More Leftist Ignorance...

A rifle that shoots some kind of quick-setting immobilizing epoxy goo.

A sonic cannon that causes everyone within earshot to immediately suffer explosive diarrhea.

An inhalant dispenser that releases a fast-acting hallucinogenic gas causing the victim to perceive everything as gut-busting hilariously funny.

I think it's more significant that the teachers aren't trained for this. But there are lots of retired cops and soldiers who would stand guard, so for anyone to suggest arming the teachers is really stupid. The shooter is also untrained, so an ex-cop with a pistol would have an advantage.

I suggest you tone down the ad hominem attacks or I'll be forced to demonstrate my agility at such methods... you _will_not_like_ the results. ...Jim Thompson

The more concerning legislation under consideration than the silly idea that teachers are going to be packing in class is a crackdown on "mental illness" unrelated specifically to the physical act of those with certain mental conditions purchasing a weapon.

Weaponizing psychiatry for political purposes was a favorite tactic of the Soviet Union.

"Senators also agreed to confiscate guns from people with mental health issues..." Worried about guns being outright confiscated from citizens who already legally own them? They're doing it right now! And all it may take from now on in Florida is for any doctor or psychiatrist to sign an affidavit saying this person or that shouldn't have one.

Why would you assume that the shooter was untrained? Gun ranges exist to let people learn basic gun skills, and you can always join the national guard if you training in using guns on people. Survivalist groups are reputed to train these skills as well.

Why would a ex-cop with a pistol have an advantage over a lunatic with an AR-15? The AR-15 is accurate over a much longer range (mainly by virtue of the length of the gun barrel).

Senile dementia has clearly set in. Jim's off with the fairies.

Calling Jim ignorant isn't any kind of ad hominem attack, but rather a reco gnition of a long-standing and well-recognised condition. I've been pointin g it out for years. Jim doesn't want to admit that he's ignorant, and kill- files anybody who points it out - which isn't a way of getting better infor med.

He's still pig-ignorant, and advertises the fact at regular intervals.

The title I saw on the Towh Hall site was...

"MSNBC Host: Handgun Bullets Are Ineffective In Stopping School Shooters Because They're Too Slow"

I watched the video and understand that the handgun doesn't do as much damage as the rifle etc.... BUT I did not hear him say "Because they're too slow"

Where was that statement that I probably just missed cuz it was kind of long ?

boB

Putin tried something similar to the latter with the Chechen terrorists in the opera house. Since the experiment can't be rerun, it cannot be determined whether it was more or less disastrous than alternatives.

That's no longer true. In the mid 80s I knew software engineer that lobbied unsuccessfully to have his business card list his job title as "Applied Philosopher".

Now it would be easy, since engineers are having to decide whether images contain vehicles or pictures of vehicles or road signs or street signs or guns or mathematical symbols.

More directly, they are wrestling with the "trolley problem", i.e. whether it is better to choose to do nothing and kill 5 people or do something and kill 1 person.

Anyone who thinks an AR-15 is a suitable choice for a member of public is clearly two cans short of a six-pack, and by definition should not be allowed to have /any/ guns.

Not too slow but certainly not accurate enough against someone armed with an assault rifle. Only the truly deranged think that there are legitimate uses in civilian life for assault rifles and bump stops.

A trained or practised shooter will be more accurate with a rifle than a pistol at longer ranges - no doubts there. But does the same apply when comparing a trained shooter with a pistol, and an untrained person in an unstable frame of mind shooting wildly around? Clearly anyone nearby such a shooter is at risk - but I think the accuracy of the AR-15 or the speed of the bullets is going to be irrelevant here. It is the /number/ of bullets flying around that is relevant - who they hit is a matter of luck, not accuracy.

Absolutely true.

I interpret that as a direct threat of violence.

Is that what you intended?

If he can get close enough without being shot first then it might work provided that the shooter isn't wearing kevlar body armour.

There was even one stood ineffectually *outside* the school this time. He decided that discretion was the better part of valour.

I think self-driving cars are one of the more hair-brained Rube Goldberg schemes there are; can't say I have a lot of sympathy for engineers encountering difficulties in that field you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.

Billions of dollars and millions of engineering hours so fat Americans can avoid ever riding a bike or taking the train and whiz around with their robot chauffeurs while 2 billion people live on $1/day is definitely a "hey cry me a river" kind-of situation if the scheme encounters any difficulty

Probably not. When he got upset with me a few years ago, he claimed to have reported me to his friends in the FBI as "dangerously anti-American". Sinc e I was security cleared to "Most Secret" at one point (a long time ago) wh ich had got me into US Army ECOM, back when it was at Fort Monmouth New Jer sey, this won't have helped his standing with his friends in the FBI.

Jim may know a lot about designing integrated circuits, but he is remarkabl y ignorant outside that narrow area.

I think it would help if they just removed those signs that say " If you want to kill some people this is a good place to do it. There won't be any one around with a gun to bother you "

Dan

A handgun is what you carry when you do not expect to need a gun. If you knew some one was going to shoot up a school this afternoon, you would use a better weapon. Bun a handgun is reasonably easy to carry and while it ma y not stop the deranged assailant, it certainly would distract him. And i f there were two people with handguns , the shooter might decide to go some where else. Maybe a shopping mall.

Dan

Dan really should be more careful about his posting. The last two words "ev ery class" which I've restored above were reduced to "e" in what he posted?

want to kill some people this is a good place to do it. There won't be any one around with a gun to bother you "

Seems a bit odd that the signs should specify "a gun" when "a mace spray" i s more the sort of thing a shooter should expect. You can't shoot straight when your eyes are full of tear gas and it has the incidental advantage tha t it won't kill a kid if it hits them by accident.

Maybe it was one of those sneaky deceptions that liberals go in for.