More Leftist Ignorance...

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:10:34 PM UTC-5, David Eather wrote: ...

...

BUT, the shooter isn't worried about collateral damage to other kids. The teacher would have to avoid hitting anyone other than the shooter.

So instead of risking any possible collateral damage, let the shooter have another half hour to do what he came to do. Good thinking.

There are youtube videos of teachers totally 'losing it' and beating on students while out of control. Simply putting guns in teachers hands just adds another way a massacre can occur. *Maybe* having a locked gun in the classroom with a central unlock panic button in the administration office would work but that would have to be carefully simulated. And then there are issues of do you leave the guns in the rooms when school is not in or collect them all at the end of the day (administration and security issues).

When Jim found out my street address in Nijmegen, he threatened to send a h it man there. I doubt that he was serious - Dutch hit-men (mostly former Yu goslavs at the time) were expensive and hard to contact, mainly because the police kept trying to hire them as a means of entrapment - but it does ill ustrate his psychopathic imagination.

A moderately above-average public school in MA blows away all but the absolutely top-tier private schools in Arizona, and the quality of the Arizona public "school system" is pitiful.

Phoenix Country Day gets a couple seniors admitted to Ivies on a high school tuition of $23,000 a year, wow big deal there are public schools in MA sending dozens every year.

Most of the big-time private high schools in AZ appear to be Catholic schools, the Catholic Church isn't well-known for being tolerant of dissent

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:18:11 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote: ...>

I'm just pointing out the reality that the teacher is encumbered in ways th at the shooter is not, potentially giving the shooter an advantage.

A teacher would also have to live with the aftermath and consequences of ha ving killed one or more innocent students or bystanders in the process of s uccessfully saving 50 others (just for example). The problem of course is that's its not a numbers game. You can bet the families of those killed wi ll file criminal and civil lawsuits, which the teacher will have to defend, probably ruining their finances, relationships, etc.. in the process.

The shooter on the other hand, has already left a trail of dead bodies. Wh at's a few more?

Of course to your point, at least they'd be alive, so there's that.

They do move their troublesome priests around, though.

Of course the AR-15 should be vilified. But it is not the only gun that should be vilified.

I can understand the need for some guns as "tools". Farmers might need a shotgun for foxes, and that sort of thing. Police need guns for their job. I can understand wanting a gun for hunting, and I can understand a gun for sport at a rifle range or pistol club.

I can understand the desire for a handgun for self defence in the home. I am glad that I live in a part of the world where such things are completely unnecessary, but I can understand that this is not the case in the USA - even if you were to ban all gun sales tomorrow and give generous buy-back offers, there would be lots of guns around for a very long time.

But who needs /two/ handguns? Who needs more than, say, 6 rounds of ammunition for them? (Obviously you would get more for training at gun range.) I actually think a /massive/ tax on ammunition, outside of gun ranges or other controlled training environments, would be a good start at reducing gun deaths in the USA.

If you think an AR-15 is a suitable choice for the home, you are crazy. If you are a paranoid schizophrenic, you are crazy. If you think you need more than a few rounds of ammunition for self defence, you are crazy. If you have a gun without having gone through significant training on its usage, gun safety, and safe storage, you are crazy. If you have a gun and oppose random unannounced checks that you have the gun and ammo you are registered as owning, and that you keep it in a safe manner, then you are crazy.

And if you are crazy, you should not be allowed /any/ kind of gun.

I don't think simply banning AR-15 sales would fix anything. But it should certainly be part of the plan.

Mass shooters don't pick their targets based on how "soft" they think they will be. They pick their targets because that's the place, or the people, they want to "punish" or get revenge on.

If you have two attackers, that's only two rounds each. Better have excellent aim.

I guess when you run out of bullets, (as often happened in those old Hollywood Western movies), you can always throw the gun at them.

I don't know about crazy, but agree it could be risky.

Gun registrations lead to gun confiscations. Not a good idea. See history.

No argument there, but we differ on the attributes which constitute being "crazy". I think living in a violent world without some means for self-preservation is "crazy".

Agreed!!

What plan?

Or three rounds each, for those that can count.

If you shoot one attacker, do you think the other is going to stick around? Either he will run, or he will shoot you. No one outside the film industry takes on two armed attackers and thinks he will win - regardless of the number of rounds in his gun.

Someone else here pointed out that if you have a gun "for self defence", then the most likely person to be shot be it is yourself (followed by members of your family). Perhaps more relevant is that if you are threatened by an attacker who is himself armed, then nothing will increase your chances of getting shot more than pulling a gun yourself. And if there is more than one attacker, the odds are even greater of you getting shot.

Real guns /do/ run out of bullets. Only modern Hollywood movie guns have unlimited ammo. (The bad guys never run out either, but their guns invariably jam after a while.)

Risky behaviour with lethal weapons is pretty crazy, IMHO. But we are not using absolute and well-defined terms here. And I'd be happy to say that people who engage in risky behaviour with guns should not be allowed to have them, even if they are not "crazy".

Gun confiscations /are/ a good idea, and gun registrations are an /essential/ idea. I am not suggesting gun confiscations would be an easy task, especially from crazy people ("I have a god-given right to shoot people I don't like - I am my own well-regulated militia, and you can have my gun when you can prise it from my cold, dead hands"). The harder it is to get the gun away from someone, the clearer the evidence that they should not have had the gun in the first place.

Bribery (buy-backs) is an easy way to get quite a lot of guns out of people's hands. It looks expensive at first, but not if you compare it with the cost to people and society of someone getting shot.

And I think not doing everything you can to reduce the violence in the world around you, is crazy.

Surely it is far better to reduce the chance that someone will try to shoot you in the first place, than to increase the chance of you being able to shoot back?

Still, if you (the USA) were to start by reducing the guns in the hands of people that /everyone/ agrees is crazy or high-risk, then it would be a step in the right direction.

Well, there's your problem!

You nailed it. Martin Brown is a socialist from the pansy side of the pond.

...Jim Thompson

Unfortunately, today's pansies are not confined to just one geographical area! Pansyism is a *global* phenomenon.

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Possibly prescription drugs. Possibly weed.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You (apparently) are the one has decided you don't need and/or want a gun for personal defense. I respect that. But it has NOTHING to do with me.

I did screw that "two + two" thing up. :)

Internet tough-guyism is an unpleasant illness. Big tough talk on the computah. Talk about how one would shoot this person or run into that situation. Never once shot nobody, or probably even threw a punch in a bar

You got off lucky. It's not uncommon to get a busted rib in the process.

Small consolation.

Since they weren't, they should now be treated as the cowards they are, for the rest of their lives. Yank off their buttons, strip their epaulets, and break their sword.

You're wrong.