[Litos]

Originally Posted by mlifxs

Perhaps this one was covered earlier....
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/col...ngs/index.html

imsagine the damage that the shooter could have done were it not for the armed security guard.

headline would have read: "15 Shot Dead in Colorado Church"

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by Litos

imsagine the damage that the shooter could have done were it not for the armed security guard.

headline would have read: "15 Shot Dead in Colorado Church"

it sounds like that asshole had the same firepower as the the asshole in CT but the guard stopped him cold. Bet asshole wasn't expecting that.

[carve]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

I bet pepper spray would have made a serious difference in this situation, this nut job was not a hardened veteran

Because 99.99999% of the time there's nothing for a cop to do at an elementary school. It's far more useful to have them out on the street.

[uberschnell]

Only a lunatic would argue that fewer guns would result in more massacres.

[uberschnell]

Here is one to chew on.

On the same day as the Sandyhook massacre a Chinese man attacked an elementary school. 22 children were injured before he was stopped by guards.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1220230

Meanwhile a 20 year old walked into a Connecticut school and killed 20 kids.

Both were disturbed and hell bent on killing people. The difference is the Chinese man had a knife, and the 20 year old an assault weapon. Also, none of the Chinese students died.

The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average for all other developed countries in the world. That means that Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country.

And the best answer some of you can come up with is to arm teachers(!?) Given the statistical probability or likelihood of school shootings versus the statistical probability of accidental gun deaths in homes or workplaces where guns are kept for self defense (1.3x higher), mathematically you would have more deaths per year as a result accidental gun deaths at school then you would from school shootings.

And that's assuming the administrators or teaches could actualy use the guns to thwart all or part of the attack. And I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to arm some of the teachers I've met.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by MteK

Only a lunatic would argue that fewer guns would result in more massacres.

Maybe we should ban cars that go over 65 mph no one needs a car that goes faster than that, and it would really cut down on traffic deaths. Maybe we should also make cigarettes illegal they kill over 400,000 people a year, and why not try banning fast food restaurants as well, diabetes and obesity are on the rise in this country. In fact why is alcohol legal when thousands die in DUI related accidents, we should make alcohol illegal as well...

Some people can't make safe, responsible choices, so let's take the choices away all together.

[uberschnell]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

Maybe we should ban cars that go over 65 mph no one needs a car that goes faster than that, and it would really cut down on traffic deaths. Maybe we should also make cigarettes illegal they kill over 400,000 people a year, and why not try banning fast food restaurants as well, diabetes and obesity are on the rise in this country. In fact why is alcohol legal when thousands die in DUI related accidents, we should make alcohol illegal as well...

Some people can't make safe, responsible choices, so let's take the choices away all together.

Cars serve a valid purpose in our society, assault weapons and high capacity magazines don't.

I believe in the 2nd amendment, believe that each state should have an objectively based due process in which a qualified citizen should be able to carry, believe that we have a right to defend ourselves. It all has to be within reason and frankly, only a mall ninja needs an AR.

[uberschnell]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

I bet pepper spray would have made a serious difference in this situation, this nut job was not a hardened veteran

Or a taser for that matter. Why not both? I'll take crying children over dead ones any day. Prison lunch rooms are often equipped with canisters of CS gas which can be deployed in cases of riots. What about a panic switch that deploys it in each classroom? How about remotely detonated stun grenades? There just seems to be much better and safer ideas out there then arming the principle with an M4.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by MteK

, only a mall ninja needs an AR.

That's like saying fast cars are only for Nascar fanboys.

[uberschnell]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

That's like saying fast cars are only for Nascar fanboys.

Hey, as along as a Nascar fanboy dosent drive into a school and kill 20 6 year olds then I'm cool with them.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by MteK

Hey, as along as a Nascar fanboy dosent drive into a school and kill 20 6 year olds then I'm cool with them.

Thousands of people a year are killed do to excessive speeding in the US, should we take away the ability for people to excessively speed, and mandate that all cars be electronically governed at a 65 mph limit also, what's the difference?

[Pontrelli]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

That's like saying fast cars are only for Nascar fanboys.

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

Thousands of people a year are killed do to excessive speeding in the US, should we take away the ability for people to excessively speed, and mandate that all cars be electronically governed at a 65 mph limit also, what's the difference?

Exactly..also who gets to say what weapon is allowed and what isnt. Each weapon being it a hand gun or rifle (I wont call it an assault weapon because that term is idiotic) serves a specific function.

I am not willing to forego that decision to anyone.

[Pontrelli]

Originally Posted by MteK

Hey, as along as a Nascar fanboy dosent drive into a school and kill 20 6 year olds then I'm cool with them.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

Thousands of people a year are killed do to excessive speeding in the US, should we take away the ability for people to excessively speed, and mandate that all cars be electronically governed at a 65 mph limit also, what's the difference?

Just like guns, cars are a part of our culture. The difference is that everyone is into cars. Those that aren't, use them for conveyance, those that don't have the means to use them for conveyance, wish they could. Nearly EVERYONE has had a positive experience with an automobile which could be why hardly anyone has a problem with them being able to do more damage and kill people when exceeding the speed limit.

[uberschnell]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

Thousands of people a year are killed do to excessive speeding in the US, should we take away the ability for people to excessively speed, and mandate that all cars be electronically governed at a 65 mph limit also, what's the difference?

You've put up a straw man argument and I'm not biting. try again.

[Inspired]

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by MteK

You've put up a straw man argument and I'm not biting. try again.

No, I have simply made a hypothetical proposition based on a certain school of thought. Certain people only want to apply that school of logic to firearms and nothing else, and I think that hypothetically proposing a similar logic towards other subjects, like highway safety etc, illuminates some of the obvious flaws within that school of thought.

[Nate4641]

If you want to compare guns and cars go with the "assault weapon" and performance modifications.

Assault weapons are mostly used for sport. Just because you are not into firearms and do not know of such competitions doesn't mean it isn't happening. A growing population of firearm enthusiasts are taking part in various styles of shooting competitions. Unfortunately for some because of state laws on firearms they are not able to partake in certain forms of these competitions. In California for example forget about trying to do a three gun competition because the regulations on so called "assault weapons" prohibits the ownership of one of the sports main tools. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong and it shouldn't be yours or anyone's place to take away a form of recreation that doesn't intentionally harm anyone.

For people who do not race their vehicles on sanctioned race tracks there is no legitimate reason for you to add that big supercharger or turbo to your car and boost the power to higher levels. Yes this is hard to get across on a sports car enthusiast forum but think about it logically. What real reason do you have to boost your car to over 700hp other than bragging rights and its fun for you.

[panicos81]

where is this conversation going to? its getting pointless. yes cars can kill peiple, so tripping and falling on a rock, stepping on a banana and bounce your head on a sidewalk!!! does it mean anything? should we ban bananas?? wtf
the point is that cars are made for driving, taking you from one place to another.. guns are made to kill. this is their purpose.. there is no comparison between them.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by panicos81

where is this conversation going to? its getting pointless. yes cars can kill peiple, so tripping and falling on a rock, stepping on a banana and bounce your head on a sidewalk!!! does it mean anything? should we ban bananas?? wtf
the point is that cars are made for driving, taking you from one place to another.. guns are made to kill. this is their purpose.. there is no comparison between them.

Not exactly, a car that's capable of doing over 65 mph isn't just for getting from point A to point B, and a car that's capable of doing over 150 mph is certainly not just a tool for transportation, if you use that car on the open road and speed, you are directly a contributing high risk factor to the 40,000 car crash fatality victims per year in the USA.

So to reduce the 40,000 traffic fatalities each year would it really be absurd to mandate that all cars are electronically governed to reach a maximum speed of 65 mph? This would surely drastically reduce the number of traffic fatalities and increase public safety.

[OOOSQ]

Originally Posted by MteK

Here is one to chew on.

On the same day as the Sandyhook massacre a Chinese man attacked an elementary school. 22 children were injured before he was stopped by guards.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1220230

Meanwhile a 20 year old walked into a Connecticut school and killed 20 kids.

Both were disturbed and hell bent on killing people. The difference is the Chinese man had a knife, and the 20 year old an assault weapon. Also, none of the Chinese students died.

The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average for all other developed countries in the world. That means that Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country.

And the best answer some of you can come up with is to arm teachers(!?) Given the statistical probability or likelihood of school shootings versus the statistical probability of accidental gun deaths in homes or workplaces where guns are kept for self defense (1.3x higher), mathematically you would have more deaths per year as a result accidental gun deaths at school then you would from school shootings.

And that's assuming the administrators or teaches could actualy use the guns to thwart all or part of the attack. And I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to arm some of the teachers I've met.

Wow... only took 8 pages before I closed my mouth from shock after the responses in this thread...

Arm teachers? Jesus fn christ.

[Nate4641]

Originally Posted by panicos81

where is this conversation going to? its getting pointless. yes cars can kill peiple, so tripping and falling on a rock, stepping on a banana and bounce your head on a sidewalk!!! does it mean anything? should we ban bananas?? wtf
the point is that cars are made for driving, taking you from one place to another.. guns are made to kill. this is their purpose.. there is no comparison between them.

Yes cars were made for driving, and then people found a way to create recreation out of them with racing and created a new class of the original product. The same thing has happened with firearms. They were created to kill and someone has found a way to make recreation out of them with non violent competitions that isn't the original intention.

When was the last time a competitive shooter committed murder?

Alcohol kills more people every day than bullets, but it is still legal.