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.

(New York Daily News)   School clerk convinced suicidal gunman to drop weapons, surrender to police instead of killing scores of children at Georgia elementary school   (nydailynews.com) divider line 134
    More: Hero, ABC World News, Antoinette Tuff, WSB-TV, Decatur, elementary schools, DeKalb County, warning shot  
•       •       •

6469 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2013 at 11:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-21 01:47:52 PM  
There's a lot of wharblegarble from both sides of the gun control debate.

Most of the anti-gun or gun-control measures being suggested appear to have little thought behind them. Assault weapons aren't involved with crime - they're just ~scary~. Massive restrictions on suppressor ownership didn't fix a non-existent assassination problem.  Mentally incompetent people don't tend to acquire guns from legal/regulated sources, and so on with these trite changes that ignore the cultural or societal problems that are the root cause of gun issues such as safety and firearms crime. No one ever considers what will a new restriction or regulation 'fix'.

This lack of foresight is endemic in gun debates, and we so often end up spending time, money, political capital and voter interest on or fighting non-functional 'solutions'. We appear to lack answers to even basic questions like "How much time and money is being spent to correct those few situations this technological fix claims value in?" or " Is this an efficient application of our resources?"
This is not a case of 'every little bit helps' - time and money are finite resources, and they should be spent where they achieve the best outcome.

If you had a goal of reducing crimes involving handguns, spending on weapon modifications, regulations, certifications, and registrations may very well achieve your goal. It's not the only way to achieve it though - compare spending that money on education, which also has a statistical association with crime reduction. How about strengthening cultural value of marriage (single-parent homes produce more criminal children, committing more severe crimes, especially when the father is absent)?

The problem is most gun legislation right now is completely irrational. On one side we have those who are conditioned to be terrified of guns, and on the other, we have people who fear any regulation - even reasonable regulation - as a threat to their way of life, an unacceptable lockdown by big brother. Both scramble for facts, but the heart of both sides is driven by some irrational terror.  It'd be nice if this resulted in a stalemate, but that's not how it works.  Instead, one side has an agenda to use reasonable restrictions in unreasonable ways (see Chicago, for example) and the other side is forced to fanatically defend themselves from any new restriction, no matter how rational, lest it be used against the spirit of the restriction.

... it's sad that something that costs lives is still not yet important enough to consider rationally at the federal, state, or city level.
 
2013-08-21 01:48:54 PM  

mediablitz: Trying to figure out where you saw me suggesting we need guns in schools. I never did. That's why I can't figure it out.

We don't need guns in schools. It's a stupid idea.


Sorry, I assumed apparently incorrectly that since you weren't for absolutes and no different than people whom say guns for everyone that you also weren't for no guns at all.  It seemed like you were taking a moderate approach but I guess that's not what you were saying and I guess that's what I get for piggy backing on your comment to someone else.
 
2013-08-21 02:01:47 PM  
quietwalker:
  This lack of foresight is endemic in gun debates, and we so often end up spending time, money, political capital and voter interest on or fighting non-functional 'solutions'.


You seem so close to actually grasping the point with statements like:

We appear to lack answers to even basic questions like "How much time and money is being spent to correct those few situations this technological fix claims value in?" or " Is this an efficient application of our resources?"
 This is not a case of 'every little bit helps' - time and money are finite resources, and they should be spent where they achieve the best outcome.


Then you fark it up with statements like:

If you had a goal of reducing crimes involving handguns, spending on weapon modifications, regulations, certifications, and registrations may very well achieve your goal. It's not the only way to achieve it though - compare spending that money on education, which also has a statistical association with crime reduction. How about strengthening cultural value of marriage (single-parent homes produce more criminal children, committing more severe crimes, especially when the father is absent)?

You're still focusing on the instrument and not the motivation. Waving a magic wand to disappear all guns won't stop Drug Dealer Dan from killing Rival Randy over control of the crack corner because it isn't directed at the underlying driving cause for the violent act. You're asking the right questions, "How can we spend time/money effectively?" but you're applying it to 'gun violence' when you should be asking that question about violence and violent crime instead.

As the old canard goes, "Take the gun out of gun violence and you're still left with violence."


 
2013-08-21 02:13:09 PM  

KidneyStone: fawlty: OK, I've changed my mind.  We need to ban ARs and similar type weapons.  I'd love to have one myself, but too many wackos are getting them and those just pose too much of a threat.

The guy is a convicted felon and him having any gun is illegal.  How would a ban have any effect?


Where did he get his gun?
 
2013-08-21 02:15:19 PM  
At least this tragedy will give justification around the country for cities to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars, forcibly extracted from the citizenry through questionable practices, the go ahead to convert their S.W.A.T. teams into ever more frightening, paramilitary entities.

You know...for children. We do you hate America citizen?

assets.nydailynews.com
 
2013-08-21 02:19:21 PM  

quietwalker: forced to fanatically defend themselves


You think you appear unbiased while making excuses for your side.
 
2013-08-21 02:27:10 PM  
Her name had to be Tuff. Now I have a Fabulous Thunderbirds earworm.
 
Bf+
2013-08-21 02:31:56 PM  
Right person + right time = true hero.
You really should see her interview.
 
2013-08-21 02:35:02 PM  
If we're ever going to talk about the mental health vs legal gun ownership issue, I'd like to throw this in...

If you're diagnosed with PTSD and are receiving any level of disability payments due to it, you must surrender your right to own a gun.  I'm cool with it being just for the length of time that you're receiving the benefits along with the diagnosis.

You've either got a serious psychological condition that renders you "disabled" to some degree, or you don't. Your right to own a gun should be in directcorrelation to that binary.

"I served my country defending my right to own a gun." While true, "you're also damaged enough to receive entitlements." I'd be interested to see how TEA partiers and Libertarians reconcile that conundrum.
 
2013-08-21 02:38:52 PM  

Pangea: If we're ever going to talk about the mental health vs legal gun ownership issue, I'd like to throw this in...

If you're diagnosed with PTSD and are receiving any level of disability payments due to it, you must surrender your right to own a gun.  I'm cool with it being just for the length of time that you're receiving the benefits along with the diagnosis.

You've either got a serious psychological condition that renders you "disabled" to some degree, or you don't. Your right to own a gun should be in directcorrelation to that binary.


Way to make people not want to seek help there, broseph.
 
2013-08-21 03:01:18 PM  
clancifer

She did this without being armed? Not possible.
Just like nobody survives a car crash while not wearing a seatbelt. But keep up your derp.
 
2013-08-21 03:08:21 PM  
dj_spanmaster

This woman needs a medal.

^ She's worth more than the entirety of blue shirted "sheep dogs" that got to mug for cameras yesterday.

If we had more folks like her and people rather than the tin badge assholes, the wolrld would be a better place.

~5-6 hrs to reunite children with their parents? farking criminal.
 
2013-08-21 03:11:06 PM  

FrancoFile

Did I miss it in the earlier thread, or do we not have any background info on the shooter? Facebook etc?
Didn't the zimmerman case teach you anything? A violent nut's a history of violent social media postings don't matter.
 
2013-08-21 03:15:02 PM  
lostcat
She must have had a concealed-carry gun on her. We all know that only by arming everyone can we hope to end gun violence.
It's truly great no innocents were harmed, but now you have one (1) example of a nut being talked down by an unarmed person. How many examples do we have of that unarmed person not being able to do a g.d. thing? For me? I'll play the odds. Innocents are worth protecting, and "hope" is not protection.
 
2013-08-21 03:28:08 PM  

BayouOtter: Way to make people not want to seek help there, broseph.


Seeking and receiving mental health services is not the same as receiving lifetime benefits from US tax dollars because you're diagnosed as unfit to work.  As a recovering addict who carries meetings to the VA hospital, I am surrounded with these individuals. I personally know 8 people who are on 100% disability for PTSD and get a tax-free paycheck, plus free healthcare because of their diagnosis.

I don't know how much they get paid, but I heard one of them say say "wow I couldn't live on that" when told that another person makes $3200 a month. I also heard him say that his PTSD was because of falling off a ladder when working on a base stateside. He went to the VA emergency room after one of our meetings because he had a sore throat.

Meanwhile my wife and I had to sleep in a car for a month, so that we could pay the $1000 for COBRA in order to keep her from being denied insurance for a preexisting condition, while I was between jobs.

When I listen to those same veterans biatch about Obamacare robbing the American people, I want to explode. If they refuse to seek help for their problem, at least they don't get a lifetime paycheck on my back.
 
2013-08-21 03:31:33 PM  

Snatch Bandergrip: maddogdelta: Warthog: I call shenanigans. A school front office employee who appears to be something other than fat, lazy, and disinterested about everything in life other than snack break? There exists no such thing.

The headline should have been:
"UNION THUG PREVENTS PATRIOT FROM EXERCISING HIS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!"

Came for this


There are no public education unions in Georgia. Right to work state. The closest thing they have, the Georgia Association of Educators, is little more than a club.
 
2013-08-21 03:39:16 PM  

Herbie555: But...but... I've been told "The only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?"


I think you're onto something here. What if he wasn't really a "bad guy"? What if he didn't really want to shoot anybody, but was just under a fark-ton of stress, and had no idea of what to do? If he really wanted to shoot somebody, he had ample opportunity. Looks like all he really needed was somebody to talk to. Somebody who at least pretended to care about his problems, whatever her motivations might be. Seems like all he really needed was some attention, and to be talked down from that ledge, my friend.

This woman is to be commended for keeping her cool, not panicking, and quite possibly saving a lot of lives yesterday, including that of the gunman.

Give her a key to the city, at a very minimum.
 
2013-08-21 03:53:39 PM  
And WTF about the police? Returning fire INTO an occupied school?

REALLY?!?
 
2013-08-21 04:02:22 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: quietwalker: forced to fanatically defend themselves

You think you appear unbiased while making excuses for your side.


I think I'm in the middle.  I see people who claim they MUST have them as some sort of fetishist, as fanatical as people who believe no one should have them.  Both sides have been so blocked by the others that they resort to these meta-political games; using gun regulations in an unintended manner to restrict gun ownership, transport, sale, or type, while the other side blows up about concepts like mandatory safety certification or gun registration in part because they've been used to block what would otherwise be acceptable use.

I think that when it comes to sides, both sides end up claiming I'm on the other one, because I don't toe their party line.  I might appear biased on one side due to other issues though - I'm generally against expanding the powers of government, especially at the federal or state level, so I'm biased against anything that results in additional restrictions or loss of per-existing liberties.

Personally, I don't even own a gun.  I don't really see the need for me to have one, and I don't personally find them very interesting.  However, I also don't see any reason any other given law abiding individual should be restricted from having one, though I would prefer they present reasonable proof they are educated on its safe and proper use.
 
2013-08-21 04:09:49 PM  

HAMMERTOE: And WTF about the police? Returning fire INTO an occupied school?

REALLY?!?


Just aim at least five feet high and you won't hit any kids.
 
2013-08-21 04:14:53 PM  

BayouOtter: Then you fark it up with statements like:

If you had a goal of reducing crimes involving handguns, spending on weapon modifications, regulations, certifications, and registrations may very well achieve your goal. It's not the only way to achieve it though - compare spending that money on education, which also has a statistical association with crime reduction. How about strengthening cultural value of marriage (single-parent homes produce more criminal children, committing more severe crimes, especially when the father is absent)?

You're still focusing on the instrument and not the motivation. Waving a magic wand to disappear all guns won't stop Drug Dealer Dan from killing Rival Randy over control of the crack corner because it isn't directed at the underlying driving cause for the violent act. You're asking the right questions, "How can we spend time/money effectively?" but you're applying it to 'gun violence' when you should be asking that question about violence and violent crime instead.

As the old canard goes, "Take the gun out of gun violence and you're still left with violence."


Well, I'm setting up a hypothetical.  If your goal is the reduction of gun violence, then your methods may very well be different compared to a similarly aligned goal of reduction of all violence.

The discussion of what is a reasonable, best goal is a separate discussion.

The problem is that both sides seem to confuse a given step (ban all guns vs. remove weapon restrictions) as the end goal, instead of something of actual use, like increase safety, decrease crime, etc.  Emotion causes them to become irrational and their brain short circuits, and now it's an end to itself with no concept of the big picture.

It's exactly the same as the folks who would call bush evil, and then couldn't come up with something he had done that was specifically evil, as opposed to say, incompetent.  That didn't slow them down for a minute though, they just _knew_ he was evil, and that was that.
 
2013-08-21 04:35:32 PM  

quietwalker: The problem is that both sides seem to confuse a given step (ban all guns vs. remove weapon restrictions) as the end goal, instead of something of actual use, like increase safety, decrease crime, etc. Emotion causes them to become irrational and their brain short circuits, and now it's an end to itself with no concept of the big picture.


Not exactly. Part of the problem is that one side suspects the other side of using the apparent problem as a tool to advance a hidden agenda. With the current trends towards having a government absolutely bristling with the weapons of war on  local level, as well as the gradual but undeniable usurpation of individual rights, privacy, and civil liberties, who is to say that their suspicion is unjustified? Certainly not the government. It has lost any claim to objectivity a long time ago, when it mistakenly rationalized that whatever was good for it was automatically good for "the country". This directly comes from the line of thought that "we are a nation of laws" the lawyers and politicians subscribe to in order to inflate their feelings of self-importance. We are actually a nation of people, who time after time, are called to lay down their lives in defense of the laws, written to benefit the rich and powerful. Without us, the "enemies" that the rich and powerful work so hard to keep us fearful of would wash over them like a spring breeze. This "War on Terror" will never end, because "Terror" cannot surrender. What will happen is the government will increasingly distance itself from, *and over* the people until The People have no reason to maintain it any longer. Those times will be interesting indeed.
 
2013-08-21 04:39:52 PM  
If she'd only been armed, she could have blown his brains out like a real 'murican
 
2013-08-21 04:48:27 PM  

fawlty: OK, I've changed my mind.  We need to ban ARs and similar type weapons.  I'd love to have one myself, but too many wackos are getting them and those just pose too much of a threat.



Don't like ARs?  Don't buy one.
 
2013-08-21 04:51:04 PM  

Bf+: Right person + right time = true hero.
You really should see her interview.



Her bravery combined with a ton of luck lead to that ideal ending.
 
2013-08-21 04:59:15 PM  

quietwalker: However, I also don't see any reason any other given law abiding individual should be restricted from having one, though I would prefer they present reasonable proof they are educated on its safe and proper use.


What you prefer is no change at all so it's clear which side you're on.
 
2013-08-21 05:46:48 PM  

Axissillian: If only she had a gun with her, then the situation could have been escalated.


What's a matter, little grabber?  Not enough dead people for you to push your agenda?
 
2013-08-21 05:54:06 PM  

kombat_unit: Axissillian: If only she had a gun with her, then the situation could have been escalated.

What's a matter, little grabber?  Not enough dead people for you to push your agenda?


Good thing the NRA and its hive have never used the fear of violence to promote firearms.
 
2013-08-21 06:33:08 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: kombat_unit: Axissillian: If only she had a gun with her, then the situation could have been escalated.

What's a matter, little grabber?  Not enough dead people for you to push your agenda?

Good thing the NRA and its hive have never used the fear of violence to promote firearms.


They are an industry lobbying group.  And they do it well -- they know how to ramp up the fear rhetoric to their simple-minded subscribers.
 
2013-08-21 06:54:57 PM  
ts4.mm.bing.nettheaveragejoel.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-21 07:04:00 PM  

clancifer: Uranus Is Huge!: kombat_unit: Axissillian: If only she had a gun with her, then the situation could have been escalated.

What's a matter, little grabber?  Not enough dead people for you to push your agenda?

Good thing the NRA and its hive have never used the fear of violence to promote firearms.

They are an industry lobbying group.  And they do it well -- they know how to ramp up the fear rhetoric to their simple-minded subscribers.


No, they are not. Here, take a look at their tax records.

In 2010 they had an annual income of $227.8 million. $115 million came from fundraising, sales, advertising (they sell ads in their magazines and publications), and royalties. The remaining $112.8 million came from membership dues, making membership dues the largest single chunk of their income.

Between 2005-2010 they received $14.8 million from more than 50 different firearm-related firms, or just under $3 million per year on average. In 2010 their advertising income, most of it from industry, came to $20.9 million (9.2%). Assuming their total income from industry consists of advertising + corporate donations, that's $20.9 + $3 million = $23.9 million, or about 10.5% of their annual income.

Based on their publicly available finances, it sure looks like their mostly speaking for their dues-paying members.
If you're interested in the actual firearms industry trade group, that'd be the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
 
2013-08-21 10:19:34 PM  
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - Wayne LaPierre, NRA vice president

"A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind." - Count Aral Vorkosigan, in Lois McMaster Bujold's novel Vor Game
 
2013-08-21 11:52:33 PM  

stevarooni: I'm glad she was able to talk him down.  She was brave as hell to try to.  This situation turned out way, way better than it might have.

Of course the kid shouldn't have gotten past the front door, since there was apparently a secure door, but followed in the wake of someone who was allowed in.  Obviously the dude he followed is embarrassed as hell!

FTFA:

"I don't know how this could happen at this school," said Jackie Zamora, 61, the grandmother of a 6-year-old boy who was inside the school during the tense standoff.

"There's so much security."


Didn't work to well, did it?
 
2013-08-22 02:09:31 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: quietwalker: However, I also don't see any reason any other given law abiding individual should be restricted from having one, though I would prefer they present reasonable proof they are educated on its safe and proper use.

What you prefer is no change at all so it's clear which side you're on.


I would prefer a great deal of change, actually.  There appears to be no fact-based evidence to support the banning of assault rifles, suppressors, and a number of other restrictions when you look at metrics such as crime and public safety.  They're simply not used in the commission of crimes.  Same with issues like expanding background checks and such.

In fact, enhanced background checks are good example.  Let's do the math.  Take the sum total of everyone who purchased a gun legally in a year in the US, then filter down those people who would have been blocked from ownership by a background check if the situation required one.  Now, let's further filter that by those individuals who then went on to commit a crime involving a firearm *assume it's the purchased one*.   So that's the intended effect of more background checks:  You're attempting to stop future gun-related crimes by those individuals who will not attempt to circumvent gun purchase laws, but somehow are able to legally buy a gun, and then aside from being otherwise law-abiding, will commit a crime with that gun.

That number, it turns out, is very very small.  You can stop somewhere on the average of 3 murders every 2 years with that, in the US.  Those numbers are so small as to be statistically invalid - it could just be a rounding error.  I don't want to deprive you of verifying the numbers for yourself, go to the DOJ and other sites that provide the right breakdowns and do the math.  I chose the worst-case scenario, where 100% of these people are criminals, if you're curious.

Now look at how much money is being spent by all parties on this, how much time and effort, and other limited resources have been expended to expand this and other useless or nearly so legislation.  Then compare it to the fact that about 2/3's of gun deaths in the US are suicides in the first place.  Maybe if you want to help, pass some legislation relating to gun sales to people who are clinically depressed?  Maybe ignore the gun aspect entirely and just spend that money on subsidizing psychological counseling - you'd sure as hell save a lot more lives.

It's very simple; we can spend resources on irrational restrictions that do nothing, or we can save lives.  I'm not going to claim to be the most moral person, but I do have certain views about individuals who choose to hedge against their irrational fears at the cost of human life.

So, no, I don't want it to stay how it is.  How it is happens to be a house of cards built on irrational anger and wharlarbl, and it has no solid foundation, provides no benefit to our culture or society, and costs us vast amounts of resources to maintain.  We have people claiming they're interested in safety and public health, and when they could choose to save tens of thousands, they instead attempt legislation that will impact only 2 or 3.  That's completely bonkers.

There are a zillion examples from the other side too, with billy bob and his desire to shoot deer from his back porch in a suburban environment to those who want to remove restrictions like waiting periods or sales to the dangerous or criminal.  There are many GOOD restrictions that prevent loss of life and personal or property damage.  Arguing that your right to shoot off a gun in your backyard is more important than my safety is insane.  Your right to do what you want ends when it starts affecting me.

So no, I want the whole thing ripped down and replaced with a system where restrictions are based on safety and actual crime prevention not irrational hate or fear, either of guns, or the government.
 
Displayed 34 of 134 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report