Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Hero, ABC World News, Antoinette Tuff, WSB-TV, Decatur, elementary schools, DeKalb County, warning shot  
•       •       •

6486 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2013 at 11:52 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-21 11:53:13 AM  
God bless her
 
2013-08-21 11:53:25 AM  
This woman is a major hero and deserves this praise!
 
2013-08-21 11:53:34 AM  
This woman needs a medal.
 
2013-08-21 11:54:35 AM  
This is an outrage!!!  We need to ban clerks!   Oh wait...what happened?
 
2013-08-21 11:56:11 AM  
She should go buy a fark ton of lottery tickets.
 
2013-08-21 11:56:15 AM  
She will be fired in 3. 2. 1....
 
2013-08-21 11:56:16 AM  
img14.imageshack.us
Haven't read any "He was such a nice boy" comments yet. WHERE ARE YOUR GRANDMOTHERS NOW?
 
2013-08-21 11:56:52 AM  
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.
 
2013-08-21 11:57:22 AM  
She did this without being armed?  Not possible.
 
2013-08-21 11:57:41 AM  
The only thing that stops a depressed, homicidal, suicidal madman with a gun is an unarmed southern black woman with a sob story of her own.
 
2013-08-21 11:59:44 AM  
She would've been more effective if she had a gun. No, two guns.
 
2013-08-21 12:00:53 PM  
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.
 
2013-08-21 12:01:23 PM  
If only she had a gun with her, then the situation could have been escalated.
 
2013-08-21 12:01:42 PM  
Ms. Tuff? More like Ms. Tough with titanium ovaries.

And, yeah. The guy seemed more like he the depressed, lonely shooter who is crying out for attention type than anything else. Ms. Tuff did an amazing job in seeing this and getting him to calm down and relate to her on a human level. If she had not been there, who knows what horrific tragedy could have happened.
 
2013-08-21 12:02:13 PM  

Sean M: This is an outrage!!!  We need to ban clerks!   Oh wait...what happened?


Aww, but I like that movie...


cdn-media.hollywood.com
 
2013-08-21 12:03:13 PM  
My conclusion is this guy didnt really want to kill anyone. Maybe he thought he did when he loaded up all that firepower, but he either wised up when he got there (seems unlikely to me) or never really was going to kill anyone.

I think he just was crying for attention. And probably mentally ill.

/farking terrible for the parents that had kids there, ugh
 
2013-08-21 12:03:21 PM  
I smell a prison romance blooming
 
2013-08-21 12:03:23 PM  
Dude, don't be "that guy."  Nobody likes "that guy."
 
2013-08-21 12:04:42 PM  
The guy is already a felon, so I can only see this woman's act of talking him out of killing himself as a mistake!

We help save human beings. Not felons.

H-U-M-A-N.

F-E-L-O-N.

Both are spelled differently, and therefore, both differ in types of living organisms. The only difference is that one just LOOKS like a human being, and is useless in its existence.
 
2013-08-21 12:05:06 PM  
Did I miss it in the earlier thread, or do we not have any background info on the shooter?  Facebook etc?
 
2013-08-21 12:06:15 PM  
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.
 
2013-08-21 12:06:19 PM  

FrancoFile: Did I miss it in the earlier thread, or do we not have any background info on the shooter?  Facebook etc?


Excellent point.  Clearly a false flag operation.  He's an Illuminati plant with no past.
 
2013-08-21 12:06:42 PM  

FrancoFile: Did I miss it in the earlier thread, or do we not have any background info on the shooter?  Facebook etc?


He's kind of an asshole. Collects guns, I heard.
 
2013-08-21 12:06:45 PM  
If only she'd been armed instead, the taxpayers would have been spared a lengthy and pointless show trial.
 
2013-08-21 12:08:55 PM  
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!
 
2013-08-21 12:09:13 PM  
She's great, but he wasn't going to kill anyone. Just wanted attention.
 
2013-08-21 12:09:45 PM  
She talked down a depressed copycat.  Please do not think that because she talked down this kid, that all individuals in these situations can be talked down.
 
2013-08-21 12:10:36 PM  
Good on her.
 
2013-08-21 12:13:22 PM  

dj_spanmaster: This woman needs a medal.


This.

Well done, Ms. Tuff. Well done indeed.
 
2013-08-21 12:14:13 PM  
Subby should be banned for miss-use of the hero tag. It is now only to be used for stories about cheese burgers.
 
2013-08-21 12:15:08 PM  

theBigBigEye: The guy is already a felon, so I can only see this woman's act of talking him out of killing himself as a mistake!

We help save human beings. Not felons.

H-U-M-A-N.

F-E-L-O-N.

Both are spelled differently, and therefore, both differ in types of living organisms. The only difference is that one just LOOKS like a human being, and is useless in its existence.


You're right. She should have riled the armed and unstable guy up for awhile just to see what happened. You're a smart one.
 
2013-08-21 12:16:00 PM  

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!"
 
2013-08-21 12:16:22 PM  

doubled99: She's great, but he wasn't going to kill anyone. Just wanted attention.


Glad you can confirm that.

We sould definitely allow people who just want attention, and don't plan to kill anyone, to wander freely with loaded guns and fire off shots at police officers. What harm are they doing?
 
2013-08-21 12:17:01 PM  

willfullyobscure: FrancoFile: Did I miss it in the earlier thread, or do we not have any background info on the shooter?  Facebook etc?

He's kind of an asshole. Collects guns, I heard.


Police report from earlier in the year.

Brother called the cops, said he was making threats. Also said he has mental issues and is under a doctors care.

We've got to do something to cover the mental health-guns connection.
 
2013-08-21 12:17:55 PM  
Meh. It's a happy ending to a terrifying story, but it still would have been better if every single teacher, janitor, cook, administrator, and child were carrying their own concealed weapon. Or a couple, in the case of the adults and the huskier male students. Sure a few people would have been hit, possibly killed, in the resulting confusion/crossfire, but there's no upside to the story for the gun lobby this way. It just makes them look like a bunch of assholes. That's not fair.
 
2013-08-21 12:19:05 PM  
I bet she mentioned God or her faith while talking to him.  She should be fired.
 
2013-08-21 12:20:24 PM  

doubled99: She's great, but he wasn't going to kill anyone. Just wanted attention.


You can't know that, and neither can I.
She was brave and it was effective.
 
2013-08-21 12:20:31 PM  

FrancoFile: We've got to do something to cover the mental health-guns connection.


How about the "mental health-out in public" connection?  If he can't be trusted with guns, he can become a menace with any number of things.
 
2013-08-21 12:20:51 PM  

CygnusDarius: She would've been more effective if she had a gun. No, two guns.


How do you get more effective than "bad guy caught, no one hurt?"
 
2013-08-21 12:21:28 PM  

FrancoFile: willfullyobscure: FrancoFile: Did I miss it in the earlier thread, or do we not have any background info on the shooter?  Facebook etc?

He's kind of an asshole. Collects guns, I heard.

Police report from earlier in the year.

Brother called the cops, said he was making threats. Also said he has mental issues and is under a doctors care.

We've got to do something to cover the mental health-guns connection.


How dare you suggest that we use a person's state of health as a reason to deny them their fundamental rights under God.
 
2013-08-21 12:21:39 PM  
Take a good look.  This is what the face of a hero looks like:

assets.nydailynews.com
 
2013-08-21 12:21:40 PM  
lostcat She's great, but he wasn't going to kill anyone. Just wanted attention.

Glad you can confirm that.

We sould definitely allow people who just want attention, and don't plan to kill anyone, to wander freely with loaded guns and fire off shots at police officers. What harm are they doing?



Yeah, that's exactly what I was advocating! You're so smart!
 
2013-08-21 12:21:52 PM  

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
 
2013-08-21 12:21:54 PM  

stevarooni: FrancoFile: We've got to do something to cover the mental health-guns connection.

How about the "mental health-out in public" connection?  If he can't be trusted with guns, he can become a menace with any number of things.


Yeah, mass murders happen with spoons and chairs and water balloons and pizza and Tootsie rolls...
 
2013-08-21 12:23:44 PM  

doubled99: lostcat She's great, but he wasn't going to kill anyone. Just wanted attention.

Glad you can confirm that.

We sould definitely allow people who just want attention, and don't plan to kill anyone, to wander freely with loaded guns and fire off shots at police officers. What harm are they doing?


Yeah, that's exactly what I was advocating! You're so smart!


Maybe you should consider how others will interpret your remarks?
 
2013-08-21 12:23:44 PM  

stevarooni: FrancoFile: We've got to do something to cover the mental health-guns connection.

How about the "mental health-out in public" connection?  If he can't be trusted with guns, he can become a menace with any number of things.


Yeah, the ACLU did a great job of turning those people loose in the 1970s - admittedly we erred on the side of institutionalizing too many people back then, but the pendulum has waaaay overswung.
 
2013-08-21 12:24:15 PM  

DeathByGeekSquad: She talked down a depressed copycat.  Please do not think that because she talked down this kid, that all individuals in these situations can be talked down.


So instead anyone that does what this kid did should be shot and killed on site by frightened armed citizens?  The lives of insane, depressed, and desperate people that could be talked down in such a future scenario is worth it for the chance (a high chance) that kids lives could be spared?  That's all good and well and can be logically argued for.  But I prefer a scenario where such a choice doesn't need to be made in the first place.

Maybe we do more for mental health in this country as opposed to turning our schools into fortresses and giving everyone a gun.
 
2013-08-21 12:24:21 PM  
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?"
 
2013-08-21 12:24:46 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: stevarooni: FrancoFile: We've got to do something to cover the mental health-guns connection.

How about the "mental health-out in public" connection?  If he can't be trusted with guns, he can become a menace with any number of things.

Yeah, mass murders happen with spoons and chairs and water balloons and pizza and Tootsie rolls...


And cars, and gasoline, and natural gas, and kitchen knives, and fertilizer.

There are a lot of things with which mass murder can be accomplished.  Guns can be convenient, but don't typically land the highest body count.
 
2013-08-21 12:25:36 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?"


Then someone is intentionally lying to you, or unintentionally stating exaggerations as fact.
 
2013-08-21 12:25:45 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?"


*shrug* It worked for Chris Kyle.

/Oh wait...
 
2013-08-21 12:26:27 PM  
Approves...

1.bp.blogspot.com


Better not be obscure
 
2013-08-21 12:26:46 PM  
"School clerk convinced suicidal gunman to drop weapons, surrender to police instead of killing scores of children at Georgia elementary school"

So the school clerk was originally going to kill scores of children but instead convinced a guy to drop weapons? Seems the guy with the weapons was the hero here for diverting her attention.
 
2013-08-21 12:27:24 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.


It is worth the blood of the innocents, so that some brave patriot can go out and plug beer cans with an AR.
No cost is too great, because freedom, and shiat.


\this is what gun nuts believe.
 
2013-08-21 12:27:26 PM  

stevarooni: Guns can be convenient, but don't typically land the highest body count.


You're right. Let's not do anything.

stevarooni: Then someone is intentionally lying to you, or unintentionally stating exaggerations as fact.


Wayne LaPierre. Heard of him?
 
2013-08-21 12:28:14 PM  
Let me guess: He was white?

*checks photo*

When are we going to do something about these animals??!?

/fun with confirmation bias
 
2013-08-21 12:29:16 PM  
THE ONLY THING THAT CAN STOP A BAD GUY WITH A GUN IS A rational clear headed woman without a gun.

..wait whu?

/Confused LaPierre
 
2013-08-21 12:29:37 PM  

stevarooni: 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?"

Then someone is intentionally lying to you, or unintentionally stating exaggerations as fact.


The NRA lie?!?!?

The hell you say!
 
2013-08-21 12:30:25 PM  
This goes to show that we should put front-office clerks in all or schools. It's the only way to be sure.

/who knew?
 
2013-08-21 12:30:37 PM  

RedTank: DeathByGeekSquad: She talked down a depressed copycat.  Please do not think that because she talked down this kid, that all individuals in these situations can be talked down.

So instead anyone that does what this kid did should be shot and killed on site by frightened armed citizens?  The lives of insane, depressed, and desperate people that could be talked down in such a future scenario is worth it for the chance (a high chance) that kids lives could be spared?  That's all good and well and can be logically argued for.  But I prefer a scenario where such a choice doesn't need to be made in the first place.

Maybe we do more for mental health in this country as opposed to turning our schools into fortresses and giving everyone a gun.


I'd prefer that idiot/insane 20 year olds don't go to schools strapped to kill, if we could have our d'ruthers'.  But in this situation, I'd prefer teachers to have the possibility of shooting him rather than no option but try to talk down a kid who might not pause before he begins shooting or wait for the police to arrive.

The school's already a fortress with a locked, bullet-proof door.  The problem in this case is that the security in place was bypassed because of an asshole who decided to be "nice" and ignore security procedures, letting this doofus in.
 
2013-08-21 12:31:45 PM  

abfalter: Take a good look.  This is what the face of a hero looks like:

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x347]


"Black woman thinks she is better than white men"
 
2013-08-21 12:32:36 PM  

BSABSVR: theBigBigEye: The guy is already a felon, so I can only see this woman's act of talking him out of killing himself as a mistake!

We help save human beings. Not felons.

H-U-M-A-N.

F-E-L-O-N.

Both are spelled differently, and therefore, both differ in types of living organisms. The only difference is that one just LOOKS like a human being, and is useless in its existence.

You're right. She should have riled the armed and unstable guy up for awhile just to see what happened. You're a smart one.


Well, at the very farking LEAST, the police could have executed him with guns blazing right after the entire building was evacuated. Then they could have just wrote it off as "he attacked first," police corruption be damned.

After that, send bills for the bullets to his equally worthless parents. Preferably to the tune of $10 million per round. Payable immediately.
 
2013-08-21 12:32:38 PM  

Wile_E._Quixote: This goes to show that we should put front-office clerks in all or schools. It's the only way to be sure.

/who knew?


Simply having a front-office clerk in the school is not enough.  What if the clerk can't get from the front office to a classroom in time?  We need a front-office clerk in every classroom in every school.
 
2013-08-21 12:33:03 PM  

stevarooni: The school's already a fortress with a locked, bullet-proof door. The problem in this case is that the security in place was bypassed because of an asshole who decided to be "nice" and ignore security procedures, letting this doofus in.


You don't see the problem as we need to have schools with locked, bullet-proof doors?
 
2013-08-21 12:35:18 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: stevarooni: Guns can be convenient, but don't typically land the highest body count.

You're right. Let's not do anything.


I'm sorry, please let me fill in the blank of action.  People who are reported as potential dangers to themselves and others should be hospitalized/institutionalized for the safety of society as a whole.  That'd be something.

Fuggin Bizzy: stevarooni: Then someone is intentionally lying to you, or unintentionally stating exaggerations as fact.

Wayne LaPierre. Heard of him?


To be fair, though, once "a bad guy with a gun" starts shooting, a gun is the most effective way of stopping him.  He'll also stop when he runs out of ammunition, the police arrive, or he gets tackled by some lucky bystanders who run him.  But yeah, as written, as an absolute, it's not entirely correct.
 
2013-08-21 12:37:41 PM  
Yet another would-be celebrity mass murderer.

Link
"The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

"In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them.

The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."
 
2013-08-21 12:38:31 PM  

mediablitz: stevarooni: The school's already a fortress with a locked, bullet-proof door. The problem in this case is that the security in place was bypassed because of an asshole who decided to be "nice" and ignore security procedures, letting this doofus in.

You don't see the problem as we need to have schools with locked, bullet-proof doors?


I do, yes, but when divorced parents can't act rationally, when the homeless meander aimlessly, some level of building security seems to be necessary.  The best solution would be teachers and staff aware of who should and shouldn't be in the building and handle it; that would take care of 99% of what actually happens in schools.
 
2013-08-21 12:38:54 PM  

Inchoate: doubled99: She's great, but he wasn't going to kill anyone. Just wanted attention.

You can't know that, and neither can I.
She was brave and it was effective.


I'm pretty sure the first thing he did after arriving was ask for them to call WSBTV, so yeah we can know that he was interested in getting some attention.
 
2013-08-21 12:39:18 PM  

stevarooni: RedTank: DeathByGeekSquad: She talked down a depressed copycat.  Please do not think that because she talked down this kid, that all individuals in these situations can be talked down.

So instead anyone that does what this kid did should be shot and killed on site by frightened armed citizens?  The lives of insane, depressed, and desperate people that could be talked down in such a future scenario is worth it for the chance (a high chance) that kids lives could be spared?  That's all good and well and can be logically argued for.  But I prefer a scenario where such a choice doesn't need to be made in the first place.

Maybe we do more for mental health in this country as opposed to turning our schools into fortresses and giving everyone a gun.

I'd prefer that idiot/insane 20 year olds don't go to schools strapped to kill, if we could have our d'ruthers'.  But in this situation, I'd prefer teachers to have the possibility of shooting him rather than no option but try to talk down a kid who might not pause before he begins shooting or wait for the police to arrive.

The school's already a fortress with a locked, bullet-proof door.  The problem in this case is that the security in place was bypassed because of an asshole who decided to be "nice" and ignore security procedures, letting this doofus in.


The schools-as-fortresses thing is stupid as hell anyway. Hundreds of people flow in and out every day. If you likit the numer of entrances and seal windows and etc. its still easy for someone with ill intent to get in and harder for everyone else to run away.
 
2013-08-21 12:40:34 PM  

stevarooni: I'm sorry, please let me fill in the blank of action. People who are reported as potential dangers to themselves and others should be hospitalized/institutionalized for the safety of society as a whole. That'd be something.


The safety of society as a whole sounds so farking funny coming from you. You don't even see it, do you? Go ahead and violate their constitutional rights, but don't you DARE suggest taking away guns!

Too funny.
 
2013-08-21 12:40:46 PM  
Finally, a proper use of the Hero tag.  To look this guy in the eye and talk him down like that when I'm sure the policy is to hide under the desk...  she has bigger balls than the entire SWAT team outside.  Someone buy that woman drinks for life.
 
2013-08-21 12:41:31 PM  
How bout that you guntarded farking troglodytes? It would've been much better had she been armed and just killed the dude right? Or maybe if the kids had guns they could've done it. Either way we should do everything possible to make sure that this kind of shiat never happens again and these kids get some tactical firearms training.
 
2013-08-21 12:43:05 PM  

stevarooni: I do, yes, but when divorced parents can't act rationally, when the homeless meander aimlessly, some level of building security seems to be necessary. The best solution would be teachers and staff aware of who should and shouldn't be in the building and handle it; that would take care of 99% of what actually happens in schools.


99.9% IS taken care of. There are thousands of schools.
 
2013-08-21 12:44:12 PM  

stevarooni: I'd prefer that idiot/insane 20 year olds don't go to schools strapped to kill, if we could have our d'ruthers'.  But in this situation, I'd prefer teachers to have the possibility of shooting him rather than no option but try to talk down a kid who might not pause before he begins shooting or wait for the police to arrive.


Ok, in a scenario where teachers have guns what happen when:
a.) School shootings still occure
b.) There is an accident with a gun at a school
c.) All of the above

One of those will happen, 100% certainty.  I would bet a combination of a & b.  Then you're forced to weigh lives vs lives.  The ideal scenario is this doesn't happen at all.

Remove the stimga of mental health and get people the help they need.

The school's already a fortress with a locked, bullet-proof door.  The problem in this case is that the security in place was bypassed because of an asshole who decided to be "nice" and ignore security procedures, letting this doofus in.

Yes, but what will happen now.  If someone ever let's someone else in the school then that person goes to jail?  Is there ever a scenario where that may be abused or even impossible to prevent?  What prevents someone from accosting someone on their way to the school and stealing their id badge or holding them hostage until they open the door?  Again there are solutions to these issues but they require additional security measures turning schools into the equivalency of prison security.
 
2013-08-21 12:45:29 PM  

mediablitz: stevarooni: I'm sorry, please let me fill in the blank of action. People who are reported as potential dangers to themselves and others should be hospitalized/institutionalized for the safety of society as a whole. That'd be something.

The safety of society as a whole sounds so farking funny coming from you. You don't even see it, do you? Go ahead and violate their constitutional rights, but don't you DARE suggest taking away guns!

Too funny.


Wait, which rights?  The right to keep and bear arms is another right.  But yeah, they shouldn't be simply thrown into an oubliette the instant they start saying "strange things".  There are some pretty sound criteria out there for people who are a danger to society.  If they're adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, yep, their guardian/someone with power of attorney needs to get rid of those guns.
 
2013-08-21 12:45:42 PM  

drew46n2: How bout that you guntarded farking troglodytes? It would've been much better had she been armed and just killed the dude right? Or maybe if the kids had guns they could've done it. Either way we should do everything possible to make sure that this kind of shiat never happens again and these kids get some tactical firearms training.


Way to be JUST LIKE the "other side" you are railing against.

Absolutes only!!!

Meanwhile, a 71 year old man shot and killed an escaped convict who was holding him (and his wife) hostage by gunpoint. 4 hours worth of talking solved nothing.

That 71 year old man is CLEARLY a gun nut, right?
 
2013-08-21 12:48:51 PM  

stevarooni: Wait, which rights? The right to keep and bear arms is another right. But yeah, they shouldn't be simply thrown into an oubliette the instant they start saying "strange things". There are some pretty sound criteria out there for people who are a danger to society. If they're adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, yep, their guardian/someone with power of attorney needs to get rid of those guns.


This approach was presented in my state (Montana). Right wingers wouldn't even allow it to be discussed on the legislature floor, or in committee. Not even DISCUSSED.

Seems pretty damn logical and straightforward (domestic violence multiple offenders were also included) to me. But it can't even be discussed.

That's why you see the term "gun nuts" bandied about.
 
2013-08-21 12:51:47 PM  

RedTank: DeathByGeekSquad: She talked down a depressed copycat.  Please do not think that because she talked down this kid, that all individuals in these situations can be talked down.

So instead anyone that does what this kid did should be shot and killed on site by frightened armed citizens?  The lives of insane, depressed, and desperate people that could be talked down in such a future scenario is worth it for the chance (a high chance) that kids lives could be spared?  That's all good and well and can be logically argued for.  But I prefer a scenario where such a choice doesn't need to be made in the first place.

Maybe we do more for mental health in this country as opposed to turning our schools into fortresses and giving everyone a gun.


1) I support any improvement to the mental health initiative
2) I was pointing out that you can't look at this, and then at other school shooting incidents and go "HEY GAIZ IT WORKED HERE IT WILL ALWAYS WORK"
3) Please take note of the word 'Copycat'.  There are additional issues at play.
4) Go soapbox off of another comment.
 
2013-08-21 12:52:42 PM  

mediablitz: stevarooni: Wait, which rights? The right to keep and bear arms is another right. But yeah, they shouldn't be simply thrown into an oubliette the instant they start saying "strange things". There are some pretty sound criteria out there for people who are a danger to society. If they're adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, yep, their guardian/someone with power of attorney needs to get rid of those guns.

This approach was presented in my state (Montana). Right wingers wouldn't even allow it to be discussed on the legislature floor, or in committee. Not even DISCUSSED.

Seems pretty damn logical and straightforward (domestic violence multiple offenders were also included) to me. But it can't even be discussed.

That's why you see the term "gun nuts" bandied about.


The devil's in the details, mediablitz.  I don't know those details, but I've seen some slick laws that, if taken literally (as laws ought to be), could prohibit a lot of generally law-abiding, sane people from owning firearms.
 
2013-08-21 12:54:01 PM  

mediablitz: But it can't even be discussed.


This.

Also a Montanan (And hunter. And gun owner.), but this is a national problem. We can't even restrict felons and terrorists from obtaining weapons without the gun sales lobby drowning out the discussion by wailing "Tyranny!!"
 
2013-08-21 12:54:25 PM  
Bah, this is a mental health concern, I could care less about the gun control posturing on both sides.  Credit to the nice lady for her courage and empathy.
 
2013-08-21 12:57:26 PM  

DeathByGeekSquad: RedTank: DeathByGeekSquad: She talked down a depressed copycat.  Please do not think that because she talked down this kid, that all individuals in these situations can be talked down.

So instead anyone that does what this kid did should be shot and killed on site by frightened armed citizens?  The lives of insane, depressed, and desperate people that could be talked down in such a future scenario is worth it for the chance (a high chance) that kids lives could be spared?  That's all good and well and can be logically argued for.  But I prefer a scenario where such a choice doesn't need to be made in the first place.

Maybe we do more for mental health in this country as opposed to turning our schools into fortresses and giving everyone a gun.

1) I support any improvement to the mental health initiative
2) I was pointing out that you can't look at this, and then at other school shooting incidents and go "HEY GAIZ IT WORKED HERE IT WILL ALWAYS WORK"
3) Please take note of the word 'Copycat'.  There are additional issues at play.
4) Go soapbox off of another comment.


1. Good
2. Fair enough, but you still support some guns in schools.  Wrong in my mind.
3. Copycat is fine, it has no bearing on anything - In this case, this guy got talked out of it and I'm assuming he has mental issues that may be addressed now.  If he would have done this in a different school he may have been shot dead.  That is the issue, I don't trust armed citizens to make a distinction between talking and shooting.
4. But I want to soapbox off your comment...  you inspired me to write, no one else did.  consider it a compliment.
 
2013-08-21 12:57:41 PM  

theBigBigEye: The guy is already a felon, so I can only see this woman's act of talking him out of killing himself as a mistake!

We help save human beings. Not felons.

H-U-M-A-N.

F-E-L-O-N.

Both are spelled differently, and therefore, both differ in types of living organisms. The only difference is that one just LOOKS like a human being, and is useless in its existence.


Deep thoughts
 
2013-08-21 12:59:46 PM  

mediablitz: drew46n2: How bout that you guntarded farking troglodytes? It would've been much better had she been armed and just killed the dude right? Or maybe if the kids had guns they could've done it. Either way we should do everything possible to make sure that this kind of shiat never happens again and these kids get some tactical firearms training.

Way to be JUST LIKE the "other side" you are railing against.

Absolutes only!!!

Meanwhile, a 71 year old man shot and killed an escaped convict who was holding him (and his wife) hostage by gunpoint. 4 hours worth of talking solved nothing.

That 71 year old man is CLEARLY a gun nut, right?


He clearly the answer is more and more guns in more and more hands. Once we're all CCL qual'd we can all walk around like the Tombstone masturbatory fantasy these nuts exist in.
 
2013-08-21 01:01:48 PM  

Ker_Thwap: Bah, this is a mental health concern, I could care less about the gun control posturing on both sides.  Credit to the nice lady for her courage and empathy.


Yep, what many people seem to realize, but can not accept and act on (policy-based activism) is that people kill people.  You can reduce the total number of homicides by banning guns, but there will still be beatings with blunt objects and stabbings (though admittedly fewer overall deaths).  Feel free to attack the source (mental health) as well as contributing factors as they're not mutually exclusive.
 
2013-08-21 01:01:54 PM  

js34603: /farking terrible for the parents that had kids there, ugh


IDK, most of them looked like they could use more running
 
2013-08-21 01:02:10 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: CygnusDarius: She would've been more effective if she had a gun. No, two guns.

How do you get more effective than "bad guy caught, no one hurt?"


Well, I was being sarcastic towards previous comments in gun threads. But yes, this was the best outcome. Although the best outcome should've been the guy looking at his stash before he left home and think "WTF am I doing? This is wrong!" and stay at home eating Ho-Hos, but this is the second best option.
 
2013-08-21 01:03:33 PM  

stevarooni: The devil's in the details, mediablitz. I don't know those details, but I've seen some slick laws that, if taken literally (as laws ought to be), could prohibit a lot of generally law-abiding, sane people from owning firearms


You know why you "don't know the details"? Because the right wing leaders of the legislature block ANY discussion.

Making excuses for not allowing discussion makes you part of the problem.

I own several guns. I hunt. I trap shoot. I believe there are pragmatic, common sense steps we can take to reduce suicide deaths, and domestic violence deaths (#1 and #2 here in Montana for gun related deaths).

But it can't even reach the level of DISCUSSION.
 
2013-08-21 01:05:56 PM  

drew46n2: He clearly the answer is more and more guns in more and more hands. Once we're all CCL qual'd we can all walk around like the Tombstone masturbatory fantasy these nuts exist in.


Oh look! More absolutes!

You are no different than the people who says guns are always the answer. You are unwilling to talk rationally about the issue.

Congrats on being the problem.
 
2013-08-21 01:08:07 PM  
The clerk deserves a medal! Talk about composure under pressure!

/Deleted rest of post re: causative factors. Short version: we could fix this but there's money to be made.
 
2013-08-21 01:09:47 PM  
I think it's great that this heavily medicated nut bar has easy access to legal guns. This is what freedom is all about.
 
2013-08-21 01:11:27 PM  

mediablitz: drew46n2: He clearly the answer is more and more guns in more and more hands. Once we're all CCL qual'd we can all walk around like the Tombstone masturbatory fantasy these nuts exist in.

Oh look! More absolutes!

You are no different than the people who says guns are always the answer. You are unwilling to talk rationally about the issue.

Congrats on being the problem.


No guns in schools, sorry.  Statistically how many gun accidents occur each year?  How many of those accidents occur with trained responsible gun owners?  I'll bet the answer to the latter is not zero.

Don't talk about who to give guns to talk about how to prevent people from doing this in the first place (mental health).
 
2013-08-21 01:15:37 PM  
From other reports, he never came into contact with children and it is to be believed he never intended to be near the children so the children were never in harms way.

Keep the circle jerk going, retards.
 
2013-08-21 01:17:20 PM  

K3rmy: From other reports, he never came into contact with children and it is to be believed he never intended to be near the children so the children were never in harms way.

Keep the circle jerk going, retards.


Does it feel good to be so awesome?  Jerking off to our circle jerk?
 
2013-08-21 01:20:02 PM  

K3rmy: From other reports, he never came into contact with children and it is to be believed he never intended to be near the children so the children were never in harms way.

Keep the circle jerk going, retards.


Oh, in that case he's basically a hero. Just a little civil disobedience regarding fascist gun laws.
 
2013-08-21 01:20:13 PM  

Abuse Liability: Ker_Thwap: Bah, this is a mental health concern, I could care less about the gun control posturing on both sides.  Credit to the nice lady for her courage and empathy.

Yep, what many people seem to realize, but can not accept and act on (policy-based activism) is that people kill people.   You can reduce the total number of homicides by banning guns, but there will still be beatings with blunt objects and stabbings (though admittedly fewer overall deaths). Feel free to attack the source (mental health) as well as contributing factors as they're not mutually exclusive.


No one disagrees with this. There are many non lethal forms of self defense against assault, including but not limited to mace and tazers.

stevarooni: could prohibit a lot of generally law-abiding, sane people from owning firearms.


Every gun owner is sane and law-abiding until they aren't. This argument is just retarded on its face.
 
2013-08-21 01:22:41 PM  

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.


Still bitter?  It's ok.  When you get older, have a career, and start to acquire fun toys you'll find that whatever happened in high school wasn't really as important as you thought it was.
 
2013-08-21 01:27:32 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.


You're gonna get some bites.  This should be fun.
 
2013-08-21 01:31:50 PM  

RedTank: mediablitz: drew46n2: He clearly the answer is more and more guns in more and more hands. Once we're all CCL qual'd we can all walk around like the Tombstone masturbatory fantasy these nuts exist in.

Oh look! More absolutes!

You are no different than the people who says guns are always the answer. You are unwilling to talk rationally about the issue.

Congrats on being the problem.

No guns in schools, sorry.  Statistically how many gun accidents occur each year?  How many of those accidents occur with trained responsible gun owners?  I'll bet the answer to the latter is not zero.

Don't talk about who to give guns to talk about how to prevent people from doing this in the first place (mental health).


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.
 
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 133 of 133 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report