Mass shootings

[BmorePat87]

(02-22-2018, 07:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I suppose it was rather foolish of me to claim that the pro 2A crowd flat out does not engage in this conduct, there's almost certainly those that do.  What I really should have focused on is that the anti-2A claims seem to get a lot of traction with the media and end up being reported as fact.

One argument that's really bothered me of late, and the high school kids really indulge in it (note I get they're HS kids who've been through a traumatic experience so I don't relay hold them accountable) is this supposed right to "feel safe".  I've got news for you, you're not safe now and you never were safe.  Free society and safe are incompatible.  Did they feel safe getting into the car to go to the town hall on guns?  Because they were far more likely to be injured or killed in an auto accident than a school shooting.  They're far more likely to be injured or even killed getting out of the shower than in a school shooting.  I need to feel safe is a non-argument.

The right to comfort is being thrown around by people of all ideologies for so many issues. I understand what you mean, and it's true. The fact that we offer so many rights often means you won't always feel safe. Your feelings don't get preference to someone's rights. Ideally, we surrender absolute freedom to maintain a basic assurance of safety by the government, so there is that philosophical argument, though it's more nuanced than just saying you want to feel safe. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-22-2018, 10:24 PM)Benton Wrote: How many times were you shot at in school? Movie theater?

Schools were a big draw, not sure there were any Movie Theaters. Regardless of the location; I'd prefer to have a fighting chance. 

[GMDino]

(02-22-2018, 09:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I cannot speak for educators; however, I know every time I was shot at I was happy I had my own weapon.

For real?

You were shot at on a street in the US? Or in a school? Or attacked in your home?

Or while on duty in the military where it is an inherent risk depending on where one is stationed?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2018, 10:27 PM)Benton Wrote: I’ll agree with that, but my comment wasn’t restricted to just the media. Talk to a gop lawmaker or 2nd advocate and the discussion is usually how you can’t change/differently interpret the constitution or how Chicago is a the perfect example of why regulations are unnecessary.

I've never really encountered someone like that, which I realize is not evidence such people don't exist.  I will stand by the assertion that misinformation from the anti-gun side gains much more traction with the national media, to the point that the ultra conservative Washington Post felt compelled to point it out.  Kudos to them for that bit of journalistic integrity.

(02-22-2018, 10:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The right to comfort is being thrown around by people of all ideologies for so many issues. I understand what you mean, and it's true. The fact that we offer so many rights often means you won't always feel safe. Your feelings don't get preference to someone's rights. Ideally, we surrender absolute freedom to maintain a basic assurance of safety by the government, so there is that philosophical argument, though it's more nuanced than just saying you want to feel safe. 

Of course it is, the "right to feel safe" is simply how it's being presented post FL shooting.  My sister once asked me if my stance on firearms would change if one of my nephews were killed in a school shooting (pains me to even type that btw).  I told her that it would not, because my reasons for believing in firearms ownership are not dependent on never being a victim of their misuse.  A GOP lawmaker, I forget who, changed his mind on gay marriage when his son came out as gay.  He was lauded for this.  I saw it as rather depressing.  Why did it take you being personally affected to see the flaws in your previous objection?  In a perfect world we could all own any gun we wanted and no one would misuse them.  In a perfect world people wouldn't become parents unless they really wanted children and would then devote the time to raise them in a caring and loving environment.  Neither happens and the latter causes the former far more than the reverse.

[GMDino]

(02-22-2018, 09:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I told you some people were going to lose their job over this incident.  This was an eminently preventable shooting. Some people didn't do their jobs properly and as a consequence won't have one anymore.

Indeed.  And it was a "good guy with a gun".  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2018, 11:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed.  And it was a "good guy with a gun".  

No, it was an LEO who didn't do their job.  Don't use talking points where none are needed.  This dude failed to perform his job and rightfully lost it.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-22-2018, 04:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Please..... You derail and impede serious discussion worse than anyone else in this forum. You even take it a step further and make it personal. Get real with your nonsense and if you have nothing productive to say then don’t post.

Complains about others making it personal.

Quote:You have a problem with my posts yet you make it your job to do nothing but run behind me all over the forum. If my posts bother you then feel free to ignore.

You have a serious problem on this forum and it’s flat out creepy and strange the infatuation you have with me. You are the ex that will never stop calling and never stop showing up everywhere. It’s pathetic and if you had an ounce of self respect you would just move on and ignore me if you are this bothered by anything I post.

Immediately makes it personal.

So let's just ignore more of your passive aggressive insults and just stick to the topic, okay?

Cite a single source which indicates children need to be protected from "attention" as part of the grieving process as you claimed. If you can link the Crime Prevention Research Center then the only reason for not citing a single source is because it doesn't exist.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-22-2018, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it really doesn't.  The pro-gun side does not make up statistics or deliberately lie.  They are generally very clear and up front with their goals. 



Most of what you just described are opinions.  They may not be backed up by hard data, but that's never stopped anyone from having an opinion on something.  What you didn't just describe is what I did in the post you quoted, the deliberate falsehoods constantly spread by the anti-2A crowd.  Having a total numbers versus a per capita argument is not the same as deliberately falsifying data.


I agree, in theory.  However, this can never happen until the anti-2A crowd is honest about what they really want.  I live in a state in which the constant creep of further regulation is consistent.  They are now confiscating lawfully purchased property.  Any pro-gun person need only look to CA to see an "endgame" for the antis, and it is an unacceptable result for most, if not all.


We do?  What exactly are these steps the we all (generally) agree on?


I will never understand why people such as yourself and Matt even bother responding to him.  GM, Dill and Fred do so as he's low hanging fruit.  They can beat him up with arguments that wouldn't work on an informed and serious person and then feel good about their "victory".  Just ignore him, you'll find yourself happier for it.  I do the same thing to Fred when he goes into full toast mode.

Somethings I'm willing to ignore like high capacity magazines don't affect rate and volume of fire or organizations like the Crime Prevention Research Center don't lie. While other things I'm not willing to ignore.

[Benton]

(02-22-2018, 10:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Schools were a big draw, not sure there were any Movie Theaters. Regardless of the location; I'd prefer to have a fighting chance. 

So when you were in these us school shootings, how did you sneak your gun in? How many school shootings did you stop?

[*bfine32*]

(02-22-2018, 11:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: For real?

You were shot at on a street in the US? Or in a school? Or attacked in your home?

Or while on duty in the military where it is an inherent risk depending on where one is stationed?

Regardless of where I was "shot at" I'd prefer to have the means to reply in kind. Seems there is some inherent risk in schools. 

As I said: I cannot speak for educators, but I'd prefer to be able to fight fire with fire and maybe save a life or 2. But who knows perhaps you and others know better and they don't need a weapon for defense, just being a target should suffice. 

I read and wept about the brave educators that gave their lives to protect students. I wonder what they would say if asked would they want a weapon to eliminate the threat. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-23-2018, 12:10 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Somethings I'm willing to ignore like high capacity magazines don't affect rate and volume of fire or organizations like the Crime Prevention Research Center don't lie. While other things I'm not willing to ignore.

Understandable.  Like I said earlier, sometimes emotion overrides logic.

[*bfine32*]

(02-23-2018, 12:12 AM)Benton Wrote: So when you were in these us school shootings, how did you sneak your gun in? How many school shootings did you stop?

You didn't ask where the schools were when you posed the initial question, but I understand why you have since changed it. 

Perhaps the point is the educators should not have to sneak guns in; but yeah, I'd like to think I have stopped school shootings or 2.  

[StLucieBengal]

(02-22-2018, 10:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We recently had a state audit because of our former Superintendent. She was giving building contracts to friends for more than what was originally proposed without taking other offers, not using transportation software to make efficient bus routes  (which meant she was giving more jobs to bus contractors than we should have), and promoted her staff to new executive positions to triple their pay.

We kicked her out and hired the former head of WV's schools (who used to be a part of our school system) as our interim super to fix her mess. With those areas addressed, I'd say our system is well managed in terms of finances. Being one of the top 5 wealthiest counties in the country, we tend to have it better than others. Despite that, we do currently have a budget shortfall. Our new county executive (who I am a big fan of, former GOP minority leader in the State Senate who lost his job for supporting gay marriage and trans protections) was a surprise winner in 2014 and made the last super spend money on teacher raises, so he has been working to ensure that our new schools are placed on sites that will be the most efficient cost wise. We're trying to deal with our finances before proposing any sort of tax increase to handle the shortage.

Over all, we have a good group of leaders and we could likely afford more security, but I worry about other counties.





I disagree with demonizing people who require medication. Every person is different and as Matt and I addressed in the suicide thread, medication is the best route for many. What needs to be addressed is expanding health coverage to ensure everyone has access to a therapist or medicine if they need it. The issue is people who do not get help.

We need more community based mental health facilities. Day hospitals and the such, not necessarily the old asylums. Like you're implying, lots of people on the streets who need help. They'll just start self medicating and fill up the prisons. I agree that we should be providing more options for alternative schooling for kids who cannot function in their home school, particularly for health issues. We have a solid program here, but other places don't.




We do and it's complex. Over prescribing, misdiagnosing, under prescribing, treating addiction as a crime and not an illness, opioids, etc. 

I wasn’t demonizing people who are victims of over prescribing medications. It’s a sad state of affairs that people are done this way.

Outside of that I agree with your sentiments

[StLucieBengal]

(02-23-2018, 12:00 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Complains about others making it personal.


Immediately makes it personal.

So let's just ignore more of your passive aggressive insults and just stick to the topic, okay?

Cite a single source which indicates children need to be protected from "attention" as part of the grieving process as you claimed. If you can link the Crime Prevention Research Center then the only reason for not citing a single source is because it doesn't exist.

Doesn’t matter you always just ignore it anyway. Besides it’s not like there isn’t piles of information about the negative affects of celebrity and mass media attention.

Just do what you do best..... follow me around holding a piss bucket. Will let you know when I need a photo posted of you holding a glass of milk in front of your car.

[Benton]

(02-22-2018, 11:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've never really encountered someone like that, which I realize is not evidence such people don't exist.  I will stand by the assertion that misinformation from the anti-gun side gains much more traction with the national media, to the point that the ultra conservative Washington Post felt compelled to point it out.  Kudos to them for that bit of journalistic integrity.

Id agree with the national media issue. But that's probably 1/4 of the issue, at least in my experience. But that's Kentucky. It didn't even take Obama doing anything for us to overwhelmingly pass a law saying state agencies we wouldn't enforce federal laws. All it took was a Democrat in office and a lot of right wing fear mongering and Kentucky lawmakers fell in step with the "they're coming for yer guns" propaganda. Hell, even at the local level you'll have people running for circuit clerk (basically just in charge of handing out driver's licenses) on 'anti-gay, pro-2nd' platforms. It's ridiculous. But I realize it's different in states like California, where gun laws have, in my opinion, overstepped. We just don't have that issue.

[Benton]

(02-23-2018, 12:25 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't ask where the schools were when you posed the initial question, but I understand why you have since changed it. 

Perhaps the point is the educators should not have to sneak guns in; but yeah, I'd like to think I have stopped school shootings or 2.  

Your response is as cute and curt as your original statement was irrelevant to the discussion. No one is discussing taking away firearms from soldiers in combat. Likewise... in case you're not following... no one is discussing sending American kids into schools located in war zones.

Good grief.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-23-2018, 01:00 AM)Benton Wrote: Id agree with the national media issue. But that's probably 1/4 of the issue, at least in my experience. But that's Kentucky. It didn't even take Obama doing anything for us to overwhelmingly pass a law saying state agencies we wouldn't enforce federal laws. All it took was a Democrat in office and a lot of right wing fear mongering and Kentucky lawmakers fell in step with the "they're coming for yer guns" propaganda. Hell, even at the local level you'll have people running for circuit clerk (basically just in charge of handing out driver's licenses) on 'anti-gay, pro-2nd' platforms. It's ridiculous. But I realize it's different in states like California, where gun laws have, in my opinion, overstepped. We just don't have that issue.

This thread has honestly been enlightening.  In the far left enclave that is CA it appears the conversation skews heavily left, it's hard to perceive how different that can be in other states.  I can assure you, it's just as ridiculous in the other direction here.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-23-2018, 12:55 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Doesn’t matter you always just ignore it anyway. Besides it’s not like there isn’t piles of information about the negative affects of celebrity and mass media attention.

Just do what you do best..... follow me around holding a piss bucket. Will let you know when I need a photo posted of you holding a glass of milk in front of your car.

Still refuses to cite a single reference (and I can't set the bar any lower) . . . because you can't. While making it personal again.

Let's move on to another lie: quote just one person here who ever claimed they wanted to confiscate all our guns.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-23-2018, 01:24 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Still refuses to cite a single reference (and I can't set the bar any lower) . . . because you can't. While making it personal again.

Let's move on to another lie: quote just one person here who ever claimed they wanted to confiscate all our guns.

No reason to engage with someone who isn’t willing to accept known professional opinions. See the transvestite mental illness debate.

And when I say democrats or leftists I don’t mean just you guys on the board... I see leftists all over and hear the same tired arguments. The reality is leftists want confiscation but know it’s a non starter so they just try and chip away by banning particular guns or use government agencies to take away peoples right to buy a gun.

They don’t go straight to the end game of confiscation because they know it’s a loser. This isn’t a good leftist issue that can win. Healthcare is however. Guns and immigration are not.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-23-2018, 01:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No reason to engage with someone who isn’t willing to accept known professional opinions. See the transvestite mental illness debate.

Okay, let's review what you wrote earlier:

(02-21-2018, 09:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Been done countless times. Most recently on the transvestites being mentally ill. Instead of just acknowledging it and stating he goes with another more politicized Group’s Opinion and we agree to disagree he goes into Post after Post of nonsense.

Honestly don’t have time for breech’s games. VD just tosses in some snark which is cool. He’s alright.

So show me this more politicized group's opinion I went with since it is your idea to revisit it.

Quote:And when I say democrats or leftists I don’t mean just you guys on the board... I see leftists all over and hear the same tired arguments. The reality is leftists want confiscation but know it’s a non starter so they just try and chip away by banning particular guns or use government agencies to take away peoples right to buy a gun.

They don’t go straight to the end game of confiscation because they know it’s a loser. This isn’t a good leftist issue that can win. Healthcare is however. Guns and immigration are not.

Yeah, but you didn't write democrats or leftists.

(02-22-2018, 02:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If it were up to a lot in here we would probably have all our guns seized.

So quote just one person "in here" who claimed they wanted to confiscate all our guns.