that.
What's the solution? Arm all teachers? More guns? Only in the US and A...
Armed guards in some of the schools couldn't stop the school killers, they were first to die.
Like Skunks said; root the cause, not the symptoms. More guns will only increase the problems.
This thread title is highly suggestive, Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Moore and Al Gore could learn from UG...
I highly doubt he knows me, let alone has enough against me to want me dead.
I dont buy it. He's stupid, but that doesnt mean he wants me dead. Youre stupid and you dont want me dead, right?
I'm just going down the list of my elementary school teachers imagining each of them packin' heat and bustin' a cap in some perp's ass.
:)
:biggrin:
:lol:
:biglaugha
:lol2:
Yeah, UG, that's a bright idea. Let's trade intermittant school shootings for (IMHO) what will turn out to be much more common teachers shooting students, parents, or other teachers. Instead of "go to the office" it'll be "bang, you're dead". :shotgun:
I was at my field experience elementary school this morning (yes I'm going to school to be a special ed. teacher) thinking about this very issue.. I saw Frank on the news a couple weeks ago. I don't get why we don't have more passive defenses against armed in truders. Not just one entrance thats away from all the classrooms, but having reinforced doors on all the classrooms that swing out into the hall (so you can't kick them in), and replace the glass in the doors' windows with bulletproof glass. So in the event of an armed intruder, the teachers can gather as many kids as they can into their classrooms, and lock the doors creating an instant saferoom for those 30+ kids. If all the chickens are safe inside a cage, the fox can't kill any.
I know its not a solution that will solve all the possible school shooting scenarios, but I think it is a simple way to greatly protect our students against an armed intruder. Having guns in the school will only create an amatuer hour shootout with bullets flying everywhere.
M16's, grenades and tactical nukes in every American classroom! No half measures! After all, its for the children.
I havent seen you around a whole lot lately, where ya been Elspode?
M16's, grenades and tactical nukes in every American classroom! No half measures! After all, its for the children.
Next on CBS...The Afterschool (38) Special
I'm just going down the list of my elementary school teachers imagining each of them packin' heat and bustin' a cap in some perp's ass.
:)
:biggrin:
:lol:
:biglaugha
:lol2:
It IS pretty funny when you imagine your former teachers pulling out a colt and shooting some perp right between the eyes. In third grade, I had an elderly teacher nearing retirement. I don't think her hands would have had the strength to pull the trigger. She would probably have revoked the guy's library privileges - her favorite punishment for us kids.
In 9th grade I had a Latin teacher who was rather plump and nearing 60. I can't imagine her whipping out a Colt, either. The intruder would probably have been given an extra ten pages of Cicero to translate.
Armed teachers are just NOT the answer.
Bullit's idea make more sense.
Going from what I've seen firsthand at my old high school, giving teachers guns is just about the worst thing you can do in this case. People've pulled guns at football games and stuff there before, and more than once some 'gangstaz' have tried to jump the school cop for his gun. They end up hurt and in jail, but a cop's a cop and a teacher's a teacher.
At the school, there was always one and at most two guns at the school, both in possesion of cops, and not little cops either, we're talking serious toughs here. But if the teachers had guns, that's be a scores of guns. And the more guns there are, the more chances for a thug or asshole to get his hands on one. And sooner or later, one will.
Why sneak a gun in when the teachers already have 'em for ya?
I havent seen you around a whole lot lately, where ya been Elspode?
Silliest damn thing. I found out I had a life. Whoda thunk it? :D
Just been busy at work and at home. I should be working right now, but I'm horribly unmotivated. Also, it is 82 degrees in my office, but only 45 degrees outside, and I find that wearying.
When an armed crazy shows up, there is no time to consider "escalation." He's done all the escalation there can be, as it's now life and death. There is only time to consider his neutralization. He does not have to survive the neutralization process, period. Dead perp = instant deescalation. Surrendered perp, likewise. And that is what we want.
Address the root causes? There is but one: mental illness. You can't pass a law against insanity; our entire legal theory militates against that.
Hey, look at what UG's saying. When an ARMED CRAZY shows up, trouble. Fine. I buy that.
And his second point: Mental illness as the root cause. I buy that too.
Now, let's check his math. Since he's right that we can't legislatively prohibit crazyness, making a law against being crazy will not help here. I buy that too. I mean, let's face it. We're all capable of being crazy, acting crazy, driven crazy, agreed? So how can we prevent this combustible combination from endangering our children in school? We all carry within us latent crazy, but we are not all armed.
You might go crazy at any minute of the day, but you have to CHOOSE to bring a gun to school. Yes, people, the only controllable factor is the choice to arm yourself at school. You don't want trouble from armed crazies? Don't arm them. Don't do anything to diminish the distance between the arming and and the crazy. Like having many guns in the school. I bet UG really, really does believe this is a good idea. That's why I can't talk to him. There is NO middle ground. No common language. No shared understanding of how the world works to permit communication. Our universes are disjoint. They're not even parallel, since they don't point in the same direction; they're skew. He would say I'm skewed, I say he's skewed, the point is open to discussion. But by arming the teachers, it is our kids who will be skrewed.
My schools are Weapons-Free Zones. It will stay that way.
Shouldn't we address the root causes (what makes people want to shoot up our schools), rather than the symptoms (them, armed, in a school)?
You must be kidding. Nothing will even be considered along those lines until somebody finally walks into CONGRESS and starts blazing away. There should be no shortage of volunteers for this honor. THEN we will see more "investigations" and legislation then we've had in the last 50 years :rolleyes:
Tonchi-
Yes, but I suspect more than a couple would include suggestions to permit senators and representatives to carry concealed weapons. ;)
UG-
When an armed crazy shows up, there is no time to consider "escalation." He's done all the escalation there can be, as it's now life and death.[/I]
I have had no training in the handling of firearms, or in how to behave around people who are armed, or in how to know when to use a firearm that you do have. But here is my thought: If someone in the room with you is armed and crazy, and you pull out your gun, that provides an immediate threat against them. It changes the armed crazy into an armed, threatened crazy. Which I rate as an individual with a higher chance of acting violently. They have an imminent need to act; that is, to shoot you. Escalation.
Address the root causes? There is but one: mental illness. You can't pass a law against insanity; our entire legal theory militates against that.
"Mental illness" is not, by any definition, singular. It is a broad concept.
And no, you cannot legislate against 'it'. But you can mitigate it, prevent it, treat it, study it, understand it.
My schools are Weapons-Free Zones. It will stay that way.
I support that.
You must be kidding. Nothing will even be considered along those lines until somebody finally walks into CONGRESS and starts blazing away. There should be no shortage of volunteers for this honor. THEN we will see more "investigations" and legislation then we've had in the last 50 years :rolleyes:
Sign me up!
(That was a Joke to anyone from Homeland Security who is reading this :worried: )
Originally Posted by BigV
My schools are Weapons-Free Zones. It will stay that way.
You can try but that's exactly the reason these wackos are drawn to schools...... gun free, safe environment to act out their fantasies.
Arm Willie the Janitor so he doesn't have to rely on his bagpipes. ;)
You can try but that's exactly the reason these wackos are drawn to schools...... gun free, safe environment to act out their fantasies.
Arm Willie the Janitor so he doesn't have to rely on his bagpipes. ;)
With this logic, EVERYBODY should have a gun?
I remember Saddam gave thousands AK47's away in Iraq just before the invasion. See the carnage that's happening now.
With this logic, EVERYBODY should have a gun?
I remember Saddam gave thousands AK47's away in Iraq just before the invasion. See the carnage that's happening now.
Obviouly the guns caused it, since there were no problems in Iraq before then.
Not "EVERYBODY" should have a gun...criminals should be excluded. And people who aren't willing or able to handle their weapons responsibly. Beyond that it should be a matter of personal choice.
... Nothing will even be considered along those lines until somebody finally walks into CONGRESS and starts blazing away. ...
Russell Eugene Weston Jr tried on July 24, 1998
Obviouly the guns caused it, since there were no problems in Iraq before then.
Not "EVERYBODY" should have a gun...criminals should be excluded. And people who aren't willing or able to handle their weapons responsibly. Beyond that it should be a matter of personal choice.
What do you think it caused? Smoking waterpipes? 300-600.000 people died in Iraq the last 3 years, of which 70% due to internal violence. This is much more than during Saddam times.
The US has the highest gun related deaths. Do you really think distributing more guns will lower that figure?
As I mentioned before Canada has about the same gun possession, yet much lower gun related death. Something to think about.
As I mentioned before Canada has about the same gun possession...
Oh, come on. After spending billions of dollars on a failed gun registry they have "about the same gun posession"? Spare me.
The current violence in Iraq has zero to do with Saddam passing out AKs to the civilans and everything to do with decades of Baathist tyrrany and oppression. It's mostly Sunnis trying to get back the dominance they had and Shiites trying to make sure that doesn't happen. And both of them feel religiously justified because the "other guys" are kufar.
If you think it wouldn't be happening if Saddam hadn't passed out small arms you're deluding yourself. Weapons don't cause violence any more than matches cause arson; that's an animistic superstition. People with violent intent commit violence.
My schools are Weapons-Free Zones. It will stay that way.
You can try but that's exactly the reason these wackos are drawn to schools...... gun free, safe environment to act out their fantasies.
With this logic, EVERYBODY should have a gun?
I remember Saddam gave thousands AK47's away in Iraq just before the invasion. See the carnage that's happening now.
If you disagree with my opinion....schools, being gun free zones, are a safe place to raise hell.....tell me why these wackos rarely chose police stations or military bases for their terrorizing?
Please note I did
not say give everyone a gun or that schools should not be gun free zones.......except for arming Willie the janitor. ;)
# For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
# For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
# For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
People with violent intent commit violence.
I ask you again: do you think distributing more guns will decrease gun related deaths?
The current violence in Iraq has zero to do with Saddam passing out AKs to the civilans and everything to do with decades of Baathist tyrrany and oppression. It's mostly Sunnis trying to get back the dominance they had and Shiites trying to make sure that doesn't happen. And both of them feel religiously justified because the "other guys" are kufar.
So, what do YOU think happened with the thousands AK47 that Saddam passed out? They use it only on New Years Eve? Read this:
The NGO, Doctors for Iraq, reports that it has seen a massive increase in the number of patients with bullet wounds in Baghdad. It says the victims are usually men between 18 and 45 years old, and that most are killed or injured by automatic weapons fired at close range.
Nowhere is the chaos and carnage caused by the misuse of military assault rifles more clearly demonstrated than in the current situation in Iraq. Violent deaths are increasing dramatically in Baghdad.
Weapons don't cause violence any more than matches cause arson
Yeah, there are plenty of these platitudes. I guess you use the infamous Ted Kennedy quote the next post, or how about this one: "Guns only have two enemies: rust and totalitarians", or "Know guns...know peace, know safety", you're free to use them.
If you disagree with my opinion....schools, being gun free zones, are a safe place to raise hell.....tell me why these wackos rarely chose police stations or military bases for their terrorizing?
Please note I did not say give everyone a gun or that schools should not be gun free zones.......except for arming Willie the janitor. ;)
Post offices are not gun free zones, are they? ;)
If someone in the room with you is armed and crazy, and you pull out your gun, that provides an immediate threat against them. It changes the armed crazy into an armed, threatened crazy. Which I rate as an individual with a higher chance of acting violently. They have an imminent need to act; that is, to shoot you. Escalation.
The theory is that if you're pulling out your gun, you are also half a second away from pulling the trigger on the armed crazy. The armed crazy might take hostages or just wave the gun around, but the law-abiding gun owner doesn't pull it out unless it's time to shoot
right now.Post offices are not gun free zones, are they? ;)
Yes, they are. At least that's the theory, according to one postal regulation. There's another that appears to create a conflict in the case of "for a lawful purpose", which is the case with most school victim disarmament zone laws too.
Kinda funny...when my dad was postal worker in the 1930's-1940's, he was issued a revolver sidearm. That was before he became a clergyman...
I highly doubt he knows me, let alone has enough against me to want me dead.
Which as you point out is pretty stupid -- he's not thinking things through.
He's stupid, but that doesnt mean he wants me dead. Youre stupid and you dont want me dead, right?
Not quite right: I'm smart and don't want you dead. For a small instance, I spell
don't better than you do, consistently. My writing is thus that much clearer than yours -- you've got this little problem -- a solecism, yes -- with contractions. You ought to know better, so see to it, and no bellyachin'.
A child might think he ought to call
me stupid when
he can't write so hot -- but kid: I crossed puberty, mmm... 37 years ago.
And let's not forget the Puerto Rican separatists who shot up Congress during the Truman Administration.
(Having a normal memory rules! (But antigunners call a normal memory "paranoia" -- I've heard it done.))
Yeah, UG, that's a bright idea. Let's trade intermittant school shootings for (IMHO) what will turn out to be much more common teachers shooting students, parents, or other teachers. Instead of "go to the office" it'll be "bang, you're dead". :shotgun:
Oh, riiiiight, Spexx: go and find for me the overwhelming slaughters that occurred every week and twice on Sundays during the decades before "gun control" laws started making things safer for bandits and murderous madmen!
I'm waaaaiiiitinnnnng......
...tap tap tap...
...you're a rager against self defense, you know...
... tap tap tap...
Couldn't find any proof of that fantasy, could you now?
Antigunners tend to have fantasies of this kind, and have them a
lot.* Gunners don't. Seems antigunners have murder crawling around in their hearts -- however passivated. They're shifting the killing in these fantasies onto some "other."
Everyone's got an opinion -- but please, is an informed opinion (one Spexx manifestly does not have) too much to ask?
*
Raging Against Self Defense lays out an explanation of the underlying motivations of the anti-self-defense claque. Fearfulness and a frantic rage, revenge fantasies and a desire to kill that the fantasizer cannot accept as coming from himself come into the explanation a lot. The antigunners suppress only with difficulty this boiling urge to kill. Gun people, by contrast, don't have these nightmares.
Yeah, sure, V.
And submitting to murder is a good idea. That is at bottom what you're telling me.
If that's true in your universe, you should trade it in on a better model.
So wait, because I'm too lazy to put in an apostrophe in words that as far as I'm concerned dont need it, it A.) invalidates my entire post and B.) proves that youre smart?
What?
Smart enough to have a decent respect for the forms of my mother tongue AND a more informed opinion about what words need it, yes. The loudly antigrammarian -- well, it's the empty pot that sounds the loudest, isn't it?
And its laziness in/less-than rigorous idea formation that would invalidate an entire post.
Maturity in part consists of knowing when something is a lost cause, and whether that's the hill you want to die on. There's also this continuing effort to shift the issue from the topic to the issue being me. Invalid.
I raised a very valid and very TRUE point, that you ignored. I'll post it again.
Going from what I've seen firsthand at my old high school, giving teachers guns is just about the worst thing you can do in this case. People've pulled guns at football games and stuff there before, and more than once some 'gangstaz' have tried to jump the school cop for his gun. They end up hurt and in jail, but a cop's a cop and a teacher's a teacher.
At the school, there was always one and at most two guns at the school, both in possesion of cops, and not little cops either, we're talking serious toughs here. But if the teachers had guns, that's be a scores of guns. And the more guns there are, the more chances for a thug or asshole to get his hands on one. And sooner or later, one will.
Why sneak a gun in when the teachers already have 'em for ya?
Smart enough to have a decent respect for the forms of my mother tongue AND a more informed opinion about what words need it, yes. The loudly antigrammarian -- well, it's the empty pot that sounds the loudest, isn't it?
And its laziness in/less-than rigorous idea formation that would invalidate an entire post.
Maturity in part consists of knowing when something is a lost cause, and whether that's the hill you want to die on. There's also this continuing effort to shift the issue from the topic to the issue being me. Invalid.
Anywayz, spelling nazis are usually trolls and hardly ever mature...
Is MaggieL trying to avoid my question: "I ask you again: do you think distributing more guns will decrease gun related deaths?"
I ask you again: do you think distributing more guns will decrease gun related deaths?
I think more armed citizens reduces violent crime of all kinds.
I refuse to conflate being armed with being violent, because I know they're not the same thing...no matter how much those already disarmed by their state (or looking to have the state disarm others) try to muddy that water.
I also don't accept the proposition that all "gun-related deaths" (whatever that vagueness actually means) are
ipso facto bad things. If all "gun related deaths" were bad, then all police should be immediately disarmed. Total nonsense.
If some violent criminals are killed as a result of more responsible citizens being armed, I call that a win. I suspect it would result in fewer shooting deaths overall, because a criminal violent enough to cause one innocent death will probably be responsible for more than one if left at large.
I think more armed citizens reduces violent crime of all kinds.
Therefore every spectator in an NFL stadium must be required to carry a concealed weapon as you do. Anyone who does not have a gun will be provided one. Then no crimes would occur. Therefore no deaths would occur. Therefore no players on the field need fear for their life. That is what MaggieL and Urbane Guerrilla both claim. Who believes this and who has real serious doubts?
I think more armed citizens reduces violent crime of all kinds.
In your logic the US and A should be the country with the least gun related deaths in the world. Please explain why it isn't the fact.
If some violent criminals are killed as a result of more responsible citizens being armed, I call that a win.
Most regions in the world did advanced socially after the Wild West and French Revolution. Obviously you're born in a wrong era.
I suspect it would result in fewer shooting
Your expectation proves wrong, time and again...
Yeah, sure, V.
And submitting to murder is a good idea. That is at bottom what you're telling me.
If that's true in your universe, you should trade it in on a better model.
There's a lot going on in my universe. What's
NOT going on in it is this: Unarmed teachers in schools is submitting to murder.:crazy:
Do you read your own posts? Can you hear what you're saying? Do you
seriously contend that failing to arm teachers is submitting to murder? That
can not be true. I am not impressed, much less intimidated by your hysterics. You're ridiculous. You're a clown. You say something dumb and then try to frighten, insult and harass people to try to defend it. Your tools are bombast, paranoia, obfuscation and oversimplification. You'd be better off if you'd just admit your mistake and we'll all move on. Until that happens, I'll remain annoyed and amused by your buffoonery.
There's a lot going on in my universe. What's NOT going on in it is this: Unarmed teachers in schools is submitting to murder.:crazy:
Do you read your own posts? Can you hear what you're saying? Do you seriously contend that failing to arm teachers is submitting to murder? That can not be true. I am not impressed, much less intimidated by your hysterics. You're ridiculous. You're a clown. You say something dumb and then try to frighten, insult and harass people to try to defend it. Your tools are bombast, paranoia, obfuscation and oversimplification. You'd be better off if you'd just admit your mistake and we'll all move on. Until that happens, I'll remain annoyed and amused by your buffoonery.
:notworthy
Oh, riiiiight, Spexx: go and find for me the overwhelming slaughters that occurred every week and twice on Sundays during the decades before "gun control" laws started making things safer for bandits and murderous madmen!
I'm waaaaiiiitinnnnng......
...
Oh, riiiiight, Urb: go and find for me the kind of
student behavior currently going on in schools that occurred every week and twice on Sundays during the decades before "gun control" laws started making things safer for bandits and murderous madmen!
I'm waaaaiiiitinnnnng......
... tap tap tap...
Couldn't find any proof of that fantasy, could you now?
Times have changed, old man. I think you're on the "m" of Alzheimer's. Get informed.
I think more armed citizens reduces violent crime of all kinds.
I refuse to conflate being armed with being violent, because I know they're not the same thing...no matter how much those already disarmed by their state (or looking to have the state disarm others) try to muddy that water.
I also don't accept the proposition that all "gun-related deaths" (whatever that vagueness actually means) are ipso facto bad things. If all "gun related deaths" were bad, then all police should be immediately disarmed. Total nonsense.
If some violent criminals are killed as a result of more responsible citizens being armed, I call that a win. I suspect it would result in fewer shooting deaths overall, because a criminal violent enough to cause one innocent death will probably be responsible for more than one if left at large.
Which is it, Maggie? Does more guns reduce violent crime? Or does it mean there is only "good", alleged violent criminals getting killed?
Now you're coming across as a "arm yourself, but don't shoot" supporter.
In your logic the US and A should be the country with the least gun related deaths in the world.
You keep trying to conflate "gun related deaths" with violent crime against innocents.
How many of your "gun related deaths" are two drug dealers shooting at each other over money or territory? Who won't be deterred because "guns are illegal" any more than they are by "drugs are illegal"?
Anyone who does not have a gun will be provided one. Then no crimes would occur.
Not everyone at an NFL game is legally eligible to posess a firearm.
How about you, tw? Don't dodge this question again: are
you eligible to posess a firearm, or do you just want to disarm everybody else?
Remeber involuntary mental committments or felony records make you ineligible.
You keep trying to conflate "gun related deaths" with violent crime against innocents.
How many of your "gun related deaths" are two drug dealers shooting at each other over money or territory? Who won't be deterred because "guns are illegal" any more than they are by "drugs are illegal"?
How many are three yaer olds innocents who shoot themselves?Depends on how many people are slack and bad parents and leave out a loaded gun. No different than leaving ammonia or drain-o out where a kid can drink it... should we outlaw that too?
With guns there is NEVER just this once or I'll just get this call... NEVER.
How many are three yaer olds innocents who shoot themselves?
Total bullshit story...which has already changed several times. The victim's nine-year-old brother was in the room; you'll have trouble convincing me he wasn't the triggerman.
Depends on how many people are slack and bad parents...
Bad parents? In Philly? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.
Total bullshit story...which has already changed several times. The victim's nine-year-old brother was in the room; you'll have trouble convincing me he wasn't the triggerman.
Does that change the point? Your fantasyland where only good, sensible, law-abiding, pacifist, dead-eye, safety conscious, folks with perfect judgement will have guns is a farce. Criminals will have guns and kill innocents. Children will get hold of guns and kill innocents. Legal gun owners will have accidents, and use poor judgement, and become criminal and kill innocents. Insane people will get guns and kill innocents. All this so that You can have your gun - but not use it unless.....well.... you won't say. Others have said that they would be able to accurately judge when a situation becomes life-threatening, and use their gun successfully to save their lives and/or the lives of their family. But they wouldn't shoot too soon, and kill an innocent. Sorry. That is BULLSHIT! Either you are prudent, and the aggressor gets the drop on you, or you're going to kill somebody that means you no harm. You can't be perfect all the time.
The only way to stop all this weapon related killing would be to remove handguns from the environment. When you say that some killing is good and cite drug dealer vs drug dealer, I maintain that this type of killing would probably continue. It seems to me that these folks would not blanch at stabbing or bludgeoning their victim.
Bad parents? In Philly? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.
Yeah, you (and I mean
only you) would think that this doesn't happen in Gladwyn, huh?
-- well, it's the empty pot that sounds the loudest, isn't it?
What about the pot full of nitroglycerin? I mean, assuming that you have to rap the pot sharply to get it to produce any sound at all, wouldn't the resulting explosion be rather louder than the mere ring of an empty pot? I mean, I'm just askin'...
So... what do you do with people with pools?
So... what do you do with people with pools?
They wouldn't be allowed to have kids, or have any company over, or go in their own backyard?
LOL... no shit. Should we cane them?
When you say that some killing is good and cite drug dealer vs drug dealer, I maintain that this type of killing would probably continue. It seems to me that these folks would not blanch at stabbing or bludgeoning their victim.
Exactly why I want to keep my guns, despite your warm-fuzzy do-gooder rant...because their victims aren't always other addicts; sometimes they're comitting robbery, rape, or burglary.
Yeah, you (and I mean only you) would think that this doesn't happen in Gladwyn, huh?
OK...how many three-year-olds shot themselves in Gladwyne this year?
I let my son use his trike with no helmet...
Rob = eeeebbbilllll!
wouldn't the resulting explosion be rather louder than the mere ring of an empty pot? I mean, I'm just askin'...
You're overlooking the fact that the pot is in the process of emptying itself. By the time you heard the noise, it's empty.
Besides, the original catchphrase involves kettles, as I recall. :-)
Exactly why I want to keep my guns, despite your warm-fuzzy do-gooder rant...because their victims aren't always other addicts; sometimes they're comitting robbery, rape, or burglary.
So you're a drug dealer? :p
Ooohhh...oooooo... I want some Juji fruits!
OK...how many three-year-olds shot themselves in Gladwyne this year?
The vast right-wing conspiracy media shadow government keeps those figures under wraps. You have connections - use them and find out for yourself.
I thought it was the liberal media? What is going on here?! My head hurts!
Now I gotta' shoot sumthin'!
Let's go shoot us a Sally!
Well... um... HELL YEAH!!!
Let's go shoot us a Sally!
Nancy! Mary! Gertrude!
See, this is how the shootin' gets out of hand!:thepain:
The vast right-wing conspiracy media shadow government keeps those figures under wraps. You have connections - use them and find out for yourself.
Oh, that's a
much better application of Occam's Razor than "there weren't any".
So you're a drug dealer?
No, but I could be in line as a target for rape/robbery/burglary. Although the TV appearances with the Pink Pistols probably reduce that probability a little.
Does that change the point? Your fantasyland...
The only way to stop all this weapon related killing would be to remove handguns from the environment.
Which would be
your fantasyland.
And as I said, I'm uninterested in a return to a world where bludgeons and knives are the only weapons (I'm not worried about that actually happpening, because what would actually happen is only the criminals having effective weapons). I only point it out to say that even if you could get what you say you want, it's not desirable.
Instead you're headed straight for 100% unintended consequences.
You keep trying to conflate "gun related deaths" with violent crime against innocents.
How many of your "gun related deaths" are two drug dealers shooting at each other over money or territory? Who won't be deterred because "guns are illegal" any more than they are by "drugs are illegal"?
For instance, 34 of 46 (74%) registered school shootings all over the world between 1996 and 2005 happened in the US. And the 3 last ones weren´t even included. This gives an indication already.
The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries
combined.
American kids are nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries
combined.
The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools
each day.
You want us to believe that all these kids are drugs criminals?
PS I see MaggieL´s fetish with Occam´s Razor is almost equals to TW´s thingie with Rush Limbaugh...
You want us to believe that all these kids are drugs criminals?
Perhaps not all. But certainly most of them. They're not getting shot for their lunch money. Ever been in an urban US public school?
The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
American kids are nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
How exactly are you adding rates to get these "combined" numbers?
Please source your statistics (and "The Brady Campaign" isn't a source). I'd like to see percapita numbers, not relative rates. (Especially if you think they can be validly "combined".)
For example, in 2001 there were 21 accidental fireams deaths for US children under 15, compared with 2,100 drownings.
Go read the Gun Facts book; all their stats are sourced. Free download from
http://www.gunfacts.infoI'm curious which 25 industrialized countries we're discussing as well.
Couple of points;
I think you'll find the majority of firearm deaths in this country take place in urban (low gun density per capita) rather than rural (High gun density)locations.
More shootings than the other industrialized nations? Well, we do have 300,000,000 people here.
Those 115,000 guns brought to school, (not to mention other weapons) are to convince the predators they are not prey. I'm not supporting the idea just explaining.
Saddam passed out AK-47s, when? Baghdad violence increasing, when? Non Sequitur.
If UG keeps posting, I may have to change positions. :blush:
...(and "The Brady Campaign" isn't a source)...
Go read the Gun Facts book...
The Gunfacts Book isn't a source...
I reject your source and replace it with my own!
Please source your statistics (and "The Brady Campaign" isn't a source). I'd like to see percapita numbers, not relative rates. (Especially if you think they can be validly "combined".)
You want sources?
School Safety
* Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths. (Journal of American Medical Association, December 2001)
* In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)
* Nearly 8% of adolescents in urban junior and senior high schools miss at least one day of school each month because they are afraid to attend. (National Mental Health & Education Center for Children & Families, National Association of School Psychologists 1998)
* The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993)
Children and Gun Violence
* America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
* In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)
* The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
America and Gun Violence
* Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
* The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
* American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
Saddam passed out AK-47s, when? Baghdad violence increasing, when? Non Sequitur.
Next time you want to know whether the users were left- or right handed, whether they had long or short hair, had eye defects, or other red herrings.
But, to answer your question this time, I consider our country Holland as an industrialised country with a population of 16 Mio. Gun related death (inc.suicide) 2001: 47, 2002: 38, 2003: 28. Since you want to know the source of everything:
www.iva.nl/forceDL.php?filename=pubPDF1405.pdf
This means in average 37 gun related death a year = 0,10/daily. In the US there are 80 death related to gun violence.
US has 18,75 times more population than Holland, so in Dutch relations, you should have 1,875 gun related death daily.
As a lurker on the boards I usually just read the stuff the flows across, but I felt compelled to post on this, it seems that most people are arguing over things that don't really have much to do with the issue. I am not a champion speller, I am very well read and an internatioanal parli debater, so hopefully people can focus on the ideas rather than the literal verbage. Please understand that when I ask a question I never mean it rhetoricaly or in a sarcastic manner, I really do want to hear what people think about this. I have for months enjoyed reading the threads here, thank you for that =D
A little history to explain the perspective: I grew up in a very poor, rural area in California. Being in California, poor and rural are relative for most, but I grew up on a farm, not a rich farm, a working farm, where as an 8 year old I got up in the middle of the night to fix irrigation ditches breaking down from time to time. I grew up with mostly mexican kids (who see the word Hispanic as an insult, a nod to the spanish conquistadors.) Real mexicans whose fathers taught them concepts like machismo and honor, kdis that would get pissed if you called em a wetback, because most likely they did swim over. I bring this up because more and more I realize that the world at large does not value things like honor anymore, so maybe I grew up in a different environment than is the norm. We learned to take a whuppin and give one, you don't go for a knife or a gun, if you got a problem you take it out mano e mano if you can't talk your way through it. I never had to worry about getting jumped by 8 guys, or stabbed, or shot. We had plenty of guns around, it just wasn't even an idea that you would use a gun to solve a problem with another person. My family are all white christian cowboys, while I may be the black sheep in the family, we found alot of common ground with the people we worked with, we all fought for our honor and are great friends, even greater enemies. Looking back at it I can say I didn't grow up the california norm, but who does?
Thats not true anymore though.
Most of this thread has centered around school based gun violence. Both that caused by students and by adults not involved with the school. As far as the students go, my perception is that most of these kids are either A. afraid to take a whuppin or B. afraid they will get jumped/stabbed/shot if they try to deal with the issue mano e mano. But understand, that to fall into either of those categories, you must have already decided that violence is the answer to your problem. The thought process does not instantly devolve to gun = kill. First you have to decide upon that method as resolution. After that, you begin to take stock in your resources. Even if that thought process takes less than a second, it happens in that order, probably not with conscious thought all the time. Can I fight fairly? Will that solve the problem? Will I have to worry about vengence? There is no reason to consider the gun as an answer until you have already decided that other answers will not resolve your issue, so the gunis all that is left. Fear takes over.
So this is my question to the people in the thread talking about guns being a direct reason for violence. This is not rhetorical, nor sarcastic. Do you think that violent crimes would have have occured if guns were not available? Do you think that if they had not had the access to firearms that they wouldn't have gone to a knife? Or somthing else?
There is a broader issue occuring that EVERYONE in this thread agress on, but maybe it takes someone else to point it out.
Our world has become more violent, and that violence is intruding upon areas of our lives that we traditionaly have not had to relate to violence. (I say we in general, there are large portions of the world that do or do not have the problem in the same proportion that we do.)
Some people in the thread have accused others have having a wild west attitude. If you look at that period in history, many many people died of gun violence. But was it in schools? Were children performing these acts, and were schools the target they have become then? If not, then why not? There was just as much lawless activity and viciousness, if not more, with more firearms readily acessible and accepted publicly.
The truth of the matter is that the world is evolving, AS USUAL. At one time statistics told people that fighting back against a rapist, or home assalt, or classroom assault, would get more people killed, as the people doing those crimes were not as likely to kill the victim. That is no longer true though, rapists and child molesters are much more likely to do away with the victim when they are done rather than run the very real risk of being caught. That has changed the paradigm under which "victims" may respond. Today, if an armed gunman takes overa school campus, it is not very likely that a student will not get shot, that people will not die. I lived though the Stockton Massacre (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_Massacre), my girlfriend in highschool was a very good friend of some of the cambodian girls that were killed, she still remembers what happened. That guy decided before he showed up at that school that people were going to die. As a result of that, semi-automatic assault weapons were debated and then a federal law was put into place to try and stop these kinds of things from happening. As a gun owner and hunter, I was very happy for that, I have no problem not owning semi-automatic weapons, just have to be a better shot.
Sorry for the long post :redface:
Look at what happened at Beslen! Had the teachers been armed, had they fought back against the intruders, they would never have had the chance to work explosives into the scenario. Even if some children were hurt doing this, wouldnt some be better than 186? On the other hand, they had alot of problems with local parents showing up armed, they finally had so many of them that at one point there were reports coming out indicating that they had to include them in the police work, had to organize and utilize them to get them outta the way. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_massacre)
What Im really saying here folks, is that there is NO one answer for a situation like this. Saying that situation X will best be solved by Answer Y because that worked last time, or the opposite, situation X will not be solved by Answer Y because that didnt work last time, is a verifiable and defined fallacy of logic. Logic dictates that each situation be evaluated and analyzed on its own, we can apply the lessons history has taught us, but not in a rote manner, always with reason and analysis. At times force will be the only means of saving our childrens lives, at times we will be able to find other means of resolution. At times its appropriate to gather all the kids into a fortress of a classroom and lock themselves in to prevent some madman with an AK from shooting them, at other times that same action will provide the attacker with a defendable base and hostages, with time for explosives. Prioviding an easily defensible area may not be the a good thing when taken with things like Beslan in mind, or take a step back farther and see the power a few people can wield in a small defensible arena. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae)
How to tell ahead of time?
Steve
PS I know that there are statistics that would support every viewpoint in the world, so please refrain from them, unless you can give the statistic for every variable, which we know isn't possible. Logic and reason are the flavor of the day.
PPS Its not fair to compare the US to a country with legal pot, of course there is less violence and shooting there. :D
Thanks theirontower, and welcome to the Cellar. :D
To your point of Mano on Mano, to settle a dispute with the other guy. There is a culture that's developed, and spreading, where losing a fight is unacceptable. A loser is a social pariah, shun by the entire peer group. It's better to kill, or die, than lose.
I firmly believe this attitude (Gangsta) is driving the increase in violence with weapons. I also believe it's a damn shame.
You want sources?
I guess they don't teach proper citiation forms in your oh, so "civilized" land.
The Gunfacts Book isn't a source...
No, it's a compendium. It cites its sources.
I firmly believe this attitude (Gangsta) is driving the increase in violence with weapons. I also believe it's a damn shame.
Concur. Remeber that in drug-related violent crime, sometimes the drug is testosterone.
So this is my question to the people in the thread talking about guns being a direct reason for violence. This is not rhetorical, nor sarcastic. Do you think that violent crimes would have have occured if guns were not available? Do you think that if they had not had the access to firearms that they wouldn't have gone to a knife? Or somthing else?
Which is a point that's been brought up often in the other arguments here on this subject (the thread count surely exceeds a dozen by now)...and is never credibly responded to.
The problem of violence isn't weapons. Violence isn't caused by weapons any more than arson is caused by matches. Violence is caused by violent people. Liberals/progressives, whose philosophy is driven by identifying "victims" (and then grabbing power on the pretext of "helping the victims") prefer to reflexively relabel criminals as victims, while displacing responisbility for their criminal behavior onto inanimate objects, "society", "oppression" and "injustice". This ensures a steady supply of "victims"...
So you're suggesting that a particular group - liberals - are responsible for violence in schools Maggie?
I guess they don't teach proper citiation forms in your oh, so "civilized" land.
These ain't no proper citations? Or does it not fit your world view?
You asked for hard facts and sources, you got it.
PPS Its not fair to compare the US to a country with legal pot, of course there is less violence and shooting there. :D
Well, that tells a lot of how you view the outside world and how it really is. Drug using here is less than 1% of the population, so there goes your theory up in smoke.
Yes, the world is becoming more violent, especially when El Presidente of World Greatest Power is using violence cq. threatening to use it to solve the World problems an settles arguments with his father "mano a mano".
So this is my question to the people in the thread talking about guns being a direct reason for violence. This is not rhetorical, nor sarcastic. Do you think that violent crimes would have have occured if guns were not available? Do you think that if they had not had the access to firearms that they wouldn't have gone to a knife? Or somthing else?
I think that guns are the most effective weapon that is commonly available. I think that criminals are generally lazy and cowardly people who are emboldened by having a gun instead of another less effective weapon like a knife. Criminals would be more afraid to commit their crimes without that overwhelming advantage over their victims. The only way you can kill me with a knife is if you can outrun me or if you surprise me. Even if you do either of those two things, you still need to overpower me. It's simply more work for a criminal. Criminals are lazy, so they will do it less. It's simple human nature.
I think that violence would still exist without guns, but there would be less of it, and where it did exist, the damage would be less.
But there are guns. So...it's all kind of a moot point, isn't it?
But there are guns. So...it's all kind of a moot point, isn't it?
Yup.
[COLOR="Gray"]:::slowly backs out of thread, trying not to attract any more attention to a meaningless debate:::[/COLOR]
I think that criminals are generally lazy and cowardly people who are emboldened by having a gun instead of another less effective weapon like a knife.
I'll agree with "cowardly"; I think "lazy" is less certain, given some of the ingenious criminal schemes that have existed. But by the same token that they may be emboldened by having a gun, they're inhibited by the knowlege that the law-abiding may have them too.
Since prohibition doesn't work, the conclusion is obvious.
I think that violence would still exist without guns, but there would be less of it, and where it did exist, the damage would be less.
That's speculation, of course. Even if it were possible, there's no reason to think that depriving a violent man of weapons makes him less violent, nor that they would "do less damage"...whatever that really means.
So you're suggesting that a particular group - liberals - are responsible for violence in schools Maggie?
They're certainly responible for making it safer for criminals to be violent in *any* victim disarmament zone: school, post office, airliner, etc.
At least with the Flight Deck Officer program we're allowing pilots commanding airliners the
opportunity to defend the passengers and crew under their care. The encumberances imposed on those pilots is insane; that any of them take the matter seriously enough to put up all that crap is spectacular.
Originally Posted by Aliantha
So you're suggesting that a particular group - liberals - are responsible for violence in schools Maggie?
They're certainly responible for making it safer for criminals to be violent in *any* victim disarmament zone: school, post office, airliner, etc.
...
You think it's the Liberals' fault, even though conservative policy ensures that more guns are accessable to general public, for criminals to use? Wow, that's some logic you have going on, Maggie.
These ain't no proper citations? Or does it not fit your world view?
A proper citation enables an interested reader to examine the original study to read how it was conducted and the logic behind its conclusions. "AMA 1974" is approximately as useful as "I live in New York and my name is Smith, look it up in the phone book".
That's speculation, of course. Even if it were possible, there's no reason to think that depriving a violent man of weapons makes him less violent, nor that they would "do less damage"...whatever that really means.
First off, I never said "Since prohibition doesn't work, the conclusion is obvious." I'll assume you inadvertently included that sentence with my quoted text.
I don't know what you mean by "a violent man." Does that mean "in the midst of a violent act" or "has violent thoughts that he wants to act upon?" If a person has violent thoughts, I think they are more likely to act on those thoughts if they are confident that they will be successful. If they are armed with a gun, they will be highly confident. If they are armed with a less effective weapon, they will be less confident. I think it's very obvious that guns embolden men with violent thoughts to act on those thoughts when they otherwise wouldn't. Not in every case. Not every time. But overall.
Is this speculation? Sure. But so is your position.
edit: And when I say "do less damage" I mean that a gun does more damage than a knife.
You think it's the Liberals' fault, even though conservative policy ensures that more guns are accessable to general public, for criminals to use? Wow, that's some logic you have going on, Maggie.
It's superior to logic that conflates the three different categories "the general public", "citizens legally entitled to posess firearms" and "criminals".
[CENTER]
[I]Disarming the law-abiding will not disarm criminals.[/I]
[I]The number of guns in legal hands is not proportional to the number of violent crimes.[/I][/CENTER]
It's the formatting that convinced me...
A proper citation enables an interested reader to examine the original study to read how it was conducted and the logic behind its conclusions. "AMA 1974" is approximately as useful as "I live in New York and my name is Smith, look it up in the phone book".
You mean a link like
this, that you posted, presumably so that we could READ THE LAWS? Which says
The complete Pennsylvania Statutes are not yet available on the web. However, selected portions have been made available and can be accessed by CLICKING HERE. These statutes, though available instantaneously over the web, may not be the current law. Court decisions overturning them, later statutes amending them, and a host of other factors come into play when interpreting them. They are provided here as a resource. They should provide some information about the state of the law. However, a competent lawyer, who from other sources will research the law to insure what is current, should always be employed in matters of importance.
And if you
CLICK HERE (above)
you get
PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
UNCONSOLIDATED PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES
Which, in essence is a list of all the laws of Pennsylvania. So much for reading the laws concerning hanguns, MaggieL. Check your links and sources before you post them.
I mean that a gun does more damage than a knife.
Well, that's petitio principi; (question-begging).
But it's also not true. Guns do have more range than knives, but a knife, depending on it's size and how it's wielded, can easily do more tissue damage than a bullet. And a bludgeon can deliver more kinetic energy.
Well, that's petitio principi; (question-begging).
But it's also not true. Guns do have more range than knives, but a knife, depending on it's size and how it's wielded, can easily do more tissue damage than a bullet. And a bludgeon can deliver more kinetic energy.
Yes. Yes. But the million dollar question is "what do you choose to carry, Maggie?"
Therefore every spectator in an NFL stadium must be required to carry a concealed weapon as you do. Anyone who does not have a gun will be provided one. Then no crimes would occur. Therefore no deaths would occur. Therefore no players on the field need fear for their life. That is what MaggieL and Urbane Guerrilla both claim. Who believes this and who has real serious doubts?
Tw, I've seen for myself that an armed society is indeed a polite society. I think I know more about it than you ever will. If you are a genuine scientist, tw, rather than a poorly advised crank, undertake the ever-so-minimal research effort of spending six weekends at any shooting range you can get to, learning and doing the rather delicate business of getting your shots to fall within the ten-ring, among dozens of others likewise engaged.
The thing that has always struck me about the people shooting is how very nice, how unfailingly
courteous, they are to each other. What's more, it continues after they're done shooting, chatting at car tailgates, yakking over a refreshment (club members, invariably after shooting, might adjourn to the members-only room for a beer), perhaps inviting one another for dinner. And I act just that way on the firing line myself: it seems nearly instinctual that when you are disposing of genuine lethal force, without lethal intent, that your manners become sweet, not harsh; reassuring, rather than otherwise.
You think it's the Liberals' fault, even though conservative policy ensures that more guns are accessable to general public, for criminals to use? Wow, that's some logic you have going on, Maggie.
I know why you can't draw the conclusion, given the obstacles placed in the way of felons possessing arms, that there are thus more guns for YOU to use on the criminals. With due care, of course.
But I do understand why you
CANNOT THINK THAT.
You are a fully florid hoplophobe, and without professional help, you shall never have a rational view of armed defense of self or other. You shall remain unable to practice either, which would seem morally insupportable -- though too, I just hate bullies, criminals being a prime example of bullying. You need to adjust to your urge to kill, and release and exhaust from you the buried rages and fears that give you that urge.
In a nutshell, Spexx needs therapy, target practice, and tactical practice, along with introduction to tactical shooting games as a means of directly discharging his urge to kill. Until he gets this help, his moral position remains inferior to those of MaggieL, rkzenrage, and Urbane Guerrilla.
In my opinion, and this opinion is derived from my upbringing and lifestyle; there's a time and place for weapons. I'm not unfamiliar with guns. Have fired many. Even into animals on occasion, so I'm not some liberal whiner who has no concept of the point of guns.
I like the fact that people in Australia are not allowed to carry weapons - of any kind (including knives) - legally in public. I don't believe that if all people are armed you're lowering the chances of gun related violence. I don't believe you're increasing it either although accessability has to make it easier for crimes of passion to be more deadly and also for children - the original topic of this thread - to access adult's weapons.
It's not the responsibility of the general public to protect the rest of the general public. It's the responsibility of police and other law enforcement agencies to do to. Obviously there can't always be a cop around, and even if there is people will still shoot people.
I don't think liberals or conservatives are to blame for school shootings. I think the people that committed the crimes are responsible.
In my opinion, and this opinion is derived from my upbringing and lifestyle. . .
It's not the responsibility of the general public to protect the rest of the general public. It's the responsibility of police and other law enforcement agencies to do to. Obviously there can't always be a cop around, and even if there is people will still shoot people.
Reread that paragraph, Aliantha: can you not see how the last sentence shoots the first two down? (I should smile!)
We in this Republic take precisely the opposite view -- that it is part of a citizen's lawful militia powers, which rise out of his being an adult human, and which are to some degree demanded by this Republic's laws (Sec's 310-311 USC, which establish the legal existence of the US Militia, all as part of the concept of a citizen Army), and that a citizen of a Republic has a responsibility to defend against the society-destroying acts of any criminals, without any regard to their degree of violence. While it is helpful to have a professional, sworn police force to do this work well, it is not at all bad to have the amateurs hold the line until the pros can reinforce them.
Obviously there can't always be a cop around -- there is NO moral requirement to be helpless before armed agression in that circumstance. Do not ask that we not shoot back. We have wives and children to keep alive, woman! Some of us have husbands!
ahuh...and you live in a country with one of the highest crime rates in the world. No wonder you want to be armed.
You mean a link like this, that you posted, presumably so that we could READ THE LAWS? Check your links and sources before you post them.
OK, we've at least actually gotten you to load the page. This is progress.
Now let's refine the skill to actually include
reading.
This is called the World Wide Web. Let me explain how it works.
Those blue headings with the underscores? They are called "unvisited links".
In this case, when you click on them they each take you a pages containing a different section of Chapter 5 (General Principles of Justification) of Title 18(Crimes and Offenses), which is the law in question. It's all there.
The ones you're looking for look like this:
CHAPTER 5. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTIFICATION
§ 501. Definitions.
§ 502. Justification a defense.
§ 503. Justification generally.
§ 504. Execution of public duty.
§ 505. Use of force in self-protection.
§ 506. Use of force for the protection of other persons.
§ 507. Use of force for the protection of property.
§ 508. Use of force in law enforcement.
§ 509. Use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others.
§ 510. Justification in property crimes.
Taken together, sections 500 through 510 constitute Chapter 5 of Title 18, which is the actual law on justification of the use of deadly force in the Commonwealth.
Now go back to the page and read, and do try to restrain your impulse to click the mouse spasmodically in random locations without actually reading the page and then returning here in triumph claiming that the link is bogus.
ahuh...and you live in a country with one of the highest crime rates in the world. No wonder you want to be armed.
You would, too, and probably do a most creditable job of it, given your experience.
It's also a matter of record that for some years, Scotland's murder rate (murders/100K of population is the usual measure) under UK gun laws, ran well over the overall US rate of 4.8/100K/year. The US murder rate is not at all uniform, either. All the more rural states have murder rates that look like England's. What brings the US's rate up to its sub-Scotland level is the murder rate of a few ghetto-ridden urban areas: the inner cities of New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles.
And you shouldn't be speaking of "crime" generally if it's the murder rate you are addressing. We citizens save, year in and year out, about 2.5
billion dollars US, by the mere act of sticking guns into criminal faces. Don't ask us to lose 2.5B just to satisfy your notions of propriety, Aliantha!
I wasn't addressing the murder rate. If I was addressing that then I would have said so. I was addressing the crime rate UG, that's why I said, crime rate.
As to the saving 2.5B. Presumably the goods will be remaining in the US after they're stolen anyway, so you'll still have them (if stopping robberies by threatening theives with a gun is what you were trying to imply). They've just been reappropriated. lol
OK...sorry, I shouldn't have laughed. This is a serious subject, but you just crack me up sometimes UG. ;)
That's 2.5B of wrongs not committed, Ali -- nothing to sneeze at, is it?
We can at least estimate an economic value to self defense. I don't think that's been even semiseriously attempted before.
No, it's wonderful UG. I'm very pleased your happy. :)
Erm... you're very pleased
my happy? Quick, edit! ;)
I'm very pleased your happy.
you're then. I'm sorry I can't type everything perfectly every time. ;)
If my Backspace key ever breaks, I might as well be typing encrypted. :rolleye:
lol...well I'm pretty sure most of us use that facility fairly regularly, except maybe the perfect ones among us.
Concur. Remeber that in drug-related violent crime, sometimes the drug is testosterone.
Peer pressure is not a drug.
As for testosterone, what?.... are the girls wearing patches? They are just as violent in the Gangsta culture although the usually would rather cut than shoot. :eyebrow:
As for testosterone, what?.... are the girls wearing patches?
You say that like you beleive women don't have testosterone.
They've just been reappropriated. lol
Collectivism personified.
It is not junk science. It has never been even rebutted, let alone debunked. Read More Guns, Less Crime and you will enjoy enlightenment. Until you do, you will be victimized by any crime and any genocidal episode that comes along. See Simkin, Zelman, and Rice for the connection between gun "control" and genocides. They haven't been rebutted either.
I have enjoyed this enlightenment, and am thereby proof against any and all antigun arguments -- the progun arguments are too solid and too good. Couple billion dollars too good. General gun ownership is also the only known genocide preventative, and genocide is best dealt with ahead of time. The force of the State is not, and cannot be, a bulwark against an episode of genocide.
Never rebutted? Try reading
this article. Or
this one. Or
this one. Or
this one. Have many more if you like.
The Stanford Law Review critique, authored by Yale's Ayres and Stanford's Donohue, analyzed more recent crime statistics, extending Lott's original 1977-1992 crime dataset to include data through the late 1990s. As it turned out, after 1992, partly due to the end of the 1980s' crack cocaine-related crime wave, crime rates dropped dramatically in states with large urban centers, many of which had not passed right to carry laws. This fact proves highly inconvenient to the "More Guns, Less Crime" argument. After testing Lott and Mustard's analysis with more years of data and different econometric tweakings, Donohue and Ayres conclude, "No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states"; their analysis even suggested such laws might increase violent crime.
Can we take a junk-scientist like Lott serious, a rolling stone who used aliasses and sock puppets to post several five star reviews of his books on Amazon.com or to attack his critics and defend his work online? Creating a false identity for a scholar usually goes down as fraud in science circles. Furthermore Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics earlier this year. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey, which supposedly found that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack", that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition.
See Simkin, Zelman, and Rice for the connection between gun "control" and genocides
I believe Simkin and Rice are not on speaking terms with Zelman anymore? They write this on their
website:
Zelman forced his earliest and strongest supporters to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers, which outlays could have been avoided entirely. In his zeal to brutalize those who had been kind to him for many years, Zelman spent many thousands of his contributors' dollars not to fight "gun control", but to try to keep control of a book - LETHAL LAWS - that he claimed had so little value that it was not worth republishing properly. If LETHAL LAWS were worth so little, why did Zelman spend so much to keep it? And, even if Zelman knew it had more value than he was willing to admit, why should Zelman have been so nasty to those, who had done so much to help him destroy "gun control"?
We think that "fighting 'gun control'" is a business for almost all of those who earn their living from it. We have further concluded that most of those who oppose"gun control" do not actually want to see it destroyed, because they would then have to get real jobs, producing real goods or real services. Giving time or money to help any "pro-gun" group with full-time, salaried officers, is simply building someone else's retirement nest-egg. It doesn't make any difference whether the group is "effective" or not. "Pro-gun" groups with employees simply provide a nice standard of living to those employees. JPFO, Inc., is simply an unusually clear example of this. It is by no means alone. The "pro-gun" groups worth supporting are those staffed by volunteers, who are simply reimbursed for their expenses, or by part-timers, i.e, by those who have jobs - or own businesses - from which they get the bulk of their income.
Re genocide: the claim that Nazi gun control law in 1938 to maintain their power is false. Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was already introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the Nazi SA. Hence the Nazi came to power by the ballot box (and some By backroom backstabbing, double-crossing, threats, and promises, including among former Chancellor Franz von Papen, present Chancellor Lieutenant General Kurt von Schleicher, and the elected President Hindenburg.) and not by an armed coup.
Having actually read the material I cite, I say the necessity of the three root causes of any genocide being present is amply proven, and the case proving it is formidable. You have not addressed the case by bringing up a side issue of who's arguing over what.
If the cops are armed, so should the people be.
It is not hard.
You have not addressed the case by bringing up a side issue of who's arguing over what.
Did you read the last paragraph in my message or only looked at it?
Now go back to the page and read, and do try to restrain your impulse to click the mouse spasmodically in random locations without actually reading the page and then returning here in triumph claiming that the link is bogus.
Not until you answer the questions I asked you, personally. Not what the law says. What Maggie would do.
Collectivism personified.
You're an admitted collectivist.
You're an admitted collectivist.
Nonsense. Now you're playing tw...and you don't do it well.
Nonsense. Now you're playing tw...and you don't do it well.
Not nonsense. You stated you aren't averse to all taxes. You're merely a selfish collectivist, which is much more communist than tw, who leans toward the socialist side of collectivism.
Not nonsense. You stated you aren't averse to all taxes. You're merely a selfish collectivist, which is much more communist than tw, who leans toward the socialist side of collectivism.
When I pay taxes that pay for law enforcement, I get value for that.
It's not cooercive collectivism, where value is taken from me to be redistributed to someone who "deserves" it, or to meet some other social engineering goal.
I'm not as pure a libertatian as some, and I'm not an anarchist.
When I pay taxes that pay for law enforcement, I get value for that.
It's not cooercive collectivism, where value is taken from me to be redistributed to someone who "deserves" it, or to meet some other social engineering goal.
I'm not as pure a libertatian as some, and I'm not an anarchist.
Semantics...
Doesn't anyone who chooses to live in a society and pay taxes agree to collectivist principals...even if it is by default?
BTW Maggie, I couldn't find the post that you were quoting from. What number was it?
Semantics...
"...is the subfield of linguistics that is devoted to the study of meaning."
Rather an important thing to dismiss so casually.
Not until you answer the questions I asked you, personally.
Not happening. My answer incorprated the law by reference. If you won't read it, you don't care about my answer, you just want to troll.
"Asked and answered", as they say in court. Go read. You went to that site and ran back here screaming that there was no law on those pages and telling me I should check before posting.
Now that I've pointed out that it actually is there, and that your post claming that it wasn't was utter hogwash, go read it and educate your ignorant ass.
BTW Maggie, I couldn't find the post that you were quoting from. What number was it?
I quote a lot. Which of of my posts are you referring to?
Doesn't anyone who chooses to live in a society and pay taxes agree to collectivist principals...even if it is by default?
"Principles".
Not really...especially not cooercive collectivism. That's the cooercive part.
When someone steals your stuff and laughs that it's been "reappropriated", that's pretty cooercive.
If you live in a society where you pay taxes which go towards paying for other peoples social security for instance, you're a collectivist because something is being taken from you by the state for the benefit of other members of the society.
Whether you like it or not Maggie, you're a collectivist just like the rest of us.
'When someone steals your stuff and laughs that it's been "reappropriated", that's pretty cooercive.'
I wouldn't say there's anything coercive about it at all.
Obviously you're again refering to the quote I've asked you about, and since I've already asked once where it was from, I don't see much point in asking again. Therefor, if you want to continue to refer to the same point to support your argument, you're not going to be making much sense from here on in.
Oh, I found it. I didn't realize you'd only taken a portion of the whole quote to support your argument.
Nothing further needs to be said since I'm pretty sure anyone else could have seen the humour in the post in its entirety. Even UG managed it.
Not really...especially not cooercive collectivism. That's the cooercive part.
See what happens if you decide not to pay for police.
I quote a lot. Which of of my posts are you referring to?
Don't end a sentence with a preposition, genius.
What's next? Dangling participles? Split infinitives? [COLOR="Gray"]:::afraid to post:::[/COLOR]
... and educate your ignorant ass.
Why is it that some people in this community have to insult, belittle, and name call when someone disagrees with them?
See what happens if you decide not to pay for police.
Unfortunately there's no line item veto on taxes. But my payment for law enforcement is not coerced. Sorry to hear about yours.
Why is it that some people in this community have to insult, belittle, and name call when someone disagrees with them?
OK, I'm sorry I called your ass ignorant. It may in fact be smarter than many other parts of you.
Which, to respect the infinitive, is something up with which you should not put.
But you want to rail about the justified use of deadly force while refusing to read the relevant law...that rises above mere disagreement.
Why is it that some people in this community have to insult, belittle, and name call when someone disagrees with them?
Whining about being taken to the woodshed over a whole slew of matters of fact, Spexx? My, my, once again, is the Left childish... much?
The Right's generally braver, and understands correction better. It's called being grown up -- the Right just takes it better.
Right! The right is RIGHT and the left isn't right. It's just wrong. So don't go left, go right before you forget what's right and what's not.
Unfortunately there's no line item veto on taxes. But my payment for law enforcement is not coerced. Sorry to hear about yours.
I never said anyting about mine. But there is no distinction between coercive and non-coercive taxes. If they aren't coercive, they aren't taxes.
Unfortunately there's no line item veto on taxes. But my payment for law enforcement is not coerced...
My payment for a war in Iraq is...
Ali, there is many a true word spoken in ... irony.
Oh UG...you must have misunderstood. I was taking the piss out of you and your comrades. ;)
My payment for a war in Iraq is...
Sure, but hardly worth mentioning some piddling little 4 Billion a month.:rolleyes:
Ali, there is many a true word spoken in ... irony.
Like in goldy or bronzy, but then made of iron?
How come the people who are the staunchest defenders of guns are the ones I fear having guns the most?
Jeb, I ain't shot you yet. And we live in the same state. Have for years. Hell, I was born in the Monterey area. WTF you scared of, ignorance boy? Seems there's too much you don't know. Do you truly know how to rightly handle a gun?
How come the people who are the staunchest defenders of guns are the ones I fear having guns the most?
Because hoplophobia literally means "fear of guns".
Seriously.... I'm not a bad guy. When I was head of security people came to our club, we tripled in attendance, because I made sure no one was castled even when we had to carry them out. When people pushed me I always told them "yes...you can beat me up, I am sure of it. Let me buy you a beer and let's break this up instead of all these other bouncers carrying you out, ok?"
I don't like conflict or guns... as I stated earlier, I have not messed with mine in years. I think of them as a necessary evil... but necessary none the less.
I worry that my posts on this subject have been very prejudicial as far as how the Cellar views me.
It is truly the only thing that I am very conservative about. Though my definition of liberal and conservative are much older than today's. I do not think of a neo-con as a conservative. A conservative wants less government, taxes and believes in state's rights. I am very conservative in that sense... but very liberal when it comes to today's definition in a lot of ways. I believe pot should be legal, we should have state health care as well as private, Social Security and welfare should not be attached in any way (if you did not pay into it you don't get any).... bla, bla, bla... hell, some things sound very conservative like my fiscal side and others make me very liberal. I think the National Forests should NEVER be touched other than prescribed burns... pristine woodland, period. If you pollute, you pay for ALL of it to be cleaned-up, period.
But, at the same time, as long as you are not harming your neighbor or the environment... your home is your castle and ALL the Bill of Rights must be protected at all costs.
Illegal search and seizure, warrantless searches and that type of thing are grounds for revolution IMO, real action to let those in power know that it will NEVER be tolerated.
Freedom of speech and the press is/should be actual and pure.
Religion and the State should NEVER have ANYTHING to do with each other under ANY circumstances.
So when people ask me if I am "liberal" or "conservative"... I just don't know.
Mhm. Hmmm. Thoughtful, anyway. I've long figured you for having your head screwed on nose to the front.
Werent there some studies done in the 70s or 80s by KGB or some other Russian organization stating that while they felt they could handle the US military if they wanted to attack America, the population was to well armed to hold the territory they could take?
I don't know if having a gun or not having a gun makes a difference when it comes to crime, Ive never been a criminal or the victim of a violent or gun based crime myself. But from a criminals perspective wouldn't the throught process between "Should I" and "I will" be a bit longer and more involved if the threat of return violence is immediate?
IE if as a criminal I was looking for a place to setup shop for say, burglery, would I consider a place like Texas where its more likely Ill run into an armed citizen willing to fight, or would I rather go somewhere its not as likely? Just the fact that they would have to walk that line of thought through would hopefully persaude a few of them its not worth it.
One thing I noticed in the thread, just as an FYI, as a national champion debater, when your opponent sinks to verbal attacks and name calling, you've won. Most people with any brain will stop paying attention to someone who stoops to that, so beware your own arrogance. Be open the to the thought process's and idea's of others.
" The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case. Consequently if the rules for trials which are now laid down some states-especially in well-governed states-were applied everywhere, such people would have nothing to say. All men, no doubt, think that the laws should prescribe such rules, but some, as in the court of Areopagus, give practical effect to their thoughts and forbid talk about non-essentials. This is sound law and custom. It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity-one might as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it."
Aristotle's Rhetoric
How about some reference to
Logical Fallacies, which abound in this thread.
Steve
"Most of our energy goes into upholding our importance...
If we were capable of losing some of that importance, two extraordinary things would happen to us. One, we would free our energy from trying to maintain the illusory idea of our grandeur; and two, we would provide ourselves with enough energy to...catch a glimpse of the actual grandeur of the universe." Carlos Castaneda
--to me this is the answer to the koan about a tree falling in the woods with no one around. The sheer arrogance of the question points to the answer--
"Self-righteous morality is jealousy with a halo" HG Wells
"Self righteousness is a mask for hypocrisy and self importance." Carlos Castaneda
[Threadjack]
snip~ I think the National Forests should NEVER be touched other than prescribed burns... pristine woodland, period.
You're confusing National Forests with National Parks. One of the basic tenets of National Forests is to provide controlled timber harvesting for a steady reliable lumber supply.[Threadjack]:D
You are right, Parks. Though some of the old growth and breeding areas for endangered species in the National Forests should be off limits.
We are equally, but never more, important than the environment.
Woah woah woah. Who said I was afraid of guns? I'm afraid of touchy idiots having guns and very troubled (not for my own safety however) about some here who see guns as a balm to any affliction.
Would you believe I'm actually a firm believer in the 2nd amendment? There is a vast gap between gun nuts and responsible gun owners. The difference between these types shines through, even online.
But, but, there's no problem that can't be solved with the judicious application of high explosives. :lol:
I needs me a grenade... true Bruce.
Woah woah woah. Who said I was afraid of guns? . . .
Would you believe I'm actually a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment? There is a vast gap between gun nuts and responsible gun owners. . .
Anyone mistaking me for anything other than a responsible gun owner has... more issues than National Geographic. They also tend to get worsted in any arguments about it.
In a way, it's tedious. Necessary, but not including enough of the really new to avoid a dreariness.