General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sadbear
(4,340 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)I thought we Democrats didn't think like that; I thought we used reason and were open to reality. I thought prejudice-driven thinking was supposed to the the terrain of the right-wingers.
I guess I was wrong.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)The shooter in that situation could easily just have had a shootout with the AP. One anecdote is pretty meaningless.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)No, only anecdotes that don't support the anti-gun position are meaningless.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)about a guy shooting up an elementary school is equally as meaningless?
randome
(34,845 posts)Yes, it is meaningless.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)of someone shooting up a public place, school or otherwise.
What the hell are you talking about?
AlexSatan
(535 posts)instances of an armed person preventing or stopping attacks.
And LOTS of undocumented ones because the attacks did not happen.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)This moronic drivel is fucking pathetic and made even more so by the inane ramblings of the wanna be fucking Rambos around here.
What if the principal didn't want a fucking gun, then I suppose she would have been complicit in the murders of the 26 people that died. See I can play make believe just as much as you can.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)
Tempest
(14,591 posts)So what was your point exactly?
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Had the teacher had a gun she would ahve ended up just as dead and would have created even more mayhem.
No civilian, regardless of time at the range, is prepared for a situation like this. They only make matters worse if they have a gun.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)The effects of adrenaline on the human body concentrates blood to the core of the body
That means your hands are no longer anywhere near as effective as they were before the adrenaline started pumping. You get tunnel vision to concentrate on the threat.
Cops and soldiers train endlessly to form muscle memory so that when the adrenaline starts pumping they are still capable of reacting. They train constantly so they don't fall into tunnel vision. Even with all this training, they still are nowhere near as accurate as they are when not under the influence of adrenaline and they still develop tunnel visioin, resulting in "friendly fire".
And the moment they stop training, they go right back to square one.
It is a FACT of basic human physiology.
Trying to argue against it is as stupid as trying to argue against the fact that the earth is spherical.
rainy
(6,313 posts)Police officers trained college students in gun use and set them up for quick action tests with paint bullets. All would have been killed even when they had guns. the killers burst in shooting. Who is going to stop to pull out their weapon? The only use for an armed citizen would be to come from behind, then, other armed citizens might not know who the bad guys are and accidentally shoot the good guy. More guns are not the answer.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)I have read, and cited here, numerous stories where civilians have prevailed in gunfights, even when people had the "drop" on them. I've seen video of civilians winning gunfights.
Your intuition is not evidence.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)It's a fact of human physiology. Without constant training, the adrenaline takes over.
randome
(34,845 posts)Most teachers and principals have other things to do with their lives. Like...do their jobs, maybe?
It's disingenuous in the extreme to think anyone can simply carry a gun and solve all the violent problems in our world. The world needs those who have other things on their minds, too.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)and their parrots parrot it well.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)There was a poster right here on DU who said his wife shot an intruder in their DC home before the gun ban. The guy had a gun on him and was preparing to kill him, but she managed to overcome the adrenaliine, apparently.
Here are a few other civilians who apparently constantly train and belong on the SWAT team or on SEAL Team 6:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117257258
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x195218
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196626&mesg_id=196626
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117288001
You have no idea whether the principal would have prevailed. You have no idea if she could have gotten a clean shot without him even seeing her while he was otherwise occupied. You have no idea if she would have prevailed in a gunfight. You are using "science" which does not comport with a lot of real world data.
Remember, experiment trumps theory. At least in real science.
randome
(34,845 posts)First link: guy looks retired. Not much on his mind except enjoying the good life.
Second link: the burglar took several kicks to break in the door. Plenty of time for someone to grab a weapon for defense.
Third link: another retiree.
Fourth link: the robbers were apparently aware they had the wrong car they were searching for. They aimed their weapons away from the intended victim.
Bullshit links. All of them.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)"Not much on his mind except enjoying the good life."
My point is that people have other things to do with their time and their lives than to always live on the edge of a nightmare scenario. For you to say that all we need is more guns and constant training and vigilance comes across as a very narrow point of view of people in the world.
The vast majority of people in this country have other things on their minds than guns. You don't seem to appreciate that.
There are far more people who want nothing to do with guns than those who do. Now why do you think changes should be made for that vast majority instead of for those who promote guns as a way of life?
arthritisR_US
(7,793 posts)competing stimuli to interfere. The analogy dies on many levels, imo.
randome
(34,845 posts)You conveniently overlook all the accidental shootings and misplaced fears when carrying a firearm in a public space.
Aristus
(71,590 posts)Let's make access to nukes as easy and hassle-free as possible.
There. Took care of that!
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)What could possibly go wrong?
Aristus
(71,590 posts)I think we'd all be a lot more polite around one another that way. If the country you want to invade for X reason is packing nukes, they would be able to defend themselves and stand their ground. Also, any innocent country passing by that got caught up in the scuffle could nuke the offending country, thereby eliminating the threat of nuclear attack. Right?
I mean, come on, let's be honest. Plutonium, massive deadly fallout, intercontinental capability, etc; these are just "cosmetic features", right?
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)The absurdities of the gun defenders are just too much!
arthritisR_US
(7,793 posts)
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Compared to how many who've been killed in school shoot-ups in recent years?
On Democracy Now this morning a gun apologist said that there should be armed guards in all schools. Great idea. That way a shooter will know exactly who to kill first.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Just because I only cited one, doesn't mean there haven't been others.
And did you ever stop to think that banning guns in schools might be relevant. If the principal has no gun, she has to take him on barehanded or run.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's up to you to provide evidence to support it.
But you won't because you can't. You're full of hot air and no substance.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)school massacres, then I do think we'd read about them also.
And no, I don't think arming teachers or administrators is the way to make schools safer. Let's start by taking the guns away.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)In any case, they can no longer be banned in most public places, not that someone who wants to carry would bother with such details. Meanwhile, none of these incidents that occur outside of schools-where-guns-are-banned are prevented or cut short by another shooter.
So don't hide behind the Oh, dear guns are banned at school so that our teachers, administrators, and fellow students are helpless. Because once someone starts shooting, it's pretty much all over until they have to reload (Tucson) or decide to kill themselves (too numerous to mention).
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Schools should be gun free zones. The answer to this is not to bring guns into the schools. The point you are trying to make is foolish.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That would mean:
1) We would have to spend my tax money on hiring that uniformed security guard
2) We would be turning our schools into armed encampments
3) My 2nd Amendment rights to be a part of a well regulated militia ... without doing the well regulated part would be infringed
...
OneGrassRoot
(23,927 posts)
Thanks, I needed a chuckle.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
We really do need to disabuse society of this misbegotten notion that one can take every third word of a sentence and have that sentence mean the same as the whole sentence ... that's why all those other words are there.
{Pre-emptive Note: For the inevitable parsing apologist ... I know that is not what the 2nd amendmenters have literally done. Thanks for not making that "argument."}
unblock
(55,877 posts)what could possibly go wrong?
Bad Thoughts
(2,657 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Reagan's stupidity and lack of reason often showed through when he used anecdotes.
millijac
(85 posts)and high-powered ones at that didn't save the mother.
The answer isn't arming our educators. It's controlling our firearms better, educating the publoic, de-glorifying violence, providing good mental health care to those in need, and disarming the unstable.
I have a brother in law who owns an arsenal. He is so depressed he can't work. He can hunt, but he can't work. He refuses to come out of his bedroom on most days. He watches Fox News 24/7. They have a daughter and family with a young daughter living with them. Their son and his 3 kids are at their home constantly. There are at least 3 guns at any given time in any of their vehicles. They all have concealed carry permits. All of them, my sister, her husband, their kids and their spouses all have sustance abuse issues. My sister has to run their small business alone, yet she complains that she can't afford health insurance. While owing about $10,000 worth of guns I'd estimate. They're such good little conservatives that they allowed the state of Florida to pay for an operation for my brother in law so that he could go back to work at one point, all the while, knowing that he'd never go back. My parents who live next door are constantly in fear that something terrible is going to happen.
My brother owns a smaller arsenal and also lives next door. Two years ago, his young wife of just over a year, put one of his guns to her head and pulled the trigger. She died a few days later. Come to find out, she had a history of mental illness and her mother had attempted suicide many times over the years. My brother knew she had issues, but it never dawned on my brother that it might not be a good idea to NOT have weapons around her.
Never once has any of my family ever been in the situation that they need a gun for protection. The only time a handgun was ever used for it's intended purpose - when my sister in law killed herself with one.
Their lives revolve around guns - hunting, shooting, collecting. It's sick.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And I apologize for using this.
You family history is far more common than what the OP posted. The OP story, it did happen, but it is almost as rare as a unicorn farting in the forest. The NRA has no way to address the high rate of suicide happening in this country every year.
In fact, let's not talk about it.
I wish you peace.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)antidote to all the gun fetishism on display here, I think.
millijac
(85 posts)but it IS all too common. Especially in north Florida. Perhaps I will tonight after giving it some thought.
millijac
(85 posts)Guess who they blame for their financial troubles and the fact that they cannot afford health insurance?
yep, Obama.
But it's not Obama that buys the guns, it's not Obama paying for all the booze at the parties they have every weekend, it's not Obama paying for them to vacation at Disney World all the time. It's not Obama that heavily subsidizes their kids and their families, including vacation, mortgages, car payments, boat payments, auto insurance.
Yet my sister who already suffers from panic attacks and extreme stress through a lifestyle that she herself created, says she's going to have to get a part time job to pay for the insurance. She'll work from 9 - 5 every day running the family auto repair business alone, then go to a part time job until 11. Yet she always has time to hunt.
In the meantime, she often has to babysit her grandkids when their parents are working (or partying) AND help them pay their bills and fund their vacations. None of them have any savings whatsoever and at least one of them has had to declare bankruptcy for $90k in credit card debt. But it's all Obama's fault you know.
Hell, I just realized. Maybe it's HER we need to be worried about around all those guns.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Yes it happened, it was rare, no it did not prevent it. And this is the way the NRA gets the parrots to repeat talking points. One anecdote does not reality make. No matter how much you want to make it so.
How many shootings since that one? Just school shootings.
Sorry, we are no longer patient with NRA talking points.
Lithos
(26,600 posts)Sort of loses a bit in translation.
Course, there are some major differences, this was a Lever action carbine vs. a semi-auto. I am fairly sure that the 45 would not have stood up against the Bushmaster, a bullet proof vest, hollow points, and someone's whose end game is to ultimately commit suicide either directly or by cop. Generally this results in a dead hero - even the pros fail in this circumstance.
Do you honestly think that arming teachers would have stopped this? If so, I really would love to hear your justification for the risk of having guns on a school campus outweighs this?
L-
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)So every 300+ mass shootings we an expect the possibility that one might be stopped by an armed civilian.
Fresh_Start
(11,356 posts)then shooters don't even need to have weapons, the weapons will be waiting for them at school.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)You got that part right.
"but this one has some erie similarities"
You got that part completely wrong.
Your comparison is a major fail.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)Yeah, I'm convinced.
NOT!
Your story is about the principal stopping the shooting by your own admission. What you just posted has nothing to do with that.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Not everything is an argument; that was simply an observation.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)But since your attempt to compare the two has fallen completely flat, I guess you had to fall back on something.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)And this is the great case for stopping the likes of Adam Lanza or James Holmes or Seung-Hui Cho?
Are you even fucking serious?
Gawd, the gun nuts are pathetic!
First they give us a scenario: if teachers or principals or movie theater patrons were armed, they could stop a shooter. The implication, of course, is that they stop the shooter in the fucking act of committing the massacre! OK, show us a single example where a civilian has ever stopped a mass shooting in this manner, we say.
Oh, well here's a case where a guy shot a bunch of people and then was sitting in his car later. But, you know, he was on the way to another shooting so, you know, it's kinda sorta like a civilian stopped him in the middle of the act, like, sorta, you know?
What a fucking joke.
What a monumental fucking joke these gun nuts are. they searched and searched and searched, and the best they could do was this example? It's not even close. It's not even marginally close to the scenario they use for their ridiculous arguments. There's a reason why: their imaginary Rambo scenario is fucking BULLSHIT.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)with the increase in mass shootings, we still have to go back to 1997 to find a single instance in which a concealed carrier stopped a shooting.
It's time for the gun fanatics to get over the fantasy that more weapons in public is the answer. Even if completely saturating society with guns resulted in, say, 10% of all shootings being stopped in this way, the math just doesn't work.
More guns result in more gun violence. We've tried your way. It's time for sensible gun laws.
justanidea
(291 posts)Earlier this year a concealed carrier stopped a man who went on a stabbing spree in a Salt Lake City grocery store.
Plus there are countless instances of people using a gun for individual self defense .
randome
(34,845 posts)How many incidents of a civilian successfully stopping a crime in progress with a gun?
Versus how many accidental shootings.
Go ahead. We'll wait.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,179 posts)But statistics show the average person is far more likely to die of wounds from their own gun than be killed by a home invader. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if that heroic principal had a gun, unless of course that gun ended up falling into the wrong hands at school at any point in time previous to that shooting.
When you consider that even had she had a gun, she wouldn't have carried it in a holster for instant response, she wasn't wearing body armor on a daily preventive basis, and she could have missed the shooter and killed students herself, that is if he didn't kill her first. A lot of variables would have had to work out right for that principal to prevail ofer that shooter. And in return for that you want to introduce weapons into shools on a daily basis. The shooter didn't use his own guns, he knkew where to find them. Locating them inside schools has a pretty damn obvious down side.
randome
(34,845 posts)
louis-t
(24,566 posts)...........................................................
madmom
(9,681 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)he MIGHT have been able to save some of them too. At least he would have had a chance.
madmom
(9,681 posts)"IF" is an awfully big word for only two letters.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)students did the assailant shoot before he was stopped?
OregonBlue
(8,156 posts)wants.
liberalmuse
(18,881 posts)on top of educating our kids. Maybe we can use our tax dollars that so many people are unwilling to put into education and towards our government employees to put our principals and teachers through the Police Academy or some sort of weapons training. By all means, lets do every fucking ridiculous thing we can think of or pull out of our asses so, heaven forbid, we don't have to institute some sort of sane gun control policy.
This is ASSININE. On the other hand, OVERWHELMINGLY, most people with pistols aren't able to stop someone with an assault weapon. Most of them die. Now let's move on to the next tedious right wing talking point. 
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)Had guns and it didn't protect them, now did they?
librechik
(30,955 posts)is just as powerful as yours.
Get a new perspective. It's possible. You have been brainwashed by American Exceptionalism.
VenusRising
(11,252 posts)Two people were shot and killed while seven others were injured in a school.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)When he was sitting in his car. After all this happened. Well, he wasn't technically on his way, but he had the potential to have been on his way!
So it was, like, y'know, the same as popping up and shooting James Holmes in the movie theater!
That somebody could even consider these in the same ballpark demonstrates the depths of the delusions the gun nuts have fallen into.
VenusRising
(11,252 posts)The OP is a steaming pile of manure.
It is absolutely disgusting that someone would consider the death and injury of others qualifiers of "successful".
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Yet another repeat of an NRA press release
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)And I only have your word for the former policeman claim.