If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Boston)   Teacher in Boston area robbed at gunpoint while in school. Wait, that's not possible -- it's a gun-free zone   (boston.cbslocal.com) divider line 112
    More: Obvious, Boston area, Boston, Jamaica Plain, robberies, teachers  
•       •       •

4681 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2013 at 8:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-03 11:40:32 AM

qualtrough: lostcat: Has anyone tried to run the costs on arming every citizen in the US?

Would handguns be subsidized? Bullets?

Would safety training be mandatory? How often would you have to undergo retraining?

If there was no safety training, what would the costs be to hospitalize those who injured themselves or others in accidents?

How would the laws handle people who shot other people who they thought were reaching for their gun, when really they were getting their wallets or cell phones out?

Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?

There are parts of the world where just about every man is armed: Iraq, Tribal areas of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. come to mind. Perhaps proponents of arming everyone could conduct studies of those areas to see how guns have contributed to public safety?


It also helps if killing anyone for any little offense isn't a major part of your religion.
 
drp
2013-03-03 11:40:50 AM

tylerdurden217: It's education system is pretty good...


It appears you weren't educated in Massachusetts.
 
2013-03-03 01:25:44 PM

Publikwerks: The movie theater shootings didn't. Nor did the LA shootout with the bank robbers with assault weapons.


The movie theater was posted no guns, and the only people in LA allowed to possess loaded firearms in public are police and the select few concealed carry holders the sheriff approves of.
 
2013-03-03 01:33:05 PM

lostcat: Has anyone tried to run the costs on arming every citizen in the US?

Would handguns be subsidized? Bullets?

Would safety training be mandatory? How often would you have to undergo retraining?

If there was no safety training, what would the costs be to hospitalize those who injured themselves or others in accidents?

How would the laws handle people who shot other people who they thought were reaching for their gun, when really they were getting their wallets or cell phones out?

Is it just me, or is this idea that everyone should be armed in order to ensure that we are all safe kind of a poorly considered idea?


Is anyone actually suggesting arming everyone or that everyone should be armed?

Put the strawman down and step away slowly.
 
2013-03-03 01:34:01 PM

pueblonative: No, but nobody's suggested that the answer to drunk driving is more liquor.


Could drunk driving be stopped by other people having more liquor?
 
2013-03-03 02:46:53 PM

olstyn: Securitywyrm: Yogimus: The gun control debate has devolved into a team based sport, where both sides are more interested in tallying the score rather than giving it any intelligent thought. Bumper stickers are quoted, clips from websites cut and pasted, and each side mocks the other for what they themselves do... and we have the gall to call it a debate.

I swear you farks must be chomping at the bit to hear of the next event that you can use to buttress your side.

I have a proposed compromise, but neither side wants to hear it.
New 2nd amendment: No application of restriction upon the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed the application of restrictions on the arms of those engaged in law enforcement."

Translation: Your right to firearms is capped at what the police are allowed to have. Are the police allowed to have semi-auto rifles? Then you're allowed to have one. Police don't get rocket launchers? You can't have one.

Key benefits to this
 1. It allows states to keep their own gun laws.
 2. The standard moves forward with time. What happens when we have plasma pistols and laser rifles? There's already a standard in place.
 3. Arguments that the police need to be 'better armed' than 'law abiding citizens' circle the drain of 'well the police are above law-abiding citizens.'

I'm good with this plan.  It's a simple, fair, elegant, extensible standard, and if there's a significant flaw, I can't see it.

That said, it would seem to either invalidate the NFA or require any LEAs that have SBRs, suppressors, and/or select-fire weapons to register them, pay a $200 tax per item, and submit any officers they'd be issued to/used by to federal background checks and fingerprinting, which is a somewhat amusing consequence.


I don't see how it's 'amusing' at all. Why would the standard for law enforcement to have these weapons be lower than the standard for law-abiding citizens? And a key term in this proposal is 'application of restriction.' Thus you can't require a 'special class' unless the class is available to all. You can't have 'just one class a year' that the police department pays to send the officers too because that's not an even application of the restriction.
 
2013-03-03 07:03:08 PM

eggrolls: Wrencher: eggrolls: archichris: potterydove: eggrolls: Question: can anyone give an example of an acknowledged non-'gun free' zone that actually served to prevent, heck, even just reduce, the fatalities in mass shooting?

There was a story about a shooting that was stopped in san antonio by a bystander who was armed.  I'm too lazy to look up the actual story.

I wasn't. Based on the details, not sure you can claim this one.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp 

And the church security guard who shot the perp before he made it inside,

After he'd killed two people. In a church shelter.

And the MP who stopped the fort hood terrorist.

I'd question calling 13 fatalities a ringing endorsement of your argument how being heavily armed solves the problem.

And pretty much every gun show ever.....because to the best of my knowledge no one ever tried to rob a room full of armed gun dealers.

No, they're too busy shooting themselves. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting . Again, not the best argument you could use to prove gun fetishists are the exemplars of responsibility they should be.

And there was that gun store in Texas where three guys smashed a truck through the wall, and the owner grabbed an AR-15 and killed a couple of them before the last one ran off. ....

Couldn't find this one. But the fact that you seem to conflate a robbery with a mass shooting (unless you're referring to the store owner as the mass shooter..?) is worrisome to say the least.

To sum up, I'm really not seeing a record of success with armed guards, armed parishioners, armed ANYBODY being any more successful at keeping the body count down.

Only every single incident where the shooter was stopped by someone else's bullet. In other words...most of them.

Way to skip over the point. I'm surprised you didn't trip on a body in your rush to get past it.


You had a point? If your point is that everywhere should be a "gun free zone" so that there is no one who is able to stop a crazy shooter, it should be skipped. I fail to see how that would keep the body count down. Crazy people will not obey some law. And removing all guns from America simply is not an option that any sane person would attempt.

/when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
 
2013-03-03 08:19:46 PM

Securitywyrm: olstyn: Securitywyrm: Yogimus: The gun control debate has devolved into a team based sport, where both sides are more interested in tallying the score rather than giving it any intelligent thought. Bumper stickers are quoted, clips from websites cut and pasted, and each side mocks the other for what they themselves do... and we have the gall to call it a debate.

I swear you farks must be chomping at the bit to hear of the next event that you can use to buttress your side.

I have a proposed compromise, but neither side wants to hear it.
New 2nd amendment: No application of restriction upon the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed the application of restrictions on the arms of those engaged in law enforcement."

Translation: Your right to firearms is capped at what the police are allowed to have. Are the police allowed to have semi-auto rifles? Then you're allowed to have one. Police don't get rocket launchers? You can't have one.

Key benefits to this
 1. It allows states to keep their own gun laws.
 2. The standard moves forward with time. What happens when we have plasma pistols and laser rifles? There's already a standard in place.
 3. Arguments that the police need to be 'better armed' than 'law abiding citizens' circle the drain of 'well the police are above law-abiding citizens.'

I'm good with this plan.  It's a simple, fair, elegant, extensible standard, and if there's a significant flaw, I can't see it.

That said, it would seem to either invalidate the NFA or require any LEAs that have SBRs, suppressors, and/or select-fire weapons to register them, pay a $200 tax per item, and submit any officers they'd be issued to/used by to federal background checks and fingerprinting, which is a somewhat amusing consequence.

I don't see how it's 'amusing' at all. Why would the standard for law enforcement to have these weapons be lower than the standard for law-abiding citizens? And a key term in this proposal is 'application of restrictio ...


Amusing as in "ha-ha, the police have to obey the rules too!"
 
2013-03-03 11:07:05 PM
Wrencher:

Way to skip over the point. I'm surprised you didn't trip on a body in your rush to get past it.

You had a point? If your point is that everywhere should be a "gun free zone" so that there ...


Actually that *WASN'T* my point, but hey, don't let that stop you from filling in my side of the debate so you make sense to yourself.

Although you're sure as hell making a better point about the echo chamber that is a gun pervert's imagination than I could have hoped for.
 
Never mind. There's no discussion to be had here.
 
2013-03-04 12:12:28 AM

eggrolls: Wrencher:

Way to skip over the point. I'm surprised you didn't trip on a body in your rush to get past it.

You had a point? If your point is that everywhere should be a "gun free zone" so that there ...

Actually that *WASN'T* my point, but hey, don't let that stop you from filling in my side of the debate so you make sense to yourself.

Although you're sure as hell making a better point about the echo chamber that is a gun pervert's imagination than I could have hoped for.
 
Never mind. There's no discussion to be had here.


If that was not your point, then I indeed missed it. If you have a point beyond " non-'gun free' zones don't help." I just don't see it in what you posted. Maybe it didn't make it out of your echo chamber. Crazy people are crazy. More gun free zones will not stop them.

For the record, I don't even own a gun currently. I do not have a gun fetish. But as soon as I can afford it, I will be getting a concealed carry permit and a handgun( .38 or 9mm not sure which yet). I work alone outside at night in some pretty shady areas of town driving a sweeper. We have had a driver mugged, and another witnessed a drug deal murder just across the street from him(luckily they did not see him). But apparently you would prefer that I not have the ability to protect myself with a gun?
 
2013-03-04 01:09:16 AM

LaughingRadish: MisterTweak: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

Pretty much true. Most gun deaths involve just a single person, and by far the most likely person to be killed is the person who owns the gun. But how the heck can you sell a middle-aged suburbanite a gun if you dwell on things like this:

Fact: If you own a gun, it is more likely to cause your own death than any other individual.

Fact: Your spouse is the second most likely person to be killed with your firearm.

Fact: Your child(ren) are the next most likely person(s) to be killed by your own weapon. But lest you think I would overlook your contribution to your community,

Fact: Your friends/neighbors and their children are right behind your own family when it comes to "most likely to be killed by your weapon".

The second amendment isn't supposed to be pretty, or beneficial, any more than the right to free speech, religion, or soiling yourself, Ted Nugent-esque, in a crowded elevator. I don't need to pretend porn is good in order to own it, it's my right to and anyone who doesn't like it can eat shiat and bark at the moon. I don't need to show that I'm improving society by calling (insert politician/public figure/anyone at all here) a jackass; I don't need to, it is my right. Man up, and stop putting lipstick on the pig.

Are you aware that your factoids came from Josh Sugarman and were disproven shortly after he made them?  He's well-known for telling all sorts of lies and half-truths.


Eh? Never heard of him. No, they're simply self-obvious artifacts of statistics. Again, I'm not advocating that you buy a gun, don't buy a gun, arm everyone in your house, or move to a locale which forbids/requires gun ownership. Whatever floats your boat. But think about it for a moment: Of all the people on this earth, all the billions of them, the one person who is most likely to die from any given firearm, is the owner of that firearm (by suicide - though there's a strong correlation between death by homicide and gun ownership).

The rest are simple by-products of a mix of death by intentional homicide (spousal abuse, delusional behavior, self-righteous moral justification, etc) and accidental homicide (gun-cleaning accidents, drunken dares, children finding home-defense weapons, and mistaken identity). The child who finds your handgun isn't going to be some kid 12 time zones away; it's going to be your own kid, or one of their peers - a neighbor or classmate.

Hell, when the zimmerman guy got a gun, the people who were endangered weren't farmers an hour north of Beijing, they were the people who lived within walking distance of his house. Whether you think he was justified or not is irrelevant to the odds.

Again, if you want a gun, knock yourself out. If you want to surf porn, same thing. It's a free country!
 
2013-03-06 01:48:08 AM

MisterTweak: LaughingRadish: MisterTweak: bmihura: tylerdurden217: Keep worshiping the second amendment... How's that working out for you?

The second amendment is working pretty well here, as is my education from Massachusetts. It taught me how to think critically.

For example: All mass shootings in United States history (outside of war, of course) have occurred in gun-free zones. Yes, even Fort Hood!

Pretty much true. Most gun deaths involve just a single person, and by far the most likely person to be killed is the person who owns the gun. But how the heck can you sell a middle-aged suburbanite a gun if you dwell on things like this:

Fact: If you own a gun, it is more likely to cause your own death than any other individual.

Fact: Your spouse is the second most likely person to be killed with your firearm.

Fact: Your child(ren) are the next most likely person(s) to be killed by your own weapon. But lest you think I would overlook your contribution to your community,

Fact: Your friends/neighbors and their children are right behind your own family when it comes to "most likely to be killed by your weapon".

The second amendment isn't supposed to be pretty, or beneficial, any more than the right to free speech, religion, or soiling yourself, Ted Nugent-esque, in a crowded elevator. I don't need to pretend porn is good in order to own it, it's my right to and anyone who doesn't like it can eat shiat and bark at the moon. I don't need to show that I'm improving society by calling (insert politician/public figure/anyone at all here) a jackass; I don't need to, it is my right. Man up, and stop putting lipstick on the pig.

Are you aware that your factoids came from Josh Sugarman and were disproven shortly after he made them?  He's well-known for telling all sorts of lies and half-truths.

Eh? Never heard of him. No, they're simply self-obvious artifacts of statistics. Again, I'm not advocating that you buy a gun, don't buy a gun, arm everyone in your house, or move to a locale ...


Most of Sugarman's proclaimations get filtered through multiple layers of talking heads who either believe his lies or want people to believe them until they become "common sense".  This is a proof-by-assertion fallacy or "repeat a lie often enough that it becomes truth" that is often misattributed to Joseph Goebbels. If you're so keen about statistics, you should be able to clearly see the half-truths and distortions present in those so-called facts.
 
Displayed 12 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report