Another school shooting

[mocat]

Gun nuts:  "more guns on campus would have prevented or limited the effects of the Oregon campus shooting."

Hillary Clinton:  "lol no, it's illogical AND OFFENSIVE so suggest more guns would have made it any better."

Gun nuts:  "But you yourself have armed guards so you're a hypocrite."

mocat:  "welp see they got special training and crap so they are a positive and not a liability."

emo:  "ok well what if we train the folks that would be on the campus?"

mocat:  "heerrr derr burp fart"

it's their motherfucking job to carry and use guns to protect people you rough ridin' dunce. if a rough ridin' community college student is packing heat he/she is a liability more than a help (and i would listen to the same argument regarding cops who carry guns).

how in the world can you not see the difference? you are so rough ridin' obtuse it makes me want to throw up

[michigancat]

Heck, I'd be fine with unarmed cops.

Come on now, really? I'm pretty skeptical of police power, but even I don't expect them to walk around unarmed.

With the correct training and community involvement it's totally attainable. It would definitely require a major shift in the mindset and expectations of what they're expected to do, though.

I don't think it would be attainable with our current gun controls (and I don't think you are saying it would be either). but it does work well in some other countries. I've always said that ideally officers wouldn't carry guns except for special divisions. your every day traffic cop shouldn't have to have a gun imo. swat, etc. would still be armed.

I agree with all of this. (although I think you could perhaps do the divisions thing with current gun laws).

[mocat]

emo do you want everyday people to be carrying a gun at all times, or are you suggesting everybody should have armed guards with them at all times? isn't it easier to you know, do what other countries do, and virtually eliminate mass murders?

[DQ12]

i don't think emo's point is crazy fwiw.  it's not really fair for politicians to protect themselves with armed guards and then tell the general public that they don't have a right to the same protection.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so forth.

[Emo EMAW]

Gun nuts:  "more guns on campus would have prevented or limited the effects of the Oregon campus shooting."

Hillary Clinton:  "lol no, it's illogical AND OFFENSIVE so suggest more guns would have made it any better."

Gun nuts:  "But you yourself have armed guards so you're a hypocrite."

mocat:  "welp see they got special training and crap so they are a positive and not a liability."

emo:  "ok well what if we train the folks that would be on the campus?"

mocat:  "heerrr derr burp fart"

it's their motherfucking job to carry and use guns to protect people you rough ridin' dunce. if a rough ridin' community college student is packing heat he/she is a liability more than a help (and i would listen to the same argument regarding cops who carry guns).

how in the world can you not see the difference? you are so rough ridin' obtuse it makes me want to throw up

If they underwent the same training, what's the difference?  If someone is shooting up my classroom, I don't care if the guy saving me is being paid to protect me or not. 

[mocat]

i don't think emo's point is crazy fwiw.  it's not really fair for politicians to protect themselves with armed guards and then tell the general public that they don't have a right to the same protection.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so forth.

i think that is a ridiculous comparison. every celebrity / politician is under a threat that most people are not. for example, four sitting presidents have been assassinated, at least 20 attempts have been made, and every single president has received death threats (real or not).

[mocat]

Gun nuts:  "more guns on campus would have prevented or limited the effects of the Oregon campus shooting."

Hillary Clinton:  "lol no, it's illogical AND OFFENSIVE so suggest more guns would have made it any better."

Gun nuts:  "But you yourself have armed guards so you're a hypocrite."

mocat:  "welp see they got special training and crap so they are a positive and not a liability."

emo:  "ok well what if we train the folks that would be on the campus?"

mocat:  "heerrr derr burp fart"

it's their motherfucking job to carry and use guns to protect people you rough ridin' dunce. if a rough ridin' community college student is packing heat he/she is a liability more than a help (and i would listen to the same argument regarding cops who carry guns).

how in the world can you not see the difference? you are so rough ridin' obtuse it makes me want to throw up

If they underwent the same training, what's the difference?  If someone is shooting up my classroom, I don't care if the guy saving me is being paid to protect me or not. 

i'd just rather prevent mass murders than make them gunfights between insane people and other insane people

[mocat]

emo you ask the difference between someone who is on the clock doing their job scanning for threats or whatever, and someone who has taken a gun safety class. i mean. come on.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

i don't think emo's point is crazy fwiw.  it's not really fair for politicians to protect themselves with armed guards and then tell the general public that they don't have a right to the same protection.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so forth.

i think that is a ridiculous comparison. every celebrity / politician is under a threat that most people are not. for example, four sitting presidents have been assassinated, at least 20 attempts have been made, and every single president has received death threats (real or not).

So are you saying that the more "important" you become, the more worthy you are of armed protection? On behalf of all the 99.99% of unimportant people out there, I sincerely say "eff off." (In the nicest possible way.) Even unimportant people are worthy of armed protection if they want it, and sometimes need it.

[DQ12]

i don't think emo's point is crazy fwiw.  it's not really fair for politicians to protect themselves with armed guards and then tell the general public that they don't have a right to the same protection.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so forth.

i think that is a ridiculous comparison. every celebrity / politician is under a threat that most people are not. for example, four sitting presidents have been assassinated, at least 20 attempts have been made, and every single president has received death threats (real or not).

No doubt politicians and celebrities are high profile figures and probably disprortionately have attempts made on their lives.

But are you saying that one's access to guns should depend upon how likely they are to be shot?  Because, practically, that sounds really stupid.

[mocat]

i don't think emo's point is crazy fwiw.  it's not really fair for politicians to protect themselves with armed guards and then tell the general public that they don't have a right to the same protection.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so forth.

i think that is a ridiculous comparison. every celebrity / politician is under a threat that most people are not. for example, four sitting presidents have been assassinated, at least 20 attempts have been made, and every single president has received death threats (real or not).

So are you saying that the more "important" you become, the more worthy you are of armed protection? On behalf of all the 99.99% of unimportant people out there, I sincerely say "eff off." (In the nicest possible way.) Even unimportant people are worthy of armed protection if they want it, and sometimes need it.

if you want to hire someone to protect you, you totally can. if you think a random dude with CC is the same thing, you are insane.

[DQ12]

i don't think emo's point is crazy fwiw.  it's not really fair for politicians to protect themselves with armed guards and then tell the general public that they don't have a right to the same protection.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so forth.

i think that is a ridiculous comparison. every celebrity / politician is under a threat that most people are not. for example, four sitting presidents have been assassinated, at least 20 attempts have been made, and every single president has received death threats (real or not).

So are you saying that the more "important" you become, the more worthy you are of armed protection? On behalf of all the 99.99% of unimportant people out there, I sincerely say "eff off." (In the nicest possible way.) Even unimportant people are worthy of armed protection if they want it, and sometimes need it.

if you want to hire someone to protect you, you totally can. if you think a random dude with CC is the same thing, you are insane.

i guess i'm not sure of the practical distinction between me (after undergoing the requisite training) owning a judge, and roger, my armed security detail, owning a judge.

is roger allowed to protect himself, or does he need to hire someone else to protect him?

[michigancat]

They should make the capitol building a gun free zone

[mocat]

i don't think emo's point is crazy fwiw.  it's not really fair for politicians to protect themselves with armed guards and then tell the general public that they don't have a right to the same protection.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so forth.

i think that is a ridiculous comparison. every celebrity / politician is under a threat that most people are not. for example, four sitting presidents have been assassinated, at least 20 attempts have been made, and every single president has received death threats (real or not).

No doubt politicians and celebrities are high profile figures and probably disprortionately have attempts made on their lives.

But are you saying that one's access to guns should depend upon how likely they are to be shot?  Because, practically, that sounds really stupid.

of course not. if you feel you have a disproportionately large likelihood of an attempt on your life, you should hire a bodyguard whose job is to be a bodyguard.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

i don't think emo's point is crazy fwiw.  it's not really fair for politicians to protect themselves with armed guards and then tell the general public that they don't have a right to the same protection.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so forth.

i think that is a ridiculous comparison. every celebrity / politician is under a threat that most people are not. for example, four sitting presidents have been assassinated, at least 20 attempts have been made, and every single president has received death threats (real or not).

So are you saying that the more "important" you become, the more worthy you are of armed protection? On behalf of all the 99.99% of unimportant people out there, I sincerely say "eff off." (In the nicest possible way.) Even unimportant people are worthy of armed protection if they want it, and sometimes need it.

if you want to hire someone to protect you, you totally can. if you think a random dude with CC is the same thing, you are insane.

So it's Ok to hire someone else to protect you (if you've got that kind of money), but it's not Ok to carry a gun for your own protection?

[Emo EMAW]

emo do you want everyday people to be carrying a gun at all times, or are you suggesting everybody should have armed guards with them at all times? isn't it easier to you know, do what other countries do, and virtually eliminate mass murders?

It doesn't matter what I want.  Also, I don't think doing what other countries do is feasible or even possible, or legal for that matter.

I do think that there is something that can be done...I don't think we are at our best possible state currently.  I do think there ought to be temporary limitations on rights based on the current mental state of someone.  But I think we have to be very careful how that is handled. 

I also think this issue, while prominently displayed on the cover of every newspaper, is a minor issue when you look at the numbers, compared to some other things. 

[mocat]

the guy who is getting paid to do nothing other than protect you (rather than, like, taking notes in a class, watching the dark knight, teaching algebra, for example) can have a gun.

also, my goodness, i am not even arguing against CC. i just want it to be more difficult to purchase a gun than it currently is. FFS everybody

[mocat]

i don't think emo's point is crazy fwiw.  it's not really fair for politicians to protect themselves with armed guards and then tell the general public that they don't have a right to the same protection.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and so forth.

i think that is a ridiculous comparison. every celebrity / politician is under a threat that most people are not. for example, four sitting presidents have been assassinated, at least 20 attempts have been made, and every single president has received death threats (real or not).

So are you saying that the more "important" you become, the more worthy you are of armed protection? On behalf of all the 99.99% of unimportant people out there, I sincerely say "eff off." (In the nicest possible way.) Even unimportant people are worthy of armed protection if they want it, and sometimes need it.

if you want to hire someone to protect you, you totally can. if you think a random dude with CC is the same thing, you are insane.

So it's Ok to hire someone else to protect you (if you've got that kind of money), but it's not Ok to carry a gun for your own protection?

 

where did i ever say that

[mocat]

the "more guns would be safer" crowd just really bothers me to no end.

[mocat]

more guns = more gun deaths

[mocat]

fewer guns = fewer gun deaths

[wetwillie]

more guns = more gun deaths

thats typically true of anything that kills people

[DQ12]

i think we're generally on the same side here mocat, but i'm just saying that emo makes an interesting point about how  politicians that decry the evil of guns while being protected by armed guards are a little inconsistent.

it's okay for ME to have access to gun protection, but that's because i'm famous and responsible and wealthy.

[SdK]

Well, I don't carry a gun, haven't ever, don't even own a semi-automatic pistol.  I just think that if someone wants to then that is their right, guaranteed by the Constitution.

So if the constitution was amended, you would completely flip your stance?

Define "completely."  Like, would I cease to eat pulled pork z-man's at Joe's KC?

You said it is a right that is guaranteed by the constitution. That is why you support citizens owning guns of their choosing. So if it's only about that, would amending that amend your stance.

In this scenario, what would be amended to say?

Let's say it was amended to say each citizen has the right to one rifle and one handgun. That's the best I could come up with while still staying true to defending against tyranny.

Well, I guess I wouldn't like it?  What's your point?

Trying to make the debate more fun for me. It failed. I'll bow out now.

[Emo EMAW]

the guy who is getting paid to do nothing other than protect you (rather than, like, taking notes in a class, watching the dark knight, teaching algebra, for example) can have a gun.

also, my goodness, i am not even arguing against CC. i just want it to be more difficult to purchase a gun than it currently is. FFS everybody

Ok, so make things more difficult, and some responsible and suitably trained person makes it through all the hoops and traps and manages to finally buy one.  And now he can't take it with him to defend himself?