Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

I am leaving this conversation. I see where it's going. And the place it's going is lined with spikes and plastic explosives. And oh so much flaming.

It's really only a few people too, but I see it happening. I SEES IT WITH ME OWN EYES. MY EYES, RIGHT HERE!

[Urist_McDrowner]

Other than Dan Gross being one of the most disgusting human beings on the planet, I love how in the same breath, people can say this.

X: "Huckabee, stop politicizing this tragedy (Huckabee talking about how he thinks this could have been prevented)
Y: "But, you gun control people did it first. (By the way, the guns he had were illegally possessed by him.)"
X: "Yeah, but we think our ideas work."
Y: "So Huckabee's not allowed to say his ideas, because THAT'S politicizing it?"
X: "Yeah, and we don't agree. Oh, and we're also the party of tolerance."

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Listen, it's because he said this was caused by us "taking God out of schools." You don't understand that and it's fine, but, seriously, stop. You're fighting an imaginary strawman because you're a trifle confused and I understand that. Once again, I own a rifle. I advocate more people arming themselves. The gun control conversation has nothing to do with Huckabee's asinine and non-related statement, so end your ridiculous arguement.

[fqllve]

Claim what you want, the fact is, gun control vultures swept in on this before those tiny bodies were even cold. But never let a crisis go to waste, am I right?

You know, assuming that everyone is arguing in bad faith is probably the worst debate tactic. Yes, there has already been some crass exploitation (such as the Daily Kos's awful awful awful popup ad) but I don't really think any of that was going on here. Maybe, just maybe, they truly and honestly believe that what they're suggesting is for the best and really will help prevent things like this from happening. People on both sides of any debate will use tragedy for political posturing, but assuming that's all anyone is doing, or bringing it up as a condemnation of the opposing side can only hurt discourse.

Oh, it's horrible for all sorts of reasons (plenty of them psychological -- there's issues with bringing violence into a classroom, and culturally firearms represent violence.*), don't mistake that, but it's something I could at least contemplate discussion about if the American system wasn't worth jack-all for making sure our gun owners are actually capable individuals -- and I'm saying that as an American gun owner, who's cleared the reqs for a concealed carry permit. Whatever's keeping America's firearm related injuries (violent or otherwise) as low as they are damn sure isn't the formal aspects related to them. Though it does vary a bit by area, from what I understand, the fact that there's areas like the one I'm in pretty much undermine any better implemented systems.

Well, I think if we're to consider it extensive training and background checks would need to be performed. Teachers who would be carrying on school grounds would have to be put under far more stringent restrictions than most gun owners. I'd hope everyone would feel the same about that.

And yeah, it would be nice to come up with a solution that didn't appear so Orwellian, but if police or armed security need to be posted at schools, well, that can be a measure we take while implementing more desirable solutions. If any should arise.

[EnigmaticHat]

I've seen loud, stupid kids sell pot during class and the teacher not notice (and no, she wasn't turning a blind eye).  I would never trust teachers with something so important as keeping guns out of student's hands.  I certainly wouldn't expect them to be able to recognize which room a shooting is occurring in and get there in time when the shooter inevitably shoots their classroom's gun-toting teacher first, much less aim correctly if they get the kid in their sights.

Besides, almost all school shootings are performed by students.  That means that if you give teachers guns to ward off shootings, your implicitly giving them permission to shoot their students in extreme circumstances.  Now, I think we can all agree its better a shooter dies than his class, but how will teachers handle their new responsibilities in more ambiguous circumstances?  What if a kid starts attacking people with a knife?  The teacher could shoot him, and deal with the probably horrible consequences for the rest of her life (or hit the wrong kid!), or not shoot and let the kid stab people.  Sure, there's middle ground such as using the gun to threaten the student, but its naive to expect those to work in every situation just like its naive to expect random civilians with guns to react correctly whenever trouble breaks out.  Plus, there's always going to be the crazy guy that shoots a kid for petty theft, or threatens a kid with a gun for minor disobedience and then shoots them when they don't comply.

I can think of so many ways this could go wrong, and so many better solutions.

[Sir Finkus]

*Can start by looking into fairly old, at this point, research into priming in regards to violence and work your way forward and around. It's not something we want in a classroom, especially for younger kids.

I'm genuinely curious, could you point me in the right direction to look into this?

I am leaving this conversation. I see where it's going. And the place it's going is lined with spikes and plastic explosives. And oh so much flaming.

It's really only a few people too, but I see it happening. I SEES IT WITH ME OWN EYES. MY EYES, RIGHT HERE!

Hmm, I don't really see it.  Most of the flamey things seem to have been hit and run stuff at the beginning of the thread.  It's actually rather civil compared to some conversations I've seen.

Other than Dan Gross being one of the most disgusting human beings on the planet, I love how in the same breath, people can say this.

X: "Huckabee, stop politicizing this tragedy (Huckabee talking about how he thinks this could have been prevented)
Y: "But, you gun control people did it first. (By the way, the guns he had were illegally possessed by him.)"
X: "Yeah, but we think our ideas work."
Y: "So Huckabee's not allowed to say his ideas, because THAT'S politicizing it?"
X: "Yeah, and we don't agree. Oh, and we're also the party of tolerance."

If you can't see the difference, especially if it has been pointed out to you quite a few times by quite a few people, I think that's your problem.  I'd like to point out that I was the one pointing out the remarks by Huckabee.  I don't know which "party" you think I belong to, but you seem to be making more baseless assumptions.  When someone says something stupid, I'll call them out on it, regardless of whether I agree with their position or not.

[Urist_McDrowner]

If you can't see the difference, especially if it has been pointed out to you quite a few times by quite a few people, I think that's your problem.  I'd like to point out that I was the one pointing out the remarks by Huckabee.  I don't know which "party" you think I belong to, but you seem to be making more baseless assumptions.  When someone says something stupid, I'll call them out on it, regardless of whether I agree with their position or not.

What exactly is the difference? Can you PROVE that with better gun control that this would not have happen? Can you PROVE that he would not have used some other means? Can you prove, for that matter, that armed faculty could not have stopped him? Can you prove that removing God did or did not help? Because statistically, they have the exact same proof.

[fqllve]

Have you read any of Finkus's posts? He is arguing against gun control. You know, your position?

Yet he has managed to do it with tact and respect for people who disagree with him. And you know what? It's made me take his points seriously and with the same respect he's shown for everyone else's.

Funny how that works.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I can think of so many ways this could go wrong, and so many better solutions.

I bet there'd be a significantly nil chance of a violent act occurring if the students knew the staff were armed for such acts at all times.

But, that's why you have the trained police officers to do their damn job in the fashion of school security instead.

Can you prove that removing God did or did not help? Because statistically, they have the exact same proof.

That's a strikeout for me, off to the ignore list.

[Urist_McDrowner]

That's a strikeout for me, off to the ignore list.

It's illustrating the point that gun control is just as baseless as Huckabee's fanaticism. We banned alcohol in the 30s. Didn't work. Drugs are still banned. How's that working out for us? You don't think if we make guns harder to come by, the illegal market will just spring up just like those two? Of course the Gun control people don't, because the world shouldn't have guns, so if we make them illegal, they'll go away right? Just like murder?

[Putnam]

That's a strikeout for me, off to the ignore list.

We banned alcohol in the 30s. Didn't work.

Bullshit. Prohibition brought alcohol use down by 33%. It was repealed because democracy is a thing.

[Urist_McDrowner]

That's a strikeout for me, off to the ignore list.

We banned alcohol in the 30s. Didn't work.

Bullshit. Prohibition brought alcohol use down by 33%. It was repealed because democracy is a thing.

Of course. So law abiding citizens stopped doing it. Owning a gun is not a problem. Using that gun for bad things IS a problem.

[Sir Finkus]

If you can't see the difference, especially if it has been pointed out to you quite a few times by quite a few people, I think that's your problem.  I'd like to point out that I was the one pointing out the remarks by Huckabee.  I don't know which "party" you think I belong to, but you seem to be making more baseless assumptions.  When someone says something stupid, I'll call them out on it, regardless of whether I agree with their position or not.

What exactly is the difference? Can you PROVE that with better gun control that this would not have happen? Can you PROVE that he would not have used some other means? Can you prove, for that matter, that armed faculty could not have stopped him? Can you prove that removing God did or did not help? Because statistically, they have the exact same proof.

I don't really need to prove anything.  The jump from "maybe if he didn't have access to a gun he wouldn't have been able to do much damage" to what actually happened isn't nearly as far of a leap as "maybe if there was prayer in school the shooter wouldn't have been so morally corrupt" is. 

If I want to reduce it even further, and at the risk of starting a religion debate, I'd argue that there is definite proof that guns exist, while there is absolutely no proof that god exists.  If you have proof, I'd love to hear it, and I'm sure quite a few other people would love to hear it as well.

[Urist_McDrowner]

I'd argue that there is definite proof that guns exist,

Can you prove that he couldn't have just used poison or made a bomb? Unless you want to ban every bomb-making ingredient (and probably shut down the economy), it wouldn't have helped.

This guy had no criminal record. He would have passed any background check you threw at him and besides, he stole the guns anyway. What should we have done to keep guns out of his hands?

[misko27]

If you can't see the difference, especially if it has been pointed out to you quite a few times by quite a few people, I think that's your problem.  I'd like to point out that I was the one pointing out the remarks by Huckabee.  I don't know which "party" you think I belong to, but you seem to be making more baseless assumptions.  When someone says something stupid, I'll call them out on it, regardless of whether I agree with their position or not.

What exactly is the difference? Can you PROVE that with better gun control that this would not have happen? Can you PROVE that he would not have used some other means? Can you prove, for that matter, that armed faculty could not have stopped him? Can you prove that removing God did or did not help? Because statistically, they have the exact same proof.

I don't really need to prove anything.  The jump from "maybe if he didn't have access to a gun he wouldn't have been able to do much damage" to what actually happened isn't nearly as far of a leap as "maybe if there was prayer in school the shooter wouldn't have been so morally corrupt" is. 

If I want to reduce it even further, and at the risk of starting a religion debate, I'd argue that there is definite proof that guns exist, while there is absolutely no proof that god exists.  If you have proof, I'd love to hear it, and I'm sure quite a few other people would love to hear it as well.

WAIT I'VE GOT PROOF.

There's a tragedy, Bullets go in, argung comes out. Can't explain that.