Ask Me Help Desk - Gun control past debates

Quote:

LOL, you guys hate teachers but now you want them to lock and load. Will you pay them more?

Don't hate teachers at all . Hate their union. Most teachers do too.
Who will pay them ? I think a combination of donations from the teacher's unions extensive coffers ;and a donation from the NRA ought to do the trick. It's easy.. there are plenty of retired police and returning vets who could use jobs. Don't arm the teachers ; just have a single friendly gun standing guard.

Quote:

Never mind keeping guns out of the bad guys hands through strict tight laws and technology.

You say you're interested in that and your only solution is to take the guns away from the law abiding citizen .

I never said I hated teachers. Don't you libs ever feel bad about making ridiculous sh*t up about conservatives?

By the way, how has England fared after banning handguns for all intents and purposes? I heard that in the ten years since gun crime has doubled.

Maybe you don't but governors and mayors across the nation have been balancing their budgets off the backs of teachers, firefighters, and police and now you want teachers to police your school??

Who pays for that? A simple question.

As for a combination of DONATIONS from the NRA or the UNION you already said the unions have no right to dues from their members, okay you don't say it, but laws have been made by YOU guys already and more to come. So its okay for unions to spend money where YOU want them too, but not to be able to collect dues.

That's par for he course for capitalistic dictators. Control everyone else's money and charge them double. You hate unions, I hate controlled capitalism, and the lie of free markets regulating themselves.

That's working out just great for THEM.

I think spending union dues on school security is a far greater use than lining lining union bosses' pockets and violent protests..

Quote:

Maybe you don't but governors and mayors across the nation have been balancing their budgets off the backs of teachers, firefighters, and police and now you want teachers to police your school??

I'd say it is the opposite . The unions have been breaking the backs of the local budgets .But that's a different discussion.

I see you don't see that it's unfair to ask the NRA to kick in a share.
Who pays for it ?
Schools are funded at the local level . Most school districts could EASILY reshuffle budgets to add a guard and a secure perimeter fence. That would be the ONLY increase in district payroll . One guard per school .

No I would not pay teachers any more . It would be completely optional for them to get conceal and carry ;and the proper training, I'm not opposed to trained teachers having guns ;but I am in no way calling for it to be mandatory . So that line of BS don't wash. Do certified teachers get extra pay if they know CPR ? Would they not use their training to save someone even if they aren't paid for it ? Teachers do a lot of things in school that aren't considered "teaching their subject " . My wife without a gun stood guard in the hallways of the school on 9-11 . She is a math and science teacher . She was not trained to be an unarmed guard ;and she did not get an extra dime for the effort . It's called doing your job .

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

That would be the same ATF that ran Fast and Furious. According to the article Obama has only sent one anti-gun guy so I guess "every one" of his would be one. Why would Republicans allow an anti-guy guy to run the gun police? That certainly seems like a no-brainer to me because we do have the right to keep and bear arms.

As for your other contention, that is only in regards to mental illness background checks and is limited to those contained in court records. Otherwise, people still have a right to privacy you know. Or used to...one newspaper doesn't give a damn.

Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders

Turn around is fair play . Turns out the stunt was so unpopular that a blogger took it upon himself to dig up and organize the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the Journal-News staff, starting with editor Cyndee Royle. The post is called "Keep up the heat" and encourages readers to pester the paper and prevent them from reporting gun-owner addresses.
Cynthia Lambert Journal-News Editor | For What It's Worth

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Turn around is fair play . Turns out the stunt was so unpopular that a blogger took it upon himself to dig up and organize the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the Journal-News staff, starting with editor Cyndee Royle. The post is called "Keep up the heat" and encourages readers to pester the paper and prevent them from reporting gun-owner addresses.
Cynthia Lambert Journal-News Editor | For What It’s Worth

Yep, meet the new Alinsky right.

And while you holler and play games, those of us of reason and good will press on with solutions for the whole nation and not just the ones who want the price of milk to go up, and the size of your wages to go down.

You guys are running out of hostages, and cover for the gun manufacturers as even conservatives favor common sense solutions and banning the army weapons by the general public is the START of finding a solution that works.

Naw I don't agree with publishing names and addresses of gun owners at all. Its crazy and irresponsible, and unnecessary. But we cannot ignore any longer the leading cause of death in our youth is being shot. That includes the loons who claim self defense and have legal CCP's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Maybe you live in utopia .

Just maybe I do, just maybe we have forged a reasonable society without guns and the only people who seem to use them here with any frequency are recent immigrants traumatised by war and lawless societies where the gun rules

l

Quote:

ol ,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. .

The air marshall program is an example of effective preventative policing where there is a law officer present whether you know who it is or not and passengers have been checked so it is difficult for them to bring weapons on the plane, it is the absence of weapons which provides safety and the air marshall is another layer of security

OK then, eliminate accidents and you'll have mitigated the leading cause of death among youth.

Yes undoubtedly we would like to do that and better education would go some of the way but finding them something useful to do would help too but eliminating auto accidents would do the most and it has the side effect of reducing adult deaths also or you could just ban the automobile and save 30,000 people a year

Quote:

HOMICIDE

Homicide is one of the most disturbing causes of death among children and adolescents. Sociologists feel that the increase of gangs, teenage homicide, teenage suicide, teenage pregnancy, school drop-out, and other problems are a reflection of a rapidly changing society and family structure. Homicide is a complex issue which does not have a simple answer. Prevention will require understanding of the root cause and a willingness on the part of the public to change those causes.

Just wanted to add the social safety net as part of the solution.

Disturbing yes, leading cause, no.

Important enough to be dealt with... YES.

Just as important/disturbing as the deaths of border patrol agents, or foreign ambassadors.

Well, like most of the nattering nabobs out there, Rahm Emmanuel wants it both ways. He thinks armed security in schools is outrageous... even though the school he sends his kids to has armed security - protecting them after their armed security detail escorts them to school.

If it works for him...

Rhambo presides over a city where the typical weekend death rate is at least equal to the Newtown elementary school murders .
In the school year that ended in June, 319 Chicago public school students were shot, 24 of them fatally. The total does not include school-age children who had dropped out or were enrolled elsewhere. So shame on Rhambo .He either doesn't give a damn about inner city school safety ,or he's too stupid to see that his school district is begging for armed protection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

rhambo presides over a city where the typical weekend death rate is at least equal to the Newtown elementary school murders .
In the school year that ended in June, 319 Chicago public school students were shot, 24 of them fatally. The total does not include school-age children who had dropped out or were enrolled elsewhere. So shame on Rhambo .He either doesn't give a damn about inner city school safety ,or he's too stupid to see that his school district is begging for armed protection.

I find it amazing you could find such a situation acceptable and that all you want to do is arm teachers, obviously allowing guns in society is the problem as well as a number of other problems in a disfunctional society. This is also what comes of multi-racialism, multi-culturalism and just plain old corruption. Face it, the model doesn't work, the grand experiment has failed, and the attitudes of society are to blame. Having democracy for democracy's sake does nothing to address social ills and imbalance. How many of these people with problems are truly disenfranchised because their interests are not represented

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I never said I hated teachers. Don't you libs ever feel bad about making ridiculous sh*t up about conservatives?

By the way, how has England fared after banning handguns for all intents and purposes? I heard that in the ten years since gun crime has doubled.

It's a pity this person doesn't know anything about Australia, but when in doubt trot out the old one exception proves a rule fallacy.

The Port Arthur incident was an exception and a big shock to everyone, but it is not an exception that creates a different rule.

The only rule that came out of that incident was a tightening of our already strict gun laws. No doubt our laws are some of the toughest in the world.

Since 1996 there have been no mass shootings in Australia for 16 years. The only exception to that was when 15 people were killed in a hotel in Queensland when a backpacker set fire to the premises while everyone slept. No guns, just matches and an accelerant.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah bad guys carrying bad guns ususally break laws and good guys legally carrying guns usually follow the law . Is that really so hard to figure out ?

No I think I can work that bit out. What I am referring to is the problem of claiming that if intervention is an irrelevant issue then citing numerous example of intervention to try and prove a point. This is why I think you comment is odd.

Tut

Let's put it this way ; if the means of intervention by a lawful citizen has been rendered illegal ,then the cases of intervention by a lawful citizen will of course be rare events. That Vice Principal who went to his car to stop a killer was technically breaking the law by doing so .

James Holmes drove 20 miles out of his way to choose a theater complex that advertised itself as a 'gun free zone' . There were theaters closer to his apartment that were showing the Batman movie . Was that a factor when he made his plan of attack ? What does logic tell you ? A theater advertising itself as a 'gun free zone ' ;or a theater in a state that has conceal and carry permits ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

let's put it this way ; if the means of intervention by a lawful citizen has been rendered illegal ,then the cases of intervention by a lawful citizen will of course be rare events. That Vice Principal who went to his car to stop a killer was technically breaking the law by doing so .

Well, no let's not put it that way. Lets put it the way you said.

The question I asked was why did you use numerous example of intervention to demonstrate citizen intervention can reduce the amount of killing. Then in a post after this you said that intervention is irrelevant. Is it relevant to your position or not?

It can't be both.

Tut

Again you are playing high school debate . Take my answer above as my reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

again you are playing high school debate . take my answer above as my reply.

I have had a lot of practice at getting people to follow my line of questioning so as they paint themselves into a corner. It's not actually a high school technique. It is a very old dialectical method used throughout the centuries.

Tut

Have fun with it then .I'm sure you are the life of the party as you score points. Why don't you instead state a position on the topic instead of nit picking details .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

have fun with it then .I'm sure you are the life of the party as you score points. Why don't you instead state a position on the topic instead of nit picking details .

Ok, then I'll play by your rules. I won't worry about consistency.

I have stated by position many times in this thread. The latest one being in relation to the article posted by Steve which mentions Australian gun laws. If I didn't state it clearly then I will state it now in no uncertain terms:

Strict Australian gun laws result in low incidents of mass shootings.

You can post all the right wing think tank studies on Australian gun laws you like, but they won't stand up to any sort of objective scrutiny.

Tut

Good for Australia . When our law enforcement demonstrates they can get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and predators then perhaps my views will change on them going after the guns of law abiding citizens.

[QUOTE=tomder55;3355245 Why don't you instead state a position on the topic instead of nit picking details .[/QUOTE]

Nit picking? I would have thought that concealed carry was a central part of the discussion Isn't that why you post those think tank studies to show that it is?

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

good for Australia . When our law enforcement demonstrates they can get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and predators then perhaps my views will change on them going after the guns of law abiding citizens.

Well, that's never going to happen, so you are stuck with the paranoia this type of issue generates.

Tut

OK then ;how's it going with other violent crimes ,assaults ,rapes ,forced entries into homes ?Did the use of firearms in robberies decrease ? All you really did was remove the means of self defense .

Quote:

The facts (to quote the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia) are as follows:
Between July 1 1997 and 30 June 1999 nine in ten offenders of firearm-related homicide were unlicensed firearm owners.

Raw data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reveals that while suicide by firearms is continuing to decrease from a high in the 1980s, suicide by hanging steadily increased throughout the 1990s and increased for three consecutive years after the 1996 buy-back.

In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered. Recent legislation introduced by all states further strengthened controls on access to legitimate handguns by sporting shooters.

The AIC's 'Homicide in Australia: 2006-07 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report' stated that 93 per cent of firearms involved in homicides had never been registered and were used by unlicensed individuals.

America, don't repeat Australia's gun control mistake | The Daily Caller

Yeah yeah I know... right wing... no validity .

Tom you may not like our attitude to guns but the facts remain we have a low incidence of death by gun, in fact we have a low incidence of crime generally
In 2010, the Australian victimisation rates recorded by police for selected person offence categories were:
Murder, 1.0 victims per 100,000 persons
Attempted murder, 0.9 victims per 100,000 persons
Manslaughter, 0.1 victims per 100,000 persons
Sexual assault, 79.5 victims per 100,000 persons
Kidnapping/abduction, 2.7 victims per 100,000 persons
Robbery, 56.0 victims per 100,000 persons
The american statistics are more difficult to compare for 2010
violent crime rate 403.6
Murder 4.8
Rape 27.5
Robbery 119.1
Aggrevated assault 252.3

But you can see there is a significantly lower rate in our society

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Ok, then I'll play by your rules. I won't worry about consistency.

I have stated by position many times in this thread. The latest one being in relation to the article posted by Steve which mentions Australian gun laws. If I didn't state it clearly then I will state it now in no uncertain terms:

Strict Australian gun laws result in low incidents of mass shootings.

You can post all the right wing think tank studies on Australian gun laws you like, but they won't stand up to any sort of objective scrutiny.

Tut

It also showed gun crime doubled in the UK after making it virtually impossible to own a handgun and had a nominal effect on violent crime in Australia. Oh, and assaults went up 40% and sexual assaults rose 20%.

Conclusion? Disarming law abiding gun owners is not going to solve the problem and may in fact make it worse.

My conclusion would be there are more criminal acts and I doubt its because of a lack of guns but more likely a lack of money. Lack of money can make even honest people do bad things.

To pick out ONE factor to draw conclusions leads tofalse conclusions.

Quote:

Lack of money can make even honest people do bad things.

You can thank Obama for that!

Quote:

You can thank Obama for that!

That's a joke, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It also showed gun crime doubled in the UK after making it virtually impossible to own a handgun and had a nominal effect on violent crime in Australia. Oh, and assaults went up 40% and sexual assaults rose 20%.

Conclusion? Disarming law abiding gun owners is not going to solve the problem and may in fact make it worse.

Yes, I know. These figures come from the Australian Bureau of Criminology. Tom makes a reference to it in his post. In fact there two figures are quoted in a number of reports I have seen from time to time.

What the reports also says is that homicide has decreased by 9 percent since 1990 and armed robbery by a third since 2001.

These other two figures I just quoted are in the same report. They are not in a different chapter, they are not in a different paragraph. They are in fact IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

What is wrong with these people who do these types of studies? I know the will always be cherry picking of figures- but in the same sentence? And we are expected to take their reports seriously.

Additionally. I would have though that in order to disarm a population a population said population would have needed to be armed in the first place. Therefore the vast majority of Australians don't suffer from paranoia over the issue

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

My conclusion would be there are more criminal acts and I doubt its because of a lack of guns but more likely a lack of money. Lack of money can make even honest people do bad things.

To pick out ONE factor to draw conclusions leads to false conclusions.

Yes Tal, lack of money is a significant factor in the incidence of crime, so is drug addiction, and yet there is a strong move in your country to reduce welfare and make the situation worse. What is difficult to understand is $300 billion dollars is given to charity each year, that is a significant sum of money which should do much to offset the lack of money, but apparently it doesn't, what it does do is fund employment in non profit organisations

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Yes, I know. These figures come from the Australian Bureau of Criminology. Tom makes a reference to it in his post. In fact there two figures are quoted in a number of reports I have seen from time to time.

What the reports also says is that homicide has decreased by 9 percent since 1990 and armed robbery by a third since 2001.

These other two figures I just quoted are in the same report. They are not in a different chapter, they are not in a different paragraph. They are in fact IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

What is wrong with these people who do these types of studies? I know the will always be cherry picking of figures- but in the same sentence? And we are expected to take their reports seriously.

Additionally. I would have though that in order to disarm a population a population said population would have needed to be armed in the first place. Therefore the vast majority of Australians don't suffer from paranoia over the issue

Tut

We don't suffer from paranoia, we exercise our rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

We don't suffer from paranoia, we exercise our rights.

Sorry, my mistake.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

We don't suffer from paranoia, we exercise our rights.

Seriously a matter of opinion, fear breeds fear

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.