 |
But on a positive side ;the petitions to deport Piers Morgan is gaining momentum.to date ;75,000 have signed it.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...dment/prfh5zHD
One problem however . There is a similar petition in the UK saying they don't want him back .
I have never heard of a more stupid attitude than arming teachers so people can own guns. That is selling out the children, needing armed security guards in schools also speaks to the same stupidity, still I expect the stupid people have to live somewhere
It was unethical, ain't nothing more complicated than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
For a guy who LIKES the First Amendment, you DON'T like it very much.
excon
So protecting the children is selling them out. Now that's stupidity.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Wealthy libs already send their kids to secure schools. They just don't want to pay for poor kids to get the same protection. Forget arming the teachers ;they don't even want to fence in the perimeter of the school and have 1 armed guard . No one is saying EVERY teacher should be armed . It should work like the Air Marshall service . No one knows which person in the school is authorized to carry.
You're chasing your tail, I've already defended their right to do so. There is however nothing ethical about painting a target on law abiding citizens for no damn good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:
What about the movie goers? Aren't THEY entitled to protection? How about shoppers at the mall? In fact, if you REALLY want to protect people, we'd need an armed guard on EVERY street corner..Quote:
they don't even want to fence in the perimeter of the school and have 1 armed guard .
In fact, here's what a Texas Republican congressman says about that:exconQuote:
School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America,” the Republican congressman said in a statement Monday. Paul is the first GOP member in Congress to publicly oppose the NRA's plan. “Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?" -Ron Paul
We already have mall security and a lot of schools have had metal detectors and cops for years. That's a bad thing now?
You know what that publishing of the gun owners address does ? It tells the thugs the homes to avoid.Quote:
What about the movie goers? Aren't THEY entitled to protection? How about shoppers at the mall? In fact, if you REALLY want to protect people, we'd need an armedguard on EVERY street corner
Yes it may come down to that . You think your gun ban is going to prevent it ? I see a possibility that we may end up like Tel Aviv where such security is considered and accepted as SOP.
Hello again, tom:
Speaking of the Israeli's, we SHOULD be more like them..Quote:
we may end up like Tel Aviv where such security is considered and accepted as SOP.
exconQuote:
When it comes to Israel and school shootings, Wayne LaPierre doesn't know what he's talking about, Israeli security experts said Sunday.
“We didn't have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism,” said Palmor.
“What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years,” he said. “It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion,” he added.
“There is no comparison between maniacs with psychological problems opening fire at random to kill innocent people and trained terrorists trying to murder Israeli children,” said Reuven Berko, a retired Israeli Army colonel and senior police officer.
In recent years, restrictions on gun ownership in Israel have been tightened, not relaxed.
I beg to differ and so does Adam Lankford ,assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama, and author of “The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers.”Quote:
There is no comparison between maniacs with psychological problems opening fire at random to kill innocent people and trained terrorists trying to murder Israeli children,” said Reuven Berko, a retired Israeli Army colonel and senior police officer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/op...lers.html?_r=0Quote:
There appears to be a triad of factors that sets these killers apart. The first is that they are generally struggling with mental health problems that have produced their desire to die. The specific psychiatric diagnoses vary widely, and include everything from clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder to schizophrenia and others forms of psychosis. The suicide rate was 12.4 per 100,000 people in the United States in 2010 (the highest in 15 years). Suicide is relatively rare, but it is rarer still in most Muslim countries. This is a very limited pool from which most suicide terrorists and rampage shooters come.
The second factor is a deep sense of victimization and belief that the killer's life has been ruined by someone else, who has bullied, oppressed or persecuted him. Not surprisingly, the presence of mental illness can inflame these beliefs, leading perpetrators to have irrational and exaggerated perceptions of their own victimization. It makes little difference whether the perceived victimizer is an enemy government (in the case of suicide terrorists) or their boss, co-workers, fellow students or family members (in the case of rampage shooters).
The key is that the aggrieved individual feels that he has been terribly mistreated and that violent vengeance is justified. In many cases, the target for revenge becomes broader and more symbolic than a single person, so that an entire type or category of people is deemed responsible for the attacker's pain and suffering. Then, the urge to commit suicide becomes a desire for murder-suicide, which is even rarer; a recent meta-analysis of 16 studies suggests that only two to three of every one million Americans commit murder-suicide each year.
The third factor is the desire to acquire fame and glory through killing. More than 70 percent of murder-suicides are between spouses or romantic or sexual partners, and these crimes usually take place at home. Attackers who commit murder-suicide in public are far more brazen and unusual. Most suicide terrorists believe they will be honored and celebrated as “martyrs” after their deaths and, sure enough, terrorist organizations produce martyrdom videos and memorabilia so that other desperate souls will volunteer to blow themselves up.
Similarly, rampage shooters have often been captivated by the idea that they will become posthumously famous. “Isn't it fun to get the respect that we're going to deserve?” the Columbine shooter Eric Harris remarked. He had fantasized with his fellow attacker, Dylan Klebold, that the filmmakers Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino would fight over the rights to their life story.
Reuven Berko can deny it all he wants . Ma'alot school had a massacre in 1974 in which 21 Israeli children were murdered ,that was a prelude for many subsequent attacks on Israeli schools. As a result , Israel has lived for thirty years with armed security in every school, armed guards on every field trip,at sporting event,and armored busses and armed security on those busses.
It seems to me that many of the solutions being proposed in a number of posts - somehow resemble solutions that are required for countries that have a demilitarized zone.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Sorry I don't get that one Tut
Well speech there is stupidity and there is stupidity, they say that if you keep doing the same thing and expect change that is stupidity, so go figure, you get more guns, you get more security and more children die, I would say something ain't working, but stupid me, I should get a gun and shot someoneQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hi Clete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I am saying basically the same thing as yourself. I think it is an extraordinary bad idea to train kids to create a distraction. This is not protecting anyone let alone the kids.
I think it is a very bad idea to train armed teachers to confront gunmen.
I think it is a bad idea to publish names of people who hold a gun permit.
What about the idea that if more people had more guns then someone would have able to stop a mass shooting. In the last three or four decades how many armed citizens have successfully managed to prevent such a terrible crime? I would think only a tiny percentage. That's not counting the ones killed or injured in the attempt.
Tut
one possible common denominator is that these attacks occure in recognized 'gun free zones' . The theater ,the schools around the country have adopted not only gun free zones on their property ,but also in a radius surrounding them. Va Tech was a gun free campus.Quote:
In the last three or four decades how many armed citizens have successfully managed to prevent such a terrible crime?
No, its not a common denominator. Show me that it is.You are going to have to do better than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tut
Yes it is . Colorado and Virginia are conceal and carry states ;EXCEPT at the Century 16 theater complex in Aurora ; and the Va Tech campus,where Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 people to death . Nobody there were able to exercise their right to self defense .
Compare that to the 2007 New Life Church in Colorado Springs incident where a gunman opened fire and killed 2 church members . That tragedy could've been much worse if not for an armed guard who shot the gunman LONG before the local police arrived . Just this year at New Destiny Christian Church in Aurora , a gunman opened fire killing the mother of Pastor Delano Strahan . Before he could do any more damage ,a congregent carrying a concealed weapon shot the gunman down.
October 1997 at a Pearl, Miss. High school there was a shooting that left two students dead.Assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a gun from his car and immobilized the shooter until police arrived, preventing further killings. Technically he was in violation of Federal law for even having the gun in his car .January 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia, a disgruntled former student killed Law Dean L. Anthony Sutin, associate professor Thomas Blackwell and a student. 3 Virginia law students overpowered the gunman preventing further deaths.Two were armed . February 2007, at a Salt Lake City mall, armed off-duty police officer Ken Hammond killed Sulejman Talovic after he had killed five people, preventing an even larger massacre.
So as the mass murders of recent times can be documented ,so too can the ones where prevented larger killings . I'll take my chances with the friendly carrying a gun.
Tom, this doesn't constitute a common denominator by any stretch of the imagination. You did say common denominator didn't you?;Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Compare what? I think I already covered this. The information at I have googled says that in the last four decades( the time I was referring to) a citizen intervention only represents at about 1.6 percent out of the total of 68 mass shootings that were investigated.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I have no doubt that this information was cherry-picked. However, no amount of creative cherry picking can make that tiny percentage look anything like significant.
Tut
Yes unfortunately it's rare because these attacks occure where the most vulnerable people are... in gun free zones . What ? You don't think citizen intervention would've been a higher percentage if possible ? But I get it ;nothing will convince you. Cherry picked ? Yes if you mean I looked for incidents where citizens acted on their own to prevent larger killing . Maybe you can demonstrate the cases where citizens were armed and did not act to prevent a larger incident.Quote:
a citizen intervention only represents at about 1.6 percent out of the total of 68 mass shootings that were investigated.
Tom, Lets look at this a bit further just for the moment. You asked me to compare one example of a 'no gun gun free zone' with that of a number of incidents whereby a citizen or an off duty has made a intervention.
What sort of erroneous conclusion would you like me to draw? One exception proves a rule?
Tut
I find it incoceivable that I should be protected by an armed guard in a Church, where are you, Pakistan? If my God doesn't choose to protect me in a place of worship then I resign myself to his will, have you never heard those who would save their lives will loose it.
This gun debate is ludricous, boardering on the farcicle. You want to be able to carry a conceiled weapon anywhere, why should I be subject to your tyranny and need to carry a weapon to protect myself, what are the police for if not to remove criminals from the streets or is your whole society comprised of criminals? Why do you think you are not allowed to carry weapons on to a plane? The reason is to protect the passengers from a potential criminal act, the same reasoning should exist in the general population, you were never given the right to bear arms for personal protection but to defend the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, I have already put my percentages on the table. After all I was the one making the claim that only a small percentage of citizens intervened ( you already accept that). You made the claim that one possible common denominator was that they ALL occurred in a gun free zone. You made the claim so it's now up to you to prove the validity of the statement? Isn't that how it works?
Tut
Maybe you live in utopia . Here Churches and Synagogues come under threat from time to time. The NYC police force routinely patrols at Synagogues every time the ME flares .Quote:
I find it incoceivable that I should be protected by an armed guard in a Church
from my perspective ,the police do a great job after an incident happens . It is unreasonable to expect them to be there to PREVENT an incident.. But according to your logic that's not necessary as you don't think even armed guards are necessary.Quote:
what are the police for if not to remove criminals from the streets
Lol ,the ONLY reason that the Air Marshall program is effective is because we don't know who on the plane who has the friendly gun. Yeah we go through anything short of a body probe to make sure we are safe on plane. Do you want that going into schools and movie theaters and shopping malls ? The planes are the perfect example. 9-11 there was NO police near to prevent what happened . But Todd Beamer and the passengers of flight 93 had a solution .Quote:
why do you think you are not allowed to carry weapons on to a plane?
I'm not going to waste my time. I gave you significant enough sample.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
In other words you can't.You know what you know and no amount of logic will ever change your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tut
No I don't have the time... you didn't even bother providing a link for this statement :
So what am I to do ? Research 68 cases ? Maybe with the link I can at least see which specific cases you are talking about .Quote:
The information at I have googled says that in the last four decades( the time I was referring to) a citizen intervention only represents at about 1.6 percent out of the total of 68 mass shootings that were investigated.
Running for cover again Tom look you can find a list of various cases easily enough
Show me . Tut is the one who made the claim without verification that only 1.6 percent of mass murder cases had any citizen intervention. To me that is a largely irrelevant point since citizens are prevented by law to be in a position to intervene .
I find it inconceivable that you think God doesn't want you to protect the flock from violence being visited on them. We have a number of people loaded for bear at our church, we're not so stupid as to present our children as lambs for the slaughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hello again, tom:
Couple things...Quote:
yes unfortunately it's rare because these attacks occure where the most vulnerable people are... in gun free zones .
I DON'T believe ANY person with a concealed carry permit leaves their at gun HOME because they're going to a "gun free zone".
I DON'T believe ANY mass murderer picks his targets because they're "gun free zones"...
I DON'T believe that crap. I just DON'T!
Excon
And yet the V Principle had to run to his car to retrieve his gun .Quote:
DON'T believe ANY person with a concealed carry permit leaves their at gun HOME because they're going to a "gun free zone".
Tom, have already addressed the first issue. The study was commissioned by 'Mother Jones' I can post the web address if you like. I have already said the study cherry picked the data.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Would you like to turn 1.6 percent into a higher figure to allow for the bias. 0%? 20%? 40%? You have already stated the obvious in your earlier post. The percentages are small.
If it was the case that citizens are prevented by law from intervening - and it still is the case - then it is equally irrelevant to propose a solution by putting more guns into the hands of civilians into order to make an intervention.
Tom, this is called having a bet both ways
Tut
Hello again, tom:
Of course, there are SOME who aren't REAL gun owners..Quote:
and yet the V Principle had to run to his car to retrieve his gun .
From the gun owners BIBLE... Nahhh, it AIN'T wrote down. The TIME to accumulate guns is WHEN the government says you CAN'T. The place to CARRY guns is the place the government say's you CAN'T.
I'm NOT the only one who believes that.
Excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I actually don't think it is irrelevant when it comes to intervention, but what I find odd ( in relation to you claim about intervention) is a statement like this coming from a person who usually says something along the lines of, "The law failed to stop this person............"
Tut
It's a felony to carry inside a school building, federal building, municipal building, courts, any place that makes at least 51% of their revenue from alcohol sales, racetracks and polling places in Texas. Most law abiding citizens are not going to risk a felony charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I don't believe most mass murderers or other criminals pick targets that might be armed.Quote:
I DON'T believe ANY mass murderer picks his targets because they're "gun free zones"...
Yeah bad guys carrying bad guns usually break laws and good guys legally carrying guns usually follow the law . Is that really so hard to figure out ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
The Facts about Mass Shootings - John Fund - National Review OnlineQuote:
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a 'helpless-victim zone,'” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo. Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.
I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn't the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.
“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”
Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
John Lott has done many studies on gun policy in this country and is author of 2 books on the subject .
LOL, you guys hate teachers but now you want them to lock and load. Will you pay them more? Who pays since you don't believe in higher taxes or government spending? Will a CCP be required to have a teaching licence?
Who pays to get rid of these gun free zones? Oh that's right we citizens will do it for free, or the local armed neighborhood watch guy can make those life and death decisions. Never mind keeping guns out of the bad guys hands through strict tight laws and technology. Just give the good guys a gun, since everybody is a good guy until they do bad.
Even NRA member are not for that.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:07 AM. |