Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago

12-21-2012 , 01:42 PM
Might be late on this, but did anyone catch the NRA press conference with the awkward interruption from the screaming lady?

edit: and they blamed video games lol

Edit again: here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-0vlIx0Nt4
12-21-2012 , 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sommerset
I think the reason it sounds so insane to people (myself included) is because I thought the goal was to keep guns out of schools. Now, a potential shooter doesn't even have to worry about getting a gun or getting into the school. He can simply overpower a teacher or take one by surprise.

It just seems to me that this kind of thing would make it easier for stuff like this to happen.
Well, then you make an exception to the law for schools classed as violent. What about elementary schools, like Sandy Hook? Are you worried about elementary students overpowering their teachers to take a concealed gun away?
12-21-2012 , 01:44 PM
I WANT to say something sarcastic, but that would lead to my being banned, and the idea of several PA state troopers being murdered, after all the other high-profile shootings, is just ****ed up.
12-21-2012 , 01:44 PM
Grabbers celebrating a shooting while to trying to make a responsible safety minded organization look bad. What else is new.
12-21-2012 , 01:47 PM
Grabbers here should be called dodgers don't answer no questions on the issues just want to make jokes and ban guns. F the Dodgers. Call me if you ever really want to discuss it ill come back to this thread then.
12-21-2012 , 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
We had 1 cop and 2 'security guards' for most of my HS years. They guards were regular people with no weapons/tasers/etc and mainly walked around grabbing folks out of class that were supposed to be in detention or that had parked in the wrong spot and had to move or whatever low level ****.
We had staff, to handle things like detention, people coming late, people being sent to the dean.

The 4 to 5 cops were on campus for the gang members who were stabbing each other every few weeks.

Last edited by ForumWithdrawal; 12-21-2012 at 01:55 PM.
12-21-2012 , 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTirish
Well, then you make an exception to the law for schools classed as violent. What about elementary schools, like Sandy Hook? Are you worried about elementary students overpowering their teachers to take a concealed gun away?
Why would it have to be a student who goes to the school necessarily?

RE: the bolded... I'm not sure what "violence" has to do with anything. Adam Lanza wasn't violent, neither was the VT shooter.
12-21-2012 , 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoltan
I WANT to say something sarcastic, but that would lead to my being banned, and the idea of several PA state troopers being murdered, after all the other high-profile shootings, is just ****ed up.
Troopers have non life threatening injuries. I was reading some other article a few days ago and they list casualties as anyone wounded for some reason then make a note to separate fatalities. Makes titles like that confusing.
12-21-2012 , 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
It would really help if you would spell out the argument you're trying to make based on your evidence. In the absence of that, here's another map, which would be pretty important for interpreting yours correctly, for a number of reasons.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...7&cat=2&sub=34

edit: this is better

12-21-2012 , 01:51 PM
the NRA really dropped the ball today. they had a moral obligation to join the national discussion on what steps should take place to finally bring the 2nd amendment into the real world. but instead they called for putting armed policemen in America's schools. their disconnect is criminal in a way.
12-21-2012 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosher
Grabbers celebrating a shooting while to trying to make a responsible safety minded organization look bad. What else is new.
and what gun nuts like you will never understand is that no one is celebrating anything. We are putting it in your face so you can't ignore it.

Also, LOL saftey organization
12-21-2012 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForumWithdrawal
We had staff, to handle things like detention, period coming late, people being sent to the dean.

The 4 to 5 cops were on campus for the gang members who were stabbing each other every few weeks.
The day before this shooting there was a piece in the local paper here about wanting to get the police out of schools. The complaint was it was criminalizing things that in the past were just kids being kids (arresting kids for things that in years gone by they would have been sent to the office for). I am guessing they changed their minds about wanting the police out.
12-21-2012 , 01:53 PM
After the NRA School Protection Militia has a representative present at each school, I wonder if they would have enough 'down-time' to maybe hold a gun safety class or two. Might want to bring along a membership form or two just in case as well.
12-21-2012 , 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ligastar
the NRA really dropped the ball today. PR textbooks will be highlighting their press conference today as a test case in failure.

they had a moral obligation to join the national discussion on what steps should take place to finally bring the 2nd amendment into the real world. but instead they called for putting armed policemen in America's schools. their disconnect is criminal in a way.
the temperance movement manage to gain traction by going after this same blindness in play. It's a ****ty movie (but her tits were glorious), Tommy Lee Jones in Under Siege explaining a movement vs a revolution. The latter just keeps coming back.
12-21-2012 , 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosher
See my open letter for stats, research, and seven suggestions to address the real problem. Read it earnestly and provide your feedback. The 33% of 153 mass killings from 2006-2010 that did not include guns was in USA today yesterday from the FBI. I can't scan the paper it is too big they might have a web page to find it on.
Okay, I'll look it up. Even if you're correct it still stands that 67% of mass killins were from fire arms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosher
Not at all. I don't think you should prevent me from being able to safely and responsibly be prepared to defend myself, but I don't think you should be able to yell fire in crowded theaters or barrage impressionable children by engrossing them in simulations where the act out horrific criminal acts of gun violence and are desensitized by the virtual murder of tens of thousands of simulated opponents. All your other speech that does not pose an overwhelming threat to public safety while serving no legitimate purpose will still be protected. Nobody has told me what purpose these criminal simulators our young children serve other that to make disingenuous claims that I advocate repealing the first amendment on all accounts. I also don't think F bombs should be dropped on daytime tv society agrees why aren't you protesting that 1st amendment violation. Why do you hold so dear your death simulators and virtual criminal gun violence trainers? What purpose do they serve? Is it not for the greater public good they be outlawed? Can you address the issue earnestly without attempting to disingenuously reframe it as if I am advocating the complete removal of the 1st amendment? It's time for tough decisions and tough choices. Are the grabbers telling me giving up your depictions of glorified criminal acts is too tough of a choice and that it is off the table?
First, paragraphs please.

It is not disingenuous to say that banning certain types of video games would be a fundamental shift in the history of our first amendment. On the other hand it has only been in the last 30-40 years that the supreme court has interpreted the 2nd amendment as a means to allow what it allows today.

The reason I would not yet consider censoring all forms of media in favor of gun control is because we have seen gun control work in other countries. Other countries that have the same violence obsessed cultures. I'd prefer to have a gun control system like Japan.
12-21-2012 , 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosher
Grabbers celebrating a shooting while to trying to make a responsible safety minded organization look bad. What else is new.
Literally everything in this post is exactly 100% the opposite in the real world.
12-21-2012 , 01:59 PM
There are half a dozen state troopers at my nieces' winter program, k-6.
12-21-2012 , 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sommerset
Why would it have to be a student who goes to the school necessarily?

RE: the bolded... I'm not sure what "violence" has to do with anything. Adam Lanza wasn't violent, neither was the VT shooter.
I'm sorry, I assumed what you were saying was a followup to the business about public schools being violent hellholes; that the concern was that a student would overpower a teacher with a concealed weapon. So are you suggesting that someone like Adam Lanza would know, ahead of time, which teacher he needed to overpower in order to get the gun to carry out his massacre? And that this would be an approach that he would take to carry out his plan for mass murder? I just want to clarify that that's the scenario you're worried about.
12-21-2012 , 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosher
Not at all. I don't think you should prevent me from being able to safely and responsibly be prepared to defend myself, but I don't think you should be able to yell fire in crowded theaters or barrage impressionable children by engrossing them in simulations where the act out horrific criminal acts of gun violence and are desensitized by the virtual murder of tens of thousands of simulated opponents. All your other speech that does not pose an overwhelming threat to public safety while serving no legitimate purpose will still be protected. Nobody has told me what purpose these criminal simulators our young children serve other that to make disingenuous claims that I advocate repealing the first amendment on all accounts. I also don't think F bombs should be dropped on daytime tv society agrees why aren't you protesting that 1st amendment violation. Why do you hold so dear your death simulators and virtual criminal gun violence trainers? What purpose do they serve? Is it not for the greater public good they be outlawed? Can you address the issue earnestly without attempting to disingenuously reframe it as if I am advocating the complete removal of the 1st amendment? It's time for tough decisions and tough choices. Are the grabbers telling me giving up your depictions of glorified criminal acts is too tough of a choice and that it is off the table?
Video games are rated, people under 17 can't purchase violent video games. Also, there are tons and tons of people who play violent video games but never hurt anyone. Blaming violent media is not the answer in my opinion. Other countries play the same games as us but have much less violence (COD is the most popular game in the world).
12-21-2012 , 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTirish
Well, then you make an exception to the law for schools classed as violent. What about elementary schools, like Sandy Hook? Are you worried about elementary students overpowering their teachers to take a concealed gun away?
Where I live, elementary schools go up to 8th grade. 200 lb 8th graders aren't uncommon.
12-21-2012 , 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosher
A year ago this time I was you.
I hate the whole "i used to agree with you X time ago, but now i have changed my position" line which is trotted out to basically say "i used to share your opinion, but after X time passed, i thought about it and changed to my position, therefore i must be correct, think about it, i thought of what you thought of, and then after some time passed, i changed to what i now think of now, i must be right!"
12-21-2012 , 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluffsOften
I hate the whole "i used to agree with you X time ago, but now i have changed my position" line which is trotted out to basically say "i used to share your opinion, but after X time passed, i thought about it and changed to my position, therefore i must be correct, think about it, i thought of what you thought of, and then after some time passed, i changed to what i now think of now, i must be right!"
I used to agree with this but after growing up and much study of all the evidence I came to the conclusion that you're wrong.
12-21-2012 , 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSwag
Video games are rated, people under 17 can't purchase violent video games. Also, there are tons and tons of people who play violent video games but never hurt anyone. Blaming violent media is not the answer in my opinion. Other countries play the same games as us but have much less violence (COD is the most popular game in the world).
Cite? I thought starcraft was way more popular due to the koreans
12-21-2012 , 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
You're a funny guy.
12-21-2012 , 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusmahler
Where I live, elementary schools go up to 8th grade. 200 lb 8th graders aren't uncommon.
Nominal disputes are so much fun. Sandy Hook is K-4.

      
m