Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

Just Another High School Shooting

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Honest question for you, Princess. Where have I ever said that reducing the number of guns reduces violence? Feel free to find just one instance of me saying that guns cause violence. Just one.

No response. About what I expected.

And you wonder why everyone knows you have no interest in "serious discussion" on the topic :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 1:27 AM, Bent Sailor said:

As someone from a country where the rate of school shootings are measure in decades, not weeks, the idea of someone opening fire in a school kind of shocks me to the core.

Weeks? The only way to get there is to count kind of funny.

Quote

Everytown's criteria for inclusion in its count are broad. They include shootings that happen at colleges and universities, as well as at high schools and elementary schools. Accidental discharges — when a gun inadvertently goes off in someone's pocket, for instance — are included as well.

Are you counting Aussie "school shootings" at universities? How about accidental discharges? Do you think counting those as "school shootings" is an honest tactic politically? Or maybe an honest tactic when applied to the US but not your country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

No response. About what I expected.

And you wonder why everyone knows you have no interest in "serious discussion" on the topic :rolleyes: 

Jeff's not the one quoting and replying to himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2016 at 5:03 PM, LB 15 said:

You have ready access to guns an a school shooting every couple of weeks,


Funny how you and Bent have the same talking point here, LB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Weeks? The only way to get there is to count kind of funny.

Are you counting Aussie "school shootings" at universities? How about accidental discharges? Do you think counting those as "school shootings" is an honest tactic politically? Or maybe an honest tactic when applied to the US but not your country?

I am happy to use the same definition of school shooting for both countries. Australia still comes out better, what with there being far less guns available to people to shoot or "accidentally discharge" at schools, universities, or community college parking lots.

I don't need dishonest tactics - the numbers win out regardless. Australia has less gun crime than the US per capita. School shootings included. Whatever your choice of definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I agree with all of that and have repeatedly said so.  If a gun dealer knowingly sells a gun to a prohibited person or one who is clearly on drugs or unstable - they should be held criminally liable for the use of that gun.  I have repeatedly said that parents should be held accountable for the safe storage of their weapons and should be held liable for negligence if they allowed a gun to get into their kid's hands and then something bad happened.  I have repeatedly said I would be ok with registration as long as I could get an iron clad constitutional guarantee that a gun cannot be confiscated as a result of that registry without a specific warrant for cause.  IOW - no closed registries, confiscation upon death of the owner, etc.  

And every time several us "gun clubbers" have suggested similar common sense approaches, we get shot down.  

One last thing, as I said, I have no issue with a gun dealer being held responsible for a sale to a clearly unstable, suicidal or high person.  But I do not expect them to be trained mental health professionals.  How do you deal with the person who appears normal and has no background history but is borderline whacko?  Or a buyer who is perfectly sane at the point of sale but 6 months later snaps and goes on a killing spree.  You can't hold the dealer responsible for that anymore than you can hold a liquor store employee responsible for selling a bottle of tequila to someone who then gets shitfaced a week later after a bad day at work and crashes her car into a school bus and kills 20 kids.  

Without registration and an iron clad chain of custody, all of this responsibility holding is toothless and unenforceable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Funny how you and Bent have the same talking point here, LB.

We are like brothers Tom. We couldn't be closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

We are like brothers Tom. We couldn't be closer.

So close, only a firehose could separate you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Weeks? The only way to get there is to count kind of funny.

Are you counting Aussie "school shootings" at universities? How about accidental discharges? Do you think counting those as "school shootings" is an honest tactic politically? Or maybe an honest tactic when applied to the US but not your country?

I am happy to use the same definition of school shooting for both countries. Australia still comes out better, what with there being far less guns available to people to shoot or "accidentally discharge" at schools, universities, or community college parking lots.

I don't need dishonest tactics - the numbers win out regardless. Australia has less gun crime than the US per capita. School shootings included. Whatever your choice of definition.

Well, OK, use them if you want. I think an accidental discharge that happens at a school is not what most people mean when they say "school shooting" so I find it dishonest when you use that definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Why the constant comparison of US and Oz gun laws? 

Sometimes it's best to emulate what works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Sometimes it's best to emulate what works.

Is that all ya got?

We have 10x the pop, we're leaders on the world stage in every possible way, with a completely different history. Apologies to Aussies but they aren't relevant to much of a gun discussion.

Now add the other big players and lets  see how the harmless chatter goes. Apples to apples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Is that all ya got?

We have 10x the pop, we're leaders on the world stage in every possible way, with a completely different history. Apologies to Aussies but they aren't relevant to much of a gun discussion.

Now add the other big players and lets  see how the harmless chatter goes. Apples to apples. 

Inconvenient truth that Australia has a successful gun program.  I like countries that have sound gun policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Why the constant comparison of US and Oz gun laws? 

 

Just don't point your gun at armed home invaders in Australia, our politicians want criminals to have a safe working environment.

 

Quote

Border farmer has guns taken after confronting man armed with a knife at his home

 FATHER who armed himself with an unloaded rifle during a home invasion has been left wondering what he could have done differently, after having his guns seized.

Police took David Dunstan’s three firearms from his farming property at Bungowannah on Thursday afternoon.

   Police seized his guns, which he uses for pest control at his property, later that day.

http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/4927063/border-farmer-has-guns-taken-after-confronting-man-armed-with-a-knife-at-his-home/?cs=11      

 

If you want to copy our gun laws you will lose the right to defend yourself with a gun in your own home against armed home invaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Inconvenient truth that Australia has a successful gun program.  I like countries that have sound gun policies.

Move to one. Here, banning ordinary .22's and conducting (warrantless) home inspections as they do presents some problems. At least in some states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Inconvenient truth that Australia has a successful gun program. ...

I say again, this matters because?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Fuck you, 2nd Amendment.

Umm, not really wanting to wade in here, but aren't there a whole bunch of regulations around what you can carry, where you can carry, how you can carry?  Or are you now in the Gouv camp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Inconvenient truth that Australia has a successful gun program.  I like countries that have sound gun policies.

Criminals have no trouble getting guns in Australia, a Police officer was killed with a full auto AK47 in Qld and we have never been able to legally buy full auto AK47s.

 

Quote

GUNS are being found in Melbourne’s northwest suburbs every two days in what Victoria Police acknowledge is an alarming trend.

Long arms, handguns and homemade firearms are being seized by police in increasing numbers in Broadmeadows, Sunshine and Melton and other suburbs.

Police are also recording a firearms incident every six days, including seizure of weapons, armed robberies or shootings, according to North West Metro region acting Commander Mick Hermans. Victoria Police resources have been reallocated to deal with the influx of weapons in northwest suburbs, which are already typically overrepresented in crime.

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/victoria-increase-in-number-of-guns-and-weapons-seized-by-police/news-story/ef5d36ce1fd27c7ea37925f1fc5bae1b

 

These full auto Tommy guns have never been legal to buy here, the gun grabbers say guns are stolen from licensed gun owners.

Quote

A man has been caught with a sub-machinegun in his bag at a major shopping centre in Sydney's inner west, police say. 

As shoppers were heading to Marrickville Metro at lunchtime on Wednesday, the man travelled to the shopping centre by taxi with a Thompson-brand fully automatic sub-machine gun.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-found-carrying-fully-automatic-submachine-gun-in-marrickville-police-20151118-gl2i1k.html

 

Try New Zealand if you want a country with sound gun laws, they haven't had a mass shooting since 1997 they allow all the scary black semi autos with sound moderators.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Move to one. Here, banning ordinary .22's and conducting (warrantless) home inspections as they do presents some problems. At least in some states.

 

Those in Australia who are subject to a Firearm Prohibition Order can have the police rock up and search their home whenever the Police feel like doing it they don't need a warrant to search those subjected to a FPO.

 

We don't want that dickhead spatial ed or jocal here perhaps they should go to Mexico if they like tough gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the drift away from OZ laws. I started a new thread so you guys can focus on the school shootings, as many love to do.

School tragedies are not the elephant in the room.  And yes I have had a teenager die in a senseless way. Ban cars. They're the killing tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

Those in Australia who are subject to a Firearm Prohibition Order can have the police rock up and search their home whenever the Police feel like doing it they don't need a warrant to search those subjected to a FPO.

 

We don't want that dickhead spatial ed or jocal here perhaps they should go to Mexico if they like tough gun laws.

Hell, they can just choose to move to L.A. or Chicago or DC ... safe places with stricter gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Honest question for you, Princess. Where have I ever said that reducing the number of guns reduces violence? Feel free to find just one instance of me saying that guns cause violence. Just one.

Don't take this personally, but one of the reasons I have so much disdain for you and your "Fuck You, 2nd Amendment" schitck is that you know you cannot address the argument put before you. Instead you consistently make up one to beat up on. If you couched your "Fuck You, 2nd Amendment" bullshit in "Yes, more guns around does mean it's more likely they'll be used in violent crime and so increase the rate of homicide" - you'd get some respect for honesty. Not so much for the lack of compassion toward your fellow man, innocent children killed, and so on - but at least you'd be admitting to your sociopathy. Until you can man up to that shit, I expect you'll continue to compete with Tedious Tom in the "Most Tiresome Twat on PA" poll.

Why do you always answer a question with a question???

The main thrust of my question is what about the rights of the people who are not out shooting others?  I personally don't think its fair or right to punish literally tens of millions of law abiding gun owners over the sins of a few thousand.  I've never been a big fan of collective punishment.  But this is exactly a pusstrailian "solution" looks like.  Sorry, not thanks.  And thanks to the 2A, we can tell you to fuck off.  I realize that on your rock, you didn't have that luxury.  Shrug.  Whatever.  But we do.  And I intend to keep it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

No response. About what I expected.

And you wonder why everyone knows you have no interest in "serious discussion" on the topic :rolleyes: 

No fucktard.  Its called "work".  You should try it sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No fucktard.  Its called "work".  You should try it sometime.

Over the span of a few years, you have evaded the import of most gun related discussions. You prop up a straw man, wail away, and go away. Your depth can be found in the variety of abuse you spew.

You presently claim that outdoor gun rights are established. You drink to the eminent reversal of the NY SAFE Act. We are dealing with a fantasy guy here who obviously hasn't studied the Heller decision.

There's a punch line to your life.  You whored your gun rights and gun hobby for filthy lucre in a land of despots. You traded your gun rights in on the streets of the oil-soaked Mideast, while waxing on about the Bill of Rights. YCMTSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, the Spokane shooter kid had been suspended from school for a series of threatening notes. The guns returned with the shooter kid as he returned from suspension. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 I realize that on your rock, you didn't have that luxury.  Shrug.  Whatever.  But we do.  And I intend to keep it.

You rock in your home with one gun, so far. This is one of the Pooplius baby steps (which hasn't advanced). It's attempted advancement was Steven Halbrook's baby, Heller II, which blessed gun registration. I have been reading his body of work.

Hi Jeff. You are a rooster crowing away about having outdoor gun rights which are yet to be discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

We don't want that dickhead spatial ed or jocal here perhaps they should go to Mexico if they like tough gun laws.

The exemplary track record for using tough gun laws is New England. Their gun safety stats are an example to all, even to California.

Mr. Bin Lyin, Mexico is the logical extension of your value system. Historically, your beliefs have generated banana republics while snuffing civil rights. This is a great read  from a wonk who grew up with guns.

Quote

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Weeks? The only way to get there is to count kind of funny.

Are you counting Aussie "school shootings" at universities? How about accidental discharges? Do you think counting those as "school shootings" is an honest tactic politically? Or maybe an honest tactic when applied to the US but not your country?

If a gun goes off in a school, something is wrong. What's the gun even doing there in the first place? And why are you accepting ANY firearms discharges in or near a school, before or after school hours, intentional or unintentional, including in school playgrounds and parking lots? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?

Most "accidental discharges" are actually negligence.

Pooplius, why are you promoting, accepting, or dismissing gun accidents or gun negligence in or near schools or universities? What kind of society are you promoting here?

And why are universities each paying millions for metal detectors and gunsafes for guns that educators didn't want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:
4 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Inconvenient truth that Australia has a successful gun program. ...

I say again, this matters because?

Because "this," meaning successful weapons control, is part of a pattern among first world countries. The pattern began to be set in the late 1200's, and did not deviate. Displaying arms was a misdemeanor. Riding with intent to use a weapon, or hiding the weapon, was a felony. This culminated in the writings of Blackstone, a jurist who guided the jurisprudence of the Colonies.

Violent citizen interaction was confined to castile doctrine, to one's home. Which is why Heller rests there too. Nothing has changed, except the violent post-seventies rhetoric coming from the Larry Pratt camp. The rhetoric, these new, violent self defense norms, have no fucking legal foundation.

The new urban myth of violent self defense "rights" is a poorly supported can of worms. The case law is the word "confrontation" from Heller I. 

Quote

II THE COMMON LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF OTHERS Darrel Miller (see p88)

The common law of self-defense doesn’t begin with the individual, it begins with the sovereign.14 In the first century after the Norman invasion of England, the patchwork of local regulations, private vengeances, and family feuds were gradually supplanted by an all-encompassing “king’s peace.”15 Initially, the king’s peace existed only at “certain times, in certain places, and in favour of certain privileged persons.”16 But eventually, the king’s peace came to “cover all times, the whole realm, [and] all men.”17

http://lcp.law.duke.edu/article/self-defense-defense-of-others-and-the-state-miller-vol80-iss2/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Because "this," meaning successful weapons control, is part of a pattern among first world countries. The pattern began to be set in the late 1200's, and did not deviate. Displaying arms was a misdemeanor. Riding with intent to use a weapon, or hiding the weapon, was a felony. This culminated in the writings of Blackstone, a jurist who guided the jurisprudence of the Colonies.

Violent citizen interaction was confined to castile doctrine, to one's home. Heller rests there too. Nothing has changed excepty the violent post-seventies rhetoric coming from the Larry Pratt camp. The rhetoric, thesenew  violent self defense norms, have no fucking legal foundation.

The new urban myth of violent self defense "rights" is a poorly supported can of worms. The case law is the word confrontation" from Heller I. 

I know you guys have done the  homework. But rulings are only effective if followed.

My stance is that Americans are different. We've covered our butts and everyone else's. That's what we do. And guns have been in our hands since the Pilgrims arrived. And confrontations happen outside. And, and, and

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

I know you guys have done the  homework. But rulings are only effective if followed.

My stance is that Americans are different. We've covered our butts and everyone else's. That's what we do. And guns have been in our hands since the Pilgrims arrived. And confrontations happen outside. And, and, and

We Americans certainly are different.  We have 20 six year olds cut down by an assault rifle and yawn in boredom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

I know you guys have done the  homework. But rulings are only effective if followed.

My stance is that Americans are different. We've covered our butts and everyone else's. That's what we do. And guns have been in our hands since the Pilgrims arrived. And confrontations happen outside. And, and, and

Viva la difference?

In the wild west, our knives were longer and our fires were bigger. We could load our guns on Monday and shoot them all week long. We arrived to take the finest land, unlike thirty years of earlier whites. In the 1840's,  the Hudson Bay Co. sponsored starving Bostons in Puget Sound against policy, out of Christian charity. The settlers turned on the HBC as soon as their seeds grew to become our crops.

We are different, and we need to tone it down sometimes.  Lethally violent "self defense" as the new norm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Well, OK, use them if yo

accidental discharge that happens at a school is not what most people mean when they say "school shooting" so I find it dishonest when you use that definition.

Don't use them if you don't want. Australian statistics still work out FAR better. I find it dishonest when people try making out the issue is about accidental discharges when they're irrelevant to that point.

 

8 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Why the constant comparison of US and Oz gun laws? 

4x less homicide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why do you always answer a question with a question???

Because you started with one and it's basis was false. Which is exactly why you're taking umbrage at the way I posted rather than address what I posted. As usual.

 

6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The main thrust of my question is what about the rights of the people who are not out shooting others?  I personally don't think its fair or right to punish literally tens of millions of law abiding gun owners over the sins of a few thousand.  I've never been a big fan of collective punishment.  But this is exactly a pusstrailian "solution" looks like.  Sorry, not thanks.  And thanks to the 2A, we can tell you to fuck off.  I realize that on your rock, you didn't have that luxury.  Shrug.  Whatever.  But we do.  And I intend to keep it.

Actually, it seemed that the thrust of your post was that I was wrong about guns causing violence (when I said no such thing) and that I don't constantly repeat myself when it comes to acknowledging that a constitutional change is required to do what was done in Australia. Which I have acknowledged in the past. I don't see I need to constantly point out the obvious when I'm not arguing that issue.

But if you pretend otherwise, you can hide your refusal to accept an abundance of accessible guns means more US violence turns into homicide than Aussie violence does. Beat up on your strawman long enough and you hope that people forget the actual point I have been making for decades. Don't believe me? Just ask Chesapeake - he correctly stated that was my point YEARS ago in the face of a similar tirade by someone trying the "prove guns cause violence" line on me. It's not that my message is opaque - it's that you don't want to address it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No fucktard.  Its called "work".  You should try it sometime.

Uh huh. Clearly. Hence these posts, in just this thread alone, after I posted my question and before pointing out your gutless lack of response.

13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I agree with all of that and have repeatedly said so.  If a gun dealer knowingly sells a gun to a prohibited person or one who is clearly on drugs or unstable - they should be held criminally liable for the use of that gun.  I have repeatedly said that parents should be held accountable for the safe storage of their weapons and should be held liable for negligence if they allowed a gun to get into their kid's hands and then something bad happened.  I have repeatedly said I would be ok with registration as long as I could get an iron clad constitutional guarantee that a gun cannot be confiscated as a result of that registry without a specific warrant for cause.  IOW - no closed registries, confiscation upon death of the owner, etc.  

And every time several us "gun clubbers" have suggested similar common sense approaches, we get shot down.  

One last thing, as I said, I have no issue with a gun dealer being held responsible for a sale to a clearly unstable, suicidal or high person.  But I do not expect them to be trained mental health professionals.  How do you deal with the person who appears normal and has no background history but is borderline whacko?  Or a buyer who is perfectly sane at the point of sale but 6 months later snaps and goes on a killing spree.  You can't hold the dealer responsible for that anymore than you can hold a liquor store employee responsible for selling a bottle of tequila to someone who then gets shitfaced a week later after a bad day at work and crashes her car into a school bus and kills 20 kids.  

13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

NO I do NOT agree with that.  Not even slightly.  Gun rights, indoors or outdoors are not TBD in the slightest.  And no jcoal gyrations are going to change that.

12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Fuck you, 2nd Amendment.

Clearly too busy at work to respond... except, you know, when you do. Again, it's bullshit lines like that which tell everyone you're not interested in "serious discussion". Just another circle jerk with Tom where you can ignore the point and beat your chest while  being  possessing a tool. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Don't use them if you don't want.

Do you stand by this statement of yours?

On 9/14/2017 at 1:27 AM, Bent Sailor said:

As someone from a country where the rate of school shootings are measure in decades, not weeks, the idea of someone opening fire in a school kind of shocks me to the core.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do you stand by this statement of yours?

Yes. As someone from a country where school shootings are almost unheard of, I am still shocked to the core by reports of someone opening fire in a school. That hasn't changed. Not going to regardless of how much you try quibbling about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes. As someone from a country where school shootings are almost unheard of, I am still shocked to the core by reports of someone opening fire in a school. That hasn't changed. Not going to regardless of how much you try quibbling about it.

I know you're proud of your country.

Just wanted to confirm that you think of an accidental discharge at a school as a "school shooting."

You should probably go back and look at how many "school shootings" your country has had if one counts universities and accidents as you do.

I still think it's BS. Just trying to pad the numbers like grabbers always do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know you're proud of your country.

Has nothing to do with pride of country. It has to do with the statistical safety of my children. I know that's hard for you to accept, what with your national pride clashing with those figures.

 

Quote

Just wanted to confirm that you think of an accidental discharge at a school as a "school shooting."

I never stated that and have repeatedly told you that you can choose statistics not including such "accidental discharges" if you like. My children are still far less likely to be shot at a school in Australia than over in the US.

 

Quote

You should probably go back and look at how many "school shootings" your country has had if one counts universities and accidents as you do.

I have. Far less than the US. Even accounting for the population difference. Which won't go away no matter how many different ways you quibble about the numbers.

 

Quote

I still think it's BS. Just trying to pad the numbers like grabbers always do.

I'd suggest that's just projection on your part. You have been given the opportunity to define the parameters "school shooting" for comparison. You refuse to do so. We both know why, but do continue with your charade. No-one really expected you to be anything but disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad reality is that this shit is going to happen.  The best thing schools can do is armor up and not let these crazies through the door with weapons.  Have armed guards.  Make it as secure as Ft Knox.  Whatever.  If we trust schools to take care of our children during the day, then it needs to be made as secure as possible.  I think raz'r or mitch or someone like that agrees with me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I never stated that and have repeatedly told you that you can choose statistics not including such "accidental discharges" if you like.

You made your choice when you said we have a "school shooting" every few weeks and then stood by that statement.

That statement is only accurate if you count a negligent discharge that happens at a school as a school shooting.

Do you want to revisit the accuracy of your "weeks" assertion or do you want to continue to stand by your use of stats that include such things?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The sad reality is that this shit is going to happen.  The best thing schools can do is armor up and not let these crazies through the door with weapons.  Have armed guards.  Make it as secure as Ft Knox.  Whatever.  If we trust schools to take care of our children during the day, then it needs to be made as secure as possible.  I think raz'r or mitch or someone like that agrees with me too.

So basically turn our schools into super max prisons so that your right to play with firearms is not registered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do you want to revisit the accuracy of your "weeks" assertion or do you want to continue to stand by your use of stats that include such things?

As I have stated, I do not care which definition you choose to use. If you wish to change the definition used to one you feel more accurate - do so. If you wish to use a different definition you think "pads" the numbers - do so.

Either way, the differential between our countries when it comes to "school shootings" remains so stark that the idea of someone walking into one and shooting at people still shocks me to my core. That shock isn't going to change cos you wish to quibble about which consistent definition is applied.

You're the one fixated on the specific frequency. My shock comes from the differential. That remains relatively consistent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

So basically turn our schools into super max prisons so that your right to play with firearms is not registered.

Jeffs is a defeatist argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a topic for another day is a complete overhaul of the school system. It only works for kids who want it. If school were voluntary, the disrupters, gangbangers, the bullies, indeed, the killers, wouldnt be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

As I have stated, I do not care which definition you choose to use. If you wish to change the definition used to one you feel more accurate - do so. If you wish to use a different definition you think "pads" the numbers - do so.

Either way, the differential between our countries when it comes to "school shootings" remains so stark that the idea of someone walking into one and shooting at people still shocks me to my core. That shock isn't going to change cos you wish to quibble about which consistent definition is applied.

You're the one fixated on the specific frequency. My shock comes from the differential. That remains relatively consistent.

 

My shock comes from your inability to talk about the stats you are using.

It's OK. You think a negligent discharge at a school is a "school shooting." LB 15 and the vast majority of our grabbers agree with you. I don't. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

So basically turn our schools into super max prisons so that your right to play with firearms is not registered.

Yep, basically.  Because yet again, registration will not "prevent" this from happening.  And its not like we have a backlog of unsolved school shooting cases with weapons left lying around that registration will magically solve.  You are an idiot if you think otherwise.  

Its the price of freedom.  There's always going to be some acceptable losses.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Is that all ya got?

We have 10x the pop, we're leaders on the world stage in every possible way, with a completely different history. Apologies to Aussies but they aren't relevant to much of a gun discussion.

Now add the other big players and lets  see how the harmless chatter goes. Apples to apples. 

Obviously not.

But if anyone tries to point out areas in which you fail miserably you get all cross and weepy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

My shock comes from your inability to talk about the stats you are using.

You asked me to confirm my statement regarding my shock. I have done so. You asked me whether I prefer a definition including or not including accidental discharges. I have stated I don't care. I have offered that, if you don't like a given definition, that you choose of whichever definition you'd prefer for "school shooting". You have refused to do so.

I remain completely unshocked at the level of disingenuous bullshit you bring to any thread mentioning guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I have stated I don't care. I have offered that, if you don't like a given definition, that you choose of whichever definition you'd prefer for "school shooting". You have refused to do so.

I know you don't care that you're dishonestly padding the numbers by joining your buddy LB 15 in repeating the gungrabby propaganda talking point about it being "weeks" between our "school shootings."

If you cared, you'd say something like "perhaps that stat is wrong and it's more than 'weeks' but my point otherwise stands."

But your inability to back off in any way prevents it and amuses me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yep, basically.  Because yet again, registration will not "prevent" this from happening.  And its not like we have a backlog of unsolved school shooting cases with weapons left lying around that registration will magically solve.  You are an idiot if you think otherwise.  

Its the price of freedom.  There's always going to be some acceptable losses.  Just saying.

The price of your freedom to play with unregistered guns is to imprison our children.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know you don't care that you're dishonestly padding the numbers by joining your buddy LB 15 in repeating the gungrabby propaganda talking point about it being "weeks" between our "school shootings."

I'm happy to accept your definition if you want. Have stated it multiple times. 

 

6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If you cared, you'd say something like "perhaps that stat is wrong and it's more than 'weeks' but my point otherwise stands."

I have stated I don't care which definition you choose. It matters not for where my shock comes from. You asked me to affirm a statement about my shock - I have done that. Your need to turn my expression of shock into something you can quibble about is, as always with you, indicative of just how low you slither when guns are discussed.

 

6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But your inability to back off in any way prevents it and amuses me.

Yes. I've noted just how you amuse yourself whenever someone starts discussing a recent school shooting. I think it pretty sick myself, but then again I don't expect much from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spatial Ed said:

So basically turn our schools into super max prisons so that your right to play with firearms is not registered.

I thought your schools were gun free zones, does that mean all these school shootings involve people who don't obey your laws?

 

School shooting deaths in Australia when semi auto rifles with sound moderators were allowed for self defence before our 1996 gun laws = 0, Since we had no deaths from school shootings before our strict laws we can say our gun laws had no effect on school shootings in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know you're proud of your country.

Just wanted to confirm that you think of an accidental discharge at a school as a "school shooting."

You should probably go back and look at how many "school shootings" your country has had if one counts universities and accidents as you do.

I still think it's BS. Just trying to pad the numbers like grabbers always do.

Everyone, meet Tom

Tom thinks everyone in the world should be scared like he is, and carry weapons because of fear.

tom thinks there's a conspiracy to keep his precious away.

poor Tom, don't listen to Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone, meet Mitch.

He might or might not think that an accidental discharge at a school is a "school shooting" but he sure does like to gossip about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Everyone, meet Mitch.

He might or might not think that an accidental discharge at a school is a "school shooting" but he sure does like to gossip about me.

You have a sickness. Seek help.

 

and yes, of course an "accidental discharge" is a shot fired at a school. And if you eliminated ALL of those from whatever stats you look at, it would not change the data materially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can define a "school shooting" for PA purposes:

It's one that appears here for expressions of concern before the bodies have cooled. All the others listed in gungrabby propaganda are just number padding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this one:

 

school shooting is a form of mass shooting involving an armed attack on an educational institution, such as a school or university. The U.S. Secret Service defines them as shootings where schools are "deliberately selected as the location for the attack".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know you don't care that you're dishonestly padding the numbers by joining your buddy LB 15 in repeating the gungrabby propaganda talking point about it being "weeks" between our "school shootings."

If you cared, you'd say something like "perhaps that stat is wrong and it's more than 'weeks' but my point otherwise stands."

But your inability to back off in any way prevents it and amuses me.

This could have been a good discussion, mate. So far you have trashed it with one petty bit.  But I sometimes have hope for you, Tom Ray. 

I think it works better when you disappear after these shootings, than when you do the poodle attack dog bit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2017 at 11:38 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

No they can't.

Anyone who did not register a scary weapon in his state by the date on which the registry closed is banned from acquiring one. There's no paperwork, no exception. The guns were registered and will be confiscated when the owners die.

Your lies don't fool those of us who pay attention. Registration is leading to confiscation every single day.

Tom,  the government can't confiscate your gun when you die.  Special Ed said so.  You are mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

I'm happy to accept your definition if you want. Have stated it multiple times. 

 

I have stated I don't care which definition you choose. It matters not for where my shock comes from. You asked me to affirm a statement about my shock - I have done that. Your need to turn my expression of shock into something you can quibble about is, as always with you, indicative of just how low you slither when guns are discussed.

 

Yes. I've noted just how you amuse yourself whenever someone starts discussing a recent school shooting. I think it pretty sick myself, but then again I don't expect much from you.

Bent doesn't care...

Bent doesn't care...

Bent is sick...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Everyone, meet Tom

Tom thinks everyone in the world should be scared like he is, and carry weapons because of fear.

tom thinks there's a conspiracy to keep his precious away.

poor Tom, don't listen to Tom

There IS a conspiracy to keep his precious away, correct.  I. Thought that was an end goal for many people in the US - to ban ALL guns.  You are saying there are no people in the US who want to ban guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rockdog said:

There IS a conspiracy to keep his precious away, correct.  I. Thought that was an end goal for many people in the US - to ban ALL guns.  You are saying there are no people in the US who want to ban guns?

Is it enough people to make it actually happen? What would it take, 66% + 75% of the states?


there's always a nut here or there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Is it enough people to make it actually happen? What would it take, 66% + 75% of the states?


there's always a nut here or there....

Conspiracy is a conspiracy.  Anyone who says there isn't one is a LIAR.  Has nothing to do with probability of success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rockdog said:

Tom,  the government can't confiscate your gun when you die.  Special Ed said so.  You are mistaken.

I never said such.  I think if you are so irresponsible that you don't provide for your orphaned guns, the logical responsibility should be the government.  Just like children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rockdog said:

Bent doesn't care...

Bent doesn't care...

Bent is sick...

I don't care which definition Tom uses. It doesn't change what shocks me.

Tom is a sick man drawing amusement from threads about recent school shootings and trying to quibble about what shocks people about kids shooting other kids in school.

You're just a sad troll, even worse than he is. Tom's at least intelligent and (mostly) sober.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Rockdog said:

Conspiracy is a conspiracy.  Anyone who says there isn't one is a LIAR.  Has nothing to do with probability of success.

SWING and a MISS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I like this one:

 

school shooting is a form of mass shooting involving an armed attack on an educational institution, such as a school or university. The U.S. Secret Service defines them as shootings where schools are "deliberately selected as the location for the attack".

That would certainly be more honest than the definition preferred by LB 15 and Bent.

It's also an upgrade from your previous one. I recall you citing "school shootings" that included, among other things, a 19 year old trespasser late at night on an elementary school campus. Glad to see you won't be citing BS like that any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 9/18/2017 at 8:59 AM, Raz'r said:

I like this one:

 

school shooting is a form of mass shooting involving an armed attack on an educational institution, such as a school or university. The U.S. Secret Service defines them as shootings where schools are "deliberately selected as the location for the attack".

That would certainly be more honest than the definition preferred by LB 15 and Bent.

Tom Ray is not the yardstick on honesty around here, mate.

Why is it "more honest" to require a mass shooting in order to count a school shooting? Why is is more honest that the school location is "selected," since most shootings are unplanned incidents. WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Rockdog said:

Conspiracy is a conspiracy.  Anyone who says there isn't one is a LIAR.  Has nothing to do with probability of success.

Imagine much? Show me the conspiracy. You can't even display the language, AFAIK. Take a shot at it.

Pooplius found one woman three years ago who proposed to ban all guns. I took a look at it. It had been a didactic exercise for her, since it had never been proclaimed. She gained no following and there was no follow-up I know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2017 at 3:28 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Fuck you, 2nd Amendment.

Don't be so touchy, Princess. You boys wanted to talk militia bullshit, Shirley.

The Second Amendment was about avoiding a standing Army. Which branch or our standing airpower did you serve and fly in, Jeffie? We don't need to fuck the Second, we need to understand it and apply it in a way that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That would certainly be more honest than the definition preferred by LB 15 and Bent.

Bent does not prefer a definition. You are, once again, wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

I don't care which definition Tom uses. It doesn't change what shocks me.

Tom is a sick man drawing amusement from threads about recent school shootings and trying to quibble about what shocks people about kids shooting other kids in school.

You're just a sad troll, even worse than he is. Tom's at least intelligent and (mostly) sober.

Bent doesn't care...

Tom is sick...

Rockdog is a troll....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rockdog said:

Bent doesn't care...

Tom is sick...

Rockdog is a troll....

Well, I suppose even a parrot can look intelligent if he repeats something intelligent. Well done, RD, that's a step up for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Well, I suppose even a parrot can look intelligent if he repeats something intelligent. Well done, RD, that's a step up for you.

You seem like SV lately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rockdog said:

You seem like SV lately

Can we just pause and celebrate the unity here?   This forum has become much less constipated now that he is gone.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rockdog said:

You seem like SV lately

Uh huh, and you're acting like you're on another bender looking for a target now BJ's not around to rile up.

Do you have a point RD, or are you just using PA as a place to whine some more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2017 at 5:11 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know you don't care that you're dishonestly padding the numbers...your inability to back off in any way prevents it and amuses me.

TOM RAY, DISHONESTY FIGHTER 

Give me a break. You need to correct your extended mangling of Miller's  case law.

Quote

 

No pound of flesh is required but we have an important conversation to continue. So choose some way to back off on your butchering of Federalist 29 too. You see, the Brits had a right to rebel under parliamentary guidelines. The rebellion card which Hamilton had to play (Blackstone's Five Auxiliary Rights) was clearly written into their Bill of Rights in 1689, and it pulled off the peaceful Glorious Revolution.

Why do I press this?

  • Because Larry Pratt has no similar law to stand on in the USA.
  • Secondly, because in Hamilton's mind the Declaration was a formal expression of the Fourth Auxiliary right, grievance. Tom's snippet demonstrates Blackstone's validity with the FF.
  • Thirdly, to point out that to Alexander Hamilton, shooting at tyrants requires four preliminary efforts at diplomacy.
  •  
Quote

(Tom Ray, quoting The Federalist 29) Do you think he (Hamilton) was talking about armed resistance to a tyranical government? I do.

Post 78 Aug. 9 (Joe identifies Blackstone's Fifth Auxiliary right, and enumerates the Parliamentry process by which to legally confront tyrants. Joe explains the historical context which precipitated such wise, predominantly non-violent, organization)

Post 86 Aug. 10

(Tom, again) What do you think it's talking about?

(Joe) In a word, the five auxiliary rights. Sort that shit, Tom

First Correction Post 113, Aug 13

(Tom ) Unfortunately, King George and Parliament, much like our government, neglected to put into law the proper procedures for overthrowing the government

(Joe) Parliament passed Blackstone's fifth auxiliary right, bubba.

Second correction, Post 155 Aug. 14

(Tom) The Founders were not following any "right of armed rebellion" that had been written into British law. 

(Joe) This is my second correction of this mis-statement, Tom.

Third correction, Post 172 Aug. 17

(Tom)  ...despite there being no provision in British laws for the violent overthrow of the government.

... no form of government has ever had prescribed procedures for the violent overthrow of the government.

(Joe) WTF? Tom, this is your third correction.

Fourth correction, Post 186 Aug 17

(Tom) …ones  that did not have a constitutionally-prescribed procedure for the violent overthrow of the government. Meaning, again, every government.

(Joe)  DAILY LIES? You are repeating an untruthful statement for the fourth or fifth time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 9:36 AM, Rockdog said:

There IS a conspiracy to keep his precious away, correct.  I. Thought that was an end goal for many people in the US - to ban ALL guns.  You are saying there are no people in the US who want to ban guns?

Such persecution you suffer from.

The reason you guys duck, weave, exaggerate, and lie so much in these discussions is because deep down you know you're on a loser.

There is no conspiracy against your hobby - it's just obvious common sense.

You are petrified of confiscation, but your failure to take ownership of the situation ironically makes some sort of police action against your entire hobby more likely. maybe even necessary.

It will not happen in isolation - it will be done as part of a larger cleanup. I would expect within our lifetimes.

When they do come for them, understand that it is your failure now which caused it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

Such persecution you suffer from.

The reason you guys duck, weave, exaggerate, and lie so much in these discussions is because deep down you know you're on a loser.

There is no conspiracy against your hobby - it's just obvious common sense.

You are petrified of confiscation, but your failure to take ownership of the situation ironically makes some sort of police action against your entire hobby more likely. maybe even necessary.

When they do come for them, understand that it is your failure now which caused it.

I really support your main point here. I get to speak as an angry gunowner, which is nice.

Kooks and extremists (not criminals or Arab terrorists) have made my plinker look bad. They've made semi-automatics look bad. And they've made the USA look bad. No honor is apparent, imo. They show counterfactual thought processes. They ridicule science. They need adult supervision and boundaries.

Quote

It will not happen in isolation - it will be done as part of a larger cleanup. I would expect within our lifetimes.

Care to expand that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Care to expand that?

Well, I am speculating of course.

I suggest a larger cleanup, because guns in themselves are only a part of a tangle of issues. Many of the concerns raised justifying the current situation with guns are not without merit.

My expectation is that the current system of government is incapable of dealing with the problem. We have now had two consecutive presidents campaigning on Hope and Change. The most recent one wasn't even credible, and still got elected. The peasants are revolting.

 

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe an amazing leader will step up.

We can hope anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Bent does not prefer a definition. You are, once again, wrong.

Yes, using one and standing by that use of it does NOT mean you prefer that definition.

 

On 9/18/2017 at 8:59 PM, Bent Sailor said:

Tom is a sick man drawing amusement from threads about recent school shootings and trying to quibble about what shocks people about kids shooting other kids in school.

Negligent discharges at a school, possession on school grounds by 19 year old trespassers in the middle of the night, and other things that your elk like to count as "school shootings" have nothing to do with kids shooting other kids at school.

They're just ways you pad the numbers to magnify the value of your shock. And what's political about all the shock and concern?

Same as always: gun bans and confiscation programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, using one and standing by that use of it does NOT mean you prefer that definition.

Correct. If I rejected the use of another definition when it was offered, that would show a preference. I didn't do so. However, if you pretend the issue is that I somehow prefer something I have stated actively I do not, then you can continue quibbling about nothing rather than acknowledge the differential between our countries - the basis of why I am shocked by school shootings and you find them an excuse for amusing yourself.

 

Quote

And what's political about all the shock and concern?

Nothing. I never said their was nor started the thread. Take your issues with whether it is political or not up with those arguing that.

Or you could just continue making up people's positions, preferences, and beliefs for them. You haven't changed that schtick over the last seven years, why start now?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rockdog said:

You[BS] seem like SV lately

With SV's noise gone the peanut gallery denizens can be heard more clearly: yap yap yap... yippity yap. B.S. even has the same therapy dog pal in ShitforBrains.

Ankle biters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Negligent discharges at a school, possession on school grounds by 19 year old trespassers in the middle of the night, and other things that your elk like to count as "school shootings" have nothing to do with kids shooting other kids at school.

 

why does it have to be a kid, shooting a kid, for it to be outrageous? Are those other forms of school shootings "ok?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites