So a deranged or mentally ill person is all of a sudden going to become less deranged because someone else might have a gun......interesting theory.

Or maybe - I know it's a stretch for you - someone who isn't deranged can stop the deranged one from killing 25 people.     Maybe slow them down a bit, or kill them, or in your case,  talk to them in very harsh terms about their future, and will they come join you in your various 12-step programs.      Or you can use the UN method and agree with them; maybe help them out and call it  very late term abortion or something, to make yourself feel better.   Maybe if you're lucky, they won't be future democrat voters anyway.     Win Win for you.

Posted by nanu on 12/20/2012 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/20/2012 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Why not a picture of every unarmed person ever killed by an armed one?

Because here's the point, swamp.

If you want to live in a world where everyone is armed to the teeth, then you're not a compassionate human being.

And if you're not a compassionate human being, then I struggle to understand why you want to live at all.  I'm not trying to be insensitive or a jerk, but whats your point?  

Did you like the Cold War?  Did you like mutually assured destruction?  Is that really how you perceive the world?  Isnt that sad and lonely and ****** up?  Is everyone you pas by on the street your potential murderer?  is that how anyone should ever live a life?  

You're being hysterical. Which is part of the problem. Hysterical, unrealistic arguments is the bread and butter of the anti-gun crowd.

And here is the simple fact of the matter: I am not disarming myself. There are crazy ************* out there with guns, and if by chance I encounter one, I want a gun. Take your BS arguments and figure out what the actual problem is.

Posted by slowmoe on 12/22/2012 1:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/22/2012 1:30:00 AM (view original):
Can you give a few examples of something that I do that no one else here on the Pit does?

The usual liberal-hate stuff -      think merit should be important, don't find racism under every rock,  think Sarah Palin is a good person, use common sense and logic sometimes,  cite facts, use quotes, mention 'religion' without throwing up a little,  believe in politeness, think union thugs are the lowest form of primate, think 'patriotism' isn't a bad thing,  see the word 'illegal' in the phrase 'illegal alien'  - you know, all the things that progressive liberals can't fathom or relate to.   
Plus you don't play with Chris Matthews dolls, or wish you could rub your hands through Rachel Madow's hair.    And you don't turn into a pathetic drooling bitter old man whenever America is mentioned.

On the other hand, your defense of Suh, your love of Detroit, and your taste in women are kind of suspect....but to each his own.

OMG, I just threw up a bit in my mouth just reading this clap trap.  You do know Slow that you are saying that Swampy is the ONLY person in the pit that uses common sense, quotes, cite facts, is polite, thinks merit is important.  This includes you and all other republifucks you know?

But seriously, you must be joking, Swamp use quotes and fact?  i have seen so many posters (me included ofcourse) that have ripped Swamp a new one with real facts, as in ones not only derived from the heritage front, Faux news or Wiki. 

Slow, you have proven yourself to be as crazy as swamp by backing him up the way you have.  talk about true Wacos.

Posted by occsid on 12/21/2012 1:18:00 PM (view original):
Dear NRA,

In case you haven't been paying attention, and by your statement today, you haven't. Teacher, Cops and firefighters are being laid off across the country. Funding for education and public safety are being cut everywhere. How do you plan to pay these people you want in the schools?  Personally, if we are going to spend money on schools, let's hire more teachers and pay them more. Our education system is in the toilet, we are being beat out in education by most other eastern and western civilized countries.  

As for cops and firefighters, in the area I live in alone at least ten police departments have folded leaving the job of police their city/township to either county or state police.  One cities fire department folded and is now being covered by the adjoining township. How about we hired these people back and maybe they could catch some of these people for they snap. 

Also, How about money for better mental health care? Oh right, that would be too complicated and lead to more government intervention. Let's not try to help out those who have mental health issues, instead let's arm ourselves to the teeth and kill them when they do snap.  

Please do me a favor and take your idea, roll it up and shove it back where you pulled it from.  

Sincerely,

An average American!

You're a ******* idiot.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 12/22/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nanu on 12/20/2012 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/20/2012 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Why not a picture of every unarmed person ever killed by an armed one?

Because here's the point, swamp.

If you want to live in a world where everyone is armed to the teeth, then you're not a compassionate human being.

And if you're not a compassionate human being, then I struggle to understand why you want to live at all.  I'm not trying to be insensitive or a jerk, but whats your point?  

Did you like the Cold War?  Did you like mutually assured destruction?  Is that really how you perceive the world?  Isnt that sad and lonely and ****** up?  Is everyone you pas by on the street your potential murderer?  is that how anyone should ever live a life?  

You're being hysterical. Which is part of the problem. Hysterical, unrealistic arguments is the bread and butter of the anti-gun crowd.

And here is the simple fact of the matter: I am not disarming myself. There are crazy ************* out there with guns, and if by chance I encounter one, I want a gun. Take your BS arguments and figure out what the actual problem is.

The actual problem Clark, is that there is a certain element of people out there that have become so disenfranchised and ****** off at "the system" that they go off the rails.  Some so far off the rails that they fee they need to make a point in a destructive way.  Most of them do minor things (comparitively) things ranging from offing themselves down to spreading the word via twitter and blogs.  I for one am from that element of people, but I am not remotely crazy enough to do anything more then spreading the word.  That is my mission.

Posted by seamar_116 on 12/22/2012 3:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by slowmoe on 12/21/2012 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Columbine...had an armed Resource Officer who happened to be out patrolling the Smoker's Pit at the time. They can't be everywhere.

Ft. Hood.....duh...someone must have been armed, despite what Fencer has said about the soft nature of military bases.

Va Tech...campus police, although to be fair, I don't know if they are armed.

Does every building on a campus have to have its own armed security? Who is going to pay for that? I know how fiscally minded you all are. Is it okay if the security belong to a union, like many police are? Does the money for this come out of education budgets?


And as for calls for "secret" security ala sky marshals....so how is a teacher supposed to react when they see someone with a gun on campus? Are they supposed to be alarmed or reassured? What course of action should they take? If they are carrying should they shoot first and ask questions second?

The guard at Columbine exchanged fire with the shooters and called for backup YOU FAIL.

Haven't been on post lately, have you? And you also don't realize how big Fort Hood is. YOU FAIL.

"Gun free zone". YOU FAIL.

There is plenty of money in education. Especially re college. Administrators have multiplied like rabbits. Numerous positions could be eliminated to pay for someone useful.

Posted by slowmoe on 12/22/2012 5:15:00 AM (view original):
Military bases are not armed camps in CONUS, unless it is involved in nuclear weapons.    Everything is locked up and takes time to get.    I don't think it would cost extra to have volunteer school employees also be trained and armed.     Yoou don't have to hire rent-a-cops for it.    You could have volunteers (note - volunteers) take training, apply for, and get a license to carry.   Special training on handling and storing things works on campuses that have radioactive material, or controlled substances.
Despite the screaming about how pure teachers are and how world-peace dominates the failure called 'education', there would be volunteers.
No one needs to know which teacher has one.  If any.   Maybe no one would have one.   But we could take down the stupid 'Gun Free Zone' posters, and at least make it risky.
Somewhere, maybe down the street from you, is a lonely bullied kid on medication, and he's going to do something bad.    You want to throw the obstacle in his way that makes it unlikely for his mother to have multiple guns, fine.    But there are also other obstacles to use.    Why are you against them?
Criminals and crazy people don't give a damn about whatever law you want to make.  I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp.

I made this exact argument last night while having a conversation with a couple family members.  They couldn't seem to keep the volunteer, and intense training parts in their heads.

Teachers can volunteer for the program.  Their applications are scrutinized and only the ones with extremely clean records get in.  A two-week combat pistol training course starts them out.  Fail the course, you are out of the program.  Requalify with your carry gun every 6 months.  Undergo psychological testing every 6 months.  Fail either part, and you are suspended from the program.  Eligible to re-enter at next 6 month testing phase.  Inclusion in the program is not public knowledge.  You are basically undercover in the school.  

It works with the FFDOs. If you didn't know, those are Federal Flight Deck Officers - or Pilots with Pistols.  You aren't supposed to know which ones they are, and you never will unless someone breeches the cockpit of their plane.

You would only get teachers that want that extra burden.  You wouldn't force anyone to do something they aren't comfortable with.

Posted by slowmoe on 12/22/2012 10:17:00 AM (view original):
Or maybe - I know it's a stretch for you - someone who isn't deranged can stop the deranged one from killing 25 people.     Maybe slow them down a bit, or kill them, or in your case,  talk to them in very harsh terms about their future, and will they come join you in your various 12-step programs.      Or you can use the UN method and agree with them; maybe help them out and call it  very late term abortion or something, to make yourself feel better.   Maybe if you're lucky, they won't be future democrat voters anyway.     Win Win for you.

So the armed guard at Columbine failed because........???? You make it sound like because there's an armed guard, they will think twice about shooting up some place. Bzzzzzzt.

And you of course miss the point.  Armed guards are not the fool proof solution.  But the shooters at Columbine knew they had but one person to deal with: the guard, who was easily identifiable.  They did not have to worry about someone carrying concealed.  Still, his presence saved lives.  Why?  BECAUSE HE HAD A ******* GUN.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 12/22/2012 3:22:00 PM (view original):
And you of course miss the point.  Armed guards are not the fool proof solution.  But the shooters at Columbine knew they had but one person to deal with: the guard, who was easily identifiable.  They did not have to worry about someone carrying concealed.  Still, his presence saved lives.  Why?  BECAUSE HE HAD A ******* GUN.

Okay, so we have an unknown quantity of people on campus carrying guns. I am a teacher. How do I know which of my colleagues is suppose to have the gun and which one just got outed by the student he/she was having the affair with and has gone off the rails?

I hardly miss the point. Now the argument is morphing into allow guns into schools (well everywhere) and more lives will be saved when bad things happen. How can you quantify this? Can't I just as easily say, "When more guns are everywhere, more accidents and bad things will happen?"

Why is this almost exclusively an American problem? Yes, violence happens everywhere. But in the US it is not an isolated incident. The Newtown body count happens every day in the US. Why is that?

its biblical

david killed goliath with a gun

this country is all about david

Posted by The Taint on 12/22/2012 10:10:00 AM (view original):
So a deranged or mentally ill person is all of a sudden going to become less deranged because someone else might have a gun......interesting theory.

we just need to redefine what a mentally ill person is, so there are not as many of them

Posted by bagchucker on 12/22/2012 4:34:00 PM (view original):
its biblical

david killed goliath with a gun

this country is all about david

In point of fact, David put down the armor and weapons Saul gave him to take on Goliath. He went after him with  a slingshot. How about we ban all weapons except slingshots? You can use whatever type of projectile you want, hollowpoint, .50 cal, .223 whatever, flechette,  Stay-puff marshmallow, whatever.

Posted by seamar_116 on 12/22/2012 3:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 12/22/2012 3:22:00 PM (view original):
And you of course miss the point.  Armed guards are not the fool proof solution.  But the shooters at Columbine knew they had but one person to deal with: the guard, who was easily identifiable.  They did not have to worry about someone carrying concealed.  Still, his presence saved lives.  Why?  BECAUSE HE HAD A ******* GUN.

Okay, so we have an unknown quantity of people on campus carrying guns. I am a teacher. How do I know which of my colleagues is suppose to have the gun and which one just got outed by the student he/she was having the affair with and has gone off the rails?

I hardly miss the point. Now the argument is morphing into allow guns into schools (well everywhere) and more lives will be saved when bad things happen. How can you quantify this? Can't I just as easily say, "When more guns are everywhere, more accidents and bad things will happen?"

Why is this almost exclusively an American problem? Yes, violence happens everywhere. But in the US it is not an isolated incident. The Newtown body count happens every day in the US. Why is that?

Criminals.

Again, if guns are the problem, why are there not more murders per capita in rural areas, where there are more guns per capita?  Why is the murder rate higher for African Americans than whites, when whites own more guns per capita?

And, as I have pointed out, guns are not going away.  Even if there was no 2nd Amendment, there are 300 million guns in this country.  They will always be there.  The"fewer guns" argument is a complete waste of time.